I think the question deserves a better answer than that. Your answer is actually a strawman argument, because you inflated the point by TheAmazingGrace to one you could more conveniently attack. The point TheAmazingGrace made was merely a refutation of the assertion that refugees from Central America represent a threat to our culture. It was not an assertion that refugees from Central America were more “good and right” than any other immigrants, only that their was no reason to assume that they were any worse. Address the actual point. Don’t build a straw man.
The actual point was that the fact that these people are from a Spanish-speaking, majority Catholic country is virtually irrelevant to whether or not they are a threat to “our culture.” So why bring the point up to begin with?
A big, fat and red herring doesn’t even rise to the level of being considered an “actual point.”
Quite the opposite, really.
A herring – red or otherwise – is pointless, irrelevant, misleading, squishy and oily; although it is often served salted, smoked or pickled.
You aren’t proposing the fact that these people are Spanish-speaking and from a Catholic majority country is relevant to the discussion, are you?
Being majority Catholic and Spanish-speaking hasn’t exactly made Venezuela or Honduras countries of high moral and civic distinction, exactly. Nor Guatemala, El Salvador, and Belize which are not majority Catholic but predominantly Catholic.
In fact, these five are countries have the distinction of having the top-five murder rates in the entire world, Honduras being the first and Venezuela second.
Ergo, the point “TheAmazingGrace made was merely a refutation of the assertion that refugees from Central America represent a threat to our culture,” can be refuted not by the irrelevancy that these people are from a “Spanish-speaking and majority Catholic country,” but by the actual fact that 90-95% of the migrants in the caravans are young men who come from countries with the highest murder and crime rates in the world.
Would that be sufficient to counter her point that these “refugees from Central America” are just as “good and right” as “any other immigrants.”
The murder rate in Honduras is 90.4 murders per 100,000. There are hundreds of countries in the world with murder rates far lower than that. We could accept immigrants, legally, from many of those countries, no?
Apparently secretary of defense Mattis is now headed to the border personally.
He’s a personal hero of mine, a very quotable man.
I just read that active members of the military are not allowed to engage in police actions on American soil. So what is the plan at the border once the 5000 troops have installed the razor wire.
according to this
"The use of the active duty military in a law enforcement role is not unconstitutional but it is prohibited by the posse comitatus act. 18 U.S.C. § 1385 (adopted 1878).
The text of the relevant legislation is as follows:
18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Also notable is the following provision within Title 10 of the United States Code (which concerns generally the organization and regulation of the armed forces and Department of Defense):
10 U.S.C. § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law.
The act does not apply to the National Guard mobilized at the request of a state governor. In practice, 10 U.S.C. § 375 has more bite because a federal prosecutor can and usually would refrain from prosecuting a crime ordered by his ultimate boss, the President, and there is not legal duty to prosecute every possible crime, but 10 U.S.C. § 375 creates an affirmative duty on the party of the Secretary of Defense that might be enforceable in a civil action."
No wonder it has to be declared an invasion
the first groups have arrived at Tijuana
When did your parents arrive? And from what country?
Um, could that high murder rate be the reason why people are fleeing . . . . ?
Ethiopia in the 50’s
I ask for a couple of reasons. First, by way of reminder, the Hondurans are acting legally. Seeking asylum is legal.
Second, while it’s fine and dandy that our parents, grand-parents, and other ancestors came here legally, legality is arbitrary and frequently based on a culture’s current fears and prejudices. Be grateful that your parents didn’t emigrate from a Communist or Asian country. They would have been deprived of the opportunity to stay in the U.S. and achieve what they did. https://1950immigration.wordpress.com/mccarren-walter-act-of-1952/
Could be for some. However, in the many interviews with those in the caravan available in the media, that reason isn’t one that is brought up. To a person, it is almost always seeking economic betterment for themselves.
Again, asylum does not mean economic betterment.
It could also be that individuals bent on using violence or criminality to advantage themselves might be seeking a more lucrative base from which to operate.
Flooding a border in the hopes of disabling a system, by which proper vetting to determine who qualifies and who does not, isn’t a proper strategy for any legitimate would-be immigrant or asylum seeker to use.
Ergo, anyone who participates in this attempt to overwhelm proper vetting ought to be disqualified by the very fact of being a participant.
And anyone who endorses such a means from within the country itself demonstrates, at minimum, a misunderstanding about what is good for the country at large and, possibly, a lack of real concern for the welfare of their fellow citizens.
In honor of the caravan heading to the United States, I am going to remember Robin Hood, and how the rich were being robbed to give to the poor. Unlike the rich in the United States who have enough to spare to put up a wall. They are all children of the LORD after all. Crusade o’clock anyone?
I can remember in history class when the United States was talked about as a nation of people who wanted to get ahead rather than actually were and wanted to beat down on the poor.
And, they did for a bit- enslaved another population and genocided most of the ones they found. A real sharp and costly learning curve.
I can see what your saying there.
Would the caravan take away your daily bread?
And give us this day our daily bread and lead us not in to temptation, but deliver us from evil. - Jesus
Lol there’s never been a genocide on US soil.
“They have neither the intelligence, the industry, the moral habits, nor the desire of improvement which are essential to any favorable change in their condition. Established in the midst of another and a superior race, and without appreciating the causes of their inferiority or seeking to control them, they must necessarily yield to the force of circumstances and ere long disappear.” --President Andrew Jackson, 5th annual message, December 3, 1833
“The only good Indians I ever saw were dead." Gen. Phillip Sheridan, 1869
“If ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi… in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy them all.”
“I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.”
“I did not know then how much was ended. When I look back now from this high hill of my old age, I can still see the butchered women and children lying heaped and scattered all along the crooked gulch as plain as when I saw them with eyes still young. And I can see that something else died there in the bloody mud, and was buried in the blizzard. A people’s dream died there. It was a beautiful dream…”
― Black Elk (speaking of the Massacre at Wounded Knee, at which not only unarmed men but also unarmed women and children, some of them fleeing, were gunned down)
“What we have done with the American Indian is its way as bad as what we imposed on the Negroes. We took a proud and independent race and virtually destroyed them. We have to find ways to bring them back into decent lives in this country.” --Richard Nixon
It is disgusting to suggest that there have been no nations wiped out on US soil. They didn’t all die from innocent transmission of European diseases, but were driven out of existence by purposeful action that intended to blot out those nations.
Having various groups continually wage war against a far stronger opponent isn’t genocide.
So all those native americans just kind of disappeared eh?
When that is what is being done to the Catholic Church, is that the way you see it?
Your premise is not remotely defensible. The actions that flowed from the Indian Removal Act of 1830 were genocidal, whether anyone admitted it at the time or not. The difference is that at least some of the people doing it still thought the desire for conquest of land was a defensible reason for genocide. The Sand Creek Massacre of 1864, in which about 2/3 of the victims were women and children, was considered an outrage even at the time. US soldiers mutilated the bodies, as well. They also plundered the bodies and the teepees for loot and took the horses.
This is what Kit Carson had to say about it:
Jis’ to think of that dog Chivington and his dirty hounds, up thar at Sand Creek. His men shot down squaws, and blew the brains out of little innocent children. You call sich soldiers Christians, do ye? And Indians savages? What der yer s’pose our Heavenly Father, who made both them and us, thinks of these things? I tell you what, I don’t like a hostile red skin any more than you do. And when they are hostile, I’ve fought 'em, hard as any man. But I never yet drew a bead on a squaw or papoose, and I despise the man who would.
— Kit Carson to Col. James Rusling
This was the finding of the Joint Counsel on the Conduct of War:
As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct. Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty. Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.
Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.
In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts.
If you say it isn’t a genocide unless it successfully wipes out the race, then the Final Solution wasn’t even a recipe for a genocide.
Oh, and is it “waging war” when you are the one being invaded and you have the audacity to fight back? Is that what you mean by “having various groups continually wage war against a far stronger opponent”? If you’re living in an area for hundreds or even thousands of years and you are invaded by a stronger nation or nations and you refuse to give up your lands, your language, your culture and everything about your way of life, and so you fight back and you’re wiped out, then it isn’t a genocide?