https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses
So, let's talk a bit about US code Title 8 Section 1324. I could be wrong, but I'd be willing to bet that Dan or one of his friends has engaged in at least one of the enumerated actions below at least once. If not, I'd be willing to bet that they would help an illegal alien evade one of the recent deportation sweeps.
(a) Criminal penalties
(1)(A) Any person who-
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
FYI, the penalties range from fines to 5-20 years in prison.
45 comments:
I don't believe I've done anything to break a law yet. However, I DO believe that if there is a law that prevents me from lending aid to someone who is simply in need, I guarantee you I will break that law.
Gladly. I would DARE anyone to jail me for that. And y'all might, but it would expose the great harm and oppression and irrationality in your "system."
Are you really saying that, for instance, IF the nazis were trying to capture the people trying to escape from your home/church, you would NOT try to protect them... that you would turn them over to the nazis?
And the point here is NOT that the modern magop are nazis. The point is that it is ALWAYS right to do good and to help those in need, especially if they're trying to escape harm. And I WOULD do that, even if helping those escaping harm was criminalized.
Are you saying you would NOT help those in need if it was "against the law..."? and if so, do you think that speaks highly of you?
Do you support the jackboots raiding Sanctuary church buildings to capture undocumented immigrants?
I'm sure that you don't think so, and I appreciate your claim that you would do so.
What a strange response ("I would DARE..."). The reality is that current US code prescribes certain penalties for breaking these particular laws. Why would you think you should be immune from those penalties? I thought that the whole purpose of civil disobedience was to take the risk of jail, and accept that risk if necessary. The fact that "your" presidents and lawmakers have not changed these sections of US code, would indicate that it's not MY system, but the US system. FYI, where were your complaints about deportations when
Clinton and P-BO were deporting more that Trump did in his first term? Hell, up until the last couple of years, enforcing US immigration law as Trump is doing was supported by every single president (including Biden), but now y'all are against it.
The point here (my blog, my rules, my points) is that doing what you've almost certainly done or will do, is a federal crime with significant penalties.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I was in a position where I made that choice, I'd make it fully prepared to face the consequences, not spouting this bullshit "I would DARE..." garbage.
What is a "Sanctuary church building"?
Of course I support impartially following and enforcing US law. If people choose to use a church building for a criminal enterprise then law enforcement should enforce the laws wherever the criminals are.
Strangely enough, this type of thinking is why Muslim Terrorists use places like Mosques to store weapons because they know that US troops won't desecrate them. I was unaware that certain building were "get out of jail free" zones.
If a drug cartel was making meth in a "Sanctuary church building", should they be arrested?
If someone is molesting children or raping puppies in a "Sanctuary church building", should they be arrested?
Craig...
"Why would you think you should be immune from those penalties?"
You misunderstand. No one is immune from laws... even evil laws. I DARE the deviants in office to start mass arrests of people merely doing the right thing. As long as the oppressed are from "outsider" marginalized groups, the masses of the citizenry can ignore the oppression. But, as evil as it is, when regular folks... nuns, preachers, teachers, etc... start getting arrested, that's when change can start to come.
The sooner the perverts supporters are shocked by the depths of his depravity and over-the-top oppression, the sooner change can be affected.
I'm not immune. Arrest me for doing kindness and justice and standing opposed to bad laws.
Dan
Dan
Well, acknowledging that is a start. Although your stance that mass amounts of people breaking US law should not be arrested or be considered "doing the right thing" seems a bit strange. But that's on brand for you.
Strangely enough the "perverts" you voted for an support, have had YEARS to change this law and they haven't done so. The "perverts" you voted for and support have deported MILLIONS, yet you stayed silent. But now, you sit behind your keyboard or on your phone (built with slave labor) and talk tough. I get it, it gives you all the good feels.
I honestly, and I mean this in the best possible way, would love to see you arrested for something like this. Not because I wish you ill, or anything negative. But because it would be instructional to see how you would respond in real life.
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.
On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
It's time for heaping coals on top of heads. Arrest me for doing good. But then, it sounds like you agree with what I'm saying...
"No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I was in a position where I made that choice, I'd make it fully prepared to face the consequences, not spouting this bullshit "I would DARE..." garbage."
You're saying that, yes, you WOULD help innocent people being oppressed even if it was against the law, right?
If so, what are you criticizing?
And, yes, ANY place where actual harm is being done should be breached to stop the harm.
Are you suggesting providing shelter to innocent immigrants merely trying to escape harm is in any way comparable to molesting children?
Dan
Quoting out of context, cherry picked scripture by someone who practices some sort of selective literalism, seems pointless.
You're the one who wrote that "I would DARE..." garbage and used ALL CAPS for emphasis. I'm just accurately quoting and exploring your vehement claims.
I'm saying that it would depend on the circumstances. In a free country, with reasonably fair elections, where the will of the people is represented (mostly), and where laws have been in place and enforced for years, I can't see much reason to.
Again, it's good to know that you agree that there are no buildings that render the occupants free to commit crime.
In that both of those things are explicitly against the law in the US, sure. That you want to make up some bullshit to protect those who break the laws you don't agree with, isn't my problem.
I have no idea what you mean. I WOULD dare the jack boots to start arresting me, along with other good people, the social workers, the Sunday School teachers, the priests, nurses, plumbers, carpenters for merely doing the good work of protecting innocent people from bad laws. What's wrong with saying that?
And, of course, there is nothing out of context of my citing Paul, James, Jesus, Peter and other biblical texts where the authors are saying,
1. Do good, do the right thing and
2. Be prepared for attacks, slander and arrest for doing the right thing.
Are suggesting that is NOT what the text literally says and thus, means?
Dan
"... where laws have been in place and enforced for years, I can't see much reason to."
I don't know what you mean. Please directly answer,
IF it's criminal to hide or protect from deportation a person who will be harmed or killed if sent back home, would you
A. Agree that it's a good thing to protect them?
And
B. Would you protect/hide them or refuse to because it's against the law?
Dan
Welcome to the club. I'm just quoting you about the "I would DARE" and you calling your own words "garbage", but sure. There's nothing wrong with that, you're the one who called it garbage, not me. Personally, I don't see you as having that much courage, but who knows, I've been wrong before. I guess if you were really serious, you'd intentionally violate this law publicly as as to draw attention to the harm and injustice you bitch about.
Of course not, pulling verses out of their context and using them as a proof text, isn't really out of context. It's just cherry picking the parts you like and that support your worldview. I get it.
I'm suggesting that for someone who's first argument is usually based on the text not meaning what it literally says, that it's bizarre when you cherry pick an out of context verse or two and take it in the most woodenly literal manner possible.
I understand why you do it, it just isn't consistent with your stance on most Biblical interpretation or your regular criticism of those who take the text more literally than you. You probably believe that your proof texts really mean that YHWH wants you to break these laws.
I'm sorry that you are not that bright. I'll try to be clearer.
1. In a society where there is a mechanism to change laws that you don't care for, I'd see no reason to break the law until I had no other option.
2. In a free society, where laws express the will of the people (for the most part), I'd see no reason to break them.
3. In a society where those accused of breaking a law are given due process, ditto.
4. When people intentionally choose to violate laws for selfish reasons, I feel no compulsion to support them.
A. Your question is unclear. But, no I would not agree that protecting people from the consequences of knowingly violating laws is a good thing. I would do what I could to protect them from "harm", without violating laws. Although I reject the notion that it's possible to protect everyone from every harm and that protection from all harm is the highest possible good.
B. No, I would not aid and abet someone who chooses to commit a crime. Would I help them try to achieve their goals legally, sure. But I see no reason why I would be an accessory to a crime, based on someone choosing to intentionally commit a crime.
This is like asking if I'd help a drunk knock over a liqueur store because they'd sobered up.
I think your problem is placing your personal, subjective, biased, hunch about what laws are "just" or not over everyone else's and concluding that you are justified to do whatever based on your hunch.
Would you hit an ICE agent with a brick to allow an illegal alien to escape?
Wow.
From someone who just acknowledged that they were prepared to commit a federal crime punishable by both fines and extensive prison time, I'm not sure how anything I said even comes close. But you do you.
The nuns in the Sound of Music...
The operators and participants in the underground railroad...
We're they morally wrong for breaking the laws of those citizens?
Dan
Ahhhhhhhhhh, Dan plays the morality card. As morality is not knowably objective, we have no way to answer this question absent our subjective hunches about morality.
The problem is that in both cases, they were legally wrong, for breaking the laws. Absent an objective, universal moral code, we can only say that they were acting on their subjective opinions about what was moral.
But we're not talking about subjective hunches about morality, we're talking about choosing to break federal law in order to aid and abet others who've chosen to break federal law.
There's no objective moral argument to be made, and introducing something a nebulous and subjective as your personal hunches about morality is simply changing the subject.
"Dan plays the morality card. As morality is not knowably objective, we have no way to answer this question absent our subjective hunches about morality."
I know that neither you nor I can objectively prove our opinions about whether or not it's moral to send a family back to face execution for no serious crime (murder or rape, for instance). I'm asking YOU what you would do in the face of people running away from facing wrongful murder in a nation that forbids you to assist them. What would YOU do in that position, knowing you can't objectively prove what is rationally clearly obvious?
You can't objectively prove your position against genocide.
The law requires you to turn over innocent people to be killed.
What do you do?
Dan
Craig...
"we're not talking about subjective hunches about morality, we're talking about choosing to break federal law in order to aid and abet others who've chosen to break federal law."
It is a common given amongst rationally moral people that not all laws are moral and that some laws are even harmful and evil.
It is a common belief amongst rationally moral people that we ought to refuse to comply with legally enacted laws if they are harmful and clearly evil.
The slavers were on the right side of the law.
The criminal underground railroads were on the right side of justice and morality.
This has long been widely accepted as clearly morally obvious.
Do you disagree? Would you refuse to help escaping slaves KNOWING you were breaking the law?
This is a painfully easy question, friend.
Dan
Wow, I'm impressed. Your ability to dream up hypotheticals where the only possible "answer" is the one you designed the hypothetical to produce is quite staggering.
You say you can't prove your hunches about morality but confidently state that breaking federal law to aid and abet the commission of a federal crime is so moral that you'd be proud to do so.
Under your hypothetical, (based on your assumption that there was a 100% chance they'd be executed) there is no reason why they could not legally find a country where they would be safer. I'd encourage them and help them to follow the proper legal procedures for asylum somewhere. That you think that your hypothetical demands the violation of federal law is immaterial and certainly not the only option. The problem is that this hypothetical doesn't apply to the tens of millions that willingly violate US law, because it's simply easier. That you believe that every other country on earth is a guaranteed death sentence, doesn't make it True. (Hint, it's hyperbole you thin skinned idiot)
In your extreme, and not applicable situation, I'd likely err on the side of helping the innocent. But in the reality of 2025 American immigration policy, I've got no problem sending MS13 or Tren de Aragua scum back where they came from in the hope that we'd save the money for the bullet to rid the earth of them.
And Dan tries to change the subject even further by forcing his subjective hunches about what is moral on others.
The problem that you have, again, is that you've made a huge leap of logic from the general "Some laws..." to the specific "8 USC 1324 is immoral.", with no actual proof of the specific claim. It's a thin you do regularly, and you go both ways. In this case you leap from a vague, general, statement to a specific claim with no logical foundation to do so. (No a "common belief" does not justify your leap of logic)
I applaud your effort to divert the conversation away from your avowed admission that you would proudly break federal law to aid and abet the breaking of other federal law, congratulations!
The problem with your example, is that you're talking about an actual war between two "states" with two different sets of laws.
But I've answered your idiotic questions plenty, so I'm done answering the same question rephrased.
You're painfully obtuse, and friends don't publicly spew vitriol at friends so stop pretending.
I'm going to make this painfully easy for you.
Please explain, objectively, why 8 USC 1324 is an immoral law. Use specific concrete examples, do not offer yourself or some vague "common belief" as proof. If this specific law is so obviously immoral that you are compelled to violate it, explain why.
Taking sanctuary in a church does not protect one from arrest. Law enforcement may arrest lawbreakers or suspected lawbreakers seeking sanctuary in any church in the nation so long as they follow all established procedures regarding Constitutional rights.
Dan's definition of "jackboots" are those among law enforcement who enforce laws Dan doesn't like. Members of Biden's DOJ and FBI were not "jackboots" because they hunted and arrested Trump supporters who were sightseeing at the Capitol on Jan 6, 2021, who peacefully protested outside abortion clinics, who gathered for Sunday services OUTSIDE during the COVID "pandemic", who attended school board meetings to voice their opposition to LGBTQ and CRT indoctrination.
Dan's outrage here only validates the opinion which identifies Dan as regarding all illegal aliens as angelic figures fleeing direct threats to their lives.
Dan's morally bankrupt and is not intelligent enough to speak on questions of morality or the moral nature of any act of law enforcement. If an illegal claims their life is in danger, that's enough for Dan and his progressive friends who have no legit way to determine the truth of the illegal's claim.
Dan does nothing to prove or support the opinion that ANY existing immigration law or border policy is "immoral" or harmful. He just wants to force that opinion on others because he needs it to be so in order to pretend he's "doing the right thing" by aiding and abetting law breaking.
Art, of course that's the case. These laws weren't immoral enough for him to say anything during the Clinton or P-BO years, but now all of a sudden they are horribly immoral. Hell, Biden essentially violated these laws for his entire term but didn't even attempt to repeal them, and Dan stays silent. His literalism, morality, and outrage are both subjective and situational.
Dan would like to pretend that certain lawbreakers in a church building, which is really just a building after all, are somehow immune from the consequences of their action.
Dan's use of terms like "jackboots" is just a way to convince himself that law enforcement is inherently bad. Or (again) that it's bad when it's enforcing laws Dan finds icky.
As I pointed out, Dan's fiction that paints all (or the vast majority) of illegal aliens as people who will be immediately murdered if they get deported is just one more of his made up narratives that help him justify his hunches.
Hell, if I'm in Brownsville and I see a sicario chasing someone who appears to be an immigrant and trying to kill that person, I'd absolutely intervene to save the life of someone directly. But in Dan's fantasy world, the merest risk of anything unpleasant happening to anyone deported is enough to violate federal law whenever he wants.
That he's not particularly invested in making places like Mexico safer is a whole other thing.
Can you believe that Dan seems to be under the impression that it is impossible to have a child safely in the entire country of Mexico? No safe hospitals, no midwives, no nothing. Their only opportunity for having a baby safely is in the US.
Dan does nothing to prove or support the opinion that ANY existing immigration law or border policy is "immoral" or harmful.
and...
Please explain, objectively, why 8 USC 1324 is an immoral law. Use specific concrete examples, do not offer yourself or some vague "common belief" as proof. If this specific law is so obviously immoral that you are compelled to violate it, explain why.
A. It is WRONG to intentionally cause harm to innocent people.
B. It is WRONG to intentionally enslave people.
C. It is WRONG to intentionally support slavers because they say the "law" is on their side and then return the escaped slaves to the slavers.
Those ARE very specific and abundantly clear to all morally reasonable people.
Do you disagree with any of those points (the very ones I've made multiple times, now, which you still refuse to answer directly and clearly)?
With that and given how you both seem so very intentionally intent to misstate and misrepresent what I've said and how you can't even agree to the very simplest of basic moral questions (WOULD YOU DEFEND AN ESCAPED SLAVE IF IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW? How much easier a question can I ask?!), I'm done. There is too much to do.
May God open our eyes and help us side with and stand with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed and the harmed.
...and of course, I have not said ANY of your final comments, Craig, as you stated at 1:42pm on 1/28. That is your perversion of my words, not my words. It is the strawman that you erect, presumably to make yourself feel better by pretending I'm some kind of irrational monster. That, as opposed to someone who simply believes that it's right to aid those seeking safety and those oppressed and the marginalized who oppressors would like to harm.
Reality is a kick in the head, ain't it?
So, when you are asked for specific reasons why 8 USC 1324 in an immoral law, with specific examples and direct evidence, you spew this unrelated nonsense. What you think might be "redundantly clear" is neither objective or relevant.
Given the fact that there is a virtually 100% chance that both the phone you're posting one when you aren't smart enough to post under your account, and the computer you use when you can, are produced largely with materials that are obtained using slave labor. But go ahead and play this bullshit game.
Answer the question, or don't, I don't care. You not answering is common enough that it rolls off my back anyway. But to spew this condescending bullshit and smugly act as if you've answered the question asked is one more demonstration of the complete lack of integrity on your end.
Yeah, multiple trips to where the real "poor,...", almost 2 decades of hiring, employing, and housing the "poor,...", and you play this smug, superior, game.
Well, since I didn't actually quote you, I'm not sure what alternate reality you're living in. You ARE the one who argued that Mexicans should feel free to come to the US to give birth because they can't find safe hospitals in Mexico, are you not? You ARE the one who refused to respond to my pointing out the idiocy of that argument, are you not?
From someone who's stock in trade is straw men, falsely characterizing the words of others, and putting words in others mouth, to bitch about my drawing conclusions from the actual arguments you made and your silence thereafter is amusing.
It's not really a matter of how we would respond to an illegal in true need. It's a matter of whether or not the possibility of someone in need justifies breaking the law or altering for the benefit of potential real cases of people in need such that our ability to regulate immigration is weakened to such an extent that even those who seek to harm these true illegals in need can enter as well. This is another aspect those like Dan don't consider. We leave the door open and anyone can enter.
But he doesn't think that by closing the door and thereby removing the incentive to make a dangerous journey to get here, true people in need are better able to find here the refuge and asylum they need. The system is overwhelmed in determining who is truly in need and aid can be rendered more quickly and efficiently. In Steven Seagal's first movie "Above The Law", part of the plot involved illegals hiding in his neighborhood church basement. They were portrayed as "huddled masses" afraid of our law enforcement because LE was corrupt in their home country as well as because of the possibility of deportation. The situation is always portrayed this way. In reality, for those who have this fear, nothing can alleviate that, because only by having no border or no immigration system can such people ever live here comfortably. Any system must require our consent and a set of criteria they must satisfy without deportation hanging over their heads.
But true asylum seekers are unlikely to have legit reason to fear. Those who once were tasked with judging the legitimacy of an asylum claim prior to the overwhelming numbers due to Biden's stupidity, and even after for that matter, were skilled and making a determination of legitimacy in much the same way as LE investigators judging the honesty of a suspect of crime. This resulted in many asylum seekers being rejected because their stories didn't ring true and there was no way to verify that they were. People like Dan and those he praises for aiding and abetting suggest gullibility, believing all or most claims of victim hood and I don't want gullible people involved, and they must be held legally accountable for daring to obstruct justice as they do. Dan's willing to face the consequences of breaking our laws? I'd love to see him do so. I question their ability to make a determination with regard to the claims of those illegals to whom they render aid, especially because they go into it with a preconceived notion those to whom they render that aid are indeed worthy of it.
In Trabue's perverted mind, illegal in the USA are no different than Jews in German held countries during WWII. It doesn't matter that the Jews if captured were subject to execution and the illegals coming across our border aren't subjected to death if captured. Most of those from Central America have no desire to be citizens, rather they gather in their own enclaves and suck up welfare, and larger percentages of them commit crimes way out of percentage with their numbers vs REAL Americans. Others coming across illegally are from enemy nations and are spying for their mother countries or, in regards to Muslims who are here to covert the country to Islam!
With regard to 8 USC 1324, how is enforcing this law "intending" to harm innocent people, especially when it is directed at those like Dan who would be involved in any of the many actions therein described? If Dan is in conflict with any of those prohibitions, he's clearly not innocent. The actions, being prohibited, are considered detrimental and thus it is Dan who is causing harm by not abiding the law.
He then goes on to talk about slavery, ignoring how much more slavery there is as a result of his open border policy. By his opposition to existing immigration/border policies, it is Dan who is protecting slavery and forcing slaves to be under the control of those who enslave them. He's intentionally supporting slavers and slavery. And of those who are enslaved, how many chose to deal with cartels in order to enter illegally given how much control cartels have on the other side of the border as regards who gets to cross?
January 28, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Dan's running away now, because every time he opens his virtual mouth, he indicts himself further as being part of the problem. His position and actions in support of his position exacerbates the problem better people are trying to eradicate. Perhaps he wants the problem to exist so he can maintain his posturing as a compassionate Christian. Truly making a difference means eliminating problems. He's effectively giving people fish instead of teaching them to catch their own.
Over the past week, Trump's mere presence in the immigration issue as our current president has resulted in an incredibly drastic drop in attempted border crossings, and now arrests of about 1000 criminal illegals. This means fewer people are paying cartels, which means fewer illegals suffering...and fewer Americans suffering as well. This is called true improvement.
That's kind of the point I've been making, I suspect that Dan sees no other option for "help" beyond violating federal law in the furtherance of others violating federal law.
It is clear that he doesn't think that reorganizing our system, so that we can regulate and manage immigration is an acceptable option, unless it means removing the current system and replacing it with nothing.
If Dan was making the argument that we need to increase our ability to screen those seeking asylum, to find those who are truly in need of refuge, and to do so in a way that minimizes the danger to them of crossing illegally, I'm open to that.
For example. Let's figure out where the 5 most used jumping off points for immigrants to the US are. Then lets establish screening centers to manage the flow of immigrants in those locations (in addition to US embassies and consulates). After they pass through screening in those locations, then they qualify for admittance to the US and a more thorough review of their situation, and a path to some sort of legal status. Maybe some of those get sent to other "safe" countries? Who knows, but the focus should be on controlling, regulating, and managing immigration, not simply throwing our hands in the air and inviting a free-for-all.
But Glenn, executing Jews simply because they are Jews is exactly the same as being sent back to one's home country where crime exists. Dan loves these false equivalencies.
What's most important in the conteext of this post, is that Dan has proudly announced his willingness to violate federal law in aiding and abetting others in violation of federal law.
Most of the rest is just a smoke screen.
Dan, seemingly thinks it's "racist" to look objectively at the objective "data" from Europe and consider how the situation there might impact how we look at immigration. Much like Dan ignores the fact that virtually every country in Europe has stopped "treating" "trams" children because the actual "data" is telling them that it's not effective and that 80% of children age out of feeling "trans" by their 20's. But we clearly cannot look at European "data" and actions to inform our policies, because he'll call that sort of objective "data" racist and transphobic.
I saw a clip earlier today from someone in the UK government that seems relevant. They pointed out that when the UK had @40,000 immigrants/year that they were able to absorb those and had a workable and positive immigration system. However, when that number jumps to @1.25 million immigrants/year things get worse for everyone.
The left needs to pretend that the alternative to the current mess is absolutely zero immigration under any and all circumstances. Let the masses of immigrants starve to death huddled against the border wall, kind of stuff.
Strangely enough, virtually no one on the right is seriously arguing for this sort of draconian immigration policy. It's like the left/Dan can't formulate a rational argument against the actual position of their enemies, so they have to invent some sort of bullshit Northern Wall of Westeros, straw man, scenario to argue against. Because, clearly any compromise from millions of people coming across the border, unidentified, unregulated, unmanaged, uncounted, unknown, unidentified, and untrammeled is just too extreme. Because the US economy and society can absorb unlimited numbers of these people, just because they say so. Why look at all that empty land in N Dakota. Let's put a few million random immigrants there?
FYI, for all the whining about the DFL losing their permanent, underclass to pick lettuce for their Whole Foods it ignores the fact that the majority of immigrants over the last 4 years or so head for places like NYC and LA where they get "sanctuary" and lots of free stuff. The DFL has always been the party of slavery, they just want millions of illegal aliens to be their slaves now. Instead of cotton, they'll pick vegetables. The only important thing seems to be getting them qualified to vote.
Dan seems to forget Romans 13 where we are to submit to our governments as long as they aren't going against God. It does not go against God's laws to send these people back where they belong.
Yeah...Dan's "willingness" is just tough talk. He'd crap his panties if he was charged with a felony related to the code you presented and had to endure the max penalty. In the meantime, his illegals could likely be sent back home anyway.
It's never beneath Dan to play the race card as soon as his arguments fail. So too with the trans/homophobia card. Now we're getting the nazi card with this "jackboots" reference. It's another form of demonizing opponents while canonizing allies. And it certainly suggests that to Dan, all illegals are sainted angels and it's somehow demonic to prioritize one's own nation and people over others.
" Let the masses of immigrants starve to death huddled against the border wall, kind of stuff.
Strangely enough, virtually no one on the right is seriously arguing for this sort of draconian immigration policy."
Indeed! And that's even true of those like me who wish to see immigration halted for a period of time while we sort out the mess Dan's preferred president made. True refugees and asylum seekers can always be accommodated, even if not in a manner satisfactory to the likes of someone like Dan.
Great point. How can someone who knowingly and willingly acknowledged their intent to violate federal law if given the opportunity "innocent" by any normal measure. Aside from the legal notion of innocent until proven guilty.
Dan ignores that there is more slavery in 2025 that there was during the times he gets so worked up about. He ignores the fact that his smart phone and computer rely on slave labor to be produced. He doesn't seem willing to face the fact that an underclass of illegal aliens who (according to most on the left) are only here to pick produce, isn't that far from slavery. Or the 300,000 children that Biden "lost" many of which are presumed to have been trafficked as sex slaves. But why argue about 2025, when 1860 is so much easier?
I suspect you are correct. If his lawyer was halfway good, he wouldn't let him say a word.
That's because it's always easier to argue against a straw man than an actual person.
Clinton deported 12 million illegal aliens, no big deal, no national tragedy, no collapse, no media harping.
P-BO deported 3 million, same as with Clinton, nothing. P-BO put people/children in cages, silence.
Trump deports 1 million, and he's an evil, "racist", NAZI.
Post a Comment