Press "Enter" to skip to content

Arizona Jury Rejects Trump’s Persecution of Christian Compassion Toward Migrants

A jury in Arizona has stopped Donald Trump’s persecution of Christian values at the U.S.-Mexico border:

When Scott Daniel Warren was arrested last year after allegedly providing food, water, beds and clean clothes to undocumented immigrants near Arizona’s Sonoran Desert, the question was whether he had broken the law or upheld it.

…Arrested by Border Patrol agents in January 2018 at a property offering aid for immigrants in Ajo, Ariz., he was accused of helping border-crossers evade authorities, which is prohibited under federal law.

The activist faced up to 20 years in prison on charges of harboring and conspiring to transport undocumented immigrants.

…Deciding who Warren is and what he did proved a task too tortuous for jurors, who said on Tuesday they remained deadlocked in their deliberations and could not reach a unanimous verdict [Isaac Stanley-Becker, “An Activist Faced 20 Years in Prison for Helping Migrants. But Jurors Wouldn’t Convict Him,” Washington Post, 2019.06.12].

Scott Warren is relieved that the jury chose humanitarianism over the inhumanity of the Trump Administration:

In the time since I was arrested in January 2018, no fewer than 88 bodies were recovered from the Arizona desert. The government’s plan in the midst of this humanitarian crisis? Policies to target undocumented people, refugees, and their families. Prosecutions to criminalize humanitarian aid, kindness, and solidarity. And now, the revelation that they will build an enormous and expensive wall across a vast stretch of southwestern Arizona’s unbroken Sonoran Desert.
Today it remains as necessary as ever for local residents and humanitarian aid volunteers to stand in solidarity with migrants and refugees. And we must also stand for our families, friends, and neighbors—and the very land itself—most threatened by the militarization of our borderland communities.

I’ve received enormous support from family, friends, and community. Thank you and I love you all so very, very much. If you can, get some rest and take some time for yourself! But the other men arrested with me that day, Jose Sacaria-Goday and Kristian Perez-Villanueva, have not received the attention and outpouring of support that I have. I do not know how they are doing now, but I do hope they are safe [Scott Warren, statement, 2019.06.11].

Let America Be America Again: let Americans of good conscience show compassion and aid to people in need.

106 Comments

  1. John Dale 2019-06-13

    “In the time since I was arrested in January 2018, no fewer than 88 bodies were recovered from the Arizona desert.”

    This action will result in thousands more. Stay home, Central and South America. Your home countries need you fighting for humanity there!

  2. leslie 2019-06-13

    Trump takes hostages as a matter of business planning. He is a “businessman”. Freeloading con-man/boy. IMPEACH THE MTHRFKER.

    Robocallers have taken all our telephones hostage. Freeloaders as a part of their business plan. And we pay the bills for their advertising.

    Thousands of robo-emails render my mail service inreliable. I pay to allow these freeloaders to jam my inbox.

    Snail mail, crucial for essential communication, is jammed up by freeloader advertising. We sibsidize this once reliable massive system that used our roads, fossil fuels, favors veterans, and we pay the freight.

    Smells like socialism for freeloader
    Businesses .

    Capitalism is built on freeloaders. Regulate communication and return it to the purpose we pay for as an essential utility. I dont needed unsolicited communication, and before 7am!

    RFTD (c) “rant for the day”

  3. Kurt Evans 2019-06-13

    I respect the opinions of people who are working to change our immigration laws, but I believe making it easier for illegal aliens to flout the laws we have in place today will ultimately lead to a net loss of human life and liberty and isn’t inherently compassionate or Christian.

  4. Porter Lansing 2019-06-13

    Helping suffering people seeking asylum in USA is inherently compassionate and Christian.

  5. Debbo 2019-06-13

    The inability to reach a verdict is great step for all people of good will and decency, in addition to being very Jesusy.

    That keeping people from dying is regarded as a political and criminal act reflects the reality of the GOP and the gross distortion of Christianity by the religious wrong.

  6. mike from iowa 2019-06-13

    Drumpf knows this for a fact: Immigrants cutting through Mexico trying to reach America are not bound to seek asylum in Mexico as it has never been declared a safe haven for refugees. Mexico cannot protect her own citizens let alone others.

    The US, under Drumpf, is flouting US and international laws by denying asylum seekers entry into America. Then Drumpf and his goons lie about these people getting more benefits than US citizens when they get here, when in fact most don’t get access to certain benefits until they have been here five years.

    And no, George Soros is not paying these people to come here.

  7. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-06-14

    Kurt, if I meet a thirsty person, am I obliged to ask to see that person’s papers before offering that person a drink of water?

  8. Debbo 2019-06-14

    [related]

    This. This. This is exactly how a church should respond to sexual abuse. (Looking directly at you,RCC, but others too.)

    is.gd/FAGddE

  9. Eve Fisher 2019-06-14

    Kurt, I can find no reference to whether or not the person helped is illegal, criminal or anything else. And please remember, applying for refugee status is not a criminal act. Ever.

    ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’
    “Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’
    “The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
    “Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’
    “Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, because you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:32-46)

  10. Debbo 2019-06-14

    Boom!

    I believe you, Eve, have settled it. Thank you.

  11. Kurt Evans 2019-06-14

    I’d written:

    I respect the opinions of people who are working to change our immigration laws, but I believe making it easier for illegal aliens to flout the laws we have in place today will ultimately lead to a net loss of human life and liberty and isn’t inherently compassionate or Christian.

    Cory asks:

    Kurt, if I meet a thirsty person, am I obliged to ask to see that person’s papers before offering that person a drink of water?

    Of course not, but if a man who hasn’t eaten for two weeks bursts out of a bank with a bag of cash, am I obliged by Christ’s teachings to offer him a ride to a restaurant?

    Eve Fisher writes:

    Kurt, I can find no reference to whether or not the person helped is illegal, criminal or anything else.

    The Washington Post refers to the people helped as “undocumented immigrants,” which seems to be the political left’s preferred euphemism for illegal aliens.

    And please remember, applying for refugee status is not a criminal act.

    I believe one can apply for refugee status at legal ports of entry, and I believe Daniel Warren was accused of helping illegal aliens avoid ports of entry.

  12. jerry 2019-06-14

    “Kurt Evans” tells big fat fibs about his concerns for his fellow Christians. Those folks are not “illegal” They’re your God’s children. They worship Jesus Christ, just like you do, only they’re Catholic and brownies. What was God thinking, right “Kurt Evans”?

  13. Kurt Evans 2019-06-14

    “jerry” writes to me:

    Those folks are not “illegal” They’re your God’s children.

    Some of them probably are.

    They worship Jesus Christ, just like you do, only they’re Catholic and brownies.

    Roman Catholics don’t worship Christ just like I do. Allegiance to the pope is a potential political problem, but skin color in itself isn’t.

  14. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-14

    You don’t have to be a Christian or even a follower of any particular religion to know what the difference between right and wrong.

    This country has far too many laws that are morally wrong or corrupt and most immigration laws are among them.

    Not being particularly religious I do share Eve’s comment as it does lean to the common decency that all men and women should have toward their fellow man.

  15. Kurt Evans 2019-06-14

    Roger Cornelius writes:

    This country has far too many laws that are morally wrong or corrupt and most immigration laws are among them.

    Then let’s work to change the law, but in the meantime let’s stop baiting people to die in the desert.

  16. jerry 2019-06-14

    Jihad “Kurt Evans” How do you worship Jesus? You make a mockery out of the whole failed concept of religion. Skin color is your problem “Kurt Evans” just like the rest of you fakers. When you come to the realization that all men and women are created equal in the eyes of your religion, then we can make progress. In the meantime, you’re just ISIS with a crew cut.

  17. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-14

    “stop baiting people to die in the desert”, just what does that mean? Kurt’s explanation should be rich.

  18. Debbo 2019-06-15

    Oh great. 🙄 Now we’re going to get endless long, longer and very long comments, quotes, dodges, and so on, all ending up far, far out in the weeds, from Ad Nauseum. Ugh.

  19. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-15

    I know, Debbo, we will most likely find more UFO’s out there in the desert.

  20. Kurt Evans 2019-06-15

    “jerry” writes to me:

    When you come to the realization that all men and women are created equal in the eyes of your religion, then we can make progress.

    Yes, the Founding Fathers’ solemn declaration that we’re all created equal and endowed with rights by our Creator is rooted in the Bible.

    What would the baby Jesus say about wealth and why people die in the desert?

    Probably nothing. Babies don’t talk.

    Roger Cornelius writes:

    “stop baiting people to die in the desert”, just what does that mean?

    Stop saying and doing things that entice vulnerable people to risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border-crossings.

  21. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-15

    No one is baiting people, they are seeking asylum, which is legal process granted to all migrants.

  22. Kurt Evans 2019-06-15

    I’d written:

    I believe one can apply for refugee status at legal ports of entry, and I believe Daniel Warren was accused of helping illegal aliens avoid ports of entry.

    Roger Cornelius writes:

    No one is baiting people, they are seeking asylum, which is legal process granted to all migrants.

    *facepalm*

  23. bearcreekbat 2019-06-15

    Jerry is right – “Those folks are not “illegal.” Labeling people “illegal” has only two reasonable explanations: (1) the name is designed and used to denigrate,dehumanize and/or inflict pain on people; or (2) the name is mindlessly repeated with no thought about whether it harms others.

    It cannot be justified by asserting that it is used to identify people accused or convicted of breaking the law since virtually every single one of us has violated the law at one time or another. Indeed, I watched the SD governor debates and recall that neither Kurt nor anyone else ever once referred to Noem as an “illegal” anything despite her public record of multiple convictions for violating laws.

    The simple fact is that no immigrant nor asylum seeker is any more “illegal” than any other person in the USA, regardless when, where or how they cross the border.

    One more point – anyone who actually thinks about it would never assert that people in the US should

    Stop saying and doing things that entice vulnerable people to risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border-crossings.

    Water and food are not an enticement to cross the border. Rather, the enticement is the belief that the USA provides freedom, safety and economic opportunity for people. The idea that anyone should stop making the USA a place of freedom, safety and economic opportunity to discourage immigration is at odds with the Country’s culture. And I recall no such biblical command.

  24. Eve Fisher 2019-06-15

    Kurt wrote “Eve Fisher writes: Kurt, I can find no reference to whether or not the person helped is illegal, criminal or anything else. The Washington Post refers to the people helped as “undocumented immigrants,” which seems to be the political left’s preferred euphemism for illegal aliens.”

    I was speaking of what Jesus said in Matthew 25: Jesus made no distinction as to who we should feed/water/house/clothe/visit, etc. based on legality, criminality or anything else.

    Regarding the whole thing about ports of entry, I quote:

    First from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states
    “Asylum seekers who arrive at a U.S. port of entry or enter the United States without inspection generally must apply through the defensive asylum process. Both processes require the asylum seeker to be physically present in the United States.”

    And from the U.S. Code: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158
    “Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section…”

  25. Eve Fisher 2019-06-15

    In other words, this whole thing about people can’t come into the United States except at ports of entry, etc., to apply for asylum is NOT what the law actually says. Granted, the ultra-right-wing are trying to say that’s the law, but it’s not what the U.S. Code says.

  26. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-06-16

    On bank robbers and rides to the restaurant:

    The analogy to robbery is flawed. Entering the United States without documents is a victimless crime. No one loses anything from the act of a person stepping across the border from Mexico to the U.S.

    My question remains and is reinforced by the flawed analogy to robbers: if I meet any person in the desert, am I obliged to not only ask that person’s immigration status but also investigate whether that person has committed any crime? And if my inquiry gives me reasonable suspicion (and remember, we’re not even talking due process here with presumption of innocence overcome by a judicial determination of guilt) that the person in need has somehow transgressed, am I not only absolved of any Samaritan imperative but criminally liable if I act on my Samaritan imperative nonetheless?

    Jesus gave comfort to a thief on the cross. Can Christians not do the same to migrants in the desert?

  27. bearcreekbat 2019-06-16

    As for bank robbers – if Kurt found one lying bleeding on the ground after being shot trying to escape would it be appropriate to call an ambulance or take other measures to save his life, or do Kurt’s Christian ethics suggest instead that “he stand there laughing while [the robber] curled up and died?”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVSDnAoRfQE

    Indeed, wouldn’t Kurt’s theory suggest that providing life saving medical care would only encourage him to attempt more bank robberies?

  28. Cory Allen Heidelberger Post author | 2019-06-16

    Good framing of the question, BCB. When Christianity directs adherents to care for others, how many “ifs” and exceptions does it place on that direction?

  29. Debbo 2019-06-16

    That’s the really hard thing about Christ and “Christ”ianity. Jesus demonstrated by his words and actions that there are no limits. It simply does not matter what the individual is doing, what they look like, where they’re from, what their skin color is, IQ, politics, income, motivation, age, ability….. nothing.

    Us humans are born with a desire to categorize, separate, name, place varying values and so forth. We protect our group to protect ourselves and our progeny.

    Jesus would have none of that. Period.

    All Christians are called by Jesus to emulate him to the best of their abilities, regardless of denomination, including “traditional bible Christians,” or anything else anyone chooses to call themselves.

    What Wilted Weenie chooses to do for political expediency is simply that, and Christianity cannot be twisted to support his and the GOP’s actions.

  30. Kurt Evans 2019-06-17

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    Labeling people “illegal” has only two reasonable explanations: (1) the name is designed and used to denigrate,dehumanize and/or inflict pain on people; or (2) the name is mindlessly repeated with no thought about whether it harms others.

    I haven’t used the word illegal as a label or a name. I’ve used it as an adjective to describe people who aren’t legal residents.

    Indeed, I watched the SD governor debates and recall that neither Kurt nor anyone else ever once referred to Noem as an “illegal” anything despite her public record of multiple convictions for violating laws.

    I don’t know whether Kristi Noem ever drove on public highways without a valid license, but if she did, she was presumably an illegal driver.

    Eve Fisher writes:

    … this whole thing about people can’t come into the United States except at ports of entry, etc., to apply for asylum is NOT what the law actually says.

    I didn’t say it was, but if they were really planning to apply for asylum, why would they avoid legal ports of entry and risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border crossings?

    “happy camper” comments (possibly under the wrong post):

    There was just another death of a small child. The article says people are coming from Africa and Asia to come up the Mexican border. She was from India. It’s terribly sad but more complicated than your post… We have a bad policy that is encouraging risk taking.

    https://dakotafreepress.com/2019/05/29/trump-persecuting-christians-for-enacting-their-faith-in-service/#comment-137208

    We have multiple bad policies.

    Cory had asked:

    Kurt, if I meet a thirsty person, am I obliged to ask to see that person’s papers before offering that person a drink of water?

    I’d replied:

    Of course not, but if a man who hasn’t eaten for two weeks bursts out of a bank with a bag of cash, am I obliged by Christ’s teachings to offer him a ride to a restaurant?

    Cory writes:

    The analogy to robbery is flawed.

    It’s a question, not an analogy.

    Entering the United States without documents is a victimless crime. No one loses anything from the act of a person stepping across the border from Mexico to the U.S.

    Would you say all trespassing is victimless? Would you say anyone loses anything when a person steps from the sidewalk into your driveway, or from your driveway into your garage, or from your garage into your house?

    My question remains …

    Your question remains answered. Mine remains unanswered.

  31. jerry 2019-06-17

    “Kurt Evans” writes more gibberish in defense of his racism and hate for Catholics. “Kurt Evans” lives up to his moniker “ISIS with a crew cut” by slamming the acquittal of what most would call, a Christian approach to the care of immigrants.

  32. Porter Lansing 2019-06-17

    Evans has once again been backed into the corner by Cory’s and Bear’s intellect. Turn around Kurt and face the wall.
    There are a few things DFP has in abundance. One is a beautiful platform to speak your mind. Another is total doofuses who think they’re literally the smartest person on the planet. Combine the two and you get some pretty pitiful action by totally un-self-aware folks trying as hard as they can to tell the world that they’re brilliant.

  33. bearcreekbat 2019-06-17

    Just to clarify, when referring to another person as an “illegal” it matters nor whether the term is used as a noun or adjective, the result is the same – intentional dehumanization of that person. Use it if you hate or just don’t care about other people, but distinguishing it as an “adjective” rather than a noun doesn’t make its use any less hateful or harmful.

    And as best I can tell using the term “illegal” as an adjective to describe a person is an incorrect of the term, as the adjective “illegal” describes actions rather than nouns.

    Apparently, the hateful term “illegal immigrant” was coined by Nazi’s to describe Jewish people attempting to escape Nazi holocaust. Hollocaust survivor and Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel succinctly explained:

    “You who are so-called illegal immigrants must know that no human being is illegal. That is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful or more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but illegal? How can a human being be illegal?”

    . . .

    “Because once you label a people ‘illegal,’ that is exactly what the Nazis did to Jews.’ You do not label a people ‘illegal.’ They have committed an illegal act. They are immigrants who crossed illegally. They are immigrants who crossed without papers. They are immigrants who crossed without permission. They are living in this country without permission. But they are not an illegal people.”

    https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-saying-no-human-being-is-illegal-mean-when-talking-about-immigration

    As for Kristi Noem, see:

    https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/noem-apologizes-for-traffic-citations/article_268757a4-b876-11df-a43e-001cc4c03286.html

  34. Debbo 2019-06-17

    I haven’t found any place in the Gospels where Jesus used the word “illegal”, or something similar in regard to any person. Of course, Ad Nauseam is the expert here, as his definitive statements make clear.

  35. Kurt Evans 2019-06-18

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    Just to clarify, when referring to another person as an “illegal” it matters nor whether the term is used as a noun or adjective, the result is the same – intentional dehumanization of that person.

    I’m wondering how you’d say you know my intentions.

    And as best I can tell using the term “illegal” as an adjective to describe a person is an incorrect of the term, as the adjective “illegal” describes actions rather than nouns.

    Adjectives modify nouns and pronouns, and the adjective illegal means not authorized by law. In this context an illegal alien is someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States and isn’t authorized by law to live here.

    Apparently, the hateful term “illegal immigrant” was coined by Nazi’s to describe Jewish people attempting to escape Nazi holocaust.

    Was it normal for holocaust-era Nazis to coin English phrases?

    As for Kristi Noem, see:

    https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/noem-apologizes-for-traffic-citations/article_268757a4-b876-11df-a43e-001cc4c03286.html

    I’m not sure what your point is. If she wasn’t carrying a valid driver’s license, she was an illegal driver.

  36. grudznick 2019-06-19

    Mr. Evans, indeed you are often saner than most. I enjoy your post with multiple quotings and debatings and such as you win every point there. grudznick has ruled. Mr. Evans wins.

  37. jerry 2019-06-19

    “Kurt Evans”, wrong again. There is no such thing as an “illegal driver”. They only exist in the mind of the crew cut ISIS man. Here is what happens if you do not have a valid driver’s license or if you do not have any drivers license.

    “Possible vehicle impoundment. Summary Offense: $200 fine; license suspension increased by 1 year if originally suspended, 2 years if it was originally revoked. First Offense – Misdemeanor: Imprisonment for no more than 30 days; $250-$500 fine; license suspension increased by 3 months.May 31, 2019”

  38. Debbo 2019-06-19

    Oh no. Ad Nauseam is going to drown this topic in endless, fruitless comments too. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

  39. grudznick 2019-06-19

    Why, Ms. Geelsdottir, I’m flattered that despite your frequent squeaks that you do not read what grudznick blogs, you still do. It’s OK. We all knew.

  40. Kurt Evans 2019-06-19

    I’d written:

    If she wasn’t carrying a valid driver’s license, she was an illegal driver.

    “jerry” writes:

    There is no such thing as an “illegal driver”.

    I suppose many on the political left might insist that such drivers should be referred to as “undocumented motorists” and that Christ’s real followers should be helping them avoid law enforcement and providing them with snacks and beverages for the road.

  41. bearcreekbat 2019-06-19

    While Kurt’s intentions may be hidden in the unknowable recesses of his mind, one can make an educated guess about his intentions by considering the language he uses.

    On the effects, wisdom and accuracy of using adjectives or nouns to declare human beings “illegal,” consider who makes the more compelling argument, Kurt Evens or Elie Wiesel? You be the judge.

    Personally I will admit some bias – I admit to a bias against dehumanizing or harming other people and from all I have read and understand, calling people “illegal aliens” or “illegal immigrants” results in dehumanization and inflicts unnecessary harm. But even if I am wrong, principles analogous to Pacal’s wager suggest that if my priority is not to speak in a manner that dehumanizes or harms others I have little or nothing to lose by omiting this particular terminology from my discourse, and everything to gain.

  42. Kurt Evans 2019-06-20

    Cory writes:

    Jesus gave comfort to a thief on the cross. Can Christians not do the same to migrants in the desert?

    In ways that don’t violate the law, yes. One of the two men who were crucified at the same time as Christ insisted that Christ should save him from the legal consequences of his actions. The other willingly submitted himself to the legal consequences of his actions. The first man was in the wrong, and the second man was in the right.

    The Bible indicates that God the Father would have put tens of thousands of angels at Christ’s disposal if Christ had asked for them, but even as He offered spiritual forgiveness and verbal comfort to the second man, Christ didn’t help him avoid the legal consequences of his actions, much less violate the law Himself.

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    As for bank robbers – if Kurt found one lying bleeding on the ground after being shot trying to escape would it be appropriate to call an ambulance or take other measures to save his life, or do Kurt’s Christian ethics suggest instead that “he stand there laughing while [the robber] curled up and died?”

    As far as I know, there’s no law against calling an ambulance or taking other measures to save the bank robber’s life in that situation, so it would presumably be appropriate. My Christian ethics definitely don’t suggest I should stand there laughing.

    Indeed, wouldn’t Kurt’s theory suggest that providing life saving medical care would only encourage him to attempt more bank robberies?

    It would apparently suggest that to you.

    Cory asks:

    When Christianity directs adherents to care for others, how many “ifs” and exceptions does it place on that direction?

    I’m not sure. Would you say the answer is zero?

    Deb Geelsdottir writes:

    Us humans are born with a desire to categorize, separate, name, place varying values and so forth. We protect our group to protect ourselves and our progeny.

    Jesus would have none of that. Period.

    That’s absurd, Deb, and as usual, I’m wondering how you claim to know.

    “jerry” writes:

    “Kurt Evans” writes more gibberish in defense of his racism and hate for Catholics.

    I’m not a racist, and you could probably count the Catholics I hate on your fingers.

    Porter Lansing writes:

    There are a few things DFP has in abundance. One is a beautiful platform to speak your mind. Another is total doofuses who think they’re literally the smartest person on the planet. Combine the two and you get some pretty pitiful action by totally un-self-aware folks trying as hard as they can to tell the world that they’re brilliant.

    This is one of the rare occasions when Porter and I agree.

  43. jerry 2019-06-20

    “kurt Evans” writes even more gibberish. The flagrant hate you have for the Catholic immigrants in our concentration camps shows that very well. You’re in good stead with the rest of the racists though “Kurt Evans”, you should feel proud of yourself.

  44. Debbo 2019-06-20

    Ad Nauseam, tell us how many people Jesus rejected based on inherent qualities or categories.

    Btw, you stretch the criminals on the crosses out of all recognizable proportions. That’s pseudonymous John’s creative addition to the story. The other 3 Gospel writers don’t add it. Did you get that from your “Traditional Bible Christian” friends? Imagination is a wonderful thing.

  45. Debbo 2019-06-20

    Jesus broke laws regularly. He was not concerned with the legality of his actions. Chiefly he broke religious laws, which were a part of the civil framework.

  46. Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices 2019-06-20

    Kurt Evans is not only an obsessive/compulsive parser of that which offends his worldview, he is plain nuts.

  47. Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices 2019-06-20

    What I am trying to say is; There is no possible way one can paint as a villain one who puts jugs of water in the desert.

  48. jerry 2019-06-20

    The new American concentration camps are much the same as the old American concentration camps going back to Fort Sill and the Apache and then further to the stealing of the lands of the Cherokee and their forced march to oblivion. https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Sites_of_incarceration/#Department_of_Justice_Internment_Camp

    We Americans held over 120,000 Japanese Americans because they were Japanese Americans. These folks only wanted to work and raise families to provide for themselves and for their country, America.

    In Spanish, the only word for North America, Central America and South America is America. That word is used to describe us all. Of course, then it is broken down by region, but the main word for all three is simply America. Makes sense as we are all Americans. Let’s start treating each other that way and make sensible immigration laws that do not put people in concentration camps.

  49. grudznick 2019-06-20

    My good friend Bob, with whom I have breakfasted with to near puke status many a time, does not really get Mr. Evans like I do. Mr. Evans has often spouted a wiser line than Bob, although Bob does sport a far better hat on most occasions and is perhaps a better story teller before lunch. The odd part is that Mr. Evans and Bob are of the same Libertarian membership, while that party would not let grudznick in last year.

  50. certain inflatable recreational devices 2019-06-20

    On top of being a coward, the thing which styles itself “grudznick” is an outright liar. I have never shared a meal with anything as despicable. And it should be obvious that the Libertarian Party admits anyone with $5, no matter how despicable they are.

  51. grudznick 2019-06-20

    grudznick has oft bought breakfasts which cost far more than $5 for many a Libertarian. They are, in general, pretty swell fellows when they are not all jacked up and toking the demon weed. Or toting it around in their trunk to sell to school children.

  52. Debbo 2019-06-20

    CIRD, you have my sympathy. He is the only “person” I am aware of who lies as much as Wilted Weenie. Both are pathetic old men.

  53. Kurt Evans 2019-06-21

    Deb Geelsdottir writes to me:

    Btw, you stretch the criminals on the crosses out of all recognizable proportions. That’s pseudonymous John’s creative addition to the story.

    The account of the second criminal’s eleventh-hour conversion was recorded in Luke’s Gospel, not John’s. It seems like you can’t say one thing about Christianity that’s historically accurate, Deb, no matter how relatively trivial.

  54. Debbo 2019-06-21

    Nope. You’re wrong Ad Nauseum.

    The central point, as CIRD said, is that Jesus would have never seen a thirsty, suffering person and refused to help them. Derived directly from that is the secondary point that anyone declining to assist such people may do so for personal, political or other reasons, perhaps even religious reasons. But “Christ”ianity does not sanction such callous cruelty.

  55. Kurt Evans 2019-06-21

    “Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices” writes:

    Kurt Evans is not only an obsessive/compulsive parser of that which offends his worldview, he is plain nuts.

    This diagnosis has been brought to you by Robert J. Newland, a 70-year-old man whose online pseudonym alludes to a blow-up sex doll.

    “grudznick” writes:

    The odd part is that Mr. Evans and Bob are of the same Libertarian membership, while that party would not let grudznick in last year.

    I’m a small-L libertarian currently registered with no party affiliation.

  56. Kurt Evans 2019-06-22

    Deb Geelsdottir writes:

    I haven’t found any place in the Gospels where Jesus used the word “illegal”, or something similar in regard to any person.

    Jesus didn’t speak English, but the New Testament uses an adjective approximately equivalent to the word lawless to describe people who lack legal authorization for their actions.

    … tell us how many people Jesus rejected based on inherent qualities or categories.

    I don’t have an exact number, but for example, John reports that Jesus rejected some Pharisees whom He categorized as children of their father the devil.

    That’s pseudonymous John’s creative addition to the story.

    The Apostle John didn’t write his Gospel under a pseudonym.

    Jesus broke laws regularly.

    Can you cite a few examples?

    [Jesus] was not concerned with the legality of his actions.

    That’s absurd, Deb, and as usual, I’m wondering how you claim to know.

    The central point, as CIRD said, is that Jesus would have never seen a thirsty, suffering person and refused to help them.

    As I’ve already indicated in a previous comment, one of the two thirsty, suffering men who were crucified at the same time as Jesus insisted that Jesus should save him from the legal consequences of his actions, and Jesus refused to help him.

    … “Christ”ianity does not sanction such callous cruelty.

    Christianity doesn’t equate legal consequences with callous cruelty.

  57. Debbo 2019-06-23

    We’ve been all through this ad nauseum, Ad Nauseam. My qualifications are way above your pay grade, that’s how I know this.

    Many of your conclusions are wrong, as you’ve been told many times by many of us, with supporting evidence. You choose to ignore what doesn’t suit you and use your tangential, argumentative, repetitious, errant responses to feel self righteous.

    You’re one of the best proof texters I’ve known. Proof texting is a perfectly pathetic way to misuse the bible. You adamantly refuse any and every opportunity to learn and grow. You totally resent my ordination and refuse to use my clerical title because in your tiny world your god doesn’t call women to ministry.

    Maybe it’s just your self-righteous arrogance that prevents you from directly addressing and learning from BCB’s wise and thoughtful comments.

    As I’ve said before, declare total victory for yourself because I’m done. I’ll no longer beat myself against the brick wall you’ve erected around your brain. You’ve lost.

  58. Eve Fisher 2019-06-23

    That’s all right Debbo, I’ll give it one more try:
    Kurt, Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and treason by the Romans.
    As far as criminal behavior: Jesus destroyed a whole heard of swine that did not belong to him (Mark 5:1-20) which was one of the reasons why the people of Gerasenes wanted him to get out of there. There’s also the little matter of a fig tree that was certainly NOT growing wild, which he destroyed. (Matthew 11:12-25) BTW, immediately after cursing the fig tree, and before the disciples saw it dead, he went into the Temple yard and started whipping people out, destroying their private property, and generally having a fit. Even today, if someone came into, say, a bank or a church with a whip and started driving people out of it, pouring out the money gathered up and overturning the altar or the tellers’ desks – they’d be arrested at the very least.
    He and his disciples also broke the Sabbath laws with such regularity that it’s amazing that the Pharisees and Sadducees hadn’t already killed him – and they did try. Remember when his home town tried to throw him off the cliff? He ate with sinners, picked crops to eat from other peoples’ fields, healed a number of people – in church, gasp! – on the Sabbath, and told people straight out that the Sabbath laws were inhumane and they didn’t have to follow them – Matthew 12:1-21; Mark 2:23-28 (and that’s just for starters). He was constantly investigated by the Pharisees for this – and breaking the Sabbath was, under Jewish law, a capital offense.
    He also hung out with criminals – prostitutes, tax collectors (back then they were not “nice” men), thieves, etc. (Matthew 11:19)
    He broke a lot of laws. You may try to argue that these were all religious laws, and thus not legally binding, but in Jesus’ day, religious laws WERE legally binding, with the result that after they tried to stone him, Jesus was arrested, tried, beaten, and then passed on to Rome – not because the Sanhedrin couldn’t kill him, they could have stoned him – but because they wanted him crucified publicly as an example to anyone else who might want to follow his ways.

  59. bearcreekbat 2019-06-23

    Very informative post Eve – thanks! It undermines any implication that Debbo’s posting was in any way inaccurate or “absurd.”

  60. Kurt Evans 2019-06-24

    I’d written:

    … the adjective illegal means not authorized by law. In this context an illegal alien is someone who isn’t a citizen of the United States and isn’t authorized by law to live here.

    … If [Kristi Noem] wasn’t carrying a valid driver’s license, she was an illegal driver.

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    While Kurt’s intentions may be hidden in the unknowable recesses of his mind, one can make an educated guess about his intentions by considering the language he uses.

    Yes, but you can’t rightfully accuse me of “intentional dehumanization” based on an educated guess. Would you say I’m intentionally dehumanizing Governor Noem?

    On the effects, wisdom and accuracy of using adjectives or nouns to declare human beings “illegal,” consider who makes the more compelling argument, Kurt Evens or Elie Wiesel?

    The quote attributed to Wiesel at your link just claims over and over that illegal aliens aren’t illegal while wording that claim in several different ways. It doesn’t even make any supporting argument.

    But even if I am wrong, principles analogous to Pacal’s wager suggest that if my priority is not to speak in a manner that dehumanizes or harms others I have little or nothing to lose by omiting this particular terminology from my discourse, and everything to gain.

    Blaise Pascal made valuable contributions to mathematics and theology, but “Pascal’s wager” has never impressed me as one of them. It seems to me that there’s much to lose by blurring the distinction between those who’ve dedicated years of their lives to becoming legally naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens who just sneaked in.

    “jerry” writes to me:

    The flagrant hate you have for the Catholic immigrants in our concentration camps shows [that you write gibberish] very well.

    Much of Hispanic Catholicism has been syncretized with warmed-over polytheism and ancestor worship, and many of those Catholics would make the typical American Catholic look like Martin Luther by comparison. My desire to control immigration and keep the melting pot working is mainly rooted in a desire to preserve the best aspects of our culture, not in hatred.

    Deb Geelsdottir had written:

    [Jesus] was not concerned with the legality of his actions.

    I’d written:

    That’s absurd, Deb, and as usual, I’m wondering how you claim to know.

    Deb writes:

    We’ve been all through this ad nauseum[*]…

    *nauseam

    My qualifications are way above your pay grade, that’s how I know this.

    You incorrectly spliced together two complete sentences using only a comma there, Deb.

    Proof texting is a perfectly pathetic way to misuse the bible.

    Christ Himself routinely cited proof texts from the Bible.

    You totally resent my ordination and refuse to use my clerical title because in your tiny world your god doesn’t call women to ministry.

    I’m uncomfortable addressing you by any clerical title because your bizarre claims about the history of Christianity lead me to wonder whether you were abusing psychotropic drugs during seminary.

    “bearcreekbat” writes of Eve Fisher’s comment:

    It undermines any implication that Debbo’s posting was in any way inaccurate or “absurd.”

    What I said was absurd is Deb’s claim that Christ wasn’t concerned with the legality of His actions.

  61. jerry 2019-06-24

    “Kurt Evans” finally comes around with this. “Jesus didn’t speak English” Exactly, Jesus spoke Spanish, that is why there are a whole bunch of fellows called Jesus to this day. What a Jesus told me was that immigrants should be treated a helluva lot better than we treat them in our concentration camps, that’s what Jesus said.

  62. jerry 2019-06-24

    No wonder “Kurt Evans” supports the border racist types, they do the same kinds of grifting his beloved DiSanto does. Witn these bozo heads, it’s all about the money and how much they can fleece.

    “Authorities in Oklahoma have charged border vigilante Jim Benvie with fraud after The Daily Beast reported he was suspected of running a child-cancer charity scam there.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/united-constitutional-patriots-jim-benvie-charged-with-fraud-for-allegedly-pocketing-cash-for-kid-with-cancer

  63. bearcreekbat 2019-06-24

    Once someone becomes aware that unnecessary labels (or adjectives) they use to describe other people are perceived as dehumanizing or hurtful, but still insists on continuing to use that unnecessary language, then I believe I can “rightfully accuse” that person of intentionally dehumanizing those folks.

    And the idea that using unnecessary terms to dehumanize and hurt others somehow is a compliment to, or benefit to, other people lucky enough to be considered legally naturalized immigrants does not seem complimentary at all. Indeed, it seems doubtful that most naturalized immigrants would find joy or satisfaction in their lives by using names and adjectives to dehumanize and harm people not so fortunate; especially the 300 little kids that we recently learned are being held in unsanitary and unsafe detention conditions.

    I can’t see how you would be comfortable calling those kids or any other human being an “illegal” anything, but if that squirts your pickle, so be it.

    Before this thread, I have never heard you refer to Noem as an “illegal” anything. I suspect you already believe that your use of that term regarding Noem in this discussion will not have the effect of dehumanizing a group of decent people or Noem herself, in contrast with the hateful language dehumanizing people for seeking freedom, safety and economic opportunity by committing a non-violent misdemeanor or administrative transgression that harms neither person nor property of another person.

  64. grudznick 2019-06-24

    Mr. “jerry”, grudznick does appreciate your interactions with Mr. “Evans” and is weighing your considerable, although mercifully shorter, rebuttals.

  65. Debbo 2019-06-24

    Okay, I wasn’t going to comment here again, but this is just too funny!

    Ad Nauseam said, “I’m uncomfortable addressing you by any clerical title because your bizarre claims…”

    This from a guy who thinks Genesis is a science book and the Earth is only 6000 years old! That’s just too good to pass up. Ad Nauseam, I just want to say thank you. I am greatly relieved that you find my knowledge of modern theological studies and understandings “bizarre.”
    😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

  66. Kurt Evans 2019-06-24

    Deb Geelsdottir had written to me:

    You totally resent my ordination and refuse to use my clerical title because in your tiny world your god doesn’t call women to ministry.

    I’d replied:

    I’m uncomfortable addressing you by any clerical title because your bizarre claims about the history of Christianity lead me to wonder whether you were abusing psychotropic drugs during seminary.

    Deb writes:

    This from a guy who thinks Genesis is a science book and the Earth is only 6000 years old!

    Christ Himself publicly recognized the Hebrew Bible as true, and so do traditional Bible Protestants. I don’t think Genesis is a science book, but the real scientific evidence fully aligns with its teachings.

    Learn more here:
    https://biblicalscienceinstitute.com/origins/creation-101-radiometric-dating-and-the-age-of-the-earth/

  67. jerry 2019-06-25

    Quack quack from the quack “kurt evans”

  68. Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices 2019-06-25

    Kurt, CIRD is an acronym for your hero, Al Novstup’s inflatable bouncy house.

  69. jerry 2019-06-25

    $775.00 per day taxpayers pay for each in the American concentration camps. No wonder “kurt Evans” is all in on the taxpayer scam.

    “WASHINGTON — The cost of holding migrant children who have been separated from their parents in newly created “tent cities” is $775 per person per night, according to an official at the Department of Health and Human Services — far higher than the cost of keeping children with their parents in detention centers or holding them in more permanent buildings.” https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/trump-admin-s-tent-cities-cost-more-keeping-migrant-kids-n884871

    Billions in the pockets of the friends of trump. Have we had enough yet?

  70. Debbo 2019-06-25

    I read that it would be cheaper to keep them in one of Wilted Weenie’s hotels. Jerry, you know that’s Plan B for the trump Family Crime Syndicate.

  71. jerry 2019-06-25

    Robert Mueller will testify on July 27, 2019, in open questioning. Should be a hoot. Now if we can get Pelosi to plan on a July 28th announcement for an impeachment inquiry, that would be a hooted hoot. The whole gang needs to be removed before we are more Russia than what used to be Russia.

    What I wouldn’t give to hear trump talk to the guy who attacked us in 2016, Putin, the war speak he is giving Iran. Tough talk from a fat man on a small country. Putin would just laugh and show him the pee pee tapes. Yikes!!

  72. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-25

    jerry
    Is there anyway that Trump’s White House can prevent Mueller from testifying?

  73. jerry 2019-06-25

    Roger, Not that I can see. Mueller retired and is no longer a government employee. He is a civilian like the rest of us. Now, Mike and John and Butina’s guy pal, Dusty are gonna have to answer to us South Dakotan’s on what they have read in the Mueller report that Mueller will be talking about. Should be interesting. Tick toc until July 27th.

  74. jerry 2019-06-25

    Roger, the date is Wednesday, July 17th, 2019. Sorry about that. So Speaker Pelosi should have the impeachment inquiry up and ready to go on Thursday, July 18th, 2019.

  75. Kurt Evans 2019-06-26

    Deb Geelsdottir had written:

    Jesus broke laws regularly.

    I’d asked Deb:

    Can you cite a few examples?

    Deb had replied:

    As I’ve said before, declare total victory for yourself because I’m done.

    Eve Fisher writes:

    That’s all right Debbo, I’ll give it one more try:
    Kurt, Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin and treason by the Romans.

    He was falsely convicted of breaking laws He hadn’t broken.

    Jesus destroyed a whole heard of swine that did not belong to him (Mark 5:1-20) which was one of the reasons why the people of Gerasenes wanted him to get out of there.

    The passage you cite doesn’t say Jesus destroyed the herd.

    There’s also the little matter of a fig tree that was certainly NOT growing wild, which he destroyed. (Matthew 11:12-25)

    The event you describe is recorded in the eleventh chapter of Mark’s Gospel, not Matthew’s, and Mark doesn’t say whether the tree was growing wild.

    (Matthew[*] 11:12-25) BTW, immediately after cursing the fig tree, and before the disciples saw it dead, he went into the Temple yard and started whipping people out, destroying their private property, and generally having a fit.

    *actually Mark

    The passage you attempt to cite indicates that Christ was enforcing religious laws, not breaking them, and it doesn’t say whether He whipped anyone or destroyed anyone’s property.

    He and his disciples also broke the Sabbath laws with such regularity that it’s amazing that the Pharisees and Sadducees hadn’t already killed him – and they did try.

    How many times would you say Christ and His disciples broke the Sabbath laws?

    Remember when his home town tried to throw him off the cliff?

    No, but I remember reading Luke’s account of the event in the fourth chapter of his Gospel.

    He ate with sinners, picked crops to eat from other peoples’ fields, healed a number of people – in church, gasp! – on the Sabbath …

    There was no church before Christ rose from the dead.

    He … told people straight out that the Sabbath laws were inhumane and they didn’t have to follow them – Matthew 12:1-21; Mark 2:23-28 …

    Christ told people straight out that “it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12).

    He broke a lot of laws. You may try to argue that these were all religious laws …

    I may try to argue that Christ didn’t break a lot of laws, religious or otherwise.

  76. Debbo 2019-06-26

    You nailed it Eve, but Ad Nauseam will never admit it. Never.

  77. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-26

    Debbo, why do you even bother with Ad Nauseam garbage, you are far better then that.

  78. grudznick 2019-06-26

    Mr. “Evans”, I find your ad nauseam reiterations of conversations very entertaining. grudznick approves. You may continue.

  79. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-26

    Debbo
    Mr. C. doesn’t come to Dakota Free Press seeking entertainment, he comes here for good and healthy debates and discussions, not for biblical one upsmenship.

  80. Debbo 2019-06-26

    Yeah, you’re right Roger. It really bothers me when someone distorts biblical teaching out of all recognizable shape and turns it I to something ugly. I’ll try to let more of it pass.

  81. Roger Cornelius 2019-06-26

    Thanks Debbo, we have lost sight of the intent of this thread and that is the abandonment of people on the border.
    Today we saw a horrible picture of a father and his toddler daughter laying face down in the Rio Grande River after drowning in an attempt to seek asylum.
    There are far too many similar stories of immigrants dying at the border looking for a better life.
    Trump Camps are holding thousands of children in concentration camps where sickness and filth prevail.
    How can Christians not help these people?
    Can you even call yourself a Christian if you don’t lend aid?

  82. jerry 2019-06-26

    Roger, the problem is that “kurt evans” and his irk, are not Christians, hell, they ain’t even human. (jerry 11:46)

  83. Kurt Evans 2019-06-26

    “jerry” writes:

    … the problem is that “kurt evans” and his irk[*], are not Christians, —-, they ain’t even human.

    *ilk

    You’ve incorrectly spliced together two complete sentences using only a comma.

  84. Debbo 2019-06-27

    “Can you even call yourself a Christian if you don’t lend aid?”

    I don’t see how Roger. It was so heartening in the Democratic debate tonight to hear and see politicians being really passionate about the need to get those children out of the trump/GOP concentration camps and care for the families.

    It seemed to me the consensus among the debaters was to follow international law for asylum seekers, reinstate the DREAM Act, provide a route to citizenship and create some type of Marshall Plan for our southern neighbors so the people are able to live safely and humanely in their own countries.

    I can support that because it’s humane, sticks to USA values and is an economic winner.

    (I hope we get a post tomorrow about tonight’s debate.)

  85. bearcreekbat 2019-06-27

    In last night’s debates Julian Castro made it a point to argue for the repeal of 8 U.S.C. section 1325,

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

    which makes it a misdemeanor to cross the border at an unauthorized location, a law that was reportedly adopted at the urging of avowed ‘White supremacist’ Sen. Coleman Blease in 1929.

    The Trump administration and people like Kurt Evans rely upon section 1325 to justify seperating children from family members, punishing religious folks for providing food, water or help to immigrants in danger of harm, and/or using the “illegal” label (or “adjective” if that makes one feel better about the harm this inflicts on people) to dehumanize immigrant men, women and children. Several other Democratic candidates reportedly support repeal of section 1325, including Warren, Booker and Ryan. O’Rourke, however, opposes repeal while Klobachar and De Blasio say the haven’t taken a position one way or the other on repeal. Meanwhile the self described “stable genius” Trump tweeted that consideration of repeal is “boring.”

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/julian-castro-immigrants-2020-democrats_n_5d143402e4b0d0a2c0ab8e74

    I note that repeal would not mean open borders because current civil immigration laws can be used to legally detain and remove unqualified individuals from the US. Real would eliminate, however, the only legal justification for abusing and even torturing children, prosecuting people for providing Christian or non-Christian humanitarian aid to people in need, and/or using “illegal” as a term to dehumanize people.

    For me, opposing repeal is a deal breaker.

  86. Debbo 2019-06-27

    Thanks for that clarification BCB. I noted that brought out one of the more contentious moments. (And O’Rourke was totally underwhelming.)

    I didn’t really understand why my Senator Amy Klobuchar was undecided. I’d like to hear more from her about what she’s thinking. She’s a former prosecutor and so is Senator Kamala Harris so it will be interesting to see what she has to say about it. I hope the moderators will ask about it tonight too.

  87. Porter Lansing 2019-06-27

    Trump tweeted that repeal of 1325 was “boring”. Bette Midler tweeted, “As if we aren’t aware that’s how Trump feels about anything he can’t eat or f**k.” Bette is a Queen of the Resistance.

  88. Debbo 2019-06-29

    I agree Porter. The Divine Miss M has been one of my favorites since she and Barry Manilow were entertaining in the New York bathhouses in the late sixties.

    Good question Mike. Those nasty “illegal” people! If they would just be rich white men everything would be so much better.

  89. mike from iowa 2019-06-29

    Like it or not, Kurt, them there illegals are allowed entry into America to seek asylum. They are under no obligation to enter at a usual port of entry. The illegal stuff is being done by this government and agents at the border are unhappy having to treat fellow humans inhumanely.

    On a sad side note, to US service members have committed suicide near the border.

  90. Debbo 2019-06-29

    “Two” Mike? Or they have suicided there “too”, as in also?

    Yep, international law that the US has signed onto mandates specific, humane treatment for refugees and asylum seekers. The Wilted Weenie Weenie deministration is breaking that law. There is no Christian justification for doing so. “Traditional bible” sham not withstanding.

  91. Porter Lansing 2019-06-29

    Shhhhh! …. Tad Hominem’s listening.

  92. mike from iowa 2019-06-29

    Sorry, Debbo. I meant 2 for now.

  93. Kurt Evans 2019-06-30

    “Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices” had written:

    Kurt Evans is not only an obsessive/compulsive parser of that which offends his worldview, he is plain nuts.

    I’d written:

    This diagnosis has been brought to you by Robert J. Newland, a 70-year-old man whose online pseudonym alludes to a blow-up sex doll.

    “Certain Inflatable Recreational Devices” replies:

    Kurt, CIRD is an acronym for your hero, Al Novstup’s[*] inflatable bouncy house.

    *Novstrup’s

    What’s your next claim, Bob? That you chose your pseudonym to honor Novstrup? That you chose it to honor me?

    I don’t know Senator Novstrup, and I know relatively little about him.

    “jerry” writes:

    No wonder “Kurt Evans” supports the border racist types, they do the same kinds of grifting his beloved DiSanto does.

    I don’t know Senator DiSanto, and I know relatively little about her.

  94. Kurt Evans 2019-07-01

    I’d asked:

    … if they were really planning to apply for asylum, why would they avoid legal ports of entry and risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border crossings?

    “mike from iowa” writes:

    Like it or not, Kurt, them there illegals are allowed entry into America to seek asylum. They are under no obligation to enter at a usual port of entry.

    To be clear, I do “like it” that aliens are allowed to enter the United States to seek asylum, and the aliens who do so aren’t “illegals,” but if they were really planning to apply for asylum, why would they avoid legal ports of entry and risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border crossings?

  95. bearcreekbat 2019-07-02

    It really isn’t a much of a mystery “why would [aslym seekers] avoid legal ports of entry and risk their lives attempting dangerous illegal border crossings?” NPR reports that:

    . . . [I]mmigrant advocates say U.S. officials have exacerbated the situation at the border by limiting the number of migrants who can seek asylum at legal ports of entry. . . . [T]hat’s pushing a growing number of migrant families to cross illegally in more remote areas of Arizona and New Mexico, miles from the nearest food, water and medical care.

    The vast majority of these migrants are fleeing violence and poverty in Central America. And Williams says U.S. immigration officials have underestimated their desperation to reach U.S. soil.

    “They’re trying to find a route to safety,” Williams said. “For them, the risks are worth it.”

    . . .

    Instead of farmworkers and laborers trying to dodge agents, nearly 90 percent of the border-crossers are families and children. Instead of trying to get away, they’re trying to get caught.

    . . .

    There’s another reason these migrant families have gotten more desperate, says Williams. In the past, they might have gone to legal ports of entry to request asylum. But since last year, U.S. officials have been letting only a few families in at a time at many ports of entry.

    So these migrants have to choose between two bad options if they want to reach the United States: They can cross the border illegally in remote areas, or they can wait, sometimes for months, in border towns.

    https://www.npr.org/2019/02/15/695135985/behind-the-border-crisis-more-migrant-families-risk-dangerous-remote-crossings

  96. bearcreekbat 2019-07-02

    I know, I know, . . . I mispelled a word – “asylum.” Anyway, here is more from NBC:

    . . . [A]sylum seekers are opting for illegal crossing because they are growing frustrated with waiting lines caused by Trump administration policies.

    . . .

    In January, U.S. officials finalized a deal with Mexico that forces asylum seekers who present themselves at the legal port of entry in San Diego back across the border to Tijuana. There they must wait months or years, often in unsafe and unsanitary conditions, while an American immigration judge determines whether asylum can be granted.

    . . .

    . . . [I]mmigrants are being warned about the conditions in cities like Tijuana and are increasingly choosing to risk apprehension by the Border Patrol while crossing into the U.S. illegally instead of waiting in Mexico.

    Michelle Brané, director of the Women’s Refugee Commission, said 9 out of 10 immigrants she spoke to in CBP custody would tell her and her staff they made the choice to cross illegally after other migrants told them the line to enter legally would mean a long wait in a dangerous place.

    . . .

    The most notorious line is in Tijuana, where thousands of immigrants have waited in shelters and tent camps since last fall, hoping to claim asylum to enter San Diego.

    The government of Mexico closed a large migrant shelter there in December due to unsanitary conditions and another was shut down last month, forcing families to disperse and often to live on the streets. Also in December, two migrant boys were lured out of their shelter and murdered.

    . . .

    “People were leaving and saying they were about to cross. They had just given up on waiting their turn to get on the list after finding out how long it was and how many months they would be there and how horrible the conditions were,”. . . .

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-restricted-flow-border-more-migrants-trying-sneak-through-undetected-n976356

    It’s not all that complicated to understand the motivations to cross at undesignated locations given the current Trump imposed attempts to delay and restrict crossing at designated ports of entry.

  97. bearcreekbat 2019-07-02

    One more:

    . . . [E]ven as it tells asylum-seekers they must go to a port of entry, the Trump administration has been turning them away from these very same ports for months, claiming that they are “at capacity.” According to both immigration lawyers and a report from the Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), this has led some migrants to attempt crossing unlawfully.

    . . .

    Based on an investigation by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO)—including a review of recent court documents, government reports and statistics, and interviews—DHS’s claim is disingenuous at best. The evidence shows that the increasing wait times at ports of entry are not a function of a sudden surge of migrants, but of deliberate policy decisions by the Trump Administration to detain as many asylum seekers as possible for as long as possible.[My emphasis added]

    The cumulative impact of the administration’s policies and practices is to leave migrants fleeing extreme violence and poverty in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—including a large and growing number of families with young children—trapped in vulnerable situations on the Mexican side of the border, where crime and corruption are rife.

    Human rights groups and immigration lawyers began documenting cases of asylum-seekers being turned away from the San Ysidro port of entry, between San Diego and Tijuana, in 2016. In July 2017, asylum-seekers who had been turned away from the San Ysidro and Laredo, Texas ports filed a class-action lawsuit against DHS, Al Otro Lado v. Nielsen. They alleged that CBP was “violating the law by utilizing various tactics—including misrepresentations, threats and intimidation, verbal abuse and physical force, and coercion” to prevent people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.

    It was in May and June of 2018, though, that turn-backs became visible across the entire U.S.-Mexico border—around the same time that the Trump administration started separating parents from their children. CBP officers began stationing themselves at the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico and checking migrants’ travel documents. Asylum-seekers were told that the ports were “at capacity,” and they would have to wait. The lines quickly backed up. Families spent days or weeks camped outside, relying on volunteers to provide food, water, and other necessities. In some cases, they waited on bridges without toilet facilities, where temperatures sometimes reached 100 degrees.

    . . .

    . . . [A] report released this October by DHS’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). OIG inspectors found that even as officials encouraged families seeking asylum to enter through ports of entry to avoid separation, CBP agents were blocking access to the ports through a process they called “metering,” leading more people to cross illegally.

    . . .

    One of the Al Otro Lado plaintiffs, whom the complaint calls “Maria Doe,” is a Guatemalan citizen with legal permanent residence in Mexico. She and her children fled her abusive husband, who was affiliated with a drug cartel. The family was turned away from the Laredo port of entry on September 10, and then attempted to cross at the Reynosa-Hidalgo port accompanied by an American lawyer. Mexican officials forced them off the bridge twice, and threatened to destroy Maria’s identity documents and revoke her permanent residency in Mexico.

    Asylum-seekers waiting in Mexico also face the threat of violence and kidnapping by gangs and cartels. The situation is particularly bad in the Rio Grande Valley. The U.S. State Department has issued a “do not travel” warning for the Mexican state of Tamaulipas—the same warning it issues for countries that are active war zones. The State Department urges U.S. citizens to “reconsider travel” to most other Mexican border states. Cartels often specifically target migrants for kidnapping, demanding ransom from family members. Migrants who cannot pay are sometimes killed. Notoriously, the Zetas cartel massacred 72 migrants in San Fernando, Tamaulipas in 2010, and at least 193 bodies were found in mass graves in the same city in 2011.

    . . . .

    https://www.justsecurity.org/61544/happening-asylum-seekers-ports-entry-border/

  98. Porter Lansing 2019-07-02

    Well researched, Bear. After today’s exposure of the racist and violent border guard Facebook page “I’m 10-15” (10-15 is code for Alien in Custody) there’s little doubt making these poor migrant’s lives miserable is all in a days work and entertainment for Trump’s Goons posing as CPB agents!

  99. bearcreekbat 2019-07-02

    No problem Porter. I am constantly surprised at the professed ignorance that is relied upon to appease the guilt of doing and saying things that hurt and dehumanize others, especially by those who actually know, or should know, better. Anyway, it seems better to put it out there for all to see and perhaps, just perhaps, some minds might just pop open when it comes to understanding and having empathy for people crossing our border to seek safety, freedom and economic survival.

  100. Kurt Evans 2019-07-03

    “bearcreekbat” writes:

    Once someone becomes aware that unnecessary labels (or adjectives) they use to describe other people are perceived as dehumanizing or hurtful, but still insists on continuing to use that unnecessary language, then I believe I can “rightfully accuse” that person of intentionally dehumanizing those folks.

    Hypothetically, what if you become aware that your accusation is perceived as dehumanizing or hurtful?

    And the idea that using unnecessary terms to dehumanize and hurt others …

    You’re completely misrepresenting my position, and you seem to be doing so intentionally. I don’t advocate using terms to dehumanize and hurt others, and as I’ve already indicated above, I believe it is necessary to maintain the distinction between those who’ve dedicated years of their lives to becoming legally naturalized immigrants and illegal aliens who just sneaked in.

  101. bearcreekbat 2019-07-03

    Kurt, your hypothetical really doesn’t make sense. But if you think I am dehumanizing or hurting you by objecting to your use of “illegal” to describe people, then feel free to accuse me of demonizing or hurting you.

    As for your second statement, if you truely “don’t advocate using terms to dehumanize and hurt others,” but “believe it is necessary to maintain the distinction between those who’ve dedicated years of their lives to becoming legally naturalized immigrants and [people] who just sneaked in,” then why not refer to the latter as “people,” or “immigrants,” or “migrants?” What is the point or advantage in labeling them “illegal” anything if not to dehumanize them or hurt them as a group?

    And if you want to be more descriptive, why not use more honest descriptions such as calling them “people who have been denied access to the U.S. at a border crossing under the Trump Administration’s border policies,” or “people so deperately seeking safety, freedom and economic survival that they will cross the U.S. border at undesignated locations if blocked from crossing at designated locations?”

    As for me “misrepresenting your position,” you are wrong. I wrote what I understood your comment to mean, which would be my position. If you want to contend my position is wrong, you can always state that your words meant something different than I understood (which is a practice you seem quite comfortable with).

  102. mike from iowa 2019-07-03

    These immigrants are allowed to enter this country and seek asylum. They are not obligated to enter where you think they should (because it is much easier to round them up and deny them their opportunity to ask for asylum).

    At what point did they become illegal? And who gets to decide their status?

Comments are closed.