US Catholic Bishops blast Trump for rescinding DACA

[Anti Federalist]

Well, throws that whole Romans 13 nonsense right out the window now, doesn't it?

Course, the RC church realizes where their bread is buttered: without a continuing and increasing flood of South and Central American RC socialists, they are dead in the water, as the native US population is either protestant, atheist, or increasingly converting to Satanism, Wiccanism or Witchcraft.



USCCB President, Vice President and Committee Chairmen Denounce Administration’s Decision to End DACA and Strongly Urge Congress to Find Legislative Solution

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-157.cfm

"The cancellation of the DACA program is reprehensible. It causes unnecessary fear for DACA youth and their families. These youth entered the U.S. as minors and often know America as their only home. The Catholic Church has long watched with pride and admiration as DACA youth live out their daily lives with hope and a determination to flourish and contribute to society: continuing to work and provide for their families, continuing to serve in the military, and continuing to receive an education. Now, after months of anxiety and fear about their futures, these brave young people face deportation. This decision is unacceptable and does not reflect who we are as Americans.

The Church has recognized and proclaimed the need to welcome young people: 'Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me' (Mark 9:37). Today, our nation has done the opposite of how Scripture calls us to respond. It is a step back from the progress that we need to make as a country. Today's actions represent a heartbreaking moment in our history that shows the absence of mercy and good will, and a short-sighted vision for the future. DACA youth are woven into the fabric of our country and of our Church, and are, by every social and human measure, American youth.

We strongly urge Congress to act and immediately resume work toward a legislative solution. We pledge our support to work on finding an expeditious means of protection for DACA youth.

As people of faith, we say to DACA youth – regardless of your immigration status, you are children of God and welcome in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supports you and will advocate for you."

[specsaregood]

Well, throws that whole Romans 13 nonsense right out the window now, doesn't it?

Course, the RC church realizes where their bread is buttered: without a continuing and increasing flood of South and Central American RC socialists, they are dead in the water, as the native US population is either protestant, atheist, or increasingly converting to Satanism, Wiccanism or Witchcraft.


Not to mention constantly needing a new supply of children to molest.... and ones with a questionable legal status are probably quite vulnerable.

[r3volution 3.0]

No true Christian can be opposed to kidnapping and deporting innocent people to a foreign country...

...amiright?

:rolleyes:

Anyway, it's not just the Catholic Church.

The United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church took the same stance.

[Anti Federalist]

No true Christian can be opposed to kidnapping and deporting innocent people to a foreign country...

...amiright?

:rolleyes:

Anyway, it's not just the Catholic Church.

The United Methodist Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church took the same stance.

Oh, I have no doubt, Progressive and leftist Christians are universally in favor of uncontrolled immigration, so it would make sense they would be aligned with a communist pope's church, especially when it upsets the status quo of existing communities, like importing Somalians into small New England communities.

Of course, they are well aware of the damage that does, the padre patrol's goal is to tear everything down and replace it with global Marxism with some Jebus icing to make it more palatable to the sheep.

Ask these guys what they think of uncontrolled immigration of people hostile to them and their way of life:

http://www.old-picture.com/indians/pictures/Atsina-Warriors.jpg

[r3volution 3.0]

http://www.old-picture.com/indians/pictures/Atsina-Warriors.jpg

Yes, those guys know all about being forcibly removed from one's home and deported to some place behind a wall.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, those guys know all about being forcibly removed from one's home and deported to some place behind a wall.

They most certainly do.

That's what happens when a once dominant majority becomes a hated and feared minority that is politically rendered impotent and culturally despised, due to demographic invasion.

I don't want my children to be the next ones herded up into reservations and marched down a trail of tears.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes, those guys know all about being forcibly removed from one's home and deported to some place behind a wall.

They most certainly do.

That's what happens when...

...people such as yourself propose such policies.

[Anti Federalist]

...people such as yourself propose such policies.

They made it them or me.

If that's the way it's going to be, then fine, fuck them, get the fuck out of my country.

Go dream some fucking place else, we got enough problems as it is.

[r3volution 3.0]

They made it them or me.

If that's the way it's going to be, then fine, fuck them, get the fuck out of my country.

(A) It's not your country; it's not "the people's" country; it's a conglomeration of pieces of private private.

Hence, (b) get your fucking busybody communist nose out of your neighbors' business.

[Anti Federalist]

Besides, IIRC all this does is rescind what was, in effect, an illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order of Obama's anyways.

I thought that's what the whole Ron Paul thing was about, you know, following the CONstitution?

Or does that not matter to the "lets all hold hands and sing Kum-By-Ya with the global Marxists" crowd?

[Anti Federalist]

(A) It's not your country; it's not "the people's" country; it's a conglomeration of pieces of private private.

Hence, (b) get your fucking busybody communist nose out of your neighbors' business.

When they get out of mine, I will, until then, they and you, can fuck off.

And there is no such thing as "private" property, it all belongs to the state, because of policies that communists have put in place.

Private property....pffft, yeah right.

[Swordsmyth]

(A) It's not your country; it's not "the people's" country; it's a conglomeration of pieces of private private.

Hence, (b) get your $#@!ing busybody communist nose out of your neighbors' business.

WRONG.

[Brian4Liberty]

The Catholic Church has long watched with pride and admiration as DACA youth live out their daily lives

The Catholic Church has publicly admitted to aiding and abetting illegal activity. Now it becomes clear who will have to pay for the wall...

[bunklocoempire]

Well, throws that whole Romans 13 nonsense right out the window now, doesn't it?

Course, the RC church realizes where their bread is buttered: without a continuing and increasing flood of South and Central American RC socialists, they are dead in the water, as the native US population is either protestant, atheist, or increasingly converting to Satanism, Wiccanism or Witchcraft.



USCCB President, Vice President and Committee Chairmen Denounce Administration’s Decision to End DACA and Strongly Urge Congress to Find Legislative Solution

http://www.usccb.org/news/2017/17-157.cfm

"The cancellation of the DACA program is reprehensible. It causes unnecessary fear for DACA youth and their families. These youth entered the U.S. as minors and often know America as their only home. The Catholic Church has long watched with pride and admiration as DACA youth live out their daily lives with hope and a determination to flourish and contribute to society: continuing to work and provide for their families, continuing to serve in the military, and continuing to receive an education. Now, after months of anxiety and fear about their futures, these brave young people face deportation. This decision is unacceptable and does not reflect who we are as Americans.

The Church has recognized and proclaimed the need to welcome young people: 'Whoever welcomes one of these children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me' (Mark 9:37). Today, our nation has done the opposite of how Scripture calls us to respond. It is a step back from the progress that we need to make as a country. Today's actions represent a heartbreaking moment in our history that shows the absence of mercy and good will, and a short-sighted vision for the future. DACA youth are woven into the fabric of our country and of our Church, and are, by every social and human measure, American youth.

We strongly urge Congress to act and immediately resume work toward a legislative solution. We pledge our support to work on finding an expeditious means of protection for DACA youth.

As people of faith, we say to DACA youth – regardless of your immigration status, you are children of God and welcome in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church supports you and will advocate for you."

In government matters, the answer is liberty.

In spiritual matters, the answer is Jesus. I wonder why there is no mention of Jesus, if I am supposed to be welcoming people in Jesus' name?
It's Jesus' quote after all.

Mentioned in the release:
fear
pride
hope
anxiety
social human measure
heartbreaking
short sighted
absence of mercy
legislative solution

...but no Jesus. Did I miss it? But I'm supposed to come to the Father through Jesus, so...?
So we see exactly what the priorities are.

IMO, the Catholic Church should just sell to Alphabet and be done with all the messing around.

The Church has recognized and proclaimed the need to... *insert fear and pride driven cause du jour here -but don't mention Jesus*

:rolleyes::mad:

500 years later... ya ready to reform yet? No?
Are you ready to partner with Google, Face Book, and Microsoft?

[Anti Federalist]

The Catholic Church has publicly admitted to aiding and abetting illegal activity. Now it becomes clear who will have to pay for the wall...

Asset Forfeiture.

[Brian4Liberty]

500 years later... ya ready to reform yet? No?
Are you ready to partner with Google, Face Book, and Microsoft?

Many RC "leaders" were more than willing to partner with the neoconservatives on many issues, just as the Romney-McMuffin LDS leaders are doing today.

[tod evans]

They most certainly do.

That's what happens when a once dominant majority becomes a hated and feared minority that is politically rendered impotent and culturally despised, due to demographic invasion.

I don't want my children to be the next ones herded up into reservations and marched down a trail of tears.

Words and treaties got the Injuns where they were, learn from their mistake.

[AuH20]

These useful immigrants are trying to take down the only remnant that can possibly thwart the technocratic New World Order. The latinos can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned. They should try to rise above ignorance and stop listening to the short term needs of their stomachs. Once the brown wave overcomes the U.S., it's officially game over and the Prison Planet arrangements will really begin.

[spudea]

thank goodness for separation of church and state. These bishops can fuck off!

[Brian4Liberty]

Oh, I have no doubt, Progressive and leftist Christians are universally in favor of uncontrolled immigration, so it would make sense they would be aligned with a communist pope's church, especially when it upsets the status quo of existing communities, like importing Somalians into small New England communities.

Of course, they are well aware of the damage that does, the padre patrol's goal is to tear everything down and replace it with global Marxism with some Jebus icing to make it more palatable to the sheep.
...

That's pretty much it. It's the hidden agenda at work. Almost all religions believe that they are global (or universal), and in competition with the other religions. How much they compete for new members varies. They see every immigrant as a potential convert. Every religious immigrant sees himself as a beach-head for their religion in a new land. There are plenty of fakers to go around too, for example an immigrant who will "convert" if it will get them entry.

And when it comes to "tearing down", that is the means to an end. It can serve several purposes. Mass immigration can dilute the competing religions, thus reducing their relative power and influence. If they are aggressive enough at conversion, they think that they can increase their relative numbers and power.

The separation of church and state is a nice concept, but all too often the "church" decides it wants to get in on the bigger political game.

[oyarde]

thank goodness for separation of church and state. These bishops can fuck off!

I second this .

[CaptUSA]

So, I'm just an individual. I don't really think of myself as part of this group or that group. Certainly not some arbitrary group based on pigment or national origin. Because of that, I'm pretty open to anyone living wherever they want to live as long as they're not encroaching on my liberty directly. And if I were going to deport those who used the government to encroach on my liberty, I'd have to deport about 90% of the country and 99.9% of the cities.

That being said, I don't really care about Trump rescinding DACA (if it ever comes to that). That whole thing was an executive over-reach because Congress wouldn't fix the damned problem.

You all are striking at the branches here instead of the root. End the welfare state and the drug war and immigration will fix itself. DACA in or out, it ain't gonna make a difference.

[RJB]

I mostly left Roman Catholicism for Orthodoxy for spiritual/religious reasons, but I did resent the way they insinuated itself into this. What irritated me wasn't that they presented it as a love for your brothers and sisters in Christ from other lands, but rather it was purely politics. I dislike any time I feel that I am being manipulated. They even spoke of "social justice" and recently added that phrase into older songs.

[Anti Federalist]

You all are striking at the branches here instead of the root. End the welfare state and the drug war and immigration will fix itself. DACA in or out, it ain't gonna make a difference.

Pretty tall order, tough enough to get the native population to go along with that, impossible to do if you have an imported voter base of tens of millions that want the welfare state.

[RJB]

Pretty tall order, tough enough to get the native population to go along with that, impossible to do if you have an imported voter base of tens of millions that want the welfare state.

Besides ending the welfare state another problem is the whole 12 years of social justice cirriculum that tells the kids of the immigrants that they have no greater enemy than the people of America. It is taught very often that there is no greater evil than the white male. You see the results in the regular protests on the streets that we have been seeing since last November.

[Anti Federalist]

Besides ending the welfare state another problem is the whole 12 years of social justice cirriculum that tells the kids of the immigrants that they have no greater enemy than the people of America. It is taught very often that there is no greater evil than the white male. You see the results in the regular protests on the streets that we have been seeing since last November.

Bingo +rep

So effective that it works on the native white kids as well.

[AuH20]

Pretty tall order, tough enough to get the native population to go along with that, impossible to do if you have an imported voter base of tens of millions that want the welfare state.

They will suddenly become smarter and more resourceful when the dreaded white male passes on. ROFL

[Ender]

It's a kerflummox, for sure but I agree with the Judge on this.


Immigrant Children and the Rule of Law

By Andrew P. Napolitano

September 7, 2017

Earlier this week, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that in six months, the Department of Justice will begin the long process for deportation proceedings against 800,000 young people who came to America as babies and young children in the care of their parents and others because those entries into this country were and remain unlawful.

When President Barack Obama signed numerous executive orders attempting to set forth the conditions under which illegally immigrated adults whose children were born here could lawfully remain here, he was challenged in federal court and he lost. Sessions believes that the government would lose again if it declined to deport those who came here illegally as babies and young children.

Here is the back story.

Shortly after President Obama formalized two programs, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (commonly known as DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (commonly, DAPA), in a series of executive orders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that DAPA — the orders protecting undocumented immigrants who are the parents of children born here — was unconstitutional.

Suicide Pact: The Radi... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $0.99 Buy New $1.55 (as of 09:48 EDT - Details) Before signing his executive orders, Obama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the Obama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.

But Obama’s executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan — including President Donald Trump — has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President Obama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.

Numerous states challenged Obama’s DAPA orders in federal court. The states argued that because they are required to provide a social safety net — hospital emergency rooms, public schools, financial assistance for the poor, etc. — for everyone within their borders, whether there lawfully or unlawfully, DAPA was increasing their financial burden beyond their ability or will to pay. Stated differently, they argued that the president alone was effectively compelling these states to spend state tax dollars against the will of elected state officials. The states also argued that DAPA was such a substantial deviation from the immigration statutes that Congress had written that it amounted to the president’s rewriting the law and thereby usurping the constitutional powers of Congress.

A federal district judge agreed with the states, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed that ruling. That court held that by increasing the financial burden on states against the will of the elected officials of the states, the president had violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution — which guarantees a representative form of government in the states, not one in which a federal official can The Constitution in Ex... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $7.85 (as of 07:00 EDT - Details) tell state officials how to spend state tax dollars.

It also ruled that by enforcing his executive orders instead of the laws as Congress wrote them — those laws mandate deportation for all who came here illegally, no matter their age or family status — the president was failing to take care that all federal laws be enforced. That behavior, the court ruled, violated the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, which compels the president to enforce federal laws as they were written, not as he might wish them to be.

The Supreme Court declined to intervene by a 4-4 vote, thereby permitting the 5th Circuit decision to stand undisturbed.

When Sessions announced this week that DACA will not be followed after March 5, 2018, he said he is confident that DACA is unconstitutional for the same reasons that the courts found DAPA to be unconstitutional. Yet there are moral, constitutional, legal and economic arguments on this that will be an obstacle to the cancellation of this long-standing program.

Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the The Freedom Answer Boo... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $3.74 Buy New $3.30 (as of 04:00 EDT - Details) government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.

Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case — each person whose deportation is ordered — is entitled to a hearing at the government’s expense.

Now many Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Congress want to make a close version of Obama’s executive orders with respect to immigrant infants (DACA) the law of the land — something they declined to do when Obama was president. Were this to happen, the tables would be turned on Trump. He would be confronted with the constitutional duty of enforcing a federal law that he has condemned.

Would he live up to his oath of office?

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/andrew-p-napolitano/the-rule-of-law/

[Influenza]

Lol you people have absolutely no argument against DACA. All I'm reading is "them just too different from us white folk" as you sit on your rocking chairs with a shotgun chewing tobacco. They are ineligible for most welfare programs, and this system is very similar to what Ron was talking about when he voiced support for "green card with an asterisk."

I was actually at a pro-DACA protest earlier today, and what these people ACTUALLY want is full, immediate citizenship for all illegals, which I imagine no one here, including myself, supports. DACA for them is just a "small crumb." It is simply immoral to deport most of the people that are eligible for DACA. They lived here since they were kids, how is it preferable to deport them to a totally foreign country, away from their friends and family, instead of giving them this in-between status?

[Swordsmyth]

Lol you people have absolutely no argument against DACA. All I'm reading is "them just too different from us white folk" as you sit on your rocking chairs with a shotgun chewing tobacco. They are ineligible for most welfare programs, and this system is very similar to what Ron was talking about when he voiced support for "green card with an asterisk."

I was actually at a pro-DACA protest earlier today, and what these people ACTUALLY want is full, immediate citizenship for all illegals, which I imagine no one here, including myself, supports. DACA for them is just a "small crumb." It is simply immoral to deport most of the people that are eligible for DACA. They lived here since they were kids, how is it preferable to deport them to a totally foreign country, away from their friends and family, instead of giving them this in-between status?

DACA was a case of the executive branch violating the law.

As for the DACA "Kids", they might be given some form of compromise by congress, but only if it comes with immediate increased border enforcement, otherwise you create an incentive for more invaders to come and bring their children.

[Ender]

DACA was a case of the executive branch violating the law.

As for the DACA "Kids", they might be given some form of compromise by congress, but only if it comes with immediate increased border enforcement, otherwise you create an incentive for more invaders to come and bring their children.

From the Judge's article above:


Before signing his executive orders, Obama tried to persuade Congress to amend federal immigration laws so as to permit those who came here illegally and bore children here and those who came here illegally as infants to remain here with work permits, high school diplomas, Social Security numbers, jobs and other indicia of stability and permanence. After Congress declined to vote on the Obama proposals, he authored his now-famous DACA and DAPA executive orders. He basically decided to do on his own what Congress had declined to do legislatively.

But Obama’s executive orders were not novel; they merely formalized what every president since Ronald Reagan — including President Donald Trump — has effectively done. Each has declined to deport undocumented immigrants who bore children here or who were brought here as young children. President Obama alone showed the courage to put this in writing, thereby giving immigrants notice of what they need to do to avoid deportation and the government notice of whose deportations should not occur.

And


Morally, most of the beneficiaries of DACA are fully Americanized young adults who know no other life but what they have here and have no roots in the countries of their births. Many are serving the U.S. in the military. Constitutionally, DACA has effectively been in place since 1986, and 800,000 people younger than 40 have planned their lives in reliance upon it. Legally, once a benefit has been given by the government and relied upon, the courts are reluctant to rescind it, even though the 5th Circuit showed no such reluctance.

Economically, the summary removal of more than three-quarters of a million people from the workforce would have serious negative consequences for their employers and dependents and for delicate economic forces, and there would be negative economic consequences to the government, as well, as each claimed hardship case — each person whose deportation is ordered — is entitled to a hearing at the government’s expense.

[Swordsmyth]

From the Judge's article above:

Habitual violation does not justify itself, and formalization was a way to encourage more invaders to come.

[bunklocoempire]

thank goodness for separation of church and state. These bishops can fuck off!

I think these bishops have a pretty good idea of just what kind of "church" the state has already become.

[r3volution 3.0]

End the welfare state and the drug war and immigration will fix itself.

For most anti-immigrant people, the mere presence of the immigrants is itself the problem.

Muh culture and whatnot...


DACA was a case of the executive branch violating the law.

As far as I'm concerned, federal immigration restrictions are altogether unconstitutional, and one cannot violate a law which is already void. That said, if one's only objection to DACA is constitutional, one should have no problem with the Congress reimplementing it. Clearly, most of the talk of constitutionality is cover for other motivations. If you think Trump, or Sessions, or Hannity, or any of these raging statists have truly, all-of-the-sudden become constitutionalists, I've a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[donnay]

As James Wood's so eloquently put it in a tweet;

"#DACA is a yet another voter fraud scam by the Democrats, pure and simple. #DemocratLarvae
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) September 4, 2017

[CaptUSA]

Pretty tall order, tough enough to get the native population to go along with that, impossible to do if you have an imported voter base of tens of millions that want the welfare state.

You realize that applies to almost everyone, right? Not just immigrants. And since people covered by DACA don't get voting rights, you're really talking about their children. Like I said in my previous post, if we're going to start deporting people because of how their descendants may vote in the future, you would have had to stop that parade generations ago! Because most of the country has no problems using government to get things they want.

You're no more likely to convince someone in the "native" population to stop giving government power than you are of convincing the child of a DACA immigrant. Even less so if you've been bad-mouthing their families for years.

I don't need to know the question; liberty is always the answer. It just takes faith. And trust in your beliefs. I can't tell you how many so-called "free-market" people turn to socialism as soon as a hurricane strikes. In times of strife, that is when liberty is needed the MOST!

[Ender]

Habitual violation does not justify itself, and formalization was a way to encourage more invaders to come.

Invaders....... that would be most all "Americans".

And, if we're going to preach about obeying the CONstitution, let's start with getting out of all those shitty unconstitutional wars- ya think?

[euphemia]

Catholic charities get a lot of taxpayer money for their "resettlement" programs. Link (http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/religious-charities-profit-from-open-borders/)

[Anti Federalist]

For most anti-immigrant people, the mere presence of the immigrants is itself the problem.

Muh culture and whatnot...

Yes, quite right, it is.

There is demographic war being waged, with foreign heads of state making statements like this:

"He is too stupid to realize that one day the minority will become the majority." - Vincente Fox

Every day I read some new call, some new missive, some new exhortation to have myself and my family and everything I believe in wiped out, disenfranchised or outright exterminated. And a stunning number of these are not some rant from an anonymous internet person, but from "respected" sources in academia, government, the media and so on.

Taking that into account, and being well aware of what happens in a society when a once powerful and despised majority suddenly becomes a displaced and powerless minority, (genocide happens, in case you are wondering), I'm no longer turning a blind eye toward it, and wrapping myself in naive fantasies of all holding hands and singing "We Are The World".

I'm getting similar "feedback" from a lot of other people as well, in the few places where you can still freely speak.

The current narrative is to place this unrest at Trump's feet, and his supporters. Well, all you have to do is look back in my post history and see I never was a Trump supporter, and still am not, outside of mild praise at some of the few things done right or better than what would have been done under Clinton.

What Trump has done however, is kick over the ant hill and expose an entire network of people, millions of people, that would happily, in the words of one Hollywood producer, have me exterminated.

Of course, he had no awareness that he was doing this, but it was done, just the same.

Ignore that at your own peril, since, as I have shown numerous times already, just by virtue of being here, you're a Nazi as well.

[Danke]

Yes, quite right, it is.

There is demographic war being waged, with foreign heads of state making statements like this:

"He is too stupid to realize that one day the minority will become the majority." - Vincente Fox

Every day I read some new call, some new missive, some new exhortation to have myself and my family and everything I believe in wiped out, disenfranchised or outright exterminated. And a stunning number of these are not some rant from an anonymous internet person, but from "respected" sources in academia, government, the media and so on.

Taking that into account, and being well aware of what happens in a society when a once powerful and despised majority suddenly becomes a displaced and powerless minority, (genocide happens, in case you are wondering), I'm no longer turning a blind eye toward it, and wrapping myself in naive fantasies of all holding hands and singing "We Are The World".

I'm getting similar "feedback" from a lot of other people as well, in the few places where you can still freely speak.

The current narrative is to place this unrest at Trump's feet, and his supporters. Well, all you have to do is look back in my post history and see I never was a Trump supporter, and still am not, outside of mild praise at some of the few things done right or better than what would have been done under Clinton.

What Trump has done however, is kick over the ant hill and expose an entire network of people, millions of people, that would happily, in the words of one Hollywood producer, have me exterminated.

Of course, he had no awareness that he was doing this, but it was done, just the same.

Ignore that at your own peril, since, as I have shown numerous times already, just by virtue of being here, you're a Nazi as well.

I'm guessing most who support increases in illegals are not having 50-60% of their income taken by government.

[Swordsmyth]

Invaders....... that would be most all "Americans".

No, I like most Americans am a natural born descendant of successful invaders or those who not violating the rules of the ruling nation state when they came.

The natives who lost to the invaders back then are a good example of why we must not allow a successful invasion of our society.


And, if we're going to preach about obeying the CONstitution, let's start with getting out of all those $#@!ty unconstitutional wars- ya think?

I agree but I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Swordsmyth]

You realize that applies to almost everyone, right? Not just immigrants. And since people covered by DACA don't get voting rights, you're really talking about their children. Like I said in my previous post, if we're going to start deporting people because of how their descendants may vote in the future, you would have had to stop that parade generations ago! Because most of the country has no problems using government to get things they want.

You're no more likely to convince someone in the "native" population to stop giving government power than you are of convincing the child of a DACA immigrant. Even less so if you've been bad-mouthing their families for years.

I don't need to know the question; liberty is always the answer. It just takes faith. And trust in your beliefs. I can't tell you how many so-called "free-market" people turn to socialism as soon as a hurricane strikes. In times of strife, that is when liberty is needed the MOST!

Illegals vote, Obummer encouraged it.

[Swordsmyth]

As far as I'm concerned, federal immigration restrictions are altogether unconstitutional, and one cannot violate a law which is already void. That said, if one's only objection to DACA is constitutional, one should have no problem with the Congress reimplementing it. Clearly, most of the talk of constitutionality is cover for other motivations. If you think Trump, or Sessions, or Hannity, or any of these raging statists have truly, all-of-the-sudden become constitutionalists, I've a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

If Congress approves a replacement then I will object on the grounds of bad policy unless it is coupled with an immediate boost to border enforcement to prevent the precedent from encouraging more invaders to come and bring their children.

The Constitution does give congress power over immigration, there are other threads where I have proved that so I won't derail this one to argue it again.

See:
Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

[CaptUSA]

Illegals vote, Obummer encouraged it.

So do dumbasses. Both parties encourage it.

Listen, the point of my comment is that you can't get more liberty by restricting liberty. It doesn't matter who is voting, they all vote to take away your liberty and mine. We don't need to be part of it. DACA or no DACA, it doesn't matter. The real problem with immigration is the restrictions on our liberty. The welfare state and the drug war. I understand the impulse to say, "well, we can't correct one government-created problem, so we need more government to fix it", but that NEVER works.