Of Nations and Men


Yesterday at church much was made of the necessity to shelter dreamers from deportation, because it’s the “charitable” thing to do.

It is, of course, the charitable thing to do to look after those who need it, but there is an epistemological confusion when one applies moral standards meant for individual humans to whole nations.

I keep running into this with the idiots that think the only time we should use our military abroad is when we DON’T have a guiding interest in doing it, too, and it drives me just as nuts.  It might be a beautiful and kind thing for a person to be disinterested in their acts of aggression or defense, (if a little daft.  You should generally use enlightened self interest) but for a nation it can be suicidal.

It’s as though people think of nations as “that guy down the street” and of course if that guy down the street is running around punching people just so everyone will be afraid of him, or even if he won’t take “nothing from nobody” in the sense that if you look at him sideways he punches you, he’s not a very nice guy and he should refrain from being a jerk.

Now, nations can be jerks, too.  But sometimes being a jerk as a nation is a good thing.  Because nations aren’t people.

In fact, I think the entire misbegotten idea of the UN is that nations are people, and people in kindergarten, and we just needed a kindly teacher, or something.

It failed, because nations aren’t people.  They’re not even groups of people.

Nations are groups of people wrapped around an idea (that is an identity) and claiming a territory.  They’re insanely dangerous things, because nations have governments and those things tend to grow out of control and get up to all sorts of no-good.  It is possible — theoretically — to have a nation without a territory, but then things get really fuzzy and metaphysical and it makes my head hurt, so let’s not do that.  I already have cough from hell.  I actually suspect that will be a new morph for nations by the end of this century, because of people’s location not having as much to do with whom they socialize with or where they work as it used to have.  But it’s almost impossible to be completely independent of territory, absent teleportation, because you’re still stuck with the physical conditions of your terrain, weather, and whatever your neighbors are up to.

In this, nations are like people: they have a body, ie. a physical location.

As far as nations are tolerable and necessary they are so to provide protection, rule of law, and several other benefits to the people living in a certain territory.

The people of such a territory can choose collectively (or singly, if it’s say an absolute monarchy) to let people in, or to provide charity, or even to go kick the nation down the street, because it’s been buzzing us with its stupid war planes, and if we let it keep doing that, then sooner or later it’s going to bomb a majority of our citizens, which would be bad.

It used to be, in less enlightened times, that nations also had very few qualms about, say, going to war to steal a warm water port, because its people really could do with one.  Or with taking more territory to expand, also known as colonies.  Actually both of these still go on to a great extent (see China and the grabbing of African resources) but now they’re dressed in ohter clothes, and are frowned upon by all the Western nations.  Most of whose citizens think of the nation as an individual.

So take the dreamers and — because this was part of the thing, and it made my eyes roll back so far I saw my brain — their families.  Say it’s the charitable thing to do to open our arms to them, their families and their hyper extended families.

Okay.  But I recall no — not one — command for nations to be charitable.  There’s a lot about individuals being charitable.  But why should the nation be charitable?  What will it get out of it?

Well, it gets to help all those poor little kids, who got brought here without their say so.  Um.  ‘mkay.  That’s nice, I guess.  It also gets to keep the parents who knowingly broke the law to bring them.  Um…. that might be charitable, but aren’t we on thin ice, here?

Won’t doing this cause more people to drag, bring or send (anyone remember Obama’s children’s crusade, with unaccompanied minors being sent on an hellish journey sometimes all across the Americas because he announced they wouldn’t be sent back) their minor children, in what is manifestly an act of child abuse (the conditions of the journey alone dictate that) in order to eventually get in themselves?  As charitable individuals, is that something we want to encourage?  And as a nation, is that something we want to encourage?  The immigration of people who are willing to exploit their own children?

And as for all their relatives coming in on the back of these poor children… my head really hurts.  How is that charitable?

More importantly, how is it charitable to the people already here to flood the country with illiterate, untrained, technologically ignorant people?  Don’t we have enough of those ourselves and shouldn’t we be more concerned with helping/elevating them, than with importing more people to take the jobs available to them?

And then it comes back to Nations aren’t individuals.  They don’t have a mandate to charity.  They have a mandate to protect their own people and make their territory as safe and prosperous as possible.  Seems to me that if you’re protecting your territory for your own citizens, you don’t want to encourage a mass invasion over the border.  Because that would be the opposite of all those things.

But Sarah, you say, we are a nation of immigrants, and many of those who came in were illegal and illiterate.

Yeah.  I know.  Though the economic effects on the people here weren’t always pretty, either.  But most of our mass immigration waves of the past came into a country at a level of technology where they could be brought up to speed in almost no time, and where most of what needed was willing hands, willing backs, and an enthusiasm for work.

We live in a far more complex world now, and as Mark Steyn asked the other day, what is the benefit to any technological nation of importing illiterates?

Also the nation of successful immigrant waves was a nation sure of itself, one that demanded immigrants adapt.  Not a nation that was so scared of its own shadows it didn’t allow citizens to display the flag in a school lest it offend immigrants.

One thing no nation can afford is balkanization: the splintering of its culture into many subcultures that lack even a common language.  Partition of territory tends to follow that.

And no nation can allow its neighbor to send over people convinced they own half of its land.  (The whole Mazatlan nonsense.)

Land is not magical.  By itself, it doesn’t change the culture of those who live in it.  Just because we are “charitable” and allow people to move here, it doesn’t make them any more prosperous.  In fact, if they keep their culture and don’t adapt, it’s likely to make all of us less prosperous.  More so for “refugees” from the Middle East where the culture has been strangling all developments for centuries.

Individuals not being nations can change their culture.  All the more so if they immigrate alone or with a very small group.

So, yeah, I’m not anti-immigrant.  (It would be pretty coming from me) I just think a nation, not being a person, should choose its immigrants on the principle of “this person would be a good addition to the nation and make us all better off.”

Most nations in the world do that.  They pick and choose, and if you want an education in how tight immigration can get look at the paperwork to immigrate to Mexico.

Should we be importing people?  Probably.  At least I don’t see any way to stop it.  There will be people like me, mad in love with the idea of America; there will be people who see a better future for their kids here; there will be people who just want to come.  But the country should not treat this as a charity.  We cannot in point of fact take all the hungry of the world onto ourselves, and if we could it would work the same as any redistribution.  Once they get a fraction of what we have, and are unable to produce more, we can all starve together.

In the US, as in most western cultures, we’re fuzzy on what’s “individual” and what’s “nation” and the duties of each.  So we get this “charity” nonsense.

A nation’s individuals can be charitable.  They can reach across the boarder and help other individuals.  They can even (and perhaps should) form charitable organizations that do things like job training.

But the nation as a nation has no business in charity.  Yes, I know, we do something like in foreign “subsidies.”  We have no business in that either.  It’s a form of Marxism infecting thought and people believing if we feed the wolves a little, they’ll eat us last.  A lot of our government’s money abroad actually impairs other nations’ development and makes things worse in the very long run.  And that’s when it’s not dane geld.

As for the dreamers?  Yeah, they were brought over through no fault of their own.  And if they meet the same requirements as the other immigrants: speak English so they can transact all their business in English; are self supporting; have no criminal record, they probably should get a green card.  It’s dangerous, mind, because it encourages more of the same.

OTOH if we don’t extend our benevolence to the parents, it’s probably not fatal.  Provided they match the requirements above.  And we won’t be rewarding outright law breakers.

But at some point we must realize Lady Bountiful is a great role to play with other people’s money and other people’s security.  It is not a sane or safe one for a nation.

It’s neither charitable to encourage people to use children in this way, nor is it charitable for the people already here to be importing more people who will need all kinds of support and all kinds of public assistance, and who, more often than not, make no effort to assimilate.

It is the opposite of charity.

And religious leaders who don’t understand this, might have other moral failings.



353 thoughts on “Of Nations and Men

  1. Enabling MS13 recruiters to continue to import gang members and prey on youth here is charitable? Inconceivable.

    Lobbying for changes in our immigration laws might be charitable, but outright violating them seems more appropriately covered by another word.

    The sermon at our church was another in a series drawing from Song of Songs discussing how couples can keep their marriages health. I guess our church is more concerned with helping its congregation than exchanging it for another.

      1. Any familiarity with the morals of our senators should discourage any acceptance of their definitions of “acts of love.”

        Moreover, reviewing the articles regarding Senate responsibilities it seems they are authorized to make War, not Love.

        When politicians talk “Love” be careful lest you get a socialist disease.

        1. Certain words and phrases should immediately trigger the ‘Cynic Circuit’.

          For the children.
          For the public good.
          act of love
          Look at the title of any law or bill and assume that it does exactly the opposite of what it proposes to do

          Ugh, ok, I ran out quicker than I thought I would. Feel free to add, I’m getting more coffee.

          1. “You say the ‘PATRIOT Act”s very name means it has nothing to do with patriotism. Alright, fine. But then do NOT presume that I will fall for the lie that the’Affordable Care Act’ is truly about affordable care.”

            1. The’Affordable Care Act’ is truly about affordable care. Nothing in the title says it is about increasing rather than reducing it.

              1. Oh so very true. If ‘socialism’ is so great then why do the countries that are socialist hide it behind ‘Democrat’ and ‘Republic’?

                Does anybody else on here wonder how they would have fared under today’s ‘education’ system? Would we potentially be one of the yammer idiots wanting a ‘safe space’?

                    1. Dems rolled a new ban bill out. Any removable magazines count in it in addition to the standard customizability mods

                    2. naah, its rifles, and it does require semi-auto… means all the Ruger Mini-14s and Mini-30s would, tho. and it hasn’t passed, and failed once already

                    3. It doesn’t matter – you know it is just a first (or second, or third) step, with many more to come.

                      First they came for the assault weapons, and I said nothing because I didn’t have an assault weapon.

          1. And those Senators want to see that each and everyone of those dreamers gets to be in the position to vote — preferably for their party.

    1. Lobbying for changes in our immigration laws might be charitable, but outright violating them seems more appropriately covered by another word.

      When done by private citizens, it’s called civil disobedience. When done by governments, it’s called insurrection. There are penalties for both. Those who want to practice civil disobedience are occasionally surprised to find it’s not a “Get out of Jail Free” card.

    2. I am sadly amused that on the same people one hand tell us we are supposed to observe a strict separation of church and state and then, on the other hand, inform us that it is ‘only Christian’ to pass certain legislation — all depending on what suits their agenda.

      1. … depending on what suits their agenda

        Whether a tiger is orange with black stripes or black with orange stripes, its intention is the same: to crouch waiting its opportunity to pounce on you.

  2. Just ask the American Indians what happened when they didn’t stop “illegal immigrants”. 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿 👿

      1. And the response I’ve been getting is that I can’t oppose immigration unless I’m Native American. To which my response is becoming “To the victor go the spoils. Either sack up and take it back or STFU.”

        1. My response to that is “I’m 1/32 Cheyenne, does that mean i can put ‘native american’ on my college application like a certain politician did?”

        2. As Russel Means told us at the state convention when he was running for the nomination for President of the U.S. on the Libertarian Party ticket, having been born in MN, I am a native American. Mr. Means claimed to be an American Indian.

          1. Anymore if your Great-Grandparent (maybe Great-Great?), from a specific generic group (i.e. Crow + Apache doesn’t count) wasn’t full (family tree been here before 1700’s), then you are kicked off the registry, especially if the registry = you get money. Strange how that works.

            Personally, family as “native” to Oregon as one can get without having braved the Alaskan Bridge (or whatever the current theory is); ancestors came in first wagon train. Plus, “native” to continental US/Canada as one can get (not sure what the theory is for eastern tribes arrival), but here long enough before independence to spawn a generation or two to fight in the war for independence, on both sides of the genetic tree. Thus, Native = yes, Aborigine “native” = no (despite the fact that some relatives could pass as Aboriginal “native”, high cheek bones and all).

    1. There was no formal law, so there couldn’t be illegal immigration.

      There was an established standard of behavior– “you are on land I want, I will move in and take it; if you fight me, I will kill you. If you have something I want, I will take it; if you resist, I will kill you.”

      Pretty much the same standard as the rest of human history.

      Now, arguably we didn’t play that very well, because we didn’t generally smile on folks going out, killing people and taking their stuff. That hardly makes us “winning” by the established pattern of “the guy left alive owns what’s there” an illegal action, though. More like success in spite of suicidal foolishness.

      1. Yeah, the reality was complicated enough that any one-phrase summary will be essentially wrong. There were places where the settlers and the Indians* got along fine and did a “live and let live”; places where the settlers attacked the Indians unprovoked; places where the Indians attacked the settlers unprovoked; and places where cultural misunderstandings led to war without either side being really at fault. There is one thing (and, I think, only one thing) that I can agree with the liberal position on, though: when you make a treaty, you should honor it. Andrew Jackson, from what I understand (and I’ll readily acknowledge that my understanding may be wrong), broke treaties that the U.S. had made with various Indian groups, and should be condemned for that action, at least.

        * While the word “Indians” obviously isn’t accurate, it’s the most useful word here, since it immediately communicates what I’m saying. So I’m going to use it.

        1. I’m not saying that there were no broken treaties from the US side but there is one problem about talking about “broken treaties by the US”.

          In too many cases, the Indian “tribes” weren’t single political entries as we would consider them.

          So the US would make a treaty with various leaders of a tribe but said leaders had no “political power” to prevent other leaders within the tribe from breaking the treaty,

          So the US government would have to deal with raids against American citizens by members of that tribe who didn’t see themselves bound by a treaty that other leaders of that tribe had made.

          Since from the American point of view, the tribe broke the treaty, all of the tribe would be punished and made to move.

          From the point of view of the tribal leaders who made and kept the treaty, it was the US government that broke the treaty.

          Guess which POV would be preached by the modern Left? 😉

          1. And that kind of thing is what I meant when I talked about cultural misunderstandings leading to war without either side really being at fault: in cases like the one you cite, both sides believed they were justified by the rules they understood. And yeah, the modern Left is never going to acknowledge that the U.S. might have sometimes been justified, at least by their own understanding of the rules.

            So although there were a few cases where the Left would say “America broke the treaty unilaterally” and I would agree, it’s always dangerous to agree with the Left without checking the facts for yourself. This is the political side that loves equivocation, and motte-and-bailey arguments (which are another form of equivocation). They’ll point to one treaty where the U.S. was clearly at fault by any objective standard, and use that you make you think that this other case, where it was like you described with one group of leaders not feeling bound by the treaty the others had made, was also 100% the U.S.’s fault (when in that case, it wasn’t).

            Remember when you’re dealing with the Left, or history written by the Left (*cough* Zinn *cough*), that they’re liars, through and through. And when they occasionally tell the truth, it’s to make you believe the next lie they’re going to tell.

            1. The Comanche, who I suspect did this just to mess with historians’ and other people’s minds, reserved the right to break away from the band they’d affiliated with and go do their own thing at any time. So if your (former) chief had agreed to peace, and you left to join a different band, you were no longer bound to the agreement.

              Drove the Feds absolutely nuts. The Spanish in New Mexico won a major battle in the early 1800s and the Comanche all said, “OK, tell you what, let’s make some deals” and left the New Mexicans alone. All Comanches.

        2. The counter-argument I’ve seen to that is that, very short version: the other side of the treaties weren’t doing the “control our guys” part of the deal.

          Arguing out the differences between rebels/outlaws (both sides) and a tradition of a sort of wilding period (where you’re not in the tribe as far as they’re concerned, but you were before and will be again when you finish) would be way more effort than I’d care for, and a disturbing amount of the research from about the late 70s to I’m not sure when was tossing out primary evidence in favor of what folks wanted, so it’s a flat pain.
          (Example: folks who had actually nursed Pit River Indians who had been left in the pits were told that it was a lie, they were hunting pits. Not a way of winnowing down the number of mouths.)

          1. This is one reason why I like talking to you, Foxfier: you’re always careful with the truth, and you like to research from primary sources. (Many of which I have a hard time getting access to, what with living in a non-English-speaking country and all).

            And BTW, in case you didn’t know, when I say that someone is careful with the truth, that’s one of the highest compliments I know how to pay.

            1. *bow*

              I recognize and am flattered by the complement, especially since I view it as a religious obligation to try to go after the truth– though it sometimes runs into the requirement to not hurt folks if you can help it.

              1. The truth is the higher obligation, and can be conveyed tactfully, or not.
                But some people are looking to be hurt, and the truth cuts them hard regardless of how you deliver it.

                1. There are also the folks that…well, “when someone says they are brutally honest, they are generally more brutal than honest.”

                  There is often a lot of wiggle room involved in the painful stuff, and frankly the painful truth isn’t relevant for a lot of stuff.

                  Yet some jerks will go around wearing a halo as they maliciously dig at folks, harming respect for the truth while they do it.

                  Decades of people being “brutally honest” are part of why there is so little respect for the truth. (only part; if it was easy, we wouldn’t need a religious order to do it!)

        3. Bad info about Jackson. Don’t care for him, but fair is fare. He honored treaties. There was a number of negotiations, including after the US Civil War when some Indian nations sided with the Confederacy. These were all formal treaties, ratified by the US Senate. The big point of unconstitutionality with the State of Georgia and the Cherokees is that Georgia tried to make its own treaty – and this wasn’t the first attempt nor the first time they got their hands slapped about it.

          If a source claims Jackson removed the Cherokee from Georgia, it’s not a good one. That was done by President Van Buren, after the Cherokee refused to honor a treaty relocating them to Oklahoma. Yes, you can question how that treaty went down – there was enough the Senate ratified it by only one vote – and the typical government screw ups during removal (ironically made worse in an attempt to dodge bad weather) – but it cannot be laid at Jackson’s feet.

  3. To those who demand that we all give in to their version of charity, ask them, do you lock your front door? For that matter does that church have doors that lock? How selfish not to freely share everything you have with those in need.
    My feeble attempt at sarcasm aside, I’ve seen some of the videos of streets in San Francisco lined with homeless camps and covered in trash, and used needles, and human feces. And no one really knows how many of those responsible are simply illegal immigrants and how many are mentally ill homeless. What is obvious to the casual observer is that city policy is fast turning what was once the star of the west into just another third world chit hole, literally.

    1. Sadly to a good 20% of populace sees that as the best city. And 33% can be dragged to that conclusion with the propaganda outlets.

      1. That assumes Trump has much more power than he has. Those folks are scaring themselves and blaming Trump. They’d blame a tuna sandwich if they figured others would swallow that line.

        1. The real Trump, no. But the Evil Incarnate Trump that the media reports on definitely can.

          I’m going nuts Trying to figure out how to deal with the level of cognitive dissonance that fills society.

          1. Try asking them this question. “If Trump is the unhinged fool you claim him to be, and he keeps causing all the problems you are attributing to him and which you claim to be powerless to remedy, what does that say about your intelligence and ability?”

            1. Because they need power to defeat him. In their mind it’s a three year old running a backhoe by just yanking levers. Because he has control of the apparatus intended to oppress the American subjects they don’t think they have power.

              1. Turn that back on them. “The entire government bureaucracy has been in your control for at least the last 40 years, and we’ve seen that it is currently trying everything it can to resist obeying the directives of President Trump. In what way does he control them and you lack power? Could it be that you’re just not very competent?”

                1. Or they are playing a role to get themselves back into power where they can destroy the subhumans that thought they could stop progress.

                  Sand in the gears is easy to conceal. Federal troops (atf, fbi, army, methods are not too different) massacring a demonized segment of society is a bit harder and you can’t risk some usurper from an upstart like Trump to block or derail it.

                  1. That’s why we need either a massive reform in the civil service laws or a massive elimination of various federal bureaucracies (not downsizing, elimination), or both. They can’t throw sand in the gears if they’re not in the factory, or if the gears no longer exist.

                    1. Hey, as long as “law enforcement” claim they are operating “in good faith”, they’re exempt from following their own rules or liability for their actions. Such a deal!

                2. And those of us who pray daily offer up our prayers in great thanks that despite the great power those people wield, at the end of the day they are neither as intelligent as they think they are nor as competent.

          2. I find it somewhat amusing that somehow, Trump magically has more power than Obama in the office of the President. He has, in their minds, the power to make cities worse even though he isn’t responsible for the governance of that city, and mind-controls people to shit in the streets and take drugs.

            Yet, somehow, Obama didn’t magically have the power to cure all the world’s ills, improve jobs in the nation or unemployment, and by the power of his mind, stop terrorists and shootings. It’s as if the office of the President of the United States does not in fact, confer magic powers to influence The Everything.

            It’s as if the Left really DO believe that Trump is the God Emperor of Mankind, as opposed to it being a tongue-in-cheek chuckle nickname given how Trumps opponents reacted. (And a joke about a superficial resemblance between Trump and Gilgamesh from Fate/Zero.)

            1. One of the things that fries my mind is that he does actually have the desire and intent to combat crime. Ignoring the alien percentage increasing the actual enforcement of federal laws would help. In addition, fixing nics and potentially making schools just a mite less soft would have stopped not only many of the nuts shooters but the terror ones as well. A decent party could get this thru. A complacent one should be able to do with minor compromises. But we have the stupid party.

              And you haven’t heard? Most blessed Obama is the reason we have had the first decent economy I’ve seen since graduating college. The only reason the seas failed to recede and costs increased is Republican sabotage.

              That is what scares me. That mindset drips with kulak blood.

                1. Oh there undoubtedly already are. Devos and Pruitt have had more threats than the agencies ever had before. I wouldn’t be surprised if ss was finding same. And not of the rodeo clown or house decoration variety. I’ll be surprised if the govt ever actually identifies who sent the powder a week or two ago. Meanwhile when it happened in previous admin the nutbar was fast found (iirc wanted to frame husband or ex for it. Loony actor)

                  1. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has suffered even more egregious treatment.

                    When I opened Yahoo’s search engine to double-check correct spelling of his name there were two auto complete suggestions responding to “FCC Commissioner Ajit P” —

                    “FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai”
                    “FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai stupid”

                2. I see a frightening number of people wishing Trump dead. None of them are saying ‘I want to kill Trump’. They’re all saying stuff like ‘I wish somebody would shoot him’.

                  If you would have thought that too loud under Obama the Progressive mob would have been in front of your house with torches and pitchforks.

                3. Oh, it’s not just President Trump in the crosshairs: They’re actively working to foment violence against the President’s supporters and Republicans in general. What do you think the current hate-fest aimed at the NRA is REALLY all about?

                  Anybody remember what happened to Senator Rand Paul? Anybody remember what happened to Rep. Steve Scalise? And does anybody remember the names and motives of their attackers? Probably not because they were dropped right down the media memory hole because the truth makes Democrats look bad.

                  1. And don’t forget all the Republican campaign rallies and speaking engagements that have been disrupted and outright shut down by violent leftist mobs, either. This brownshirt crap has been going on for a long time now, with the tacit – and often open – approval of the media and the powers-that-be.

            2. Not only did Obama not have the power to do all of those things, he understood the limitations of the presidency and didn’t use them.
              Oh, wait . . .

        2. I read it as the obligatory party-line affirmation that’s required of any person or institution operating in The City – kinda like all those Nationalist Socialists all being required to say “Heil Bernie” at the end of every phone call.

  4. Being a religious leader who has no interest in religion and is only concerned with social justice and politics doesn’t seem to bother people any more. It would appear they confuse the two.

    1. Representing G-d’s word, which is eternal, not subject to appeal, and likely to make you unpopular with the bien pensants is challenging and can lead to harassment and oppression. Representing Man’s word is much much easier and more comfortable.

      They do not confuse the two.

    2. Actually, he could have the utmost interest in religion, and in practicing what he believes. The question is if how he wished to practice it is the best way, and if its what G_d would want, or is what he would want.

      1. Prudential judgement, the “I think this is the best way to do what God wants” thing.

        We’re SUPPOSED to be good about double-checking we don’t conflate the two.

        Still had to poke my husband when they got to the Prayers of the Faithful and included “common sense gun laws”– whispered to him that removing the unsecured gun-free zones would be very common sense, no matter what the person who wrote it likely expected the meaning to be.

        It is a good phrasing, and I will grant that this parish has been very good about not asking us to pray for things that aren’t objective goods, even when we can see what they are thinking of when THEY pray for it!

    3. On learning that Bishop Spong thought that we would all be better off if we rejected theism and tradition doctrines, The Daughter, who was in early elementary school, asked why he choose to remain a Bishop — and why his denomination would let him do so.  

      To believe some things require a person be all too cleaver for their own good and a great deal of (mis)education.

      1. I’m confused by him. I’ve got two of his books and they seem sensible, until you start seeing the “what comes next?” parts.
        Can a bishop be de-bishoped? de-priesting (defrocking?) is very difficult as far as I understand, but de-bishoping is just just a demotion, isn’t it?

        1. I don’t know how they do it, but in the churches allied with Rome you can have your permission to do stuff removed (very difficult) but you’re still a priest. It’s kinda like baptism– you can disavow it, but you can’t make it un-happen.

          “Defrock” would be the correct word, BTW– defrock: to deprive of the right to exercise the functions of office; to remove from a position of honor or privilege

          1. It doesn’t seem entirely necessary to defrock such as the Bishop Sprung, although there are strong arguments for so doing. But at the very least it would seem prudent for sect superiors to disavow any claims to be speaking with authority of the Church.

            “We are not sure what has happened with the Bishop, although some suspect some spoiled sacramental wine into which some funny mushrooms fell, or perhaps those windowpane communion wafers he sampled, but we certainly do not endorse, second, support or even understand his characterizations of Scriptures and God’s Holy Word as being entirely without authority … nor would we assert such arguments founded on our authority as His representatives on Earth.”

        2. Bishop Spong served as the Bishop of Newark for the American Episcopal Church, and has retired.  Even Rowan Williams, when Bishop of Monmouth (he later rose to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury), suggested that Bishop Spong had crossed the line.  As far as I can tell no one in a position to do so ever suggested he be disciplined in any way.

  5. If I, or you, or John Q. Public (Or Jane Q. Public, yes) accepts stolen property, do we get to keep it? No? Then why should so-called dreamers be allowed to keep something acquired illegally?

    Yes, the USA should import people. All those “Americans born elsewhere”? Bring ’em on! Those who bit** whine they aren’t getting hand-outs and freebies? Here’s your freebie: It’s a one-way ticket back, steerage. Want back here? EARN IT.

  6. Nations aren’t individuals. They don’t have a mandate to charity.

    Nations have a duty to establish and maintain conditions of wealth and stability that enables individual citizens to practice charity.

  7. If you don’t support an American policy of complete xenocide, you want everyone to die of the global warming, and hence are unloving and un-Christian.

    Illegals just mean that we can train our exterminators here, where there is less logistical challenge, instead of having to develop the techniques while operating in the middle of a foreign territory when projecting power overseas. XD

    In all seriousness, one of the major reasons to restrict immigration is to minimize the extent to which we fight civil wars instead of external wars. We are very near irreconcilable cultural differences while using very nearly the same language, more or less English. Really having two or more languages is not going to be any more wonderful.

      1. But … but … but … everything relates to climate!  

        I am not sure exactly how, but if given half a chance the true believer will find a way to explain it.

    1. I initially read that last example of Orvan’s as “Climate Stasi.” Which actually sounds a lot more appropriate, now that I think about it . . .

  8. OK, so we deport the DREAMers parents, and everyone who has made no, zip, zilch, nada effort towards even starting the application process for staying. [Blasted SCoUS decision, grumble, snarl, mutter]

    I fail to see how rewarding criminal behavior, be it that of the individual or that of their parents, is charitable. People might say that the law is wrong and needs to be changed or removed, but until then, it remains the law.

    1. Funny thing, the progressive left are always ever so generous and charitable with other peoples’ money. When it’s theirs they are far more likely to channel Scrooge McDuck.
      Maggie Thatcher was once quoted as saying that the problem with liberals is that sooner or later they run out of other people’s money. But as any rational observer can plainly see, they long ago blew through our money, and our kids money, and are eagerly mortgaging the wealth of generations still to be born.

    2. I fail to see how rewarding criminal behavior … is charitable.

      Umm, Parkland school shooting for $100? Where Broward County managed to have declining crime stats among juveniles by … not recording criminal activities of students. Turns out that Trayvon Martin (Miami-Dade County) may have been a beneficiary of that program too!

      1. The under-reporting of crime by certain students because of pressures brought to bear by OBE standards started over twenty years ago and has been seen throughout the nation.

  9. Yesterday at church much was made of the necessity to shelter dreamers from deportation, because it’s the “charitable” thing to do.
    Sorry, no it is not. Because Christ (and Paul and James, in their own words) tells us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. We are supposed to follow the law, except where it specifically conflicts with God’s Law.

    If they are refugees from North Korea, you might have an argument on charity requiring you to shelter them. Or Christians hiding from the islamists. But certainly not if they’re simply invading your country in order to get a job.

    I’d have told your minister just how many ways he was wrong about what the Bible itself teaches us. But I’m one of those uppity Lutherans.

    1. Exactly. The charitable thing to do is to help them to recognize their sins, to repent of them, and to do what they can do to rectify the results of those sins.

      1. Back in the old days, Federal charity consisted mainly of providing them with weapons and sending them back home to fix their own problems.

        Usually didn’t work, but at least the mess wasn’t on our turf.

        1. Yeah, well, JFK screwed that pooch with the Bay of Pigs.

          I’d like to blame him for the Vietnam fiasco as well, but fairness requires acknowledging it took LBJ to render that the full Charlie Foxtrot it became.

      1. I certainly would have. Right in the middle.
        Or, given how I’ve been held back before, I might have very well walked right up and told him to listen to Scripture for a moment.
        (Oh yeah, it would not have gone well, AT ALL.)

        1. The problem is that I don’t know if I can get the guys back in the church for a few months now. It’s been BAD lately.
          And we do need church. We need a reminder of things beyond. It’s driving me nuts.

              1. Next time you’re in east Tennessee for a free Sunday let us know, we’ll be happy to take you to church with us. As we say, “Come and see!”

          1. You might consider requesting a private meeting (or even a public one) to discuss your concerns with recent pastoral messages. That way when you walk away from the Church they will know why you left and can say, “Good riddance.”

            It doesn’t really sound as if you’re receiving any reminders of things beyond.

            1. I did that when a preacher decided to label the church as “A Confessing Church.” That has one particular connotation for me, and when he said (over 20 years ago) that indeed, he was saying that [trivial thing] was the same as standing up to You-Know-Who in Germany, I left. Have not set foot in the building since.

          2. You might like a good Missouri Synod Lutheran church.
            I personally knew of one (3 decades ago) in Colorado Springs. But not sure of elsewhere, or that church now.

          3. I am reminded of an incident that happened when I was very young. I don’t know the exact year, but it was in the late 60’s. My father, a USAF officer, almost walked out of church after hearing a worship leader (I cannot say if it was a pastor or not) encourage the young men to flee to Canada rather than answer the draft call.

            It was 20 some years before Mom got him back into a church on a somewhat regular basis. 😦

            I hope you have better luck than she did.

          4. Consider home bible study, perhaps with a few friends of like mind. I know you were raised to revere the Church, but just like our National education system it’s been infested with liberal progressive Marxists.
            At some point a thinking person must ask themselves, there is nothing keeping me from speaking to God, and He in turn speaks to me in myriad ways each and every day. Do I really need some self appointed expert to explain to me what the Good Lord’s real meaning and intentions are? Someone who has already demonstrated a severe lack of simple common sense?
            Hell, if you ever want to debate precisely how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, well you’ve got us.

            1. how many angels can dance on the head of a pin

              First, why would they want to?

              Second, as many as they wanted to. 😉

              1. Grumble Grumble

                I didn’t put in the “stopper” for the bold & italics. [Embarrassed Grin]

                1. From The Musical (1776):

                  Dickinson (speaking, still dancing):
                  Mr. Hancock, you’re a man of property — one of us. Why don’t you join us in our minuet? Why do you persist in dancing with John Adams? Good Lord, sir, you don’t even like him!

                  Hancock (singing):
                  That is true,
                  He annoys me quite a lot
                  Still I’d rather trot
                  To Mr. Adams’ new gavotte

                  Dickinson (speaking, continuing to dance):
                  But why? For personal glory? For a place in history? Be careful, sir. History will brand him and his followers as traitors.

                  Traitors to what, Mr. Dickinson — the British Crown? Or the British half-crown? Fortunately, there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy.

                  Perhaps not, but don’t forget that most men with nothing would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich than face the reality of being poor.
                  And that is why they will follow us …

            2. …but just like our National education system it’s been infested with liberal progressive Marxists.

              Sadly so. Fortunately not everyone has succumbed, thus we see such publications as First Things and Touchstone.

        2. i would have been tempted to show them my middle fingers, then walk out.

          I predict i will never get invited to go to church with the Hoyts.

          1. My older son would have loved you, followed example, too.
            As is I quieted them down, but will never be able to drag them in again. Not till Easter and only if lucky.
            There have been mutters that if we became Episcopal at least we only need to put up with crazy Christmas and Easter.

            1. if they asked why i would explain my direct ancestor and his cousin would both be ashamed of them. Assuming you were in a Catholic church, thus would actually have meaning.

            2. Try writing a letter to the Bishop, explaining that the politics is actively driving your sons out of the Church.

              He might not listen. Heck, you might say it’d take a miracle.

            3. If the wife went Episcopalian, I’d probably be more tempted to take a tire iron to her coreligionists than just slap them upside the head. The ones I’ve run into here aren’t just “useful fools” – they’re more concerned about losing the cheap labor for their businesses and foothills mini-estates. (Some, I’m pretty sure, are also worried that they’ll lose their reliable dealer.)

        3. I’d have walked out. But it’s part of the reason why I haven’t gone to church even though there is one accessible by bus now. I quietly walked in once, and looked at the church newsletters. It was filled with social justice and the Church stuff that was well into Liberation Theology heresies.

          I really, really miss Papa Ratzi. I just hope the Church survives Pope Castro.

            1. 1) there was precedent (although only rather dire stuff)
              2) he didn’t think he was in good enough health for the job.

              Part of #2 is probably that he knew full well that a lot of plotters like having a series of in-poor-health popes right after each other, because it means a lot of power us up to be “picked up” by someone who will Just Do The Job.

            2. It is laid down in canon law that a Pope can resign. He’s not the first, as Foxfier observes. Pope St. Celestine resigned because he concluded he was not suited to the office and held it in peril of his soul.

      2. Shrug. I’ve walked out of churches in the middle of the sermon maybe twice. That said, the issue was length, not content.

        That said, I’ve resolved that if I really get p*ssed, I’ll ask a minister to hold up his hands. Then I’ll say “I don’t see nail prints in them,” and then walk out.

        1. Mom lobbed a truth-grenade at Altar Guild. (circa 1964). Seems our minister was so busy marching at Selma (1000 miles away), he didn’t have time to visit seriously ill members of the congregation (my Dad’s first heart attack. Didn’t quite kill him.) We were active in the church, so there’s no way he’d have not noticed, and it was a small congregation, max 200 members at best.

          The minister showed up the next day. Too late. We went to a slightly different synod of the Lutheran church a few miles away. This was before the merge to ELCA, AKA “roll left and die”.

          1. This is my sore point with the Scallywag Baptist Convention. We’re going through an especially hard time now, and I’ve not heard a single word from Baptists other than family. Once again, the Methodists and Roman Catholics have come through, as well as an minister from an unknown denomination. But I’ve not heard from my own – and don’t expect to.

            If my denomination doesn’t care about us, why should we care about it?

            1. Nothing says “you’re loved” in a church like hearing “We really wish you two would come back. Nothing’s getting done.” I’ll skip the rant; better to write it and delete than to publish. No idea if the church is active any more; it was dying and one minor emergency would have drained the budget completely.

              No complaints about the denomination: Nominally Quaker, the church was “community”, with a couple of members being Real Quakers. It depended on local talent for ministers, and some were doozies.

    2. Caught a couple of minutes of NPR talking head lady talking about how the illegals are refugees, because the violence and such is so bad.
      Couldn’t understand why nobody would accept it.

      No, she didn’t take the mental step to figure out that such a conclusion would mean we’d have to recognize that Mexico is in a war and largely controlled by terror groups.
      Which they would really not like.

      1. she didn’t take the mental step to figure out that such a conclusion would mean we’d have to recognize that Mexico is in a war and largely controlled by terror groups
        If she did, she would have to wrestle with there being two things a nation with a hostile country on its doorstep does: defend its borders vigorously and, sometimes, invade the other nation.

        I’ve advocated invading Mexico (the northern states, at any rate) for some time now. Invade, establish responsible gov’ts, turn into protectorates, then territories. Turn into small states as governance and good citizenry is well-established.

        1. I have found that one of the defining characteristics of the “smart people” is that they rarely take an additional mental step. They know the “correct” answer* and cannot be bothered to examine their conclusions, much less how they got there nor what the next step is likely to be.

          * “The Eighties called and want their foreign policy back.”

    3. If they are refugees from North Korea, you might have an argument on charity requiring you to shelter them.

      Persons from certain nations or in certain circumstances can be granted refugee status and given asylum.

      Of course, like most things in government, this process can be and has been abused.

      1. Persons from certain nations or in certain circumstances can be granted refugee status …

        For example, persons illegally in the USA at the time of the 2001 El Salvadorian earthquake were granted temporary refugee status, protecting them from repatriation.

        As we have seen, in such circumstances the Progressives tend to think of “temporary” in geological terms.

  10. Sarah, there’s really only one question to answer: have you called ICE and reported this church and its’ pastor as being suitable for ICE investigation for harboring illegal immigrants. If not, why not?

      1. ICE goes in the church and does their job. Church sanctuary has not been part of common law since before the United States existed.

      2. “Sanctuary” in a church isn’t a recognized right– in contrast with, say, the seal of the confession. (Which is basically put in with lawyer/patient confidentiality.)

        1. We might also want to lobby for removal of tax-exempt status of churches advocating public policy.

          It certainly would not do harm to raise that question with one’s pastors, deacons and elders.

      1. speaking of Senators… the best news i have heard in weeks was that the CA Democraptic party isn’t backing Fineswine’s reelection. That means whatever noob replaces her will have zero seniority at the federal level.

          1. well, she won’t likely be on any important comittees, no seniority. that will cripple the dem leverage on critical comittees.

                  1. Is the seniority a rules thing? I could easily see them ignoring anything without a hard stop to push someone onto those committees.

                    1. IMO while the seniority rules are subject to change, there would be too many Senior Democrats with a vested interest in “not changing the rules”.

                      Can’t have those youngsters taking the plum positions. [Sarcastic Grin]

                    2. Iirc each party has a set number of seats with majority control chairing. So when we get speaker Pelousi in November you’ll have house intel cmte chairman Schiff.

                    3. This is a large part of the reason for the #MeToo defenestration of House Judiciary Chair John Conyers, representative of the District of Senility. Come that greatly anticipated day of Jubilee they would rather have Jerrold Nadler knotting the rope chairing Judiciary hearings on Trump’s lèse-majesté act of defeating Her abuses of office.

                1. I think aacid14 was meaning that any Democrat with the seniority to get her seats in the committees would be “just as bad”.

                  Obviously, her replacement in the Senate as a whole might be worse but lacks seniority to cause as much problems.

                  1. I don’t have to even check on what committees Feinstein serves to confidently predict that the next in line will be worse.

                    That is not because I deem DiFi good, merely that I find nearly all her colleagues worse. For example, next in line on Senate Intelligence is Ron Wyden, on Judiciary she is ranking member ahead of Patrick Leahy, on Appropriations she sits between Patty Murray and Dickless Durbin.

                    Gawd – looking up that information is depressing as all heck.

  11. Gotta wonder if sheltering someone wanted for murder would also be “charitable.” Or armed robbery. Or fraud. Or [fill in the blank].

    I suspect not. Because reasons.

    1. Are you, perhaps, insulting those wonderful “sanctuary cities,” who aim to protect the poor immigrants (including MS-13 members) from the depredations of the law? Why sir — how racist, to presume that white man’s law actually applies to any non-whites of any extraction or origin! /sarc

  12. It might be a beautiful and kind thing for a person to be disinterested in their acts of aggression or defense, (if a little daft. You should generally use enlightened self interest) but for a nation it can be suicidal.
    Not only that, but it’s evil. Because that guy insisting that “we” go around kicking bad guy butt is using other people’s blood and treasure to do so.

    It used to be, in less enlightened times, that nations also had very few qualms about, say, going to war to steal a warm water port, because its people really could do with one.
    Like, say, Crimea?
    Or, maybe, expanding their territory? Like China in the South China Sea?

    how is it charitable to the people already here to flood the country with …
    Anybody. How is it charitable to bring a bunch of hungry, homeless people to JimBob’s house and jimmy his lock and tell them “Welcome, please don’t crap on the carpet”?

    And no nation can allow its neighbor to send over people convinced they own half of its land.
    Yeah, see, that’s *definitely* called an invasion. (Hitler did that nicely with a little place called Sudetenland.)

    So we get this “charity” nonsense.
    Oh, I use a much stronger word than that.

    Yes, I know, we do something like in foreign “subsidies.” We have no business in that either.
    Amen, sister!

    make no effort to assimilate
    And this is the biggest problem. I have little problem with you coming here if you want to actually become an American*. But not if you simply want to import your little portion of Mexico/Syria/Myanmar/Bosnia/Venezuela/Zimbabwe/Sweden here.

    (* And I mean “American” in the Usaian sense, not just an “Everything’s free in America!” or “Everyone is rich in America!” sense.)

    1. Or, maybe, expanding their territory? Like China in the South China Sea?

      Ignoring that will probably bring about lots of issues in the future, I think, especially once China decides that international waters aren’t a thing in areas they claim are ‘theirs’.

  13. “…there is an epistemological confusion when one applies moral standards meant for individual humans to whole nations.”

    Well and succinctly said Sarah!

    Maybe these VS people would understand if we put it in a family context. Homeless man comes to door. Father sees need, gives homeless man his son’s best coat that son just bought with his own money. Is that charity or child abuse?

  14. But at some point we must realize Lady Bountiful is a great role to play with other people’s money and other people’s security. It is not a sane or safe one for a nation.

    I think it was Will Rogers who once said he was so old could recall when liberals/Democrats were generous with THEIR OWN money. And he’s been gone how long?

    There are times I think humans are utterly brilliant creatures and envy them their great achievements. And there are other times when I suspect that, perhaps, Theseus was being kind.

      1. the phone browser often jumps for no reason and just as I was going to hit post, “Log Off” jumped into the position my finger was just touching.
        It is really good at jumping to the bottom of the page about half way though reading the comment string.
        21st century, first world problems

        1. My thumb brushes the laptop’s touchpad when I’m typing. It raised hell until I found a setting to disable the pad when the keyboard is in use. Not fond of that keyboard, but I no longer want to wall the computer.

          1. I had one laptop that would happen on. It was fairly small so the keys and pad were too close together. My current one is not so bad.

            This ZTE phone has been a disappointment since I lost my previous phone that was in need of upgrade. I also immediately got back the lost phone as soon as I bought this newer one. When using a cheapo service, your options can be limited, especially up here where certain phone just plain can’t work. The previous phone stopped working as soon as I crossed the river, and didn’t work again until I got almost down to Green Bay.
            At work (across the river), it would randomly get/send text messages, and once did receive a call. At work, I am closer to the tower it used than here at the house.

            1. Sounds all too familiar. When Unicel was alive, I had their GSM phone. I could get so-so service. There were some dead spots where the highway ran through a canyon, but I could use the (fairly expensive) service most places.

              When Unicel went under, the situation had changed where I really only needed a cell phone for emergencies and in the cities. So, now I’m using TracFone using (I think) the Verizon tower. That tower is on a mountain that’s partly blocked by my neighbor’s trees. On a really good day, I might get service in the house, but if it’s wet, between the trees and the fiber-cement siding, the signal is badly attenuated. The main thing it means is that I can’t use the phone to call family in the Midwest.

              The good news, when I have to go over the Cascades for specialty medical work (eye surgeons now, and I’m told the cardiac guy who handles AFIB is there, too), the phone works so I can call home. I still have to be careful; rooms on one side of the hotel are spotty. I have to have the sunblock (metalized plastic) shade raised to get a good signal. It’s fine on the other side of the hotel.

              In all, I need a basic flip phone, and as long as I can keep mine running, I’ll stay away from a smart phone

              1. Trac and Net10 used to use any tower available, and I got signal in places no one else could. That has changed, though if you get the phone up here, it still has better coverage than most others. Smart phones on the other hand tend to stick with one service, my first with Net10 was Sprint towers only and sucked for coverage even in Texas where I bought it. The previous one was Verizon and they have the best coverage up here, but for some reason if you were connected to the tower and crossed into Marinette, and Oconto counties your service stopped. I think this phone uses att’s network.

                1. I see that Trac sells a smart phone. No idea what service it uses. If ATT is still with GSM, it might work here, but I’m allergic to Apple products. 🙂

                  1. okay, that last one was particularly incoherent
                    With Trac and Net10 it depends on where you buy them, and where, if you order online, you tell them it will primarily be used. iirc they now have an arrangement with Verizon, but still use other networks in areas where they might get a cheaper deal or Verizon doesn’t have good coverage. My phone was bought in Marinette and northern Wisconsin has spottier coverage for Verizon than the U.P. of Michigan does, so the local WallyWorld carries Trac and Net10 phones for ATT networks supposedly, I don’t know for sure. I just know this latest one works across the river.

                    1. Sounds like it would be on the same system as my flip phone, which seems to be Verizon towers. Barring a beaver with a Stihl, I’m out of luck.

                      My uncle had a cabin on Whitefish Bay, NW of Sault Ste. Marie. Haven’t been there since LBJ was POTUS, so I guess it’s a bit different. 🙂

                    2. Some things are still the same as LBJ’s term, but yeah, it has changed . . . a bit
                      Though there is still a lot of “no signal” (Germfask/south Seney area, ferinstence), though iirc I had signal at Grand Marais, on my ATT work flip phone (it had full roaming and off network access.) so there might be good signal close to that cabin.

          2. It’s the heel of the thumb for me, usually.
            It was the only thing that got me to start typing with my hands up where they’re supposed to be, instead of resting on the desk/front portion of the laptop. (And I still don’t do that very well.)

  15. Now, if your church offers the opinion that a sane immigration law does not include breaking up families with minor children, that’s a different matter. If it also offers the opinion that immigration law is properly the responsibility of the Federal government and suggests that citizens direct their attention to getting Congress to adopt a sane immigration law, I don’t see a problem with that, either. I do see problems when churches advocate ignoring or resisting the law in the name of compassion. I see worse ones when federal or state officials ignore the laws for political gain.

    1. when federal or state officials ignore the laws for political gain.

      I’m trying to remember all of the reasons for opposing the secession of California, but I’m not coming up with any. We’d get water back from the Colorado River, we’d get rid of the dippy hippies, we could even send all of the benighted immigrants to the golden state so they can partake of the streets paved with gold (erm, except for SF, but streets paved with unmentionables might be just like home) … why are we supposed to oppose this again?

      1. The main reason is the folks in the Central Valley and parts of north CA. If the secession vote was county by county, there’d be no reason at all to oppose their leaving.

        1. Doesn’t the Central Valley have rather high levels of unemployment? Maybe the locals could be contracted to “build the Wall,” with the understanding that it could be used to cordon off the unmentionables?

      2. Well, let’s see …

        There’s the costs of making up all new maps and flags; that’s an avoidable cost.

        There’s the costs f establishing border controls, checkpoints, fencing, etc.

        We would have to slap tariffs and import fees on all Hollywood and Silicon Valley products (which might prove a net positive, I haven’t done the math.)

        There’d be all those empty Congressional desks and vacant offices in DC.

        We’d still have to listen to their hectoring about our moral failings.

        We’d lose useful military bases, such as Edwards, and have to rebuild in Nevada (enriching Harry Reid?) and Utah.

        1. There’s the costs of making up all new maps and flags; that’s an avoidable cost.
          Pfft. Digital now. Easy peasy.

          There’s the costs f establishing border controls, checkpoints, fencing, etc.
          If you do the roads right at the border, the traffic will clog them and they’ll never get out CA.

          There’d be all those empty Congressional desks and vacant offices in DC.
          Sell them off. (Many would say there would be no difference, then.) Or, sell other buildings and bring their offices there.

          We’d still have to listen to their hectoring about our moral failings.
          Nah. They’d have to register as foreign agents just to open their pie holes on CNN. (Arguably, we could make CNN register at that point.)

          We’d lose useful military bases, such as Edwards, and have to rebuild in Nevada (enriching Harry Reid?) and Utah.
          Why? We still have Guantanamo Bay. Same thing would work in CA.

          Feel easier about it now, RES? 😉

          1. Thinking seriously, I’m wondering how naval issues would be handled. Pearl Harbor would most likely get a bunch, and I suppose Portland would find a fair number of new conservative voters wearing Aquaflage. 🙂
            I don’t think Jefferson would have any harbors for anything bigger than a coast guard cutter. OTOH, drone ships could do a lot.

            Question: Would California be stupid enough to invite the Chinese to establish a base in San Diego or Frisco? Q2: Would China be stupid enough to accept?

            1. Honestly, breaking it up into at least three new states would fix most of the problem. Biggest issue would be finding a division that divided LA from San Diego.

              1. I’m pretty sure San Diego is going the way of LA. I’d figure East California would run from the AZ-NV borders to the west side hills. (Mission mountain range in the SF Bay area).

                I don’t know if the south would get conquered annexed to Mexico, but I could see 3 states: Jeff, East California, and Elite California. The latter running from just north of SF south to San Diego. It’ll be interesting, no matter what happens.

                1. Not that I can see when we visit– although I can see the impression coming across because of all the BS they get by state law.
                  Rural, you can “forget” to enforce a lot of that.

                  1. I haven’t had eyes on SD in a lot of years, and I was going by news and such. Glad it might not be awful.

                    We’ve been talking about whether or not to relocate, and a lot of plans would depend on how CalExit & Jefferson play out. Depending on which counties, and which states are affected, it could range from interesting to yikes. Note to self: download Glenn Reynold’s new paper on internal secession.

        2. There’s the costs f establishing border controls, checkpoints, fencing, etc.

          I was having a lovely daydream about Trump removing CBP from Cali along with ICE. Altho, given how much they protest the idea of enforcing existing immigration laws, I’m not sure that they’ve been enforcing customs and border laws/regulations either.

          Does Posse Commitas apply if we station the Army on US soil but facing a foreign state (i.e., the remit is to protect the US border)?

          1. You know, the Army could just ask permission from the landowners to operate on their land, and pay for any damage to crops or fences they might incur during operations. I bet few border property owners would refuse.

            It doesn’t always have to be court orders and jackboots, you know.

          2. The left would scream posse comitatus, but no, it really wouldn’t apply to defending our borders. (Some in the military might have hollered about handling civilians a couple of decades ago, but Afghanistan (and Iraq) changed that.)

  16. Men do not despise a thief when he steals if to satisfy his hunger when he’s starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it cost him all the wealth of his house.
    – Proverbs 6:30-31

    That was the first to come to mind. In contrast is Peter’s question to his local government whether it was better to follow the commands of men or of G_d. And yet Peter wrote of submission to governments.

    The traditional take is that Christians are to follow the commands of men unless they conflict with those of G_d. You can make strong argument that those who sheltered Jews in Europe in WWII were following the latter. Yet, where does deportation of the children of those who came to this country illegally meet that requirement? If these were to face certain death on return to their countries of origin, there would be no question that this would fall under the latter. Yet this is not the case for the great majority of them.

    In my mind is the older brother of a friend of the kids. Their friend was born in the country and is a US citizen. His parents are naturalized Americans. He older brother, brought to his country after his birth, was not. He looked forward to take the citizenship test when he turned 18 (and I think he was already studying in anticipation of it), because he wanted to become a US citizen.

    Now, this raises the question of why the “Dreamers” have not done likewise. Do they have a path to citizenship? Yes. Then have they taken steps to follow it? No? Why not?

    Charity and mercy is a great thing, and every Christian has appealed to both. It is charity and mercy, though, to aid someone who has made no effort to follow the law? If it is charity and mercy to shelter “Dreamers,” is it also the same to shelter a robber? For though a robber steal when starving, he is still held accountable for the theft.

    This is probably going to rub some people the wrong way. But here’s an important thing: The things of G_d are the things of G_d; just because we want something, out of what we see it as kind and merciful, does not mean that it is. And, by the same token, there is many a thing we find personally difficult and unpleasant that we’d rather not do, and yet remains a thing of G_d. If we thing something could be a thing of G_d, we should diligently search to see if it is so. Simply saying it from the pulpit does not make it so.

    1. Now, this raises the question of why the “Dreamers” have not done likewise. Do they have a path to citizenship? Yes. Then have they taken steps to follow it? No? Why not?

      DACA has no path to citizenship. Just renewable 2 year deferrals of immigration enforcement plus work permits.
      Well, there is one path. Go back where they came from and get in the back of the line – currently about 20 years long.

      1. *laughing* So DACA is ultimately a scam. Oh that’s good. I needed a laugh to start my day!

        When I applied the expected wait time was 10 years. Then the talk of sanctuary for illegals came in (Bush era), just as I was about to finish it all and get my green card; the Department of Immigration chucked aside pretty much everyone being processed as ‘secondary’ in anticipation of the ‘wave of applications they would have to prioritize.’ My papers were all lost, and I was asked to resubmit them; they lost ‘half’ and claimed I had never sent them, please send them again, I did and they lost the ‘previous half’ I had supposedly there, ‘send your documents or you don’t get your green card.’ By that point, I could no longer afford to pursue that – they had lost a few thousand dollars worth of documents, never mind the money I lost having to take time out of work to pursue said documents and get legal copies.

        My immigration to Australia by contrast, took about two or three years from start to finish. Granted, Rhys and I were very, very careful about handling documentation, and we over-provided. Interestingly enough, there wasn’t much difference in the requirements in terms of paperwork, but they were very good about communicating and keeping track of your records while being processed. While I was doing this, I got a letter reminding me to file my documents for my green card.

        If Democrats were honest and really were concerned about keeping families together, legal immigration reform is what they should be looking at (and really, so should conservatives) but let’s not kid ourselves here.

  17. Anytime I heard discussion about the ‘dreamers’, I’m reminded of a story.

    Once upon a time there was a king of a small country. He decided that, as a wise and sane king, he shouldn’t have to be king of any insane people. Consulting with some of his advisors, they came up with a test to determine who was sane and who was not. The king sent soldiers out to a nearby stream, and the soldiers built a shed over the top of the stream. One by one, each person in the kingdom was brought into the shed. Once inside they were instructed to remove all the water from inside the building. Those who first made some sort of attempt at stopping the flow of water into the building before trying to empty the water out were deemed sane.

    Applying that story here means that we need to stop the flow of water (illegal immigration) before deciding what to do with all the water (illegal immigrants, dreamers, etc.) that’s already here. That our leaders in Congress don’t want to do that, provides (further) proof that they are insane. This also makes a case that Trump, with his demands that Congress get him his border wall, is sane.

  18. If your end goal is a Progressive Utopia, one of the things you need to do is get rid of nations and nationalism- because that leads to nassssty war and stuff.
    So why not bring in “undocumented workers” (or whatever the PC phrase is) by the truckload- you can get votes while moving the world to the glorious endstate of the People’s Paradise.

    1. Funny thing is, at least here in the Glorious Bear Republic, the undocumented are not free of the taint of Nationalism – rather they are intensely Nationalistic, not for the USA, but instead for the s*hole that they emigrated from. Lots and lots of Mexican flags (and a few other Central American ones as well) re visible on local HS campuses around Cinco de Mayo, while at least one area High School banned the US flag as too divisive.

      1. I believe our hostess wrote a good column on the phase of immigration where you’ve been gone from the old country long enough for the reasons you left to have become fuzzy but haven’t been in the new one long enough to assimilate. The “back in my country, we do it this way” phase. The problem is that it seems many Mexican immigrants have been stuck in that phase for generations.

        Though fairness compels me to remember that they’re hardly the only immigrant group that behaves that way sometimes. I’m reminded of the Irish-descended Americans (including me occasionally) who spend a lot of time idealizing the beautiful green country that our ancestors couldn’t wait to get away from. My gut says, “That’s different,” but my head says, “Why?” and I haven’t really been able to come up with a good answer.

        1. Interesting. A number of years ago, I was in the bank when a busload of Hispanics arrived with their pay. Instead of cashing their checks, they deposited them. Remember thinking “They will one day be middle-class.”

          So far that’s turned out right. I know of one community, a huge trailer park, that was on the skids until the Hispanics moved it. They turned it around. Going through their now, you’d never know how poor a neighborhood it had been.

          Even in a place we call Tijuana, another trailer park, things are roughly on par with 1960s middle class. Things are clean and neat. Yes, so there’s reputed to be some odd occurrences, but hey, where I grew up a woman was arrested for making moonshine on her stove.

          The common denominator here is that they seem to want to be Americans. I’ve yet to encounter a large group of Hispanics that didn’t. Yes, I know there are those that still see themselves as citizens of Mexico, but so far I haven’t encountered them here. And I think that’s what makes the difference.

        2. For me, that is encapsulated by the Turkish parents who were “Used to wearing the headscarf, but didn’t require it of their daughters except on Ramadan, as a religious observation.” Little cultural quirks.

          Me, I’m glad I don’t have to boil, or buy water for potability (okay, I’ve been lucky so far where I live) but my Mom tells me that it’s pretty darned bad even where we live now. =/

        3. Despite being half Irish (discounting any woodpile additions) – living in Ireland would drive me absolutely bonkers. I’m not a serious agoraphobic or claustrophobic, but without distant mountains, ones that I can see without climbing the nearest fifty-foot or so tree, I get anxious after about a week.

  19. Reading an article over on PJ Media, they quoted Durbin–who was claiming Trump really just wants to deport all the dreamers, and isn’t he evil–as saying that, amongst these dreamers are 20,000 or so teachers.

    “Twenty thousand of them are teachers across America, will be leaving the classrooms and many of them in struggling school districts because of this president’s decision.”

    To which I say…umm…how the hell did they get a JOB as a TEACHER in a school district if they’re illegals???? I’m sorry, even when I applied for (and got) a lowly retail job last fall, I had to more or less provide documentation (in the form of a driver’s license, social security card, etc) to prove I was a legal citizen and resident of the US. So what does his statement tell me? That not only are those 20k people illegal, but that they used false/stolen documentation to claim that they were US citizens. To be teachers. In charge of children. People who think nothing of lying and falsifying documents to get what is supposed to be a trusted job? I don’t think so.

    That statement from Durbin, right there, caused what little sympathy I still had for the vast majority of these “dreamers” to drain right away. Send them back. If they want to return, they can do it the legal way.

    1. Dick Durbin is a politician who has never allowed fealty to facts to disturb his rantings. When he claims it’s raining History and Probabilities indicate he’s just pissing on your leg. Even if it actually is raining it is still likely he’s adding his own polluted content.

      1. A inor observation: reportedly Durbin was recently denied Communion over his flaunting of doctrine over protecting the lives of persons of wombitude.

    2. Part of DACA (the part the courts have decided is probably not legal – it’s still going through appeals) was to issue work permits to those who applied for the program & kept their noses clean. They followed the rules they were given. Not that the administration had any authority to unilaterally make rules that violated standing immigration law.

  20. Point of clarification. We are no longer a nation of immigrants, if we ever really were. The number of people born in this country passed the number of people who were born in foreign countries before the Revolutionary War.

  21. Serendipitous relevant observations from one of PJM’s resident cranks. If only the Church was as aggressive in advocating for protection of those in the womb, whose parents really did bring them unasked into this nation.

    Rendering Unto Caesar
    By Sarah Hoyt
    Like many Americans these days, I go to church to be upset. As in almost every other institution in the west, most mainstream churches have been taken over by leftists, gutted from the inside, and worn as skinsuits while the invaders demand respect. This leaves many of the faithful believers thinking that they don’t have a place to go. I can’t prove it, but judging by my own family attendance is probably down.

    This week the Catholics were assaulted with a letter from the United Conference of Catholic Bishops.

    It said, “We are deeply disappointed that the Senate was not able to come together in a bipartisan manner to secure legislative protection for the Dreamers. With the March 5th deadline looming, we ask once again that the Members of Congress show the leadership necessary to find a just and humane solution for these young people, who daily face mounting anxiety and uncertainty.

    “We are also announcing a National Catholic Call-In Day to Protect Dreamers. This coming weekend we will be asking the faithful across the nation to call their Members of Congress next Monday, February 26, to protect Dreamer from deportation, to provide them with a path to citizenship and to avoid any damage to existing protections for families and unaccompanied minors in the process.

    “Our faith compels us to stand with the vulnerable, including our immigrant brothers and sisters. We have done so continually, but we must show our support and solidarity in a special way. Now is the time for action.”

    First of all, remember the rule of high-pressure sales? The deadline is on the fifth, but if you call now, in this special way, you’ll secure the special medal of charity™. Be the first in your parish to earn the medal.

    Second let me state my biases, all my biases on this issue. …

    1. FTA:
      though they were actively prevented from living by their new overlords
      I think Sarah meant “leaving” not “living”. Though many of the new overlords also made it hard to live……..

    2. That’s one of the great things about being Southern Baptist- we don’t really go for the fashionable Leftist drivel.

    3. From the PJM piece:

      The hardest part of acculturation is questioning everything you are and do. It’s like dying a little. You emerge on the other side much closer to a citizen of your adopted country than of your original country.

      From John 3 New International Version (NIV)
      Jesus Teaches Nicodemus
      3 Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

      3 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

      4 “How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

      5 Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”

  22. Ya know, I winder if the denominational “leaders” are looking back to their “brave stand” in the 1980s with harboring people from El Salvador, Nicaragua and other Central American places and see sheltering DREAMers as re-living their glorious days as advocates for Justice, and Twuth, and all that [stuff]?

  23. The lectionary for this week was Mary and Martha, and you all know what was running through my mind when I was supposed to be paying attention to the homily… *wry kitty grin*

    1. I’m going to guess it went along these lines:

      THE Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
      But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
      And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
      Her Sons must wait upon Mary’s Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
      It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
      It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
      It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
      Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
      They say to mountains, ” Be ye removèd” They say to the lesser floods ” Be dry.”
      Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd – they are not afraid of that which is high.
      Then do the hill tops shake to the summit – then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
      That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
      They finger death at their gloves’ end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
      He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
      Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,
      And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
      To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
      They are concerned with matters hidden – under the earthline their altars are
      The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,
      And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city’s drouth.
      They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
      They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their job when they damn-well choose.
      As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand,
      Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren’s days may be long in the land.
      Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat;
      Lo, it is black already with blood some Son of Martha spilled for that !
      Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
      But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
      And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd – they know the angels are on their side.
      They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
      They sit at the Feet – they hear the Word – they see how truly the Promise runs.
      They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and – the Lord He lays it on Martha’s Sons !

  24. > the necessity to shelter dreamers from deportation, because it’s the “charitable” thing to do.

    I love it when people take it upon themselves to use my money for their charities.

  25. I keep running into this with the idiots that think the only time we should use our military abroad is when we DON’T have a guiding interest in doing it, too, and it drives me just as nuts.

    Yep, run into this. It’s the even more malignant form of “doing something because you don’t care is even better than do it because you care.”

    If the reasoning I’ve heard for it is right, it’s a cross-contamination from the eastern idea that lack of entanglements is an inherent good. (Contaminant because it keeps being pushed as a Christian idea, which really doesn’t play well with the order to love one another as I [dude who just got tortured to death when He was absolutely innocent] have loved you.)

    It’s like they’ve got a new gospel– “There is no greater love than this, to give your life for people you really don’t give a damn about.”

    1. Note it’s *your* life they want to give, not theirs. Not very Gospely, that. (Should that have 2 ‘l’s?)

      I think we should return to the time of private armies. Why? So, if you want to go save the world for democracy or whatever, you can do so, without dragooning others by force of politics and law into your scheme.

      1. My observations it seems most contemporary churches are less concerned with being Gospelly than with being Gospelish.

        They also seem to be employing a somewhat abridged Gospel from a different sourse.

      2. I generally flip over to “-ish” and avoid the double-l question, because they both look wrong and I like the way “ish” sounds.

        They already CAN hire folks to go help them. There are privately funded American (mostly) groups over in the middle east right now.
        We just run into the issue of 1) disagreements about national interests, and 2) the usual “what I want should be mandatory” of progs.

  26. Won’t doing this cause more people to drag, bring or send (anyone remember Obama’s children’s crusade, with unaccompanied minors being sent on an hellish journey sometimes all across the Americas because he announced they wouldn’t be sent back) their minor children, in what is manifestly an act of child abuse (the conditions of the journey alone dictate that) in order to eventually get in themselves?


    Anybody remember why they started keeping the kids who showed up separate from the folks who claimed to be their relatives? (Nevermind that there was no evidence, and a sizable amount of the time they didn’t even speak the same language.) It didn’t get on the news, they were busy screaming about how heartless it was.

    Because human traffickers were using it to get massive numbers of stolen or bought children into the country. A lot of those little girls were raped. Repeatedly. As part of the trip. Not sure about the boys, they don’t get pregnant.

    They figured this out after various stings where they figured out wait, this kid was on record as being released…with family… wait, that “family” is the guy selling a bunch of little girls’ bodies.


    1. It didn’t get on the news …

      I would be amused to see some public interest group sue the news media for aiding and abetting such human trafficking crimes by selective reporting. While it probably wouldn’t succeed, a RICO suit would certainly be amusing.

      Especially considering that the NY Times is largely owned by a foreign national … certainly by the standards courts have applied to Trump’s exercise of presidential authority there is ample reason for suspicion of the Times‘ coverage.

        1. I don’t think my suggestion constituted a call for forced speech, merely a cost for a news carrier suppressing speech.

          The goal is to make them own their establishment and enforcement of a narrative and strip from them their pretense of objective reporting.

          1. If you can be punished for not saying something, that means you’re being forced to say it.

            Never hand the enemy a weapon you wouldn’t want to face.

            1. If you represent yourself as in the business of saying something, maybe you should say something?

              Note – in the cases cited we’re talking about protecting criminal enterprises, also generally termed ‘aiding and abetting” a criminal conspiracy.

              I already face that weapon in my profession – as a corporate accountant I am legally liable for covering up failure to disclose material facts about the financial operations of my employer.

              1. Reporting news doesn’t mean you have to report it all– just that you report a view on current events. (And it frankly doesn’t have to exist outside of one’s fevered imagination.)

                Accounting, on the other hand, is rather concrete!

                1. Less concrete than you think, especially when you grasp what is actually meant by “generally accepted industry practices.”

                  Again, with stronger emphasis: I am not saying that news media should be required to report “all” news, merely that they be held culpable for suppressing news when that failure furthers criminal activities.

                  It is the connection to criminal activity that imposes the mandate.

                  A successful defense might plead they were unaware, to which the prosecution might provide evidence of such awareness and active instruction that it is “not the sort of story we think is of interest to our readers.”

  27. Sarah said: “And if they meet the same requirements as the other immigrants: speak English so they can transact all their business in English; are self supporting; have no criminal record, they probably should get a green card. It’s dangerous, mind, because it encourages more of the same.”

    It would be dirt simple to end all this migration bullshit. No government social assistance for immigrants. Citizens only. Speaking as a Canadian who lived in the USA for ten years, legit immigrants would probably all be fine with that. Canada has better welfare anyway.

    That one change, back to the way things used to be done, would end the illegal immigrant issue. Poof, gone.

    1. We need another one, phantom. End minimum wage. Because LESS THAN minimum wage is still unimaginable riches in Mexico. they’ll pack in twelve to a one bedroom and send money back home to make their kids well off. And frankly a lot of our welfare recipients could find people to hire them at the same money. I don’t mind if welfare supplements (for nationals) since my “no welfare, that’s what private charity is for” idea would never get traction. But right now in many industries if they want to survive, they have to hire under the table, and that’s mostly illegals.

        1. Or the Sanctuary stuff is effectively a criminal conspiracy to conduct employment fraud in order to offset the costs of the minimum wage nonsense. All those judges are profiting from the local labor costs are less outrageously insane than they otherwise would be.

          1. yup, the critical line for burger-flippin robots is supposedly $13-$14hr…

            oh, and they already priced themselves out of one job, why do you think McD’s has a coffee making machine instead of the larger machine attended by one or two people trained to make coffee from a few years ago?

            1. From what I’ve seen, the total automation of the McCafe coffee machine would be very simple.

              You could put it over to one side of the dang lobby with a card-swipe and let people get their own.

      1. As a hanger on to that, tax wire transfers out of country. For Mexico and India remittances from the us are in their top five sources of income. You have taken the place of someone that is now being supported by govt and that money isn’t even going into our economy but being used to hold up someone else’s. Iirc it was Haiti and the DR that got caught having barrels of welfare purchased food shipped to them from the northeast us.

        1. There’s no “caught” about it, places that do a lot of SNAP business in various areas will have water-tight drums you buy, fill with beans, rice and such, seal and ship home.

            1. Maybe you were thinking of one of the places that actually charged for stuff they didn’t sell and gave the money back?
              I know the barrel places tend to get investigated for that– but they’re not breaking any laws. It is food, and if they don’t SNAP the barrel, totally legal.

          1. That is only because our xenophobic restrictive American licensing requirements prevent their obtaining Drivers’ Licenses, insurance and vehicles which would allow them to make such bulk purchases and easily take them hone, requiring instead that they go to such extremes as having to ship</I. their groceries …

            Ow! I bit by tongue!

      2. No driver’s license, no Medicaid, no free ride at the county hospital emergency room, no food stamp EBT card, no free school for the kids, etc. etc.

        As to the employment thing, all the laws necessary to prevent that are on the books now. I’ve seen that in living colour, they actually enforce those laws against Canadians. Against other nationalities, no they don’t.

      3. Also driven by unions and union-friendly pols since in most cases a union-negotiated contract wage structure is exempted from so-called ‘minimum’ wage strictures . . .

        1. All the more reason that Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 merits attention. Not only are the defendants’ arguments facially meritless (Their claim that a ruling for plaintiff would end unions is belied by the continuation of unions in the twenty-three states with right to work laws) but as the agency fees they demand Janus pay to the union are used for chargeable expenses like litigation, he is forced to underwrite both sides of his own suit.

  28. Here was what I tried to say at work:
    My “Minimum I’d tolerate” . . .
    If you got dragged here not of your own accord and want to stay, you must serve the nation. If you join the military (AF, Army Navy, Marines, Coasties), and after an honorable discharge, you get a green card for good 10 years, and can then go through the process to become a Citizen. If you stay in longer than a bare minimum stint, knock off 2 years for every 4 you serve (from date of enlistment), and if your minimum enlistment is longer than a 4 year (they still do 6 yr min enlist for certain higher training stuff?) then the drop starts another year less, so 7 year green card if you left at 6 years on a 4 yr min, but 6 years green card if a 6 yr min.
    If you don’t want to serve in the military, some other service then will be issued, and say minimum 20 years on a green card, after service term (minimum 4 years service) and you can’t vote even after you gain citizenship for an additional 5 years (basically graduate at 18 and you don’t get to vote until you are 49).

    If you are still a minor and want to stay, and can be housed by someone legal and willing to pay for your upkeep (you will get NO gov’t monies) and are willing to enlist (ROTC or just promise to enlist once you graduate, and you must graduate), I would be willing to count any time spent training for your service into the time of your service, but not like 2 years ROTC = 2 years service. Maybe 2 years ROTC = 1 of service if you go 15 years in service and adjust back from there. By the way, your parent(s) cannot stay. They can apply to come back, but I am still undecided what they would be able to do and how much penalty they would have. Their coming back illegally makes any shortening void, and disallows citizenship in those who do no military service, and costs the right to vote for 5 years to those who do military service.

    Reserves, Nat Guard service will shorten the non-mil time, but not like the full time military service unless you are true full time (I knew a guy who’s “day job” was the Air National Guard, so he was really almost full time military service, but he had most weekends off etc). Exceptions if your day job is medical service for the VA or helping low income people, and possibly some shortening for such without reserves or Guard duty, or we pay some of your (medical or technical) training if you serve longer than the 4 year service.

    I reserve the right to add to the times, but doubt I’d be willing to shorten any of these for the most part.

    1. While I am generally in agreement, experience with what the Proglodytes have done in the past offers a cautionary note. If we make the military a conduit to citizenship how long until they have rendered the military an essentially foreign force?

      I can imagine the back room, off the record meetings in which generals are told that if they want their promotions approved they will have to swear fealty to the military role in laundering promoting access to citizenship.

      1. point.
        this was off the cuff and a starting point that needs work and more thought than I was able to give while stewing at work over its stupidity (work’s stupidity, not the daca issue).

    2. Biggest warning is that “service term” will be an easy route to politicize. Look how many 501c3 are party orgs effectively.

      1. what it would entail would need working out, and I’d rather we just enforce what we already have on the books. Sadly nothing will be done without being overly politicized and with too much of both parties in office wanting full amnesty, let’s give’em the vote tomorrow, I doubt any “solution” they come up with will make us happy, or work well for the nation in the long run.

    3. I cannot concur with a two-tier citizenship. You are one, or you are not. We do not need to create “classes” or declare some to be a “nobility”. I do believe we have gone to great lengths to divorce our nation from that sort of thing.

      1. We had. The gradation between visa legal, green card and citizen have always been there. But we have both blurred the lines between those and identified subgroups who have fewer rights than others.

        1. There is no tiering in citizenship*, but there can be many tiers of non-citizenship.

          *Should be read as if stated by Tom Hanks

            1. Tiers of non-citizenship as of USA founding:

              applicants for citizenship
              resident aliens (including natives)
              occupying forces (generally identifiable by their red coats)

              1. Under the founding documents. As opposed to the bastardized interpretation today.

                Rich via chance (Hollywood, to an extent imo silicon valley, etc. Doesn’t have to sell a product thru either oligopoly or Fiat)
                Affirmative action


                1. Current standards? You forgot “Geological features, such as lakes, rivers, creeks, streams, waterways of all types (essentially anything that can be proclaimed to have an interest adjudicable in court.)”

      2. Well, I’ll go with “Deport them all, and no chances of coming back. If you do, we toss you in jail for several years before shipping you out” but I doubt we’ll get that.
        But technically, all legal resident aliens are “second tier” in they don’t have the vote.

    4. And zero welfare to non-citizens. Plus add a year to your wait time for every year the state supported you.

      I agree that there could be a problem with the military becoming effectively foreign mercenaries — so limit it to, say, no more than 5% of the total armed forces at any given time, and require that time must be served as enlisted. Don’t like waiting your turn? Yonder’s the border; don’t let it hit you in the ass.

  29. Charity, fundamentally, is what -you- with -your- money time, and effort.

    It is certainly a good idea to persuade others to be charitiable.

    But when you say “-You- folks should do this thing that I do not do.” Then that is hypocrisy, not charity.

    Is the sanctuary advocate taking illegals into their own homes, where they themselves will bear the burden of the costs and of Caesar’s Wrath? Or are they asking others to do as they do -not-, thus someone -else- bears those costs?


    As to the church of your choice, dont let evil or stupid run you off without a fight. Let those who intentionally err know that they are exposed. Let your kids see that sometimes, despite public disapproval, you have to speak up and say “Horsefeathers!” And if the time does come when you reason that departing is the healthy choice, do not go quietly. Tell them why, pointedly, and shake their dust from your sandals on the way out.

  30. During the 2008 electoral campaign I was watching the live broadcast of Reverend Wright give the speech in which he was attempting to explain himself to the nation.  The Daughter, sitting in the adjacent room and entirely unaware of who was speaking, asked me why I was listening to such a racist bigot. 

    The following Sunday I informed my Pastor that if he were to say such things from the pulpit I would would not listen to the nonsense for twenty years, I would stand up and walk out.  He thanked me. 😉

  31. Mild nitpick. Until the last few decades, there were very few “illegal” immigrants. There were no Federal laws excluding anyone until 1875. After that, with the exception of the Chinese Exclusion, the only ones excluded were those with criminal records, physical/mental issues, or inability to support themselves. It really was not until 1921 with the first quotas that a healthy non-criminal could break the law by crossing the border. (The coasts were a different matter – screening was done at ports, and getting off of a boat elsewhere was a crime. But you could move your whole family across the Mexican or Canadian border and encounter no problems – at least coming; I have no idea what laws those two regions had about informal immigration at the time.)

    So, really, until the most recent wave, just about all of our immigrants were legal.

      1. From about 1907 (when they began to look like a potential rival, becoming more “assertive” about their role in Asia), to sometime in the mid-1950s. Not banned entirely until the Panay “Incident,” although more restrictive than other nationalities.

        That distinction stuck up until the mid-1950s, when they were rolled into the lower quotas from Eastern Hemisphere countries. Removed entirely when the quota was set globally in the mid-1970s. (Last two are IIRC, I definitively know more about the early 20th century than the later.)

      1. Ah, sorry. Thought you were talking about immigration into the US only. If a negative level of knowledge about internal European migration is possible, I have it (beyond the late Western Empire, anyway).

        1. A negative level of knowledge about internal European migration is possible — just rely on the mainstream press for all your information on the topic.

          1. Yep, nail meet hammer there. I’m as guilty as anyone in not having good information on something that has not interested me (although people like Sarah do, will-I-won’t-I, slowly educate me).

            May have exaggerated on the time, though. A bit later, if you are willing to expand “immigration patterns” to include the various armies that tramped around Europe and whose members settled down where the getting looked to be good. One probable remote ancestor was apparently a Norman mercenary who married a camp follower from Orleans, followed his employer back to England, where he helped to keep the Welsh in line; then his son (or grandson) followed a branch of the same noble family over to the Colonies. (The documentation on this specific good story is rather sparse, to put it mildly – but there was a lot of that going on.)

  32. A great big part of the problem is the treacle that is spooned into Americans’ heads in their time in the public schools. Endless tales of happy immigrants weeping with joy at the sight of the Statue of Liberty (which, by the way, couldn’t be in a more inappropriate place. I mean, come ON! NEW YORK CITY as a bastion of American liberty? Give me a BREAK!) have their effect.

    if the current wave wants the chops previous immigrants got, then let them earn them the way previous immigrants did. Starting with six months or so at sea in the steerage of a rickety “coffin ship,” packed in like goats (while goats, who are much more valuable, lounge in deck chairs in first class, sipping martinis) and then run through Ellis Island like so many cattle (while cattle, who have much more clout, are escorted off the ship by fawning officials), and then _becoming Americans!_ That means SH*TCANNING their stupid native languages, just for starters!

    1. Remember: the Constitution is a “living document” whose meaning must be adjusted to fit the times, but the second-rate poem inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty is sacred doctrine that must bind us for all time.

  33. The priest in my parish is pretty darned liberal, and all his mentors were super-liberal. But he knew better than to pull this kind of stuff.

    I don’t know if you live very close to Littleton, but the FSSP has a parish there — Our Lady of Carmel. (Old Latin Mass, still okay with the Pope. SSPX is the group that’s sorta off the reservation. CMRI is sedevacantist and way off the reservation.) I will ask around and find out what the other okay traditional parishes are, or who are the non-annoying pastors.

    Some people really have no regard for souls or the purpose of the Mass. As somebody over at Fr. Z’s commented, these are the people who don’t believe in mortal sin, except in matters that go against their politics.

  34. Speaking of men:

    It’s endlessly funny to me that this flaming idiot thinks the armed, gun-wielding man will simply stand there and allow himself to be assaulted in front of his children, as opposed to ‘shoot the crazy bastard trying to grab my weapon from it’s holster and is potentially a threat to my kids.”

      1. That’s because such morons obviously know nothing of either.

        First thing, calling them “pathetic bubbas” is a diminishing act, othering them, denying their agency and eschewing any effort to engage them with reason. It is evidence of emotion ruling the ego and a classic embodiment of masculine toxicity.

        Second, attempting to cow them through force constitutes physical threat and justifies their defensive response. If they truly are the drooling inbred beasts you depict them as any act of the type expressed represents suicidal urges.

        Posturing on the internet and pounding your chest while snarling at your imagined target represent the response of a beast, not a man.

  35. We were first a nation of *settlers* in a lightly-populated (or even unpopulated) space. Immigrants came later, once we were a nation with actual borders. Almost by definition, you can’t be an immigrant to undifferentiated territory.

  36. I admit I’ve fallen a little behind in my Klavanating, but the happy part of that is it put his interview with Douglas Murrayauthor of The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam and the failure of European Nations Western Civilization to believe in (and defend) the legitimacy of our existence on my monitor as it relates to today’s discussion.

    The key element starts at about 24’54” and runs approximately twenty minutes.

Comments are closed.