Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race.

Trump is closely allied with Christian (i.e. white Christian) nationalists. People like Miller subscribe to racial conspiracy theories and design their policies accordingly. By pandering to racists, fear-mongering about immigrant crime waves, violating the law, and going out of their way to be cruel, the administration has shown a hostility to minorities that's all out of proportion with such technicalities as undocumented status.

---

Wow, just wow. Just as I think you are coming back to earth, you start JR'ing again.

---

Nah. Y'all have just been lost in Trumpside Down World so long, you've forgotten what conservatism is:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/150764

---

I have known and been conservative my whole life, Sam.

You ain't it.

Hating Trump is just puerile emotion, nothing better. Pretending you stand for any ideal just makes you look dumb as well as bitter.

---

You haven't even been conservative this whole thread. Otherwise you'd see the wisdom of these conservative judges and the danger of what the GOP is becoming.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race.

Trump is closely allied with Christian (i.e. white Christian) nationalists. People like Miller subscribe to racial conspiracy theories and design their policies accordingly. By pandering to racists, fear-mongering about immigrant crime waves, violating the law, and going out of their way to be cruel, the administration has shown a hostility to minorities that's all out of proportion with such technicalities as undocumented status.

---

Wow, just wow. Just as I think you are coming back to earth, you start JR'ing again.

---

Nah. Y'all have just been lost in Trumpside Down World so long, you've forgotten what conservatism is:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/150764

---

I have known and been conservative my whole life, Sam.

You ain't it.

Hating Trump is just puerile emotion, nothing better. Pretending you stand for any ideal just makes you look dumb as well as bitter.

---

You haven't even been conservative this whole thread. Otherwise you'd see the wisdom of these conservative judges and the danger of what the GOP is becoming.

---

Preventing deportation of gang members is Sam's idea of 'conservative'.

Sma also thinks keeping government fat and expensive is 'conservative'.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race.

Trump is closely allied with Christian (i.e. white Christian) nationalists. People like Miller subscribe to racial conspiracy theories and design their policies accordingly. By pandering to racists, fear-mongering about immigrant crime waves, violating the law, and going out of their way to be cruel, the administration has shown a hostility to minorities that's all out of proportion with such technicalities as undocumented status.

---

Wow, just wow. Just as I think you are coming back to earth, you start JR'ing again.

---

Nah. Y'all have just been lost in Trumpside Down World so long, you've forgotten what conservatism is:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/150764

---

I have known and been conservative my whole life, Sam.

You ain't it.

Hating Trump is just puerile emotion, nothing better. Pretending you stand for any ideal just makes you look dumb as well as bitter.

---

You haven't even been conservative this whole thread. Otherwise you'd see the wisdom of these conservative judges and the danger of what the GOP is becoming.

---

Preventing deportation of gang members is Sam's idea of 'conservative'.

Sma also thinks keeping government fat and expensive is 'conservative'.

---

SCOTUS unanimously held that the Alien Enemies Act affords due process to accused gang members.

Did all nine justices believe the law was passed in order to prevent the deportation of gang members? And is that what you believe?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race.

Trump is closely allied with Christian (i.e. white Christian) nationalists. People like Miller subscribe to racial conspiracy theories and design their policies accordingly. By pandering to racists, fear-mongering about immigrant crime waves, violating the law, and going out of their way to be cruel, the administration has shown a hostility to minorities that's all out of proportion with such technicalities as undocumented status.

---

Wow, just wow. Just as I think you are coming back to earth, you start JR'ing again.

---

Nah. Y'all have just been lost in Trumpside Down World so long, you've forgotten what conservatism is:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/150764

---

I have known and been conservative my whole life, Sam.

You ain't it.

Hating Trump is just puerile emotion, nothing better. Pretending you stand for any ideal just makes you look dumb as well as bitter.

---

You haven't even been conservative this whole thread. Otherwise you'd see the wisdom of these conservative judges and the danger of what the GOP is becoming.

---

Preventing deportation of gang members is Sam's idea of 'conservative'.

Sma also thinks keeping government fat and expensive is 'conservative'.

---

SCOTUS unanimously held that the Alien Enemies Act affords due process to accused gang members.

Did all nine justices believe the law was passed in order to prevent the deportation of gang members? And is that what you believe?

---

Sam loves his legal fiction almost as much as he loves MS-13.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race..

---

Quebec is selecting based on nationality and compatibility

No different than the USA was doing from 1924 on.

You are hung up on race when most people are only interesting in selection based on nationality….places/countries that have people most likely to integrate, fit in, and have job skills

---

Not so at all. The 1924 law was openly intended to preserve and promote ethnic homogeneity, which is largely (though not entirely) synonymous with racial homogeneity. Trump's people appear to be interested in the same thing.

---

I think we have just about gotten to the bottom of your views

You see any attempt through legitimate democratic means by any people to maintain the ethnic balance of their nation (and only bring in immigrants that are of a similar ethnic or cultural background) as "immoral"

So Israel must be one of the most immoral to you.

And Japan, and South Korea, and really the majority of other counties on earth

---

I couldn't care less what Japan and South Korea do. Israel isn't immoral for wanting a Jewish state. They're immoral for robbing and killing Palestinians.

Failing some miraculous trend in white birth rates, America's future will not be ethnically pure. That's neither good nor evil in itself. Only our response to it is good or bad. We can accept a multi-ethnic society with the challenges and blessings it will bring, or we can keep turning up the heat until we destroy ourselves.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BearFan33 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Assassin said:

---

The TDA illegals now being held in Texas are documented foreign terrorists who infiltrated the country at the direction of an adversarial regime. They were arrested in diligently planned and executed raids recently carried out by Departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) April 19, 2025

---

Miller is a straight up racist and a sociopath. If he weren't getting paid to lie, he would lie just for the fun of it.

---

Where is Miller's due process?

---

Where is he charged with a crime?

---

You convict Miller of being a racist (or worse) based on hearsay (from very questionable sources) and guilt by association, but unwilling to convict Abrego Garcia as an illegal immigrant gang member with court proceedings documentation and his associations.

It looks like you will believe and fight for whatever your feelings/emotions are telling you.

---

To state the obvious, this is a message board, not a court of law.

---

Thanks to activist judges and their enablers there isn't much difference these days.

---

No one's going to throw Miller in a gulag based on hearsay. That's the difference between him and the people Trump is targeting with your support.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore generally favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

It's a preference policy

---

But it BECOMES a moral issue when the people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts start getting upset.

---

MAGA in a nutshell.

---

Peewee Herman back from the grave! "I know you are but what am I?"

---

You certainly have to see it's true with the hardcore MAGA supporters. I've not seen anyone say they are emotionally detached??? Obviously they are very emotional voters, and the sycophants emotional government appointees.

---

No, only one side ignores facts for feelings and it's not the side that is pro life, pro-borders, pro-law enforcement and anti-trans cult.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore generally favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

It's a preference policy

---

But it BECOMES a moral issue when the people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts start getting upset.

---

MAGA in a nutshell.

---

Peewee Herman back from the grave! "I know you are but what am I?"

---

You certainly have to see it's true with the hardcore MAGA supporters. I've not seen anyone say they are emotionally detached??? Obviously they are very emotional voters, and the sycophants emotional government appointees.

---

No, only one side ignores facts for feelings and it's not the side that is pro life, pro-borders, pro-law enforcement and anti-trans cult.

---

Both sides make continual sacrifices of facts to the god of their feelings, just please. Right wing politics may be more rational at the moment, but to act like it's one sided is ridiculous.

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore generally favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

It's a preference policy

---

But it BECOMES a moral issue when the people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts start getting upset.

---

MAGA in a nutshell.

---

Peewee Herman back from the grave! "I know you are but what am I?"

---

You certainly have to see it's true with the hardcore MAGA supporters. I've not seen anyone say they are emotionally detached??? Obviously they are very emotional voters, and the sycophants emotional government appointees.

---

No, only one side ignores facts for feelings and it's not the side that is pro life, pro-borders, pro-law enforcement and anti-trans cult.

---

Both sides make continual sacrifices of facts to the god of their feelings, just please. Right wing politics may be more rational at the moment, but to act like it's one sided is ridiculous.

---

What is the GOP equivalent to white liberal women?

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

[Quebec does favor French-speaking immigrants. According to immigrationpolicy.org, the province has historically selected immigrants with French as their first language, with the percentage...70% over the past decade. This preference is driven by a desire to preserve and strengthen the French language in Quebec, which is the province's sole official language.]

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore absolutely favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

Its a preference policy

---

There are widely varying degrees of preference. Quebec may favor French speakers, but it doesn't commit genocide. And French is a language, not a race..

---

Quebec is selecting based on nationality and compatibility

No different than the USA was doing from 1924 on.

You are hung up on race when most people are only interesting in selection based on nationality….places/countries that have people most likely to integrate, fit in, and have job skills

---

Not so at all. The 1924 law was openly intended to preserve and promote ethnic homogeneity, which is largely (though not entirely) synonymous with racial homogeneity. Trump's people appear to be interested in the same thing.

---

I think we have just about gotten to the bottom of your views

You see any attempt through legitimate democratic means by any people to maintain the ethnic balance of their nation (and only bring in immigrants that are of a similar ethnic or cultural background) as "immoral"

So Israel must be one of the most immoral to you.

And Japan, and South Korea, and really the majority of other counties on earth

---

I couldn't care less what Japan and South Korea do. Israel isn't immoral for wanting a Jewish state. They're immoral for robbing and killing Palestinians.

Failing some miraculous trend in white birth rates, America's future will not be ethnically pure. That's neither good nor evil in itself. Only our response to it is good or bad. We can accept a multi-ethnic society with the challenges and blessings it will bring, or we can keep turning up the heat until we destroy ourselves.

---

1. So you copped out on the issue of Japan, S. Korea, Israel, and just about everyone else having respective immigration laws that prioritize ethnic stability-continuity

2. And if the USA is on its way to minority-majority demographics anyway then there is no need to accelerate the natural process with deliberate effort.

Not to mention the USA immigration system is supposed to be bringing in immigrants with skills.

The whole "skills" thing seem off your radar…it's all about maximizing ethnic/racial diversity…something found no where in the U.S. Constitution and not in any of the Congressionally approved immigration laws

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore generally favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

It's a preference policy

---

But it BECOMES a moral issue when the people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts start getting upset.

---

MAGA in a nutshell.

---

Peewee Herman back from the grave! "I know you are but what am I?"

---

You certainly have to see it's true with the hardcore MAGA supporters. I've not seen anyone say they are emotionally detached??? Obviously they are very emotional voters, and the sycophants emotional government appointees.

---

No, only one side ignores facts for feelings and it's not the side that is pro life, pro-borders, pro-law enforcement and anti-trans cult.

---

Both sides make continual sacrifices of facts to the god of their feelings, just please. Right wing politics may be more rational at the moment, but to act like it's one sided is ridiculous.

---

What is the GOP equivalent to white liberal women?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The first reply to my post is almost exactly what I expected, so thanks for getting it out of the way quickly.

I share many of your concerns about the SPLC and have criticized it in the past. Some of what's in their article, which I didn't quote, may be over-hyped or over-interpreted. But there's more than enough substance, and I've seen no one dispute these facts about Miller.

---

1. It needs to be said constantly....the SPLC is a completely dishonest organization

And if you are worried about racism it apparently is a racist organization as well.

[Some employees at the Southern Poverty Law Center say the legendary civil rights nonprofit group suffers from a "systemic culture of racism and sexism within its workplace."

But one of the employees who spoke to CNN alleged the organization suffers from a "pervasive racist culture" and an environment in which a woman is not seen or heard. She also said qualified African-American employees were regularly passed over for promotions including one African-American colleague she describes as brilliant. She added, "My boss only hires white people."]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/29/us/splc-leadership-crisis/index.html

2. You have not shown us anything more than Miller opposes mass migration of 3rd world peoples into the USA (something the majority of Americans support)

The rest is classic guilt by association type stuff

"Look! Someone with non-approved views...and this person knew Miller!"

And the Left of course never applies that biased standard to itself

---

The article has Miller himself (not just people he's associated with) supporting racial quotas in immigration. He doesn't just want to "enforce the law." He wants to enforce laws that will Make America White Again.

---

I think you mean National quotas...not racial ones

And that was of course American policy for decades....wildly supported by the American voting populace

Quotas on foreign migration based on the population composition of the USA at the time & the pervious places people had already immigrated from.

[The 1924 Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act or National Origins Act, drastically restricted immigration to the United States. It established a quota system

The act set a national quota of 165,000 for immigrants from countries outside the Western Hemisphere. The quota for each country was determined by 2% of the number of people of that nationality who were living in the U.S. in 1890. This effectively favored immigrants from Western and Northern Europe]

England got more immigrant visas than Congo for instance.

---

The article specifically lamented the growth of the Hispanic population. Racial quotas have been supported by the public for most of our history. That doesn't change what they are.

---

Then you are arguing against the immigration policy that most Americans want and desire (not bringing in people radically different from and members of a far different culture than the current American population)

I have seen this for a long time around immigration debates.....people (often on the Left) moralize the immigration debate

Immigration is NOT a moral issue.....its a cultural and economic issue

---

It becomes a moral issue when it leads to illegal policies and immoral treatment.

---

But its not "immoral" to decide who gets to become a member of your national community

Quebec for instance favors native French speakers when picking new immigrants/refugees

Israel gives priority to Jewish people.

Singapore generally favors high-skilled immigrants (English speakers and Chinese language speakers are the two priorities)

Etc


Americans wanting recruit new citizens from roughly the national groups that already settled here (and 165,000 from the rest of the world) is not immoral at all

It's a preference policy

---

But it BECOMES a moral issue when the people who make decisions based on emotions rather than facts start getting upset.

---

MAGA in a nutshell.

---

Peewee Herman back from the grave! "I know you are but what am I?"

---

You certainly have to see it's true with the hardcore MAGA supporters. I've not seen anyone say they are emotionally detached??? Obviously they are very emotional voters, and the sycophants emotional government appointees.

---

No, only one side ignores facts for feelings and it's not the side that is pro life, pro-borders, pro-law enforcement and anti-trans cult.

---

Both sides make continual sacrifices of facts to the god of their feelings, just please. Right wing politics may be more rational at the moment, but to act like it's one sided is
ridiculous.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Poor Sam, has your memory gone the way of Biden? Just a few posts ago you argued all of the justices considered gangs = citizens.

Not surprised you dropped that, not something that would stand inspection.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Poor Sam, has your memory gone the way of Biden? Just a few posts ago you argued all of the justices considered gangs = citizens.

Not surprised you dropped that, not something that would stand inspection.

---

It's against my better judgment, but I'll give you one more chance. Do you believe that only citizens are entitled to due process?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Poor Sam, has your memory gone the way of Biden? Just a few posts ago you argued all of the justices considered gangs = citizens.

Not surprised you dropped that, not something that would stand inspection.

---

It's against my better judgment, but I'll give you one more chance. Do you believe that only citizens are entitled to due process?

---

You'll have to do better than that, Sam.

How many times does a defendant have to appear before a court before you admit he has received 'due process'?

I imagine you don't even know how many court appearances Mr, Garcia has had, at no cost to himself I might add?

And if you don't see the problem where citizens are provided inferior treatment by the courts to confirmed illegals, well we will never be able to find common ground.

---

gtownbear said:

---

I can keep personal insults out of our discussions on the issue. Both sides have strong feelings. I believe the country is at stake over whether all these individuals who broke in stay or get deported. I am not ashamed to be for the rule of law. And all of them broke it in my mind, many with the encouragement and help from the Biden Administration. We are experiencing lawfare by radical judges who just got emboldened by seven Supreme Court Justices. Who can end this power grab by the Judicial Branch over the Executive and Legislative Branch to maintain the separation of powers as we have always known it? I am sure it will be proven that the Supreme Court should have stepped in and stopped these injunctions from district court judges in areas normally assumed by the Executive Branch and President. Sadly they did the opposite. Have you ever thought what will happen if we allow these criminal illegals to stay in the country or allow hearings where the government has to show evidence on millions of criminal aliens? Maybe we can hold their hearings on Amy Coney Barrett's front porch!

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Poor Sam, has your memory gone the way of Biden? Just a few posts ago you argued all of the justices considered gangs = citizens.

Not surprised you dropped that, not something that would stand inspection.

---

It's against my better judgment, but I'll give you one more chance. Do you believe that only citizens are entitled to due process?

---

You'll have to do better than that, Sam.

How many times does a defendant have to appear before a court before you admit he has received 'due process'?

I imagine you don't even know how many court appearances Mr, Garcia has had, at no cost to himself I might add?

And if you don't see the problem where citizens are provided inferior treatment by the courts to confirmed illegals, well we will never be able to find common ground.

---

We have common ground if we believe noncitizens are entitled to due process.

Yes or no?

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Yes, and the well-reasoned dissent.

Btw, where were gangs specifically mentioned with regard to rights, as you claim?

---

The relevant parties were accused gang members.

I asked you the questions to see whether it was worth pursuing a discussion. Let me know.

---

So you lied again, not one of the justices specifically said gangs have the same rights as US citizens.

Sam gonna Sam.

---

Nor did anyone else. You can run along...I'm not gonna chase you.

---

Poor Sam, has your memory gone the way of Biden? Just a few posts ago you argued all of the justices considered gangs = citizens.

Not surprised you dropped that, not something that would stand inspection.

---

It's against my better judgment, but I'll give you one more chance. Do you believe that only citizens are entitled to due process?

---

You'll have to do better than that, Sam.

How many times does a defendant have to appear before a court before you admit he has received 'due process'?

I imagine you don't even know how many court appearances Mr, Garcia has had, at no cost to himself I might add?

And if you don't see the problem where citizens are provided inferior treatment by the courts to confirmed illegals, well we will never be able to find common ground.

---

We have common ground if we believe noncitizens are entitled to due process.

Yes or no?

---

I will check later to see if you answer any of my three points in substance.

Won't hold my breath ...

---

gtownbear said:

---

Actually if you look at the facts, President Trump has always abided by court decisions in his first term, throughout all the lawfare while running for the second term, and now as President in his second term. He was never bashful about expressing his opinion of the judges or the opinions but he always followed the court decisions.

---

Quote:

---

Stephen Miller comes on and lets everyone know that El Salvador considers Garcia a terrorist in his own country and he will stay confined.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Actually if you look at the facts, President Trump has always abided by court decisions in his first term, throughout all the lawfare while running for the second term, and now as President in his second term. He was never bashful about expressing his opinion of the judges or the opinions but he always followed the court decisions.

---

See Assassin's post from a few hours ago:

Quote:

---

Stephen Miller comes on and lets everyone know that El Salvador considers Garcia a terrorist in his own country and he will stay confined.

---

Said in blatant defiance of the courts.

You are supporting a proudly and unabashedly lawless administration.

Sorry, that's the truth.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Actually if you look at the facts, President Trump has always abided by court decisions in his first term, throughout all the lawfare while running for the second term, and now as President in his second term. He was never bashful about expressing his opinion of the judges or the opinions but he always followed the court decisions.

---

See Assassin's post from a few hours ago:

Quote:

---

Stephen Miller comes on and lets everyone know that El Salvador considers Garcia a terrorist in his own country and he will stay confined.

---

Said in blatant defiance of the courts.

You are supporting a proudly and unabashedly lawless administration.

Sorry, that's the truth.

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Actually if you look at the facts, President Trump has always abided by court decisions in his first term, throughout all the lawfare while running for the second term, and now as President in his second term. He was never bashful about expressing his opinion of the judges or the opinions but he always followed the court decisions.

---

See Assassin's post from a few hours ago:

Quote:

---

Stephen Miller comes on and lets everyone know that El Salvador considers Garcia a terrorist in his own country and he will stay confined.

---

Said in blatant defiance of the courts.

You are supporting a proudly and unabashedly lawless administration.

Sorry, that's the truth.

---

El Salvador isn't a state. Yet. Edit #2; your side lives to play the technicalities game, and always want to deny and ignore the wink and nod collusion that we point out when statute of limitations are changed, stories are censored from news and social media, and general lawfare. Well guess what? Now we have the technicality on OUR side and it's you who wants US to acknowledge the wink and nod collusion going on. Well suck it up, buttercup, and get used to it. Ya got three years and 8 months to go.

---

gtownbear said:

---

To that I say the lawless ones are the millions who came in outside normal immigration procedures that so many spend years and much money to go through because they have respect for our rules and system for proper entry.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

To that I say the lawless ones are the millions who came in outside normal immigration procedures that so many spend years and much money to go through because they have respect for our rules and system for proper entry.

---

I made a similar argument around the age of three when I got caught stealing potato chips and hotly proclaimed that my sister had done the same thing. To which my father answered that two wrongs don't make a right. If as a society we want to preserve the rule of law, at some point we have to be adults.

We could also stop making legal immigration so difficult and expensive, but I think we all know why that's not going to happen.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

gtownbear said:

---

Actually if you look at the facts, President Trump has always abided by court decisions in his first term, throughout all the lawfare while running for the second term, and now as President in his second term. He was never bashful about expressing his opinion of the judges or the opinions but he always followed the court decisions.

---

See Assassin's post from a few hours ago:

Quote:

---

Stephen Miller comes on and lets everyone know that El Salvador considers Garcia a terrorist in his own country and he will stay confined.

---

Said in blatant defiance of the courts.

You are supporting a proudly and unabashedly lawless administration.

Sorry, that's the truth.

---

El Salvador isn't a state. Yet. Edit #2; your side lives to play the technicalities game, and always want to deny and ignore the wink and nod collusion that we point out when statute of limitations are changed, stories are censored from news and social media, and general lawfare. Well guess what? Now we have the technicality on OUR side and it's you who wants US to acknowledge the wink and nod collusion going on. Well suck it up, buttercup, and get used to it. Ya got three years and 8 months to go.

---

The implications will last a lot longer than a few years. I would be on the side that applies the law equally in all cases, but I'm not sure any such side exists at this point. Like I said, enjoy your police state. It's not going anywhere.

---

14,000 Haitians showed up at the border and the Biden administration waited until dark and brought every single one of them into the country.

I do not care what argument you make to me. I truly don’t. It doesn’t matter.

If we can’t remove them just as fast, it’s over. pic.twitter.com/SBMQpULQeb

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) April 22, 2025