DACA

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: DACA

Post by Paidion » Mon Sep 18, 2017 11:23 am

Trump no longer wishes to kick out those persons who have entered U.S.A. illegally as children and who are now contributing members of society.
Trump tweeted, "They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own - brought in by parents at a young age."

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 0611779585

Trump was eager to make a deal with the Democrats about these people. Of course, this made the right-wing-racist extremists ragingly angry. They now hate Trump as much as the far left does. They had banked on a president who would keep out foreigners, especially non-whites.

Listen to Trump himself answer public questions:

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... aging.html
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: DACA

Post by steve7150 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:06 pm

Trump was eager to make a deal with the Democrats about these people. Of course, this made the right-wing-racist extremists ragingly angry. They now hate Trump as much as the far left does. They had banked on a president who would keep out foreigners, especially non-whites.










You know although it's not publicized there are plenty of racists on the left. BLM has had events where white people were specifically excluded and many on the hard left seem to blame white men for every ill known to mankind.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

DACA

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:10 pm

Hi Paidion,

Good to hear from you once again. However, this comment only applies to a very minute segment of the population:
Paidion wrote:Of course, this made the right-wing-racist extremists ragingly angry. They now hate Trump as much as the far left does. They had banked on a president who would keep out foreigners, especially non-whites.
Trump supporters are cut from a wide range of political ideology. How do I know this? Because you cannot win an America Presidential election without a significant crossover appeal. A significant portion of the same people who put Obama into office, twice, rejected what the Democratic platform have done during the last 8 years and what they were proposing to do for another Democratic presidency.

I guess you are a left-wing liberal, if so, I hope you're not applying the actions of a insignificant few to the whole. Americans are much smarter than that nonsense. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. What the people want, Paidion, is for Congress to do their job, deal with the illegal aliens already here, and to stop politicizing this issue for selfish gain. Crying racist (which pertains to a minute segment of the population) is old, boring, and detrimental to progressing forward.

Blessings.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: DACA

Post by Paidion » Mon Sep 18, 2017 6:58 pm

Steve 7150 wrote:You know although it's not publicized there are plenty of racists on the left. BLM has had events where white people were specifically excluded and many on the hard left seem to blame white men for every ill known to mankind.
Yep. The extreme left and the extreme right are not far apart in their ideology. The left-right thing is not a straight line, but a circle.
Robby wrote:I guess you are a left-wing liberal.
Nope. I actually ran as a candidate for the Social Credit Party in Canada. That party was not a socialist party. They were further right than the Conservative Party of Canada. They believed in free enterprise, but not in Capitalism as they understood it (wealth being concentrated in the hands of the rich through monopolies). They didn't believe in forced equality (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) but they did believe in equal opportunity.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: DACA

Post by robbyyoung » Mon Sep 18, 2017 7:57 pm

Paidion wrote:Nope. I actually ran as a candidate for the Social Credit Party in Canada. That party was not a socialist party. They were further right than the Conservative Party of Canada. They believed in free enterprise, but not in Capitalism as they understood it (wealth being concentrated in the hands of the rich through monopolies). They didn't believe in forced equality (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) but they did believe in equal opportunity.
Oops! My apologies my friend. Thanks for the info regarding the party you were affiliated with, sounds interesting. Are they still around?

Blessings.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: DACA

Post by dwight92070 » Mon Sep 18, 2017 10:52 pm

robbyyoung wrote:Hi Dwight,

Thanks for the discussion, however, I believe you're kind of misrepresenting my statements, as well as painting with a broad brush what should be meticulously meted out.

Dwight: In your opinion.
dwight92070 wrote:Since when is it unreasonable and cold-hearted to send children back to their own parents, uncles, aunts, siblings, cousins, etc. in their own native country?
It's not unreasonable, in general. But, when years have passed by and these children are now rooted in the country, it is very much unreasonable. Even the most conservative outlet in the country, National Review, believes rhetoric involving deportation of rooted children is nonsense.

Dwight: That's their opinion.

by MARK KRIKORIAN May 8, 2014 "Although I disagree as a matter of policy, the idea that an illegal has put down roots here after three years, and thus shouldn’t be deported, at least makes a certain kind of sense. But to exempt an illegal alien from deportation simply because he snuck in at least 15 days ago is surreal."

Article: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/37 ... -krikorian
dwight92070 wrote:I don't deny that those Republican presidents are guilty, on a much smaller scale, of illegal actions concerning illegal immigrants. I don't know the details of those actions, but, at first glance, I would not agree with what they did either. But I thought we were referring to this specific case which is called DACA, instituted by Obama in 2012. I don't see Republican fingerprints on this. In fact, why would the Republican Party put forward a candidate who had "building the wall" as a major part of his campaign, if they approved of open borders, as Democrats do?
First of all, border security and dealing with the misdemeanor crime of being an illegal alien is not the same problem. Building the wall discourages illegal entry for sure, but illegal aliens who have been rooted in the country, for years, is a different problem altogether. If their only crime is this one misdemeanor, like Jay-Walking,

Dwight: That figures, that you would liken coming across the border illegally to jaywalking, given your propensity to show "compassion". How many American jobs are stolen from jaywalking? How many millions of our tax dollars are spent because of jaywalking? How many jaywalkers actually turn out to be criminals? How many jaywalkers don't speak English, so that America "compassionately" spends more money to teach them? To compare the two is ridiculous. Secondly, DACA is nothing new.

Dwight: Obama started it in June of 2012. That's quite recent.

Because America will not exacerbate the problem over a silly misdemeanor crime that took place several years ago.

Dwight: There you go again. Now you label crossing the border illegally "a silly misdemeanor crime". If you make a false statement over and over and over, does that make it true? No, it is still false. As I have already stated above, it costs Americans in jobs, money, and often in other crimes committed. There's nothing silly about that.

So again, you agree with me and National Review, concessions for those rooted in the country, after committing a misdemeanor offense years ago, is in fact reasonable.

Dwight: In your dreams.

You say five-years is unacceptable, and the children should booted out.

Dwight: Now you're acting as if all these children magically crossed the border at the same time - five years ago. Multiplied thousands of them streamed across our border just last fall in the final days of Obama's term. Is that recent enough for you?

Well, a broad brush approach is also unacceptable and roots that have grown for five-years could be substantial.

Dwight: In your opinion.

Dwight, judges have compassion all the time in their court room. They reduce sentences, dismiss charges, etc...

Dwight: Especially leftist judges who feel they are showing compassion on the criminal or the offender. We are talking about a misdemeanor crime. Since when do we treat these crimes as high crimes? Lastly, let's not conflate or confuse the discussion with murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and child molesters to the children in question.

Dwight: I never equated the two. My point was that once we begin to ignore relatively minor infractions of the law (and I have previously stated that this crime is much more than minor), then it is much easier to also ignore major crimes committed.
dwight92070 wrote:Actually, your no-penalty, let's give them all citizenship "solution" is what is truly unreasonable. That is not compassion. That is being complicit in the crime.
So when did I say, no-penalty or give them all citizenship?

Dwight: You might as well have. Since they all committed a silly little misdemeanor that's equivalent to jaywalking, you certainly don't want to give them much of a penalty, do you?

You say, I'm being complicit to a crime? Ok, I'm guilty. But are you so innocent? Have you ever seen the misdemeanor crime of reckless driving?

Dwight: Yes

Do you report every incident to your local police or did you get the license plate?

Dwight: Of course, why wouldn't I? Am I supposed just let it go? If I did that, they would probably kill someone.

How about yourself? Have you ever been reckless while driving?

Dwight: Actually no. I have always been a good driver. Not perfect, but never reckless.

I think it's disingenuous to cry complicity to the crime at hand.

Dwight: I think it's a very accurate term. A similar term would be that you are enabling them.

Dwight: Again, if their only crime is the first misdemeanor offense from years past, it is unreasonable to kick them out of the country.

Dwight: That's your opinion. By the way, how do you know that that is "their only crime"? When they came into America, did they bring a record of their previous crimes committed in their own country?

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: DACA

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:20 am

Remember David was fleeing from Saul who wanted to kill him. In his haste, he was unable to take Michal, his wife, Saul's daughter. David was gone for many years. In the mean time, Saul (illegally) gives Michal to another man, Palti. Finally Saul is killed in battle and David returns to take his God-given place as king. But he demands that his wife, Michal, be returned to him. So Saul's son orders that Michal be taken from Palti and returned to David. Palti, who has no choice in the matter, accompanies his wife weeping as she is taken from him.

Now I suppose compassion would dictate that Michal should stay with Palti, since the two of them had several years of "roots" together, as a husband and wife. But this did not matter to David, because she was legally his wife.

So what should win out in this situation? Compassion or the law?

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

SOCIAL CREDIT

Post by Paidion » Tue Sep 19, 2017 5:13 pm

Robby wrote:Thanks for the info regarding the party you were affiliated with, sounds interesting. Are they still around?
Although 60 Social Credit members of Parliament were elected in 1962 (out of 365), the Party is pretty much defunct now. In my opinion, evangelist Ken Campbell who was the last party leader in 1990-93 put to death what remained of it. He advised people NOT to vote Social Credit.

The Party was based on the economic theory of C.H. Douglas from Britain, who wrote the book "Social Credit." In that theory of economics, money comes into existence as a credit rather than a debt. Presently when you go to a chartered bank and borrow 10 grand, they don't have 10 grand to loan you. They cannot loan the depositor's money. They simply credit 10 grand to your account, and thus the money is created out of nothing. When you repay the loan, the money goes out of existence again. If every cent of money in Canada or United States were applied to the National Debt, there would be no money at all with which to buy goods and services, and the country would STILL be deep in debt. Under a Social Credit government the quantity of money in the country would balance the quantity of goods and services. People THINK that balance is the case now, but it isn't. Thus inflation continues and depressions sometimes occur as in the 1930s when there was not enough money to buy needed goods and services.

Social Credit economic theory is still studied in courses on economics at universities.

Wikipedia gives a pretty good history of the Party in Canada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Cr ... _of_Canada

Here is an early Social Credit tract, written at a time when the social debt money system was based on the gold standard. A lot can be learned about Social Credit from this tract.

http://www.realnews247.com/money_myth_exploded.htm
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: DACA

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Sep 19, 2017 8:17 pm

dwight92070 wrote:Remember David was fleeing from Saul who wanted to kill him. In his haste, he was unable to take Michal, his wife, Saul's daughter. David was gone for many years. In the mean time, Saul (illegally) gives Michal to another man, Palti. Finally Saul is killed in battle and David returns to take his God-given place as king. But he demands that his wife, Michal, be returned to him. So Saul's son orders that Michal be taken from Palti and returned to David. Palti, who has no choice in the matter, accompanies his wife weeping as she is taken from him.

Now I suppose compassion would dictate that Michal should stay with Palti, since the two of them had several years of "roots" together, as a husband and wife. But this did not matter to David, because she was legally his wife.

So what should win out in this situation? Compassion or the law?
Dwight, the biblical narrative you are proposing is a non-sequitur to the DACA discussion and how to apply righteous justice to this conundrum. A better example is found in Exodus 22:21
You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Sojourners are described as temporary inhabitants or newcomers lacking inherited rights. Like in biblical times, they may be fleeing persecution, seeking refuge, etc. The point is, with or without DACA, this principle conflates with and meets the high standard of God’s compassion and being Christ like during the temporary provisions made for children and possibly others. Which leads to another important principle…

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.
Therefore, although we should not outright reward the illegal actions of the parents of the children, we are prohibited from punishing the children for their parents’ acts. I believe provisions can still be made for some of these parents, but this must be on a case by case basis.

Now in the end you and I might despise what are government will ultimately do, but in the meantime, if these kids are contributing to society and not breaking any laws, God says to us as Christians--do no harm. Sometimes I'm afraid that our rhetoric does just that. Nevertheless, I'm glad to finally see God's Word being applied to the conversation.

Blessings.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: DACA

Post by dwight92070 » Tue Sep 19, 2017 11:15 pm

So what should win out in this situation? Compassion or the law?[/quote]

Dwight, the biblical narrative you are proposing is a non-sequitur to the DACA discussion and how to apply righteous justice to this conundrum. A better example is found in Exodus 22:21
Dwight: Actually I think the example of David and Michal fits quite well. You want the government to have compassion on those kids (at least your definition of compassion) and I want the government to enforce the law of the land.
You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Dwight: Returning them to their families is not doing any wrong to them or oppressing them.

Ezekiel 18:20
The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son.
Therefore, although we should not outright reward the illegal actions of the parents of the children, we are prohibited from punishing the children for their parents’ acts.

Dwight: Returning these kids to their parents is not punishing them.

I believe provisions can still be made for some of these parents, but this must be on a case by case basis.

Dwight: Now you want to open our doors for their parents to come here too? That's exactly the plan forseen by Obama and the Democrats. They want "chain migration", i.e. start with the kids, then it will be easier to later get the whole family. The Democrats see 800,000 new Democrat voters (some have said the number is much higher). They want them here for selfish reasons.

Dwight: I agree. Let's look at the Scripture. Romans 13:1-7 tells us to obey our rulers and by implication, the laws that they set in place. We have immigration laws for a reason. No one is to come into our control illegally. If they do, they should be sent back. Just because Obama and the Democrats violated our laws in not only allowing them to come, but furthered aggravated their crime by allowing them to stay here, does not mean that we cannot now still enforce our laws.

Dwight: Romans 13 also lays out clearly what the government's role is: 1. To act as a "minister of God and praise those who do good" 2. To act as a "minister of God" and have compassion on those who do evil - Oh wait, it doesn't say that. it says to act as a "minister of God in avenging and bringing wrath on the one who practices evil."

These are the 2 primary functions of government. The government was never meant to be a charitable organization. That's what we as individuals are to do. Again, there are exceptions, but the general rule for the government according to the Bible is to take care of those two functions. You want to have compassion on those kids? Be my guest. Send them money. Take them into your home and feed them and clothe them. But the government has no business using our tax dollars to welcome illegals into our country, feeding them, finding housing for them, schools for them, giving them welfare, find them jobs, etc. etc.
That's not what our tax dollars are to be used for - i.e. to support lawbreakers.

Matthew 23:23 The weightier matter of the law are justice, mercy, and faith. The primary function of the government is justice and yes, occasionally, at the discretion of the judge, mercy. But if the government always gives mercy, then there would be no justice. As Christians we are to respect and practice justice, but we too should show mercy, and give to the poor and needy. True charity comes from individuals and goes directly to the needy. Charitable gifts are not to be given to the government for them to distribute to the needy.

When the government practices "kindness", we get open borders, gay marriage, reparations, Social Security, unemployment checks, food stamps, women in combat, homosexuals in the military, abortion at any stage, affirmative action, welfare, men using women's bathrooms and vice-versa, and more entitlements etc. With few exceptions, none of these policies have been good for our country.

Kindness and compassion are not the job of the government. It's job is justice. By and large, it's individuals who should show kindness and compassion, especially those of us who are Christians.

Post Reply

Return to “Miscellaneous”