I guess that is a question I have when I read "well integrated".

As a 4th generation Texan, I still get asked (less often the older I get) where I am from- I assume they mean what part of Texas, so I say South Texas.

PabloSerna said:

---

"well integrated"…

Well said, however, I would like to know from your experience at which point do you feel that the rest of the people in Surgarland begin to see people whose parents, grandparents that are from these countries- are seen as Texans? 1st generation? 2nd or 3rd?

---

When my great grandparents immigrated from Germany, well integrated meant speaking English and providing for yourself/your family. I think the same holds today. I know som first generations Hispanics that run quality businesses. They have accents but their grasp of the language is as good as any American. 2nd gen almost always is. Thats what I see where I live now.

Growing up in SA, it often was not that way. Retaining the Spanish language both in and out of the home seemed intentional. Maybe your experience in south Texas wasn't the same. All I know is my grandparents and parents were strictly forbidden to speak anything other than English in public in order to fit in (despite being in new Braunfels, a heavily German town). I don't see this is heavily Hispanic enclaves. Maybe I'm just missing something.

As the other poster said, maybe my views of the indo-pak community is skewed by my personal dealings with them and not looking deeper into the immigration policy leading to selecting people who naturally want to fit in. And I think that's what most reasonable people want from immigrants. At least try to fit in. Don't lose your heritage. Don't change your food. But the culture at large works best if there is a common language and common decorum.

The biggest problem with the desire for immigrants to assimilate is the complete lack of agreement of what that means. Most people focus on secondary things, like college attendance, starting companies, professional jobs, and speaking English. None of these things make America unique. Our culture is very, very different from the rest of the world, but it has nothing to do with any of that.

Americans have no concept of shame or honor, but we are heavily motivated by guilt. These things drive societies in most of the world and have almost no impact in the US. That's why cancel culture completes falls apart when someone literally has no shame. A certain presidential candidate has this exact quality. Most of the world is focused on clans, families, and ties of patronage over individual ability, and America is the exact opposite. We generally believe in the power of people that voluntary associate, whether for clubs, businesses, or even government agencies instead of the power of influential families. We despise nepotism, but that's the way the rest of the world works. We don't believe in violence for political ends as a rule, unlike a neighbor country down south and many others all over the world. There is a strong desire to award people for individual accomplishments that doesn't occur elsewhere. In other places, it's perfectly natural for one's elders in the family, clan, or organization to claim your acheivements as theirs. We also believe in truth and fairness as a general rule, and not relative justice based on how closely related we are.

All of these things are worth protecting, and these are what we should be teaching to immigrants. These are the things that make America unique and prosperous. That's the soil that freedom and democracy can succeed and grow in. Without that we're just another corrupt, nepotistic, clannish society like most in the world

Clans (tribes) are probably the most natural (evolved) way for
people to live, but modern societies have developed past that.

Human societies overall haven't been clan-based for millennia at this point. The first cities and kingdoms were certainly not clan-based. You have to do games with definitions to argue clans remained a meaningful organizing principle after the dawn of agriculture. Instead it becomes a semantic game of how you draw the lines around included and excluded.

How are you defining clan? Because each of your examples is a completely different organization and central power structure than the others.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Human societies overall haven't been clan-based for millennia at this point. The first cities and kingdoms were certainly not clan-based. You have to do games with definitions to argue clans remained a meaningful organizing principle after the dawn of agriculture. Instead it becomes a semantic game of how you draw the lines around included and excluded.

---

I find this statement to be full of recency bias. It wasn't until the late Middle Ages that Europe moved away from a predominantly clan-based system, and that took centuries of concerted effort by the Catholic Church to make it so. Even then you still had dynastic aristocracy in Europe and feuds like the Hatfields and McCoys in the US. Everywhere else in the world outside Europe and European colonies are still heavily clan based except maybe China, and then only in the urban areas. Anywhere without strong instutitions becomes clannish very quickly, whether in weak states or the criminal underworld of developed ones.

Regarding the point of agriculture, clans are the most natural and best way for humans to organize for agriculture. It wasn't until the rise of trades and the industrial revolution that clans were fully displaced

---

Most of the world had ditched clan-based structures for imperial, stratified societies well before Europe or the colonial era.

A clan based society should not be confused with a society where aristocratic personal relationships are a factor. Those are not the same thing. A telltale sign of a clan society is whether the clan ruler considers the clan's weakest members to still be his "blood kin." The European Middle Ages were not clan based. William the Conqueror would not have considered the average Norman peasant to be part of his extended kin group.

There has always been tension between clan based societies and imperial states, but clans have always existed, by and large, at the periphery of post Iron Age states, not as the primary driver of them. The cycle of peripheral clan based societies invading non-clan societies and then subsequently adopting that way of life is demonstrable. The Ostrogoths and Visigoths invaded Rome and then the ended up creating sophisticated post-Roman rump kingdoms. The Arabs invaded Persia and the Levant and quickly adopted Byzantine and Sassanid imperial court lifestyle, ditching the concept of tribal blood kin relationships. The Mongols invaded the Muslim world 500 years later and did the exact same thing, adopting Persian culture and ditching clan-based relationships.

The degree to which Western Europe was engulfed by clan-based societies in a dark age has been highly exaggerated by pop history. Academic historians are aware that the so called barbarians actually set up sophisticated polities and continued the Roman legacy well into late antiquity and the early Middle Ages. For example, when the Umayyads invented Spain, the first king of Asturias was a Visigoth descendant who had integrated with the Hispano-Romans, and he was elected by their nobility as "Princeps" - a Roman title. This was 300 years after the "fall" of Western Rome.

Sapper Redux said:

---

How are you defining clan? Because each of your examples is a completely different organization and central power structure than the others.

---

Ah, I'm defining a clan based society as one where family relationships are more important than merit, ability, fairness, and justice. Societies were family relationships define everything. Where a person's position in their family and their family's position in society are the most important determinant of someone's social position. That social position also determines how strictly people are punished by a justice system, if at all, and people's opportunities for marriage and employment.

So using that definition, Rome was a clan society as are most empires. Even during the Golden Age that ended with Aurelius, the Roman Emperors adopted their successors to maintain the family connection. Aside from that, new emperors were almost always heirs to the old, unless there was some sort of coup. That carried from Augustus to the entire Byzantine period. Even prior to Augustus, the Roman empire was based on patronage, and the patronage was from one family to another. Medieval Europe was the same way until the end. Monarchs, nobles, tradesmen and farmers were inherited positions. Justice was based on your family and your family's connections. A familyless vagabond had zero legal protection, because there was no giant network of people willing to make sure they were treated fairly or favorably.

Contrast that to the US, where supposedly the same punishment will be dished out to a homeless man murdering a billionaire as a billionaire murdering a homeless person. It's not true, but at least in America we pretend that it's true, and we universally think it is a good principle in general. That has never been true in the history of the world on a society wide level until the late Middle Ages, and it's still not true in most of the world. It's such an ingrained part of our own culture that we don't even think it could be any other way. But there's plenty of research that many if not most societies today don't think that way. They think it's stupid to treat a billionaire and a homeless person the same way in any situation, including the justice system. They would lie in court to protect their family, and it would be wrong to do otherwise. It's just an entirely different mindset and code of morality.

Another very obvious modern example is the Indian caste system. People's place in society is entirely dependent on their birth and family. There is very little room for people to fail or succeed based on merit. The entire society is structured around familial ties, and it leads to that same difference in morality.

Plugging this book again, because it does a great job of explaining the difference of the Western European/American mindset versus the rest of the world, and how it got it way.

https://www.amazon.com/WEIRDest-People-World-Psychologically-Particularly/dp/0374173222

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"well integrated"…

Well said, however, I would like to know from your experience at which point do you feel that the rest of the people in Surgarland begin to see people whose parents, grandparents that are from these countries- are seen as Texans? 1st generation? 2nd or 3rd?

---

When my great grandparents immigrated from Germany, well integrated meant speaking English and providing for yourself/your family. I think the same holds today. I know som first generations Hispanics that run quality businesses. They have accents but their grasp of the language is as good as any American. 2nd gen almost always is. Thats what I see where I live now.

Growing up in SA, it often was not that way. Retaining the Spanish language both in and out of the home seemed intentional. Maybe your experience in south Texas wasn't the same. All I know is my grandparents and parents were strictly forbidden to speak anything other than English in public in order to fit in (despite being in new Braunfels, a heavily German town). I don't see this is heavily Hispanic enclaves. Maybe I'm just missing something.

As the other poster said, maybe my views of the indo-pak community is skewed by my personal dealings with them and not looking deeper into the immigration policy leading to selecting people who naturally want to fit in. And I think that's what most reasonable people want from immigrants. At least try to fit in. Don't lose your heritage. Don't change your food. But the culture at large works best if there is a common language and common decorum.

---

I don't think "retaining" is the word I would choose. I would say "survives" since it remains with a group of people that have been here long before American-Anglo settlers arrived.

San Antonio and South Texas for that matter are heavily Hispanic and not just because of the history going back to Spanish explorers. As you know, this part of the world was full of indigenous people that make up the majority of the ancestry of many of the Mexican-American people. Many (of us) are just de-tribalized. Meaning we have no tribal affiliation like Apache, Comanche, etc.

It may be that some Americans think that just because their ancestors left a country, sailed across an ocean, and put down roots here in the New World; giving up speaking the language of their homeland is the way "to fit in" as you put it. For other Americans, I would say my family (mom's side)- we never left. America came to us.

Here is an example that might help. I work in Austin. There is a street in south Austin called "Menchaca" named after the famous Tejano that fought against Spain, then later Mexico. The locals say, "Man-shack" and everybody knows what you are talking about. The newer folks have no idea, but they learn quickly. Austin is full of these type of quirks. Highly recommend KUT's ATXplained for a more entertaining explanation.

Where you see some sort of resistance to integration, we see it as perfectly integrating the old and new.

PabloSerna said:

---

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"well integrated"…

Well said, however, I would like to know from your experience at which point do you feel that the rest of the people in Surgarland begin to see people whose parents, grandparents that are from these countries- are seen as Texans? 1st generation? 2nd or 3rd?

---

When my great grandparents immigrated from Germany, well integrated meant speaking English and providing for yourself/your family. I think the same holds today. I know som first generations Hispanics that run quality businesses. They have accents but their grasp of the language is as good as any American. 2nd gen almost always is. Thats what I see where I live now.

Growing up in SA, it often was not that way. Retaining the Spanish language both in and out of the home seemed intentional. Maybe your experience in south Texas wasn't the same. All I know is my grandparents and parents were strictly forbidden to speak anything other than English in public in order to fit in (despite being in new Braunfels, a heavily German town). I don't see this is heavily Hispanic enclaves. Maybe I'm just missing something.

As the other poster said, maybe my views of the indo-pak community is skewed by my personal dealings with them and not looking deeper into the immigration policy leading to selecting people who naturally want to fit in. And I think that's what most reasonable people want from immigrants. At least try to fit in. Don't lose your heritage. Don't change your food. But the culture at large works best if there is a common language and common decorum.

---

I don't think "retaining" is the word I would choose. I would say "survives" since it remains with a group of people that have been here long before American-Anglo settlers arrived.

San Antonio and South Texas for that matter are heavily Hispanic and not just because of the history going back to Spanish explorers. As you know, this part of the world was full of indigenous people that make up the majority of the ancestry of many of the Mexican-American people. Many (of us) are just de-tribalized. Meaning we have no tribal affiliation like Apache, Comanche, etc.

It may be that some Americans think that just because their ancestors left a country, sailed across an ocean, and put down roots here in the New World; giving up speaking the language of their homeland is the way "to fit in" as you put it. For other Americans, I would say my family (mom's side)- we never left. America came to us.

Here is an example that might help. I work in Austin. There is a street in south Austin called "Menchaca" named after the famous Tejano that fought against Spain, then later Mexico. The locals say, "Man-shack" and everybody knows what you are talking about. The newer folks have no idea, but they learn quickly. Austin is full of these type of quirks. Highly recommend KUT's ATXplained for a more entertaining explanation.

Where you see some sort of resistance to integration, we see it as perfectly integrating the old and new.

---

Same thing with Blanco Rd in SA.

PabloSerna said:

---

The Banned said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

"well integrated"…

Well said, however, I would like to know from your experience at which point do you feel that the rest of the people in Surgarland begin to see people whose parents, grandparents that are from these countries- are seen as Texans? 1st generation? 2nd or 3rd?

---

When my great grandparents immigrated from Germany, well integrated meant speaking English and providing for yourself/your family. I think the same holds today. I know som first generations Hispanics that run quality businesses. They have accents but their grasp of the language is as good as any American. 2nd gen almost always is. Thats what I see where I live now.

Growing up in SA, it often was not that way. Retaining the Spanish language both in and out of the home seemed intentional. Maybe your experience in south Texas wasn't the same. All I know is my grandparents and parents were strictly forbidden to speak anything other than English in public in order to fit in (despite being in new Braunfels, a heavily German town). I don't see this is heavily Hispanic enclaves. Maybe I'm just missing something.

As the other poster said, maybe my views of the indo-pak community is skewed by my personal dealings with them and not looking deeper into the immigration policy leading to selecting people who naturally want to fit in. And I think that's what most reasonable people want from immigrants. At least try to fit in. Don't lose your heritage. Don't change your food. But the culture at large works best if there is a common language and common decorum.

---

I don't think "retaining" is the word I would choose. I would say "survives" since it remains with a group of people that have been here long before American-Anglo settlers arrived.

San Antonio and South Texas for that matter are heavily Hispanic and not just because of the history going back to Spanish explorers. As you know, this part of the world was full of indigenous people that make up the majority of the ancestry of many of the Mexican-American people. Many (of us) are just de-tribalized. Meaning we have no tribal affiliation like Apache, Comanche, etc.

It may be that some Americans think that just because their ancestors left a country, sailed across an ocean, and put down roots here in the New World; giving up speaking the language of their homeland is the way "to fit in" as you put it. For other Americans, I would say my family (mom's side)- we never left. America came to us.

Here is an example that might help. I work in Austin. There is a street in south Austin called "Menchaca" named after the famous Tejano that fought against Spain, then later Mexico. The locals say, "Man-shack" and everybody knows what you are talking about. The newer folks have no idea, but they learn quickly. Austin is full of these type of quirks. Highly recommend KUT's ATXplained for a more entertaining explanation.

Where you see some sort of resistance to integration, we see it as perfectly integrating the old and new.

---

I always thought that Man-chac was the Czech pronunciation because back when I was a new fish walking down the hall I met an upperclassman named Menchaca. Since I had already whipped out to him earlier, I was supposed to jump out of his way with my back to the wall and yell "Howdy, Mr Menchaca"...only problem was I didn't remember his name so read it off his name tag which got me in trouble because the Czechs don't pronounce that last a on Menchaca and I did.
https://www.kut.org/austin/2016-02-17/whats-in-a-name-the-long-debate-over-manchaca-versus-menchaca

Quo Vadis? said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think this is on the wrong forum.

---

If I wanted a reaganesque circle of poo flinging I would have posted this on the politics board. This is about the moral obligation as espoused by Catholic Social teaching

---

Hmmm. Not Catholic, so means test on basis of need for taxpayer support, then offer to allow Catholic Church to support them with church revenues instead of stealing from the US treasury?

Maybe we should just say there is no Aristocracy in the U.S.?

Rongagin71 said:

---

Slaughterhouses have to be kept cold, and of course no one likes working around blood and stink.
But a few years ago, when a major slaughterhouse was cleared of illegals by a govt sweep, there was a line of American citizens applying for employment - way more than needed. Been awhile, was in Kansas City, I believe.
As you pointed out, people will work if paid a living wage.

---

One of the frustrations I have with the immigration discussion is how the issue is framed. It is so often described only in a way that demonizes the persons entering the country illegally. To be perfectly clear, I do not condone the actions of immigrants who enter illegally. But, demonizing them seems to be avoiding the root causes of illegal immigration. Its like if you have a bucket of water with a hole at the bottom and we are blaming the water for not staying in the bucket like its supposed to.

In the story above, the illegal immigrants are sorta the 'villains' - taking jobs away from Americans and driving wages down. I wish we could reframe the story above to include these employers as the even bigger 'villains'. The slaughterhouse in the story above is just like tens of thousands of other businesses that are knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (often through 3rd party labor groups so that they can pretend like they don't know they are illegal). To me, what is amazing about the story above isn't that Americans were willing to work in the slaughterhouse for a living wage. . . its that the slaughterhouse is still in business.

It seems to me that if politicians were actually serious about stopping illegal immigration, we would see sensible pathways for entering the country, we would see FAR stricter penalties for employers that hire illegal immigrants, and then you could drop the social services we are providing illegal immigrants.

Right now, we have a system that officially tells immigrants not to enter illegally. . . . and then whispers to them "Hey. . . . pssst, come on over and work 14 hours a day for less than minimum wage . . . just don't get caught." It seems clear to me that both political parties are gaining something this backwards arrangement, yet Americans all just seem content to blame it on 'the other side' while ignoring their own teams complete unwillingness to actually solve the problem.

In the end, it becomes difficult for me to put all the blame on desperate persons entering our country illegally so that they can have a better opportunity, or raise a family, or send money home to their family. I would rather point my blame at both political parties which are consciously facilitating this mess for their own respective economic or political goals.

I agree with most of that but do think the Trump Admin did a much better job of managing the southern border than the Biden Admin.
I also have a problem with flying in massive numbers of immigrants.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Ah, I'm defining a clan based society as one where family relationships are more important than merit, ability, fairness, and justice. Societies were family relationships define everything. Where a person's position in their family and their family's position in society are the most important determinant of someone's social position. That social position also determines how strictly people are punished by a justice system, if at all, and people's opportunities for marriage and employment.

---

I mean... this is very arguably American society, too. Ties to wealth or location by family dramatically change access to power and capital above and beyond other factors. How you define "family relationships" seems to vary as well. The caste system in traditional Hinduism is not based on family relationships specifically as it's much broader than that. Family certainly is key to the assignment of caste, but the relationships between castes has nothing to do with specific family groups. My point is just that "clan" is too nebulous to be really useful. I found that out in Iraq. "Tribe" could prove useful in certain contexts, but it was less a defining aspect of the society than was often touted and the actual definition was malleable.

---

Let me try a different description than clan, if that's the hold up. In America, and the West in general, we think a person's value derives from their own character and choices. We look askance at people who have no individual virtue but gain power or prestige through the actions of their social network, especially their family. The word nepo-baby comes to mind. Even more than that, we believe that on some level all people should have inherent and equal value, for example when it comes to the justice system.

For most of human history and much of the world today, none of that is true. There and then, people derive personal value almost entirely from their social connections. When a truly prodigious person rises above their station through outstanding virtue or accomplishment, that person is viewed as an upstart or an interloper with much the same intensity as we despise nepo-babies. People expect the justice system to work differently for different people, and all of this is the proper order of the world.

These are not compatible ways of looking at the world. If you want to be scared about immigration, be scared that the people coming in don't see the world the same way we do. We see unfairness, corruption, nepotism, and rigid social stratification. They see all this as the way the world should be. I'm not really trying to make a value judgement. Both ways of looking at things have their advantages and drawbacks, but my first paragraph describes America and the second does not.

Here is a practical example of my point and it is much cited.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/07/12/the-worlds-most-corrupt-diplomats-as-told-through-parking-tickets-map/

For decades, UN diplomats did not have to pay their parking tickets. They would still get the ticket, but they were exempt from paying it. Even so, some nations like Sweden and Japan never had a single parking ticket during the this time. Other countries racked up thousands. It all comes down to mindset. In some cultures the rule of law is important, and people should follow the law even if they won't be punished the breaking it. The law is good and helps society function. For others, the only point of a law is the punishment. If there is no punishment, then there is no law. The fact that other, lesser people have to follow the law doesn't figure into the calculations about whether I should follow that law. Again, just entire different ways of looking at the world

Rongagin71 said:

---

I agree with most of that but do think the Trump Admin did a much better job of managing the southern border than the Biden Admin.
I also have a problem with flying in massive numbers of immigrants.

---

I don't think there is any question that the quantity of illegal crossings is up under Biden. And I'm not defending Biden's policies or the Democratic policies on immigration by any means.

While there are parts of Trump's immigration policy that I appreciate, his rhetoric against immigrants, I think, is unforgiveable. According to Trump, they are sub-human, animals, rapists, and drug dealers who are 'poisoning the blood of our country'. . . . If this thread is to discuss immigration policy from a Catholic perspective, how do we justify this rhetoric?

Like I said in the previous post, I don't like framing the problem as a problem of immigrants breaking the law. Until we have a reasonable immigration policy in place and until we are willing to punish companies who have been incentivizing illegal immigration for decades, WE are the problem. And would-be-illegals are reacting to a risk-benefit economic opportunity equation we are putting forward to them.

I'm suggesting for companies, especially in industries like construction, manufacturing, farming, and hospitality, to be made accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. It is a policy that will be considered anti-business and will inevitably color which political party gets the donations from wealthy business people. And since we are a country run by special interests and lobbies, neither party has the will power to do anything about it. Ultimately, its far easier to call illegal immigrants rapists and dogs than it is to stop the problem at the source. Because that source is paying for your next election campaign.

All good points, Kurt

And I find it incredibly amusing that, right on cue, about 3 months out from the election, there's another mob of immigrants making their way to the border.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Rongagin71 said:

---

I agree with most of that but do think the Trump Admin did a much better job of managing the southern border than the Biden Admin.
I also have a problem with flying in massive numbers of immigrants.

---

I don't think there is any question that the quantity of illegal crossings is up under Biden. And I'm not defending Biden's policies or the Democratic policies on immigration by any means.

While there are parts of Trump's immigration policy that I appreciate, his rhetoric against immigrants, I think, is unforgiveable. According to Trump, they are sub-human, animals, rapists, and drug dealers who are 'poisoning the blood of our country'. . . . If this thread is to discuss immigration policy from a Catholic perspective, how do we justify this rhetoric?

Like I said in the previous post, I don't like framing the problem as a problem of immigrants breaking the law. Until we have a reasonable immigration policy in place and until we are willing to punish companies who have been incentivizing illegal immigration for decades, WE are the problem. And would-be-illegals are reacting to a risk-benefit economic opportunity equation we are putting forward to them.

I'm suggesting for companies, especially in industries like construction, manufacturing, farming, and hospitality, to be made accountable for hiring illegal immigrants. It is a policy that will be considered anti-business and will inevitably color which political party gets the donations from wealthy business people. And since we are a country run by special interests and lobbies, neither party has the will power to do anything about it. Ultimately, its far easier to call illegal immigrants rapists and dogs than it is to stop the problem at the source. Because that source is paying for your next election campaign.

---

Good God! Do you actually believe Trump said that?
You're a smart guy, you must understand how statements get snipped out of context for propaganda purposes...both sides do it, but the Dems have a much larger set of paid for (by commercials paid for by Dem supporting Corps) media outlets than the Pubs.
Once Trump says something that can be made to sound bad it is repeated and repeated, never mind actually finding out what was said in full.

This I understand. Reading your post doesn't make me feel like I'm on crazy pills. We may not agree on plenty of things, and I may disagree about which candidate represents the bigger 'threat', but I can respect where you are coming from. And I respect that you put some ideal of goodness or of country above one of our political cults.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I've listened to far more Trump speeches and read more of his tweets than should he considered healthy. I don't think context is the issue. If you can point me in the direction of the speeches where he has encouraged his followers to treat illegal immigrants with compassion and understanding and love and that we should strive to hope for the best for them . . . I will happily eat my words.

I can happily point you to hundreds of times where he's called them animals and criminals and rapists and terrorists

Now, I am someone who considers illegal immigration a crisis that we have to stop . . . But the way Trump speaks about these other human beings is just gross. For the life of me, I can't reconcile anything the man says about immigrants with what I think Christians think about Jesus. When I talk to Trump supporters about stuff like this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The man literally built his entire political career on insulting and spreading hate toward people that disagree with him. There are studies out there showing that something like 70% of all Trump statements, claims, and tweets are negative about someone else. But yeah, Biden is divisive . . .

---

Okay, please quote Trump calling ALL immigrants animals and criminals.
I don't like Trump and have never voted for him, but
I think when he says things like that he IS talking about animals, criminals, and rapists.
Way back in the 2016 Texas Primary, when I voted for Cruz,
I called Trump a loud mouthed New York Yankee real estate agent,
and I've never seen any reason to change that opinion.
BUT the Trump Admin handled the border, handled the military industrial complex,
and handled the economy much better than the Biden Admin has.
Oh, and why did Biden beg the Saudis and Venezuela for oil at the same time
he did massive damage to American oil/gas production?
How much of the money freed up to the Iranians is now being used
to fund the Houthis? So many screw ups like the withdrawal from Afgan
and the recent abandoned pier that was supposed to supply refugees
but was shortstopped by HAMAS. Biden has NOT acted like a moderate,
and one reason he dropped out is because that claim would no longer fly.

The Feds should be protecting the border but since Gov Abbott announced an invasion, the state has spent a bundle trying to exercise some control.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-apprehends-more-than-516000-illegal-aliens-since-operation-lone-stars-inception/

Rongagin71 said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I've listened to far more Trump speeches and read more of his tweets than should he considered healthy. I don't think context is the issue. If you can point me in the direction of the speeches where he has encouraged his followers to treat illegal immigrants with compassion and understanding and love and that we should strive to hope for the best for them . . . I will happily eat my words.

I can happily point you to hundreds of times where he's called them animals and criminals and rapists and terrorists

Now, I am someone who considers illegal immigration a crisis that we have to stop . . . But the way Trump speaks about these other human beings is just gross. For the life of me, I can't reconcile anything the man says about immigrants with what I think Christians think about Jesus. When I talk to Trump supporters about stuff like this, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The man literally built his entire political career on insulting and spreading hate toward people that disagree with him. There are studies out there showing that something like 70% of all Trump statements, claims, and tweets are negative about someone else. But yeah, Biden is divisive . . .

---

Okay, please quote Trump calling ALL immigrants animals and criminals.
I don't like Trump and have never voted for him, but
I think when he says things like that he IS talking about animals, criminals, and rapists.
Way back in the 2016 Texas Primary, when I voted for Cruz,
I called Trump a loud mouthed New York Yankee real estate agent,
and I've never seen any reason to change that opinion.
BUT the Trump Admin handled the border, handled the military industrial complex,
and handled the economy much better than the Biden Admin has.
Oh, and why did Biden beg the Saudis and Venezuela for oil at the same time
he did massive damage to American oil/gas production?
How much of the money freed up to the Iranians is now being used
to fund the Houthis? So many screw ups like the withdrawal from Afgan
and the recent abandoned pier that was supposed to supply refugees
but was shortstopped by HAMAS. Biden has NOT acted like a moderate,
and one reason he dropped out is because that claim would no longer fly.

---

Where are you going to set the goalposts? If a clip of Trump does explicitly says that 'every single immigrant' is a criminal and an animal, are you permitted to the occasional "I assume some are good people" line to dismiss all of the other things?

What about Biden? What about Biden? What about Biden? An evaluation of Trump and of whether his rhetoric is consistent with Christian teaching should be done independent of Biden's oil policy. . . . don't you think?

Rongagin71 said:

---

The Feds should be protecting the border but since Gov Abbott announced an invasion, the state has spent a bundle trying to exercise some control.
https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-apprehends-more-than-516000-illegal-aliens-since-operation-lone-stars-inception/

---

Again, we agree on this part. I'm offering zero defense of Biden or Democratic policy on stopping illegal immigration. Texas is also one of the more lenient Southern states in terms of penalties for employers that hire illegals. Largely because the groups funding people like Abbott are making too much money off of having illegal immigrants in their labor force.

On going problems from the lack of Fed action on the border.
Maybe El Paso should also complain to "The Border Czar"?
https://texasscorecard.com/state/el-paso-county-asks-gov-abbott-for-millions-to-cover-operation-lone-star-incarceration-costs/

Edit to remind libs of why she was called "border czar"...
https://apnews.com/general-news-3400f56255e000547d1ca3ce1aa6b8e9

Here's a 4 month old thread on the politics board that captures just some of the crimes by illegals. President Trump wasn't wrong on this one.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3449768

Ireland is mostly Catholic, and mostly against further immigration.


Germany has encouraged immigration for years but has seen
a vast amount of anti-Semitic activity lately.

Despite the Biden/Harris Admin, progress toward honesty is being made.
https://texasscorecard.com/federal/biden-harris-administration-freezes-illegal-alien-parole-program/

Just because a country's population is predominantly Catholic, doesn't mean the government will follow that outlook. Mexico is a prime example. My ancestors fled the religious persecution of the 1920's. It wouldn't be until 1992 that religious men and women could wear their habits in public.