Opinion

I can hear Jesus’ indignant response to the AGs who want to deport ‘Dreamers’

Sophie Cruz, 6, walks with her father, Raul Cruz, left, after arguments in a challenge by 26 states over the constitutionality of President Obama's executive action to defer deportation of certain immigrant children and parents who are in the country illegally at the Supreme Court in Washington on April 18, 2016. Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Joshua Roberts *Editors: This photo may only be republished with RNS-SEITZ-OPED, originally transmitted on July 3, 2017.

EL PASO, Texas (RNS) Not many things made Jesus angry. He was the picture of patience and forgiveness even in the face of many serious human faults. But one thing often caused Jesus to fly off the handle — legalistic leaders.

While Jesus’ life and ministry may have taken place 2,000 years ago, now in my home state of Texas, legalists are placing the letter of the law ahead of the well-being and dignity of children and families.

On June 29, attorneys general from 10 states including Ken Paxton of Texas threatened in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to sue the Trump administration if it does not eliminate Obama-era protections that shield “Dreamers,” or undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

The letter called on the administration to stop accepting new or renewing existing applications for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Obama created during his first term.

If these upholders of the law have their wish, Dreamers will no longer be protected from deportation.

The scribes and the Pharisees of his time drove Jesus to distraction. As he put it, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes … and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. These you should have done, without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23:23). And as he told his disciples, “but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice” (Matthew 23:3).

Are the roles of the scribes and Pharisees being played out again today? Paxton and the nine other attorneys general argue that it’s not enough to exercise our country’s legal prerogatives regarding immigration with the adults who have sought refuge within our borders. Must we go even further and also lay the heavy burden of the law on the children they brought with them? Will we wrench Dreamers from their schools, communities and the only homes they have ever known? Will we send them away because they are not “legal”?

Around 220,000 young people in Texas will be out of school and out of productive work: a classic formula to create the desperation that makes drug dealing and other crime appear to be the only option.

The leaders of Jesus’ day thought by fulfilling the minutiae of the law they could be righteous before God and, more importantly for them, appear righteous before human beings. Jesus answered that they should have practiced a higher law, that of justice and mercy and faithfulness. They should have imitated God’s compassion toward those forced by life’s circumstances to carry heavy loads. They should not have added to those loads with self-righteous insistence on the smaller points of the law.

When I hear this legalistic insistence upon every letter of our broken immigration law being carried out to this cruel degree, I can hear Jesus’ indignant response: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites.

(Mark J. Seitz is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese El Paso)

About the author

Mark J. Seitz

92 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Matthew 15:24
    But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

  • A poster I once saw in a priest’s office comes to mind: “Jesus died to take away our sins, not our minds.” Something which those who, in the best of intentions, respond reflexively to “weaponizes empathy” would do well to keep in mind.

  • And when Israel rejected him he extended his offer to the gentiles. What’s your point?
    Jesus also gave the parable of the good Samaritan and numerous teachings dealing with mercy. These immigrants are here through no fault of their own, some for many years. The US is now their home.

  • The writer has committed a grave error in using the verses quoted out of context.
    A text without a context is a prooftext for a pretext.

  • The word “Gentile” used in the Old Testament, is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word GOI, which means NATION, the plural form of it is GOYIM.

    In Genesis 12:2 God said to Abram, “I will make of thee a great NATION.” In Hebrew God said, “I will make of thee a great GOI.” — It would have been too silly to translate this, “I will make of thee a great Gentile”, so they correctly translated goi as nation.

    In Genesis 25:23 Rebekah was pregnant with the twins Esau and Jacob, while still in her womb, the unborn children were struggling against each other. Rebekah asked God what was the meaning of this? God said to her, “Two GOYIM are in thy womb.” In this case the translators correctly translated it as “Two NATIONS are in thy womb.” Elsewhere, this same word “goyim,” is generally mistranslated as “gentiles.”

    In the New Testament, the translators translated the Hebrew word “goi” which means nations, with the Greek word “ethnos,” which means nations in Greek. The Greek word “ethnos” is sometimes mistranslated as “gentile” in the New Testament.

    Luke 7:5 “For he loveth our ETHNOS[goyim] and he hath built us a synagogue.” ♦ The centurion would not have built a synagogue for non-Israelites who today are erroneously labelled “gentiles.” In order to avoid the absurdity, the translators were forced to translate ethnos correctly as nation. Luke 7:5 “For he loveth our NATION, and he hath built us a synagogue.”

  • The word “Gentile,” is derived from the Latin word gentilis, meaning one who is not a Roman citizen. Using the actual definition of “gentile,” Jesus Christ and His twelve disciples were all Gentiles as none of them were Roman citizens by birth. Only Apostle Paul could truly claim he was NOT a gentile, but a Roman Citizen in Acts 22:27. See Etymology section at following Wiki link for “Gentile” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentile
    http://www.kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Dictionary/gentile

    The original words goy and ethnos refer to “peoples” or “nations” and is applied to both Israelites and non-Israelites in the Bible. Since most of the nations at the time of the Bible were “heathens”, goy or gentile became synonymous with heathen, although their literal translation is distinct. Latin and later English translators selectively used the term “gentiles” when the context for the base term “peoples” or “nations” referred to non-Israelite peoples or nations in English translations of the bible.

  • These immigrants are here through no fault of their own
    Barbara Lerner Spectre and Steve Gutow would agree with you.

  • Well, at least that’s one of the things we usually hear when conservatives cite scripture for or against some law. Somehow it’s different when libs do the same thing, but nobody seems to know how. ?

  • I watched this video. It is irrelevant to the issue of Dreamers. I believe in limited, controlled and legal immigration. Did you have a point to make regarding this RNS story?

  • I think my point is fairly obvious.
    If you are interested, I would recommend “Who is Esau-Edom” by Charles Weisman. I free PDF exists online.

  • If I lived in a tar paper shack with a dirt floor in a narco state and my kids had absolutely no chance of a future beyond my present, I would do ANYTHING…ANYTHING…ANYTHING… short of killing someone to get them to a better place where they are able to thrive and have a life. I might have to be deported but I would hope this “better place” (the USA) could come to a good solution.

  • I am so glad the justice department and ICE have run out of human traffickers and violent criminal offenders. Nothing else explains diverting and wasting limited immigration enforcement resources on such inoffensive and low priority targets. Unless of course the whole point was just to fill up quotas and appeal to bigots who want to see brown skinned people rousted from their homes.

  • Besides your anti-Zionist nonsense
    So Barbara Lerner Spectre and Steve Gutow are “nonsense”?
    Have you read Kevin McDonald’s paper on the 1965 immigration act?
    Just COINCEDENCES Jim? You are a “coincidence conspiracist”.
    Know anything about “Coudenhave-Kalergi”?

  • How is this any different from every other Bible thumper using scripture to justify their political views? The author’s views are different from yours. Therefore, the Bible isn’t being proof texted correctly.

  • “The scribes and the Pharisees of his time drove Jesusto distraction. As he put it, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes … and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. These you should have done, without neglecting the others” (Matthew 23:23). And as he told his disciples, “but do not follow their example. For they preach but they donot practice” (Matthew 23:3).”

    I take a rather mixed position on this one!

    I am all for the Dreamers. I even know some of them, and they for the most part, are serious students and will become good citizens and contributors to our future together. I’ll even campaign for a law that would allow them a path to citizenship if they continue their education, are gainfully employed and don’t commit crimes.

    The piece that I most strenuously object to is bringing Jesus Christ into this contentious issue. He told us to “render under Caesar” because He was about the spiritual transformation of individuals, not the coercion of groups of people to adhere to a given political edict. A nation of largely transformed individuals would of course, opt for judgment, mercy and fidelity, and pass just laws that protect the innocent, as today’s Dreamers certainly are. But to compare those who take a contrary political position and choose to uphold our laws as they’re now written cannot be compared to the Pharisees for expressing their political opinion on the matter! That’s what freedom of conscience and expression is all about! To my way of thinking, comparing them to the Pharisees is ‘way beyond the pale!

  • Not only that, Romans 13 gives clear guidance on how Christians are to relate to the kingdoms that ARE of this world: we are to give due respect and obedience to the delegated authorities whose business it is to uphold “the letter of the law.”

  • You might as well come right out and say it: “people who disagree with me on this issue are either evil or stupid — either driven by evil motives, or manipulated by evil clever people.”

  • And I am waiting with interest to see the usual suspects say “Keep your Jesus out of our public laws!”
    [Munching popcorn to the sound of crickets…]

  • So its OK when we Charles Camosy, Al Mohler and Denny Burk give their little hit-pieces about why Jesus needs for our laws to permit discrimination and to ignore the Establishment Clause, but it isn’t when the author invokes the Gospels to promote mercy and fair treatment of others.

  • Well, it helps when they are. Discussions with the nativist crowd has made that conclusion a fairly supportable one. Ignorance of immigration law/system is a given among them. Ignorant generalizations are another. Coupled with a complete lack of understanding of the necessity of proportionality in notions of rule of law.

    They ARE driven by evil motives. Prejudice, expedience and hysteria loom large with that point of view.

    I know you were being sarcastic, but truth is you are absolutely right here as stated. 🙂

  • I made no judgements about the OK-ness of anyone’s point of view — I simply pointed out out the similarity of rhetorical techniques.

  • My, my — you DID come right out and say it! I have no further comment on that score, as you have made my point more effectively than my sarcasm ever could. But let me ask you a question. There are two “sides”in this country, each convinced that the other is “evil.” How do YOU think this will end?

  • The problem with the whole, “you think everyone who disagrees with you is evil” argument is that on most occasions it isn’t hyperbole at all. Some positions are truly reprehensible.

    Its a terrible argument designed to avoid the issue altogether. Much like “playing the race card” is not an argument against being called a racist. It certainly isn’t a refutation of the label. It only shows the speaker is thin skinned about being called one. 🙂

  • Yeah…except that noting your moral absolutism wasn’t an argumentative strategy. It was a comment on the dangerously toxic levels of political discourse today. And here is the point you seem determined to miss – casting political differences in apocalyptic light is a really, really, bad idea: “Evil” is not to be tolerated, it is to be eliminated. It is to be crushed, not compromised with. And that makes politics impossible, because politics IS “the art of compromise.” Carl Oglesby (as usual) was right: “Religion must talk of ultimates in order to be religion, but the politics that talks of ultimates is ultimately no politics at all, but totalitarianism, the absence of politics.”

  • So you are claiming there is no room for moral judgment in political discourse. The only time I see this argument pop up is when there is some actual moral element to the subject. Issues of discrimination, issues involving prejudice, issues which have a level of severity beyond what can be discussed with genteel detachment.

    It is always a way to divert the discussion, belittle the speaker and avoid the implications of ones own view. Some views ARE evil, or bigoted, or guided by untoward motives. It is foolish to pretend otherwise.

  • Unless it is an anti discrimination law, Supreme Court ruling they don’t like, the establishment clause, or campaign finance law. Then conservative Christians feel free to ignore such directives. It’s telling this criticism only comes out when responding to progressive Christians.

    I’m sorry but it’s impossible to take such comments seriously when the speakers would never apply the same standards to their own behavior.

  • 1. I made no reference to the political views in the post; only the misuse of Scripture, which is not malleable, but is impervious to twisting, and retains the one meaning intended by the One who gave it to us.
    2. Considering Scripture is absolute truth, one cannot say that each interpretation is equally correct: A. Because that is logically fallacious. B. Because we aren’t dealing with something relative, but absolute, when we deal with Scripture.

  • “Misuse” is a subjective and sectarian based view in such situations.

    Scriptural interpretation is as malleable as the differences of every sect and faith which use the same texts. It is only pride and egotism which lead people to believe their own interpretation and religious belief is the only possible and likely one out there.

    Since one filters god’s word through language, translation, and authorial intent, one cannot banish ambiguity or interpretation from a discussion of the text.

    Your second statement is merely a declaration that your own views of scripture are correct because you say so. It is not logically fallacious because that assumes only a single interpretation is possible. Nothing about religious belief makes that statement appear credible. The only absolute is what you are willing to personally impute to the scripture. It says less about the text as it does your attitudes, belief and personality.

    You foreclose discussion on interpretations besides your own because you simply do not want to hear them.

    Hypocrisy is inherent to your statements. You clearly have no issue with proof texting if it supports your personal beliefs but only oppose the form of discussion when it does not. It is not the act of proof texting which really bothers you at all. Only that others don’t share your beliefs.

  • First, the fact that you suppose me to be mistaken means you believe there is right view. To have a right view that applies to us all presupposes an absolute standard of right. Seeing we are dealing with personal issues, that standard must also be absolutely personal to apply to us. To address the unity in diversity that exists in knowledge, that person must be knowable and both united and plural in its personality,absoluteness, knowledge, and ability to be the arbiter of right and wrong. That brings us to the Trinitarian God of Christianity, as revealed in Scripture. There is no other logically coherent epistemology than that given in The Christian Scriptures. This leads us to the infallibility and perspicuity of the Bible.
    All who submit to the Bible know that they have much to learn. They also know that, having no facts to go on, they dare not speak of the hearts and intents of others, declaring arrogance and hypocrisy where none are evident. You see,mI’ve put forth no interpretation,myet have been addressed as though I opposed the politics of the OP, and also have presented an infallible interpretation; which I have not done. That sort of ad hominem argumentation has been the refuge of all who refuse to bow to the authority of God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible.
    There is no way to logically appeal to Scripture and present one’s interpretation as correct, while declaring another wrong, and then positing that all other interpretations are equally valid. That is a self-refuting position which, if truly held, will lead to utter incoherence.
    The remedy for this malady is the good news that Jesus came to rescue us from our sinful resistance to the truth, and to give us new minds and hearts. Romans 1:13-21;12:1-3;Colossians 3:9-10;Hebrews 8:12

  • “First, the fact that you suppose me to be mistaken means you believe there is right view.”

    You start from an erroneous assumption of the good faith of your interlocutor — which is understandable if you are new here. The right view of scripture is an unimportant collateral issue for those who do not believe in scriptural truth at all. For them the “right” view of scripture is whatever best serves a progressive agenda, and they will stump for whatever that view is whether it is logically or historically defensible or not.

    The funny here is that so-called progressives don’t want to hear the name of Jesus in any public forum UNLESS it might provide them a path into someone’s wallet. I learned that long ago at HuffPo — which would be much better named the Hypo-Post.

  • “So you are claiming there is no room for moral judgment in political discourse.” No – of course I’m claiming nothing of the sort. If you can’t tell the difference between “moral judgment” and “moral absolutism,” I’m not sure I can help you. But I’ll try: “moral judgment” demands that bad policies be countered and opposed – that’s “political;” “moral absolutism” demands that “Evil” be crushed and extirpated – that’s “totalitarian.” No room for compromise = the absence of politics, as Carl Oglesby so aptly pointed out. Hyper-partisan politics (“my political opposition is not just wrong, but evil”) has already put normal “politics” behind it, since compromise and cooperation with political opponents are seen as collaboration with the enemy. The country as a whole has not gone quite that far yet, but it’s where the attitudes you express would soon take us.

  • Why many of us no longer care what Jesus would say:

    The Apostles’ Creed 2017: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)

    Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
    and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
    human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??

    I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
    preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
    named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
    girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)

    Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
    the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,

    He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
    a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
    Jerusalem.

    Said Jesus’ story was embellished and “mythicized” by
    many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
    and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
    Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
    grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
    and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
    called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.

    Amen
    (references used are available upon request

  • actually we are just tired of seeing lawlessness, we are tired of the fifty billion a year burden on us tax payers, we are tired of innocent us citizens falling victim to crime from illegals. and by the way since they arent really supposed to be here in the first place is it really their homes?

  • Lawlessness? These are people who would have been considered too young to charge for an offense if immigration law had the same level of due process as criminal law. Moreover, they are people willing to serve our country to earn their lawful residency. Who have known no other country for most of their lives.

    People who pay more into our system then they can possibly receive from it.

    The fact you can throw such ignorant generalities around without any reference to facts indicated that you are not really taking the issue seriously. You are looking for someone to demonize. These people are the lowest priority when it comes to “threats from illegal aliens”.

    BTW these efforts actually make human trafficking more profitable and make it harder to catch violent illegal alien criminals. But as long as we are filling detention centers with brown skinned people, what do you care?

    Ignorance, bigotry and hysteria are the guiding factors for your view.

    Don’t talk to me about rule of law unless you are familiar with the laws in question and can show me they are proportional and just. Otherwise you are just rattling off a BS screed.

  • Sounds to me like you are just trying to avoid a discussion of the topic and simply are attacking the tone used.

    Your comments are divorced from context. Its the nonsense response of avoidance “you are just saying that because you disagree with me”.

    But the fact is, of you weren’t trying to be such a troll I could easily explain the moral dimension here you seem not to notice or care about. But clearly that is not your point. So I can’t really give a flying crap about your views of political discourse here.

    Fact is, I have yet to see someone supporting these fairly malicious and ill intentioned ICE efforts who was familiar with the immigration system and laws, cared to find out about them, or considered the people involved as human beings. Bigotry and ignorance is practically essential for such views.

    They are not looking for common ground, understanding or knowledge. So I have no compelling reason to treat their views respectfully.

    Now p!ss off tone troll.

  • so because you dont agree with a law you think it should be ignored? and for the record that fifty billion was not a number i pulled out of my ass, im not going to waste my time looking it up because its not worth my time.
    just because you want to be here doesnt mean you have the right to be here
    just curious, what generalities are you referring to
    i live directly on the border, something most cant even imagine. i deal with illegals everyday, the vandalism, the theft, the physical attacks, and everything else that comes with it. and until you spend the time to see the other side of illegal immigration you have no right to even hold an opinion, because you’re not truly educated on the matter

  • Not at all. I am saying views vary with people. You are mistaken in believing anyone can claim to have a singular right view which can be objectively accepted. Your mileage may vary. By what cause do I have to accept your interpretation of scripture over others? None. I can simply do what you do (but deny in public). Take the one which appeals to me personally or is the one accepts by my faith / sect.

    To see absolute singular standards in scriptural interpretation is simply preening and making declarations with nothing that requires being taken seriously.

    “That brings us to the Trinitarian God of Christianity, as revealed in Scripture. There is no other logically coherent epistemology than that given in The Christian Scriptures. This leads us to the infallibility and perspicuity of the Bible.”

    A belief not universal to all Christian sects. It may be for yours. But your claim to being a true Christian is no more objective than anyone else’s.

    “and also have presented an infallible interpretation”

    Far from it, you just declared yourself correct for its own sake.

    “There is no way to logically appeal to Scripture and present one’s interpretation as correct”

    Yet everyone including yourself does.

    “if truly held, will lead to utter incoherence”

    Which when you factor the myriad of sects is what you have. There is no unifying doctrine or interpretations across all Christendom. 500+ sects demonstrate that amply.

  • Yes, same as you. When a law is badly drafted, enforced in a draconian, disproportionate in penalties and unjust way we as people in a democratic society have a right to protest it and demand it’s change .

    When people talk about rule of law but are ignorant as to the laws in question, how they are carried out or their clear problems, their arguments are worthless.

    You pulled the figure from the ass of someone else who was fill of crap. My guess is NumbersUSA, CIS or another anti immigration group. Misrepresenting facts and outright fabrication is rife with that crowd. I am more than familiar with the garbage people throw up on this subject and where it comes from.

    I am more than familiar with the immigration process, it’s laws and enforcement. I live in one of the densest populations in the country for immigrants both legal and otherwise. So yes I know what is going on.

    Long and the short of it is that it takes a certain level of BS, indifference and hostility to attack people who came here as children and infants and call them lawbreakers.

  • “Out of context”? My comments were directed at the casual moral arrogance and self-satisfied sense of moral superiority in your political comments – that WAS their “context.”

    “Avoiding a discussion”? That’s pretty rich, considering your dedication to missing the point I was trying to make. In fact I put my point in the form of a direct question, which you neither answered nor acknowledged: If the country is divided into two political sides, each of which is convinced that their opponents are “Evil,” where do YOU think things will go from here? The answer to that question goes way beyond “tone,” to concrete, acted-out behavior. It doesn’t take an active imagination to recognize that the simplest and most direct answer to the question of where things will go from here is that both sides will decide their differences are too great to resolve and too intense to bear, and their rhetorical war will increasingly go physical, as – guess what – in fact it is already starting to do. My guess is that the physical part of the war could reach your doorstep, and you still wouldn’t recognize your own part in ginning it up and egging it on…talk about avoidance!

    Your attempt to dismiss that point as “tone-trolling” is either a cynical tactic to shift the discussion away from its intended target (your politically toxic moral smugness), or else it’s a candid confession that the discussion involves larger patterns of behavior and cultural change than you want, or are able, to pay attention to.

    I’d say “Go P!$$ into the wind,” but you’re already doing that. The blowback will reach you eventually.

  • Actually it already has. I told this particular poster, back around the time of the Orlando nightclub shooting, that if Trump should by some chance win the presidency then the so-called progressive Democrats would have only themselves to thank for contemptuously ignoring the people’s very real and very reasonable concerns about the refusal to enforce our immigration laws. And of course here we are. It’s an issue which will cost them many losses in the short term but they can not give up on it, because immigration is literally the Democrats’ only hope for future political domination. They have nothing else.

  • so these people have had how long to get their papers? and your wrong, if you dont like a law you work to change it, you dont break it. your nothing but a criminal yourself

  • it takes, not just cruelty but stoops to the level of sadism. These ReThugs want to see young people starting out suffer, feel dislocation, never get a decent start. These are loyal Americans. GOP sees them all as thugs. The GOP are the Thugs.

  • Ha! It’s called “retiring from the field while uttering imprecations” — and you still haven’t answered my question.

  • The question being why did I feed the tone troll for so long? Personal ego. Sometimes I just have to ignore silly things. My failing.

  • The option of legal immigration was never even available to them. You don’t even know the laws or about the system involved here so you are in no position to take a high and mighty tone about “law and order”. It just makes you sound foolish and motivated by something having little to do with rule if law.

    When laws are not only badly drafted but inhumanely dollies, it is the duty of those in a free and democratic nation to protest them and demand changes. It is expected that we examine and criticize those laws. If I break a law which is unjust because it is unjust, I am defending freedom.

    BTW immigration laws are still not criminal laws. If we used criminal law due process or concepts on these people they would be exempt from being charged. Could you be considered a criminal for an offense done in infancy or as a toddler? One which you did not commit yourself? Of course not.

    It is impossible to take you seriously here.

  • Right. You are not an American interested in just laws, democratic ideals or even someone who wants to be reasonably informed on a subject.

    I am glad I am not the same as you.

  • funny you would use the word democratic since you are actually an anarchist. the process of changing laws that you disagree with does not include violating those laws. and i promise you i am at least as informed as you

  • If you say so. Just like anyone who dares to criticize draconian and arbitrary laws being in used for malicious intent and action. Like every civil rights advocate, anyone who lobbies to have laws changed, or anyone who questions authority being given blindly and destructively. Your label is hysterical conflation.

    If I am an anarchist, then you are a fascist. Someone who has no problem using government power to attack minorities for its own sake Someone accepts authority without question and talks of rule of law but has no concept of the laws in question. Only understanding obedience.

    But I am not one to start with such hyperbole. So I will refrain from calling you such things. It is ridiculous and misses the definition of such things. I am not an anarchist, you are not a fascist.

  • its your right to believe what ever you want, but its not your right to break laws, and there are always consequences for those that believe that they are above the law. but the bottom line is still the same for me, clean your own backyard before you decide to fix other peoples problems. and if you cant see that then you are a part of the problem

  • Talk about upholding laws that one is ignorant of and that are draconian in nature is worthless. You clearly are more interested in attacking people under a pretense of official approval than actual law and order.

    You don’t know what you are talking about but vehement in your defense of it, whatever it is. There is nothing sane in such discussion.

  • No — the question was “How do YOU think the toxic partisanship you’re promoting is going to end?” I issued four (4) direct challenges to answer it, and you resolutely ignored all of them — now, THAT’s dedication to distraction!

  • you can make all the bullshit excuses you want but in the end the law is the law and for you to think that you are above the law says everything anyone needs to know about you. and by the way you dont get to decide what is draconian and what is fair, that is the job of the supreme court. and i do know what im talking about
    i respect your opinion even though i disagree with it. dont disrespect mine

  • You aren’t even aware of the laws you think are being upheld here.

    Your ignorance makes all your grand pronouncement and Judge Dredd-like posturing ridiculous. “The Law is the Law” is what people say when they have no clue what they are talking about.

    In the end if you don’t understand laws and how they are applied, then your bullshit preening is just a cover for other motives. This isn’t about rule of law for you. It’s about finding an excuse for malicious behavior. A chance to act like a bigot in public without social detriment.

  • I am not promoting toxic partisanship at all. You are bringing up the subject in order to avoid substantive issues at play. Tone trolling and hypocrisy. Bullshit preening on your part.

  • Denial is not refutation. Still retiring from the field, still uttering imprecations. Unless you’ve got something more substantive to contribute than simply piling on vacuous insults, pack it up and skedaddle.

  • trust me dumbass, if i were a bigot my wife wouldnt be from mexico. and i do understand the laws, you are the one that doesnt understand them. if you are not a legal citizen or resident you have no right to be here. theres nothing draconian about that. our immigration laws are mild compared to most countries. on the other hand if you are deported as a parent the natural choice would to keep the family together, any other choice would be barbaric, you liberals use the excuse that we cant separate families and so we shouldnt deport illegal parents, that statement is only half correct, illegals should be deported and the families should stay together, in the proper country. you on the other hand think that just because you dont like a law you dont have to follow it, you must be from california, im also going to assume that you support antifa

  • funniest thing just happened and i’ve learned something about you in the process, it seems you have two sets of standards, one for you and one for everyone else. it seems you believe in the draconian theory of the rule of law when its something you support but when its something you dont like then laws are meant to be broken

  • “I’m not the Messiah”

    “Only the Messiah would deny his own divinity”

    “Well that doesn’t help. OK, I am the Messiah”

    “He IS the Messiah!!!!!”

  • Nope, one standard. That “you only say that because you disagree” garbage doesn’t fly. It’s what lazy people do to support a position that can’t be defended on facts or merits.

    Just laws address an issue, involve due process, are proportional in penalties, serve a rational and useful purpose, can be subjected to scrutiny to ensure it is implemented in a clear and beneficial manner to society. Unjust laws lack one or more elements.

    In this case due process and opportunities are absent. To get this vitriolic over “Dream”ers is to display a level of ignorance and frankly bigotry which makes rational discussion impossible.

    Its not even a partisan thing. It’s a decent human being thing. We have at least one conservative poster who supports these people because he knows and is personally familiar with some of them.

  • do you believe in a nations right to soveriegnty or do you support a one world government with open borders?

  • just out of curiosity how do you figure illegals have constitutional rights? the constitution was written by americans for americans

  • Everyone inside our borders is entitled to constitutional rights? In fact they are. 14th Amendment says so, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    You are not only wrong, but extremely wrong. So wrong that there is nothing you have which supports your statement besides the ramblings of people looking for scapegoats and easy targets.

    See
    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

    https://www.thoughtco.com/do-illegal-immigrants-have-constitutional-rights-3321849

    By all means pretend “Lawyers.com” is some wingnut partisan webside
    http://immigration.lawyers.com/general-immigration/legal-rights-of-illegal-immigrants.html

    You naturally think that there should be certain classes of people who can be treated inhumanely as a matter of course. I can’t even pretend that is something intended by our constitution.

  • Sorry Sparky. Once you go into that New World Order, One World Government retro-paranoid nonsense, you have reached the point where it is impossible to be taken seriously. I have yet to find someone bringing that stuff up who wasn’t a complete loon.

    Tin foil is for food preparation, not headwear.

  • Rule of law is not blind obedience. Yes or no answers miss what is important here. Your ignorance and simplistic thinking here is duly noted.

  • Well, at least it’s not insults this time; I reckon that’s a step forward, even if the move goes into fantasy. The problem with your parable is in the second line: “Only the Messiah would deny his own divinity” is not a thought that would occur to anyone as a response to anyone else’s messiahship-denial. The reality is that most everyone who is not the Messiah would deny being the Messiah. That’s what puts your mini-fable into the realm of fantasy-fiction.

  • That’s not a meaningful abbreviation to me. I have no idea what you mean.
    Translate, please.

  • Did you ever see “a day without a Mexican”? You don’t even need to watch it, just read the comments, or watch it if you like. Immigrants, even illegal ones, add to economic growth.

  • youve been brainwashed, theres no job in this country that americans arent capable of doing. heres a thought though, how many american kids do you think will go to bed hungry tonight? how many american kids do you think will be forced to sleep in the back seat of a car, bus station bench, or a homeless shelter? but leftist anti americans like you would rather help foreign invaders that come here relying on our system thats supposed to help needy americans through rough times. and before you give the argument that there are too many americans abusing the system and making it a career you need to know that too many of the illegals are doing the same thing.

  • I got my first job out of college thanks to a recruiter I met through an immigrant. If immigrants are willing to share their recruiters with us citizens, it’s hard to make the case that they’re hoarding our jobs. Do you want me to give your name to our recruiter?

  • oh, so you feel obligated? yeah that should make up for all that illegal immigration costs americans, and by the way im referring to illegal immigrants not legal immigrants. idiots like you tend to blur that line to make illegals appear less destructive to america. and just so you know my employment situation is at least as good as yours

  • The net costs are negative. I learned that when I earned my Asa. It’s unfortunate that the marginally qualified don’t have access to accurate information.

  • marginally qualified? you dont know shit. you are combining legal and illegal to show that negative. thats like how obama tried lying to americans by including people being turned away at ports of entry as deportees. but in the big picture your argument is moot. all illegals are criminals and have no right to be here. there are moral people that have been waiting their turn to enter legally but they keep getting pushed back because of all the criminals jumping line

  • The “big picture” is a tautology? Please explain to me how you believe that “illegal” people get into this country? Do you think that a majority of them are jumping over some sort of a fence? Or, are they overstaying expired visas?

    How do you feel that cheaper labor is hurting the economy? Do you not subscribe to supply side economics? It’s hard to tell, since you’re so ashamed of your prior comments, but I’m assuming that you’re a “supply sider” who believes that cheaper labor costs translate into more profits for corporations. Are you a believer in the value of skilled labor? Because you became pretty upset when I talked about meeting a skilled immigrant.

    Do you know a work visa is? Do you know what a green card is?

    Or, do you think that there are 12 million us residents who have all jumped over some sort of fence, and outran law enforcement? Then, I suppose that they knocked out some policeman, changed into his uniform, and blended into society? Is this what you think happened?

  • you’re a troll and a sorry sack of shit. yes illegals do jump the border, i know i live directly on the border and i catch them constantly, im not ashamed of anything i said to you and i stand by what i said about illegals costing us money, and if you dont like that i couldnt care less

ADVERTISEMENTs