I’ve been trying to get Dan to explain the concepts he’s trying to communicate with the terms he’s using. I genuinely want to understand what he’s advocating and the way he sees things working out in real life.
For example he’s advocated “stopping” people who advocate violence from entering the country, but won’t explain how he would identify those people or how he’d “stop” them.
Additionally, he’s using terms like “free movement” and others which (I suspect) describe something specific to him, but isn’t willing to expand on the meanings or limits to what he’s advocating.
It’s now devolved into Dan, refusing to answer questions, and deleting comments.
I guess nothing is sacred when it comes to protecting the narrative that US immigration policy is evil and must be abolished. It’s certainly clear, that he’s willing to exploit the tragic accidental death of a young man in Mexico to advance his narrative.
Monday, June 11, 2018
Be careful
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/us/teen-killed-after-ice-returns-him-to-mexico/index.html?no-st=1528579408
The link above is to the article that Dan is using to justify his version of some level of a "natural human right" that he calls "free movement" (among other things). While I'm hoping that Dan will provide some more details about what he means by the term "free movement" (or the alternatives), and foster a dialogue, I'm going to explore something else here. I want to look at whether or not the above article actually demonstrates what Dan says it does.
Dan starts by saying this.
" It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B,..."
Yet the story quite clearly states that Pacheco was not prosecuted for "moving from point A to point B". His problem had absolutely nothing to do with his location. His problem stemmed from the fact that he violated the terms of his DACA protection. It seems as though the DACA law requires those it applies to to avoid things like breaking the law. In this case, Pacheco was convicted on two misdemeanor charges (one involving drugs). These two convictions resulted in his protected status being revoked and his being subject to a, " immigration hearing". The "immigration hearing" could have made "deportation a possibility" according the ICE (quoted in the article), which means it was possible that he wouldn't have been deported. However, after being released on bail, Pacheco was convicted of DUI. This third conviction was the tipping point. Now, I'm going to guess that his attorney told him that further arrests and convictions would be detrimental to his case, yet he clearly wouldn't take the prudent course.
Now, according to the story provided by Dan, one thing becomes clear. Pacheco wasn't deported, that's right, he wasn't deported.
"Neudauer said that Cano Pacheco was not deported.
The link above is to the article that Dan is using to justify his version of some level of a "natural human right" that he calls "free movement" (among other things). While I'm hoping that Dan will provide some more details about what he means by the term "free movement" (or the alternatives), and foster a dialogue, I'm going to explore something else here. I want to look at whether or not the above article actually demonstrates what Dan says it does.
Dan starts by saying this.
" It should not be treated as a crime to move from point A to point B,..."
Yet the story quite clearly states that Pacheco was not prosecuted for "moving from point A to point B". His problem had absolutely nothing to do with his location. His problem stemmed from the fact that he violated the terms of his DACA protection. It seems as though the DACA law requires those it applies to to avoid things like breaking the law. In this case, Pacheco was convicted on two misdemeanor charges (one involving drugs). These two convictions resulted in his protected status being revoked and his being subject to a, " immigration hearing". The "immigration hearing" could have made "deportation a possibility" according the ICE (quoted in the article), which means it was possible that he wouldn't have been deported. However, after being released on bail, Pacheco was convicted of DUI. This third conviction was the tipping point. Now, I'm going to guess that his attorney told him that further arrests and convictions would be detrimental to his case, yet he clearly wouldn't take the prudent course.
Now, according to the story provided by Dan, one thing becomes clear. Pacheco wasn't deported, that's right, he wasn't deported.
"Neudauer said that Cano Pacheco was not deported.
He
opted for voluntary departure, which means he would not suffer the
penalties of a formal deportation, such as being banned from legally
returning to the United States for a period of years, Neudauer said.
He
requested and was granted voluntary departure on April 10, ICE said,
and was returned to Mexico at the border in Laredo, Texas, on April 24"
Pacheco (advised by council) made the choice that gave him the best opportunity to potentially return to the US legally. In other words Pacheco used his" self determination" to exercise his "basic human right" to engage in " free movement" from "point A to point B".
Dan claims.
"Of course, you should
move away from one place if your life or the life of your family is
threatened there!"
" His family had LEFT Mexico because it was safer here."
Yet, these claims are NOT supported by the article referenced. Pacheco's mother clearly states.
" They traveled to Iowa because his father was already there,..."
Now, that's a reasonable reason, but it doesn't involve safety.
The only thing that article says about his death is the "he was in the wrong place at the wrong time,". Now, I'm no expert, but people being killed for being in the "wrong place at the wrong time" is a phenomenon that is not limited to Mexico.
In fact, any conclusions about his death are pure speculation based on the information offered in the article. Given his history of substance abuse, it seems reasonable to speculate that drugs or alcohol could have played a role. It's also possible to reasonably speculate that his continued presence in Iowa could have resulted in the death of an innocent while Pacheco was driving drunk or high. We just don't know any of things.
So, let's stick to what we do know. Pacheco, used his "self determination" to make choices that resulted in his loss of DACA protection. His choices led him afoul of the US legal system, but he clearly had access to due process and was offered an option that would have allowed his potential return to the US.
I'm sorry for his tragic accidental death, I'm sorry for the pain felt by his family, I'm sorry that his illegitimate child won't have him around. Although, I'm not sure that a father with a history of substance abuse and criminal convictions is the best father, I understand that people change and that redemption is possible. I'm also sorry that this tragedy is being used as propaganda to advance a political agenda.
There are many things that can be learned from the story linked above, but I see nothing in it that supports Dan's reckless charges that this death directly results from US immigration policy or that it has anything to do with the "free movement" of people.
As usual, context is important. Also as usual, when the source offered doesn't actually support the claims being made, it diminishes the effectiveness of the source.
DISCLAIMER
I'm not going to delete off topic contracts, per se. I'm going to point out that this post is NOT about "free movement" or "self determination" or any other BS agenda, any comments about those topics will be relocated. This post is also NOT about any additional updates or new information about this situation. It's about the fact that the article that Dan linked to doesn't demonstrate what he claims it demonstrates. Therefore, any comments trying to bring new information about the underlying case will also be relocated.
I will not delete, but relocate, any off topic comments because I think that it's important to keep the evidence available while still keeping the thread on topic.
Suicide
This hits a little closer to home than it would have a few years ago, but...
How is it the describing suicide as “death with dignity” and pushing to legalize “assisted suicide”, doesn’t encourage a culture where suicide is seen as an appropriate action?
What if we didn’t mythologize people like Kurt Cobain?
How is it that we can disconnect teaching that humans don’t have a purpose, that life is a matter of chance, that we’ve descended from monkeys, that “nihilism lite” is a valid worldview, that it’s perfectly ok to end human life for the convenience of others, from the increased number of suicides.
I know it could be considered simplistic, and that there other factors, but isn’t it just possible that if we as a society started from a place where all human life had value, that we recognized and embraced the imago Dei present in all of us, and that we’re on this earth for a reason, that we might look at suicide a bit differently?
How is it the describing suicide as “death with dignity” and pushing to legalize “assisted suicide”, doesn’t encourage a culture where suicide is seen as an appropriate action?
What if we didn’t mythologize people like Kurt Cobain?
How is it that we can disconnect teaching that humans don’t have a purpose, that life is a matter of chance, that we’ve descended from monkeys, that “nihilism lite” is a valid worldview, that it’s perfectly ok to end human life for the convenience of others, from the increased number of suicides.
I know it could be considered simplistic, and that there other factors, but isn’t it just possible that if we as a society started from a place where all human life had value, that we recognized and embraced the imago Dei present in all of us, and that we’re on this earth for a reason, that we might look at suicide a bit differently?
Thursday, June 7, 2018
Momentum
I’m not usually big on getting deep thoughts from rock songs, but as I was listening to a playlist of bands a friend of mine has been connected with, I came across this.
“Been on a roll for two thousand years or so, we’ve got momentum baby.”
It made me think that Christianity started out small in the Middle East and Africa, them as it gathered momentum went through Rome to Western Europe and the Americas. But, as we look down the road we see the momentum shifting back to Africa and Asia, and away from the west.
I can’t help but think that this sense of momentum, of the center of gravity shifting isnt a big part of keeping the faith healthy and vital. Especially given how Christianity tends to thrive under hardships and persecution, while power and plenty tend to undermine the vitality of the faith.
All things considered, I’m not unhappy to see the momentum shift, I think it will ultimately revitalize the faith in Western culture as the growth of secularism will separate the wheat from the chaff, and will test believers in ways that will force a choice between following God or following man.
“Been on a roll for two thousand years or so, we’ve got momentum baby.”
It made me think that Christianity started out small in the Middle East and Africa, them as it gathered momentum went through Rome to Western Europe and the Americas. But, as we look down the road we see the momentum shifting back to Africa and Asia, and away from the west.
I can’t help but think that this sense of momentum, of the center of gravity shifting isnt a big part of keeping the faith healthy and vital. Especially given how Christianity tends to thrive under hardships and persecution, while power and plenty tend to undermine the vitality of the faith.
All things considered, I’m not unhappy to see the momentum shift, I think it will ultimately revitalize the faith in Western culture as the growth of secularism will separate the wheat from the chaff, and will test believers in ways that will force a choice between following God or following man.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
African American Unemployment
May 2010 15.5%
May 2011 16.3%
May 2012 13.5%
May 2013 13.4%
May 2014 11.4 %
May 2015 10.3%
May 2016 8.2%
May 2017 7.6%
May 2018 5.9%
May 2011 16.3%
May 2012 13.5%
May 2013 13.4%
May 2014 11.4 %
May 2015 10.3%
May 2016 8.2%
May 2017 7.6%
May 2018 5.9%
I’ll pray for you
Occasionally you’ll see public figures who are not particularly engaged in faith or openly hostile to Christianity say that they’ll “pray for you”. Or you’ll see people who deny the existence of God or who posit a God who doesn’t actually do anything who’ll say the same thing.
This raises some questions.
Who are they praying to?
What do they expect their prayers to accomplish?
What would make you pray to a being whose existence you deny?
If you believe God can’t act outside of the natural, physical realm, why pray to Him?
Just a few questions.
This raises some questions.
Who are they praying to?
What do they expect their prayers to accomplish?
What would make you pray to a being whose existence you deny?
If you believe God can’t act outside of the natural, physical realm, why pray to Him?
Just a few questions.
Monday, June 4, 2018
Bullies get what they deserve.
David Mullins and Charlie Craig’s attempt to harness to power of the state to bully someone who had the temerity to disagree with them has finally failed. Sometimes justice is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)