https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/880269697/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-in-daca-case

It appears I was wrong about this case in my comments in the last Supreme Court ruling thread. From the site:

"The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration from ending DACA and protection of "DREAMers." Host Steve Inskeep speaks with DACA recipient Jose Munoz, NPR's John Burnett and Nina Totenberg."

I should also mention that the audio here includes the partially reading of two tweets on this subject by the current chief executive. Interestingly, the High Court didn't say that DACA couldn't be reversed but that the executive branch chose to go about it the wrong way.

I remember back in middle or high school when one of my social studies teachers was discussing Supreme Court nominations. He said that a president can do his best to make appointments in line with his beliefs, but that once those justices are seated, they might very well strike off in a different direction. I'm enjoying seeing that happen right now.

A victory for compassion

I read an article last night about DACA that explained that the reason for the decision was Trump's method of over-turning DACA and not what DACA represents.

The article said Trump gave no concrete reasons for the over-turn other than, "I'm president and I have the right to do this."
Apparently he does have the right but there are still regulations to follow even for a president.

Sorta like when your parents said, "Because I said so!" When you asked why you had to do something---which made me mad. And we were all left wanting to be respected and be given a good reason when they answered us that way.

The Supreme Court apparently isn't keen on "I said so," either.


On the other hand, Mormons. When the prophet says jump they ask how high. They could learn from the Supremes. Being a Pavlov's dog should not be the goal.

Apparently (as per a tweet from Mr. Orange) they are resubmitting the issue. POTUS views the recent response from the Court as simply a request to provide a little more information - as in dot the i's and cross the t's.

I hope the celebration for dreamers was not premature. It really sounds like addition of required information could change the outcome when the SUPREMES reconsider the resubmission.

At least that's how it is coming across to me.

Considering how the Supreme Court works, etc. and the lack of competent agency heads, there may not be enough time for Trump to do anything about it. I'm sure hoping that's the case.

SCOTUS successfully kicked the can to 2021, when the case will likely be dropped. Which is the whole point of kicking the can down the road.

There was a since-deleted complaint that this post is off-topic.

I'll bring it on topic. In my neck of the woods, there is a *huge* increase in immigrants, some legal, some not. (Like it or not, this is the future of our country. It's happening, and it's happening quickly.) My local ward house is losing members overall. But one group where the Mormons are (sadly) making gains is with the Hispanic immigrants. I do take an interest in this, because I like the immigrant kids and families with whom I work, and I don't want to see them taken advantage of or abused. Poverty is dealing them enough challenges already, and they don't need to have 10% of their meager incomes appropriated because "God" says so. They don't need to have their precious time away from work appropriated by a church that will never be satisfied. Their truly innocent and sweet children do not need to be asked shockingly inappropriate questions in private interviews with a bishop.

Back to off-topic. Former president Vicente Fox of Mexico commented that he thought the U.S. was crazy to try to get rid of so many young people into whom we have already put a heavy investment in their education and training. I concur. These are some of the nicest, most hard-working, and responsible kids and families that I've seen in my long teaching career. Please trust me when I say that we WANT these people. One student told me in confidence this year that her entire family had walked from Central America to the United States. In fact, her youngest sibling had been born on the road here. Read that word again -- WALKED. Why wouldn't we want that level of persistence and determination in our newest residents?

You can certainly have a strong opinion about illegal immigration, and I would understand that and even to some degree share it. But it becomes a different story when those immigrants are real, live people right in front of you whom you know, like, and respect. They are good people and some of the best among us. To bring this back on-topic, I'd like to see the Mormon church keep its avaricious hands off of them. They deserve better than that.

in the middle of a pandemic. It's not just about stripping protection for preconditions anymore; it's the whole damn thing.

And that leads to another question:

"Who is American?"

The Americas were the last continents on Earth to be populated by humans.

America is the land of immigrants.

The Mormon foundation myth is basically an immigrant story.

Immigration is central to life and culture in America.

Why remove people who, for all intents and purposes, are socially and culturally American?

We just have to look back in time about a hundred years to the words of Senator Ellison DuRant Smith of South Carolina:

"I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated American citizenship. I recognize that there is a dangerous lack of distinction between people of a certain nationality and the breed of the dog. Who is an American? Is he an immigrant from Italy? Is he an immigrant from Germany? If you were to go abroad and some one were to meet you and say, “I met a typical American,” what would flash into your mind as a typical American, the typical representative of that new Nation? Would it be the son of an Italian immigrant, the son of a German immigrant, the son of any of the breeds from the Orient, the son of the denizens of Africa? We must not get our ethnological distinctions mixed up with out anthropological distinctions. It is the breed of the dog in which I am interested. I would like for the Members of the Senate to read that book just recently published by Madison Grant, The Passing of a Great Race. Thank God we have in America perhaps the largest percentage of any country in the world of the pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon stock; certainly the greatest of any nation in the Nordic breed. It is for the preservation of that splendid stock that has characterized us that I would make this not an asylum for the oppressed of all countries, but a country to assimilate and perfect that splendid type of manhood that has made America the foremost Nation in her progress and in her power, and yet the youngest of all the nations. I myself believe that the preservation of her institutions depends upon us now taking counsel with our condition and our experience during the last World War."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/26/2020 08:37AM by anybody.

The idea isn't to punish people for coming to the US illegally. It's about how big do we want the magnet to be in the future and about how to plan ahead for the wealth of the nation. What creates and preserves wealth? Many of us differ on the answers to these questions. But the issues get real clear if we actually treat new arrivals with the respect and rights they deserve to have as equals in our society. If every new arrival were given citizenship upon request, to have their needed medical attention provided, equal education, whatever amount of welfare they need, and equal rights under the law for equal pay as any American, most of today's pro-immigration advocates would slam the door shut as quickly and as hard as possible. Some might do it right away. Some may wait until after fifty to a hundred thousand new arrivals start showing up at the border each week, each asking for their entry admittance and citizenship and all equal rights and privileges that come with it.

It is only when we can exploit these people that many people want to let them in. If they'll do the work that we don't want to do ourselves, have them work without workers right at jobs that don't officially exist at sub-standard wages and working conditions, then yes, by all means let them all in (what many people actually think when they advocate for open borders). if we can get them to pay taxes without giving them equal voting representation (as we actually do now) then yes, by all means, let them all in. At least that us the way that most people envision open borders. But if we really treated them as equals, if every one of them got everything they needed including equal protections under the law (especially the employment laws), then everything would change. Many people would suddenly resent the increased competition in professional jobs and in college admissions. As taxes increase to cover the dramatically increased costs, resentments of the existing citizens would build quickly. Labor shortages at low-end jobs would require long-established families to start doing manual work at low wages.

This might all be worth the price if not for one thing. It won't stop until after the last person from South America to the US border has arrived in the US and claimed their citizenship and everything that goes with it. But it won't stop there either. There are several Billion people in China and in India who want to claim their US citizenship and everything that comes with it too (a big house, nice car, less work, Democracy). Are we going to be racist and keep the Chinese and Eastern Indians out at that point?

Somewhere between when we open the borders and when we become a third-world country ourselves, we have to set some kind of boundries. These need to be boundries that really get respected and obeyed. We at least need to retain our own way of life long enough for the rest of the world to learn how to create their own abundance (hard work, capital investment, delayed gratification). But we have to start somewhere. There are a lot of forces that would take away our democracy if we will allow it. It's not about racism or wanting to punish immigrent kids.

Notice how you start by urging that immigrants should be treated well but end up arguing about preserving your own lifestyle.

Which is your real concern, I wonder. . .

https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/myths-and-facts-about-immigrants-and-immigration-en-espanol

Very good article, worth reading.

Myth #1: Immigrants are overrunning our country, and most are here illegally.

The Facts:

It is true that there are more immigrants living in the U.S. than ever before. However, the percentage of immigrants in the overall population is not much different than many other times throughout our history. Today immigrants make up approximately 13.5% of the total U.S. population. From 1900 to 1930, immigrants made up between 12% and 15% of the population, and similar spikes occurred in the 1850s and 1880s. During those periods immigrants successfully became part of U.S. society, helping to build the thriving and diverse country we have now, and there is no reason to believe today’s immigrants will be any different.

More than sixty percent of immigrants in the United States today have lived here for at least 15 years, and the large majority (76%) of immigrants have lawful status. Of the approximately 43.7 million immigrants in the U.S. in 2016, 20.2 million (approximately 44.7 percent) were naturalized citizens. Together, lawful permanent residents (sometimes referred to as green card holders), people in the United States on temporary visas including student and work visas, refugees and people seeking asylum, and undocumented immigrants made up the remaining 55.3 percent of immigrants.

In 2016, there were 10.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., or less than 3.5 percent of the nation's population. This represents a significant decrease (13%) from the 12.2 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2007, and is the lowest total since 2004.

Check out the rest of the story.
https://www.adl.org/resources/fact-sheets/myths-and-facts-about-immigrants-and-immigration-en-espanol

Where are they getting their numbers from? I have "boots on the ground" and I'm saying that the numbers are rising rapidly. I'm not making a judgement about it one way or the other (except to say that the families that I've seen are nice, hard-working people,) but the numbers are definitely on the upswing.

Hmmm...just a guess, but from what I have heard in the media over the last few years:

1. Twenty years ago, there were more undocumented single men from Mexico who came and went to work in agriculture, construction, etc. Now there are more undocumented people from Central America and more families with women and children.

2. Overall numbers have declined but are more concentrated in cities and suburbs rather than farming areas alone.

3. Tougher border restrictions keep people from going back and forth, so once somebody makes it they tend to stay for good.

My real concern and the ones that I have stated in my post above are in alignment. The US government has no authority nor desire to use force to make changes to the governments and societies of its neighbors against their will. It would be nice to see someone powerful enough, march in to Mexico and South America, kill all of the cartel leaders and gang leaders using whatever force is required, effectively eradicate bribery and corruption and the drug trade, and to implement a sustainable US style democracy there, and to make capitalism (and thus gainful employment) flourish there. Money would then flow in as soon as investors believe that their longterm investments are safe. The resulting prosperity would remove the need for anyone who lives there to leave their homes because of poverty and corruption. The people there would prosper. But that's not going to happen. If we believe in Democracy, then only the people in those societies have the moral authority to make those kinds of changes to free themselves from their own oppression. At the same time, we in the US don't need to help finance that oppression ourselves as we do now. Although I want to prevent my homeland from becoming like theirs, it would be nice to see prosperity spread in to Mexico and South America. Make Mexico Great. Make South America Great. But instead the opposite happens. As American money and resources from selective exploitative (racist) labor practices in the US trickles to the South to finance an over-all exploitive system found South of the border, pressures mount to spread the corruption and exploitation found South of the border, in to the US. Illegal drugs also flow in to the US without any way to stop them from coming in (another issue that we in the US are partially responsible for). Anyone who opposes this trend is called a racist when quite the opposite is true. If we really cared about the DACA kids (many of who are now adults), the US House of Representatives would have accepted the Trump-proposed amnesty for them, in exchange for provisions that would have helped stop the spread of the cycle of poverty found South of the border, in to the US. There should also be new laws to put a stop to the existing exploitation of immigrents on US soil. The US also exports exploitation itself south and to often the kids are caught in the middle. And at the risk of angering a few people here, we have no boundaries what-so-ever behind which to maintain our democracy. I won't call it a wall here because that changes the context for some people. Whatever we want to call it, we need healthy boundaries (even the Vatican has walls) until those forces on the other side are as friendly to Democracy as our Canadian neighbors to the North are are.

In James Allen's book called "As a Man Thinketh", he says (something like) "let us hate both the oppressors and the oppressed. For they are co-operators in ignorance".

Lot's Wife, Your description of the political process in the US is correct. But I am not sure what an executive order from the Obama Administration to defy existing US immigration laws did to help future generations of Mexican and South American children, yet to be born at the time. I am not saying that what Obama did was wrong, just pointing out that he acted against the constitutional process by using his Presidential authority to reject the immigration process that had previously been established by the congress and instead, to do what he thought was the right thing to do, by creating an alternative immigration procedure that was not sanctioned by the proper governing body as is outlined by the US constitution (the congress).

As a result, we now have hundreds of DACA adults who may or may not ever gain legitimate status here in the US, even several years later. This may or may not change the political environment in the US in favor of one political party (as likely intended). But it does nothing to resolve the core issues in these kids' respective homelands. How can our choices affect permanent positive change if we don't try to change the broken systems at their source in the process? It would be nice to hear that Obama asked for anti-corruption concessions from these countries (if he did) in exchange for his DACA executive order. Is it bad for a chief executive to ask for things of others (as in other nations) that help them to become more prosperous in the future? Do we want to give a man a fish every day of his life or teach him how to fish?

The kids are tragically still pawns for both sides. No one can change that. We should at least try to make positive changes at the source, that being the case in either event. It's a bit of a slanted view to condemn one president for exercising the power of their branch of government in ways that step on the toes of the other branches of government, while not holding that same standard for all Presidents who do the same.

This post was intended as an response to Lot's Wife's post below. But RFM always stacks any responses sometimes from any individual, directly below their previous post instead of where they hit the "Reply" button from.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2020 11:26AM by azsteve.

The United States Of America is a made-up nation of immigrants.

America is not an ethnic nation-state.

There is not one America, but many.

Reading between the lines, what you are really saying is "I want to be special. I want to be dominant. I don't want to deal with things that are not culturally relevant to me."


I hope you will still be here by the 2040s when America is on track to be a majority non-white, multi-ethnic nation. There are more and more mixed-race and blended families every day.

What will you do then?


You could always fall upon Mormonism as an example where you can be "in the world but not in it."

Seriously, not much will change. The Irish, Italians, and Poles were supposed to "destroy" America too.

That didn't happen.

Life is not like a zero-sum game of musical chairs or just a few flavours of ice cream. Diversity brings more chairs and more flavours.

> I am not sure
> what an executive order from the Obama
> Administration to defy existing US immigration
> laws did to help . . . I am not saying that what Obama did was
> wrong, just pointing out that he acted against the
> constitutional process by using his Presidential
> authority to reject the immigration process that
> had previously been established by the congress . . . to do
> what he thought was the right
> thing to do, by creating an alternative
> immigration procedure that was not sanctioned by
> the proper governing body as is outlined by the US
> constitution (the congress).

Really? Executive orders are appropriate within the powers granted by legislation. You assert that Obama used them unconstitutionally with regard to immigration.

If that were true, the supreme court would have invalidated them. Did that happen? No. In fact, the supreme court just upheld the very DACA program that so exercises you.

By contrast, how many of your boi's executive orders on immigration have been found unconstitutional or illegal over the last 3.5 years? There were the first three Muslim bans alone plus some others. So according to the only authority that matters, the supreme court, Obama hewed quite closely to the constitutional and legislative standards and the penchant for unconstitutionality lies not with him but with his successor.

Facts matter.

Notice what he's really saying. "I don't hate people, I just don't want my culture contaminated. I just don't want them here."

I've heard this I don't know how many times.

Steve, please show me how culture and DNA are combined. I don't see how "culture" is a product of biology.

Real world studies conducted over the last hundred years and more show that immigrants assimilate by the second or third generation.


What you are saying makes about as much sense as saying that you should start acting like a Nephite since your DNA is miraculously transformed after becoming a Mormon.

Like you, I find the historical resonances of this sloppy thinking absolutely horrifying.

I'm second generation American. I don't think I'm much of a threat to the good order of society, though opinions may differ on that. I was, after all, raised Mormon. I consider that a bigger demerit than having foreign-born grandparents.

You are just two generations removed from the unwashed masses??? I must reconsider our friendship, BoJ!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2020 11:17PM by Lot's Wife.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Notice what he's really saying. "I don't hate
> people, I just don't want my culture contaminated.
> I just don't want them here."

....what he is really saying? That is not what I said. Culture was not even a consideration in my mind when I wrote my post. Some people here are so presumptive and vicious.

The point that seems to be overlooked is that some people like the current conditions because the exploitation that it makes possible benefits them. For example, the employer who hires people illegally for jobs that don't officially exist and where those who perform those jobs have far fewer real workers rights due to the practical implications of those jobs. Even the government is complicit as they issue Tax Payer ID numbers to these individuals (a pseudo social security number with no rights nor benefits attached to it), so the illegal worker can pay taxes on the illegally earned money. The government issues those tax Payer ID numbers while still not granting a security net to the individual nor voter rights to the recipient of the number. That is taxation without representation. Then they justify it by claiming that it is a first step towards a ten-year process to eventually allow the person to earn citizenship. So 'let us exploit you for ten years and then we'll consider possibly giving you citizenship after that'. This is a bad practice for both parties and regardless of which side of the issue you're on, you should see this practice as morally wrong for several reasons.

If we really do give equal rights to everyone who shows up at the border wanting in, that satisfies the ethical issues that are involved in any event. But it does not resolve the core issue which no one talks about without someone calling others a racist. Tragically, the magnet to attract more people in to this illegal and exploitive system only grows as more people are treated more humanely (as they should be treated humanely). The people who come here shouldn't be forced due to economic and political conditions in their homelands, to leave their homes. Let's ignore that critical issue for a moment and go back to the effects of this same over-all problem on the US. No one wants to hold the leaders of these third-world countries responsible anyway (another tragedy).

Rather than oppose open borders in the US, what would happen if we opened everything wide-up? What if everyone who showed up at the border could be admitted to the US and granted full citizenship or at least legal residency the same day they arrived? The draw would be beyond just huge. We wouldn't just have millions of people showing up, billions of people (Billions with a capital "B") would be willing to make the journey. Every one of them who was desperate enough to make the journey would show up with many unmet (read expensive) needs. You and I would need to pay the bill. If you don't think you have enough money or health care for yourself now, you really won't like it then. Eighty percent taxes on your income and an insurance card that gives you little to nothing is not a good direction for any country. It causes the very thing that these people are fleeing from.

Any reasonable attempts to reverse this tragic situation require cooperation between those of opposing beliefs in how human nature and motivation work, and in how to affect positive changes to a whole society. The best way to avoid dealing with the dysfunction and exploitation, and to continue the current exploitive situation is to start calling others a racist so long and loud that everyone stops discussing the issue altogether.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2020 11:10AM by azsteve.

The fact remains: Trump has had several of his executive directives on immigration overturned by the supreme court. Obama did not. You cannot simultaneously praise Trump and advocate rule of law.

I repeat: if a leader continually violates the constitution--not in some self-interested pundit's view but according to the supreme court--he and his followers are by definition the outlaws.

> In James Allen's book called "As a Man Thinketh",
> he says (something like) "let us hate both the
> oppressors and the oppressed. For they are
> co-operators in ignorance".

As a Man Thinketh is a collection of silly nostrums. In this case it is repugnant.

I will NOT hate the oppressed, for they lack the power to prevent their oppression. Saying they are complicit in their own suffering is nothing more than the self-justification of the strong.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > In James Allen's book called "As a Man
> Thinketh",
> > he says (something like) "let us hate both the
> > oppressors and the oppressed. For they are
> > co-operators in ignorance".
>
> As a Man Thinketh is a collection of silly
> nostrums. In this case it is repugnant.
>
> I will NOT hate the oppressed, for they lack the
> power to prevent their oppression. Saying they
> are complicit in their own suffering is nothing
> more than the self-justification of the strong.

The right of the majority to use 'any means necessary' to change or overthrow any government that oppresses them is not exclusive to the people of the US. It's a god-given inalienable right of all human beings everywhere in the world. The government of any nation receives its moral authority to govern from the consent of the governed. If those inalienable rights are not respected, only those who live in that society have the moral authority to affect the required changes.

How many mothers in South America raise sons who grow up to become members of ms13 or who become government officials who accept bribes as a routine practice? There are many local-cultural (not referring to ethnically cultural) nuances that also degrade a society and that aren't as glaringly bad as corruption and crime, but that prevent the society from thriving. Every corrupt official and every member of ms13 was once an innocent child. Someone had to teach them to become corrupt or to become violent criminals. Their families accept and sometimes embrace their abhorent behaviors as long as it benefits them too. Every society is built upon the core values of its members and all communities are somehow socially connected to each and every one of its members, each of who has some level of responsibility, even if or when we or they lack personal control over the matters at-hand in the moment. Why should you and I contribute to their problems? If we really understood the unintended effects of our intended charity and desire to treat others humanely, some people would be horrified at what actually results at times from our intended desire to do good? Why do we require nothing from these societies as we allow our bread crumbs (remittances from their exploited citizens living in the US) to fall in to their society as a means to perpetuate their tragic situations at home instead of actually helping them to build their own healthy infrastructure at home? As a matter of charity, American wealth should be used to help solve these issues. But American wealth alone will not solve their problems and at the current time is making their problems worse. Many, but not all of those who travel north are victems. But we can't responsibly address their issues under the current methods being used right now to express our attempts at charity. What we are doing now actually makes things worse for them. There are two sides to every coin. It's not wrong for us to consider how these same issues harm us in the US. But that doesn't mean we don't desire to be charitable to others either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2020 12:22PM by azsteve.

My heavens, what a post. It starts out as a complete non sequitur, having nothing to do with what we were discussing. But that strange fact is NOTHING compared to the content of what you say.


--------------
> The right of the majority to use 'any means
> necessary' to change or overthrow any government
> that oppresses them is not exclusive to the people
> of the US.

You see? You just denied the rationale for having a constitution, since the purpose of a constitution is to CURTAIL the power of the majority. Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? I think not.


------------------
I have said this before and I'll say it again. Democracies only exist with constitutional limits on majority power. Otherwise the majority can sanction the permanent disenfranchisement of any minority, the creation of a permanent dictatorship, or the slaughter of an entire race. Because the majority says so.

That thinking, azsteve, is totalitarian. The difference between a constitutional democracy and tyranny is the former's restrictions on the power of the majority. Have you ever read David Hume? Alexis de Toqueville? Obviously not.


-------------------
Malcolm X would be appalled to see you inadvertently use his words to approve of what de Toqueville denigrated as untrammeled majoritarianism: three wolves and two sheep deciding what's for dinner.

You should stick with James Allen's smug homilies. Because denying the basis of constitutionality puts you squarely in the camp of tyrants.

AZSteve, what do you want?

Perhaps you have heard of the infamous book called "The Camp Of The Saints" by the late Jean Raspail.

You sound just like the theme of this book. Here's the plot. The white Christian West is under threat of extinction by black and brown hordes and goody-goody guilt ridden liberals just "invite them in" to get "free stuff" — destroying the white West in the process.

So, do you belive that humans are not a product of their environment? That's what you seem to be saying. You keep talking about the horrific conditions in Central America and you just assume that if a person is from that part of the world, they will carry the violence and economic conditions with them — as if third world problems were a virus.

So what do you want to do? Turn the USA into the old East German DDR? Build a giant wall around the country so everything can be kept "pure?" Why do you think "they" are all trying to "take" something from you?

This is what is happening in Japan. You can visit, but you can't immigrate. The population is ageing rapidly and the population is falling. There are not enough new, young workers, and they don't want to let new people in. Is that what you want to happen to America?

The USA has not had unrestricted immigration since 1924 and even that was limited to European "whites." Back in the 1980s in Oregon there was a Hindu guru who took over a small town and everyone freaked out. That's not what's happening.

Immigration is good thing. That's what keeps a society alive. Eventually North America will be linked like the EU. American retirees want to live in Mexico and Central America, and people there come to the USA for work. Climate change is going to force people to come together.

Not so long ago, people in Arizona were going on and on about the "Reconquista." All of the undocumented Mexicans would supposedly "take over" and make the Southwest part of Mexico again. That's not going to happen either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 01:05AM by anybody.

> So what do you want to do? Turn the USA into the
> old East German DDR? Build a giant wall around the
> country so everything can be kept "pure?" Why do
> you think "they" are all trying to "take"
> something from you?

This is an important paragraph. What I would add is azsteve's evident disregard for the constitution and law. If you add that to the predisposition towards charismatic rule and the ethnic-based discrimination, you end up in a place--a very bad place--that humanity has seen many times in the past.

People can insist as much as they want that that is not where they want to go, but if they keep jabbing their finger at the same road on the map their destination is obvious.

if it means equality and justice for all.

What they really want is democracy* with an asterisk.

They're fine with dictatorship if they think it will be good for them,

The really scary thing is how close they've come to succeeding.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 01:02AM by anybody.

That is exactly the problem. Democracy without a constitution is Nazi or Soviet: "the people have spoken and never need speak again." But today's majority may become tomorrow's minority, and at that point there is nothing left to protect anybody.

It is not uncommon for charismatic populism to sweep away constitutional and legal niceties as Peronism did to Argentina, transforming a Latin American superstar into yet another economic basket case but this time one punctuated with a history of torture and disappearance. By following a Pied Piper into extra-constitutionality, the United States has taken the first steps down that road.

If people don't stand up for the annoying, frustrating, muddy processes of republican (small "r") governance; if they opt instead for the simplicity and enthusiasm of tyranny, they no longer deserve the liberties of constitutional democracy--and their unfortunate descendants will curse their names.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 01:18AM by Lot's Wife.

Everything I post on this thread gets extrapolated to ideological extremes that have nothing to do with the thoughts that I actually expressed, and then added upon from there, to the dystopic end conclusions of those incorrect interpretations and exaggerations of my expressions. It's just amazing to see how people can do this, but more interesting to speculate about likely why they're doing it. When I speak of the inalienable rights of the majority of the people to change their government using any means necessary, somehow that gets twisted to mean that the Majority can't be trusted to choose their own destiny (even when you apply the example to oppressed third-world countries) which leads to constitutional violations here in the US somehow (really?) ...and then by extension somehow that the constitution itself is somehow bad or that people who are not of your own particular political party conspire to violate the constitution and that a political 'last days' scenario exists because the constitution is already now starting to be violated (like both parties haven't routinely been doing that for hundreds of years now). I guess it's okay for a minority (not referring to a racial minority here but to a political minority) to burn down buildings of innocent business owners in major American cities and to pull down historical statues from public places because of how they interpret the meaning of those statues to be racist (even claims of Abe Lincoln's statue as a potential target because he was a racist too.... huh?) and that's entirely an okay thing to do (not). But if you want to empower the people in third world countries to take back their own liberties (mostly non-violently and with charitable financial support from the US and by helping mothers there to educate their innocent children correctly before they grow up to become bad people), well.... that's just proposterous and human nature doesn't work that way (really.....?). There are some real crazy people here in this thread.

This all relates back to the subject line of this thread. It's not just the DACA kids who are affected. Every kid on the planet is a virtual DACA kid. There will be a delayed action depending on how we govern this world right now. If we're as honest as some of my critics in this thread, I have grave concerns for their well being.

Amidst all of this insanity, I am done posting anything further on this thread. Say what you will.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 11:49AM by azsteve.

If a person doesn't like constitutional constraints on the will of the majority, that person is an opponent of constitutional democracy.

If one thinks people can be described in categories based on ethnicity and race, he is a racist.

Your problem isn't with me or Anybody: it is with the English language.

In response to the post from "anybody", I am not saying that the conditions in South America are horrific. Hundreds of thousands of people who show up at the Northern US border routinely are saying it. There's a difference.

This is one last edit that showed up out of sequence. As I said I am now done posting to this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 11:59AM by azsteve.

Thanks for finally getting down to brass tacks.

The big problem with having the things you say the "majority" wants is the Constitution.

Things have changed a lot since the Dred Scott case.

Despite what many Mormons and evangelical fundies believe, the Constitution was not divinely inspired, guarantees birthright citizenship, and equal justice under the law. In the past, it is true that people illegally ignored these things. But in the 21st Century, to get what you want you would have to make America a different country — both on paper and in conception. You would have to turn modern America into something like the old Rhodesia or the old South Africa. You could have a legal caste system, restricted immigration, no birthright citizenship, and so on.

But — the "majority" that you speak of may no longer exist.

Have you been watching the news lately? Perhaps in your part of Arizona all the people you know may want to go back and codify the injustices of the past into modern law, but in the rest of the USA most people — including most white people — don't want to go back. They want the future, and not the past.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/02/2020 01:33PM by anybody.

and are keeping their noses clean, are making good grades, are working and paying taxes, and are basically modeling superior citizen behavior, immigrant or not, these people are a drag on the economy? a physical threat? a what exactly?

ETA: @azsteve



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2020 07:55PM by Beth.

Besides which many know no other country but this one and are here through not choice of their own. Resisting illegals and showing compassion to those who would be returned to countries that are alien to them are two different issues IMV.

What do borders represent and what benefit do they afford the people within? Without them what would we have? Who decides weather borders are needed or not and without them who gets to decide what laws we will be governed by and by who and in what manner will they be enforced? If I am wrong in thinking that borders as well as free and fair elections by an informed citizenry and the upholding of the laws enacted by those elected are crucial underpinnings of freedom then I invite others to please enlighten me.

Power resides with the electorate and is exercised through their representatives, who have adopted laws and ratified treaties governing immigration. When a new leadership assumes power, it is bound by those laws until they are changed through the constitutionally mandated processes.

A new administration may not just reject the constitution and existing statutes and treaties, for the US is a republic and not a tyranny. If you want change, you need either to compromise with the other elected authorities (legislature and courts) or gain control of both houses of Congress and use those to revise the rules.

It's simple, really. As explained in the Federalist Papers, the constitution was constructed to prevent hasty revision of laws when a populist government assumes power. The system is supposed to be slow. That's the only way to ensure stability in the face of rapidly changing public moods.

Correct me if wrong.

DACA is an executive order which means a secular revelation.
Just like the kind Rusty gets at night and then another prophet reverses it later.

What we should really be doing is demanding our legislators do their job and stop sitting on their butts collecting paychecks.