D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Lib "If someone drive 35 in a 30, it cost me nothing.
If someone is in the country illegally, whether by entry or by overstaying a visa, they have the potential to cost all of us a great deal of money.
Taking away a job. What jobs are being taken away? Where are your numbers?

Do you want unhealthy children in our country?

Education Do you want uneducated kids?

Housing" Who builds the house?

---

There are around 11-17 million illegal aliens in the United States. About 8.7 to 9.5 million of those illegal aliens have jobs. There are around 7.5 million unemployed U.S. citizens. So, it seems pretty clear that there are jobs that would otherwise be available for US citizens that are currently held by illegal aliens.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Lib "If someone drive 35 in a 30, it cost me nothing.
If someone is in the country illegally, whether by entry or by overstaying a visa, they have the potential to cost all of us a great deal of money.
Taking away a job. What jobs are being taken away? Where are your numbers?

Do you want unhealthy children in our country?

Education Do you want uneducated kids?

Housing" Who builds the house?

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

We’re not going to let Ohio turn into Minnesota. pic.twitter.com/V6ZL88ffm7

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) January 20, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

For the record I don't think immigration has much impact on local fertility rates either way (positive or negative)

But maybe you could come out of tell us what exactly is bad about white women having children?

I assume you are not yet willing to come out on the board as an out of the closet racist who wants less white children to be born?

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Federal charges are occasionally applied when there is doubt local authorities will protect the victims.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Federal charges are occasionally applied when there is doubt local authorities will protect the victims.

---

In light of recent events I think the feds have protected Minneapolis enough for now.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? The Army during the election that was a Brigade? Why no mention?

Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

Thanks for the site.

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bill Clinton in 1995: "Every day, illegal aliens show up in court who are charged… Whether they are innocent or guilty of the crimes they are charged with in court, they're still here illegally and they should be sent out of the country."pic.twitter.com/2OrYid0TfI

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) January 20, 2026

---

Yes, your point? No one disagrees.

Once again, you keep posting the WHAT and overlooking the HOW.

How we do it matters just as much as what we do. No one here has disagreed on what Trump is doing or his anticipated outcome. You can't go in bully-mode across the Board. That is what the Trump Administration has done.

Gangs of masked ICE agents grabbing individuals on their way to lunch is not accomplishing the goal. Look at the ICE numbers, they are down from 2024 and 2023, dramatically. The method (HOW) is causing high levels of push-back, high levels of complaints and low levels of deportations. That is not productive or efficient. It begs the question is the goal deportations and arrests or fear?

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

All that went out the window when the previous administration allowed in unprecedented numbers of illegals and shipped them all over the United States. The sheer mass of humanity was the point. Now we have to move that mass of humanity out.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

All that went out the window when the previous administration allowed in unprecedented numbers of illegals and shipped them all over the United States. The sheer mass of humanity was the point. Now we have to move that mass of humanity out.

---

We are not doing with 4 to 6 ICE agents per apprehension. Just do the math. There are only a couple of options.

1 - Have ICE teams focus on the hard-core criminals and get the message out how bad they are.
2 - Select a group that meets the qualifications we want and grant Amnesty, like Reagan.
3 - Do it through some Government function, Driver's License, Food Stamps, etc...

As you said the numbers are high, some fromat change needs to happen. We are not coming close to hitting the numbers you mention.

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

All that went out the window when the previous administration allowed in unprecedented numbers of illegals and shipped them all over the United States. The sheer mass of humanity was the point. Now we have to move that mass of humanity out.

---

We are not doing with 4 to 6 ICE agents per apprehension. Just do the math. There are only a couple of options.

1 - Have ICE teams focus on the hard-core criminals and get the message out how bad they are.
2 - Select a group that meets the qualifications we want and grant Amnesty, like Reagan.
3 - Do it through some Government function, Driver's License, Food Stamps, etc...

As you said the numbers are high, some fromat change needs to happen. We are not coming close to hitting the numbers you mention.

---

1. ICE is focused on on hardcore criminals. They are also arresting illegals they find in the vicinity. They are also arresting illegals that have known locations. All of these actions are good for the country and within the constitution. The general public has been told about every bad criminal caught but your media hides that information and airs stories about a "Maryland Man" and "girl trying to graduate" getting deported. Can't put that on Trump.
2. By ALL metrics Reagan falling for democrats ploy and granting amnesty was a massive mistake that helped lead us to where we are today with this issue. Amnesty for breaking our laws only encourages more law breaking. We have seen it over and over and over.
3. We can do ALL those things. We have to start somewhere. This process would be much smoother, faster and safer if you democrats would stop attacking and doxxing the federal agents doing their jobs.

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

I have to respect Reagan and his tough decision for amnesty rather than go through this ***** I wonder if he knew what this would turn into. Set parameters, but having those that have been working and raising families be able to get amnesty, like Reagan did.

That would free Law Enforcement to spend time on those that need to be out of here.

---

Well let's remember that Reagan had only 3 million people in the USA that would qualify for amnesty.

Most had come as kids during WWII era (from Mexico looking for jobs in factories or Europe escaping the war)…many had been here 40 years

An no amnesty was offered for any with criminal records or who were communists or members of any radical group.

It was small percentage amnesty and one overwhelmingly supported by most Americans and both parties.

It also came with big promises from Congressional progressives that immigration rules would be tightened up and enforcement increased after the amnesty and moving into the future.

America is in a totally different situation in 2025 and dealing with numbers many more times larger

---

Exactly, lCE is going to hunt then down?

By the way, nobody seems to want to discuss the Chinese Army that came in. I would think that is a priority. I guess not?

---

1262 arrests of Chinese nationals in 2025.

https://www.ice.gov/statistics

---

That is the Chinese army that came over the border in 4 years? Also, why are arrests down so low in 2025 compared to 23,24?

I dont think this is the most efficient means of doing this. Once again, it is sending a visible message to US citizens but not very effective compared to past years. Kristi better reevaluate process....

---

Of course you don't like how they're doing things, but you damned sure don't have any suggestions on effective alternative methods, just like all your bluster about de-escalation when all you could come up with is, "dey shoulda asked dem to leave!"

---

So, how have we done it in the past? Past Presidents have done this for decades without what we are seeing now. There has to be a nuance and it can't be to the point where it becomes a battlecry. Masked ICE Agents running people down is a battlecry.

Focus on the Chinese and the Criminals. Not some poor waitress just trying to make a buck.

---

All that went out the window when the previous administration allowed in unprecedented numbers of illegals and shipped them all over the United States. The sheer mass of humanity was the point. Now we have to move that mass of humanity out.

---

We are not doing with 4 to 6 ICE agents per apprehension. Just do the math. There are only a couple of options.

1 - Have ICE teams focus on the hard-core criminals and get the message out how bad they are.
2 - Select a group that meets the qualifications we want and grant Amnesty, like Reagan.
3 - Do it through some Government function, Driver's License, Food Stamps, etc...

As you said the numbers are high, some fromat change needs to happen. We are not coming close to hitting the numbers you mention.

---

1. ICE is focused on on hardcore criminals. They are also arresting illegals they find in the vicinity. They are also arresting illegals that have known locations. All of these actions are good for the country and within the constitution. The general public has been told about every bad criminal caught but your media hides that information and airs stories about a "Maryland Man" and "girl trying to graduate" getting deported. Can't put that on Trump.
2. By ALL metrics Reagan falling for democrats ploy and granting amnesty was a massive mistake that helped lead us to where we are today with this issue. Amnesty for breaking our laws only encourages more law breaking. We have seen it over and over and over.
3. We can do ALL those things. We have to start somewhere. This process would be much smoother, faster and safer if you democrats would stop attacking and doxxing the federal agents doing their jobs.

---

What is going on in MN is not about immigration, it is a message.

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Harrison Bergeron said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam -- Trump is already looking for ways to change the ethnic makeup of the immigrant population. As far as illegals, don't be surprised if he prioritizes deporting non-whites while being more lenient with whites.

True

---

Where do you guys come up with these wacky conspiracy theories?

---

From Republicans "White women have more children and we will keep out people of color."

---

I can glean the content, but from where do you keep getting the weird conspiracies.

---

Straight from the white supremacist propaganda

---

Trump: "ICE is gonna be too rough with somebody. They're gonna make a mistake sometimes. I felt horribly when I was told the young woman had the tragedy. But when I learned her father is - I hope he still is, but I don't know - was a tremendous Trump fan. It's terrible. It's so… pic.twitter.com/eXVATJTdGF

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 20, 2026

ICE agents pointed their weapons at a Minnesota police officer who’s an American citizen. She tried to film the encounter and they knocked her phone out of her hand. pic.twitter.com/MtR1POvS6U

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

ICE agents pointed their weapons at a Minnesota police officer who’s an American citizen. She tried to film the encounter and they knocked her phone out of her hand. pic.twitter.com/MtR1POvS6U

— Ryan Grim (@ryangrim) January 20, 2026

---

🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/sh3OdkR5pz

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 20, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Federal charges are occasionally applied when there is doubt local authorities will protect the victims.

---

In light of recent events I think the feds have protected Minneapolis enough for now.

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

" No one has had any issues with the gang members or the criminals."

The many leftist fans of 'Maryland Man' say otherwise.

---

You misunderstand the issue. There again it's the how, not the what.

---

You are on the wrong side of this. It's not about process. Never has been.

---

It's all about process. Pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant sides have their agendas, but that's less important. Process is what makes it relevant to all citizens.

---

You aren't really paying attention, or you are also part of the "no major deportation efforts at all costs" crowd.

---

I'm paying a lot of attention to civil liberties issues. Not really interested in the political activism part.

---

No you aren't.

If you were you would have at least something to say about the church being stormed by protestors.

You would have something to say about the violence happening under the guise of 1st amendment "assembly" even though they are not peaceful.

But you aren't because it doesn't fit your narrative.

---

I am closely monitoring the situation on the church-storming thread. Should anyone happen to defend it, I will be among the first to engage the threat.

---

Lol. But can you just come out and say it was wrong? That those involved should be arrested?

---

It was definitely wrong. I would support state charges for disorderly conduct or the like. I am a little wary of the feds' trying to turn it into more than that.

---

Thank you for at least saying that.

Do you not think it was a clear violation of the FACE act?

---

As a pro-lifer, I prefer to construe the FACE Act narrowly and in a way most favorable to free speech. Applying that standard here, I don't see clear evidence of physical force, threat, or obstruction.

---

I haven't watched the video, but if a bunch of people stormed into our services on a Sunday morning. I would consider that to be a threat.

Given the recent tendency toward political violence on the part of leftists, it would seem pretty reasonable for anyone to see storming a church as a threat.

---

I'd certainly be uncomfortable, but the standard is an objective one. Entering without permission and refusing to leave is called trespassing. Shouting isn't exactly the same as a physical threat. I'm not justifying any of it, but let's not clamor for a federal crackdown when plain vanilla charges would suffice.

---

Can't say that I agree with this, and you are justifying it by calling it something less than it was.

You get what you tolerate, and I don't think we should tolerate mobs attacking and disrupting church services, which, objectively, is what this was. There are laws against it, and they should be enforced because these idiots who invaded the church service need to know that their illegal acts will be punished or they will escalate. Their civil rights to a speedy and fair trial should be protected, but you have state officials who are basically encouraging this kind of madness so it is appropriate for the federal government to act.

---

I don't see an attack here, but if I'm wrong, so be it. I'm just saying I'm wary. We have a Bill of Rights because we know government will also escalate if given free rein.

---