Democrats and Trump Go “All In” on Immigration

Below is my column on last week’s major developments on immigration and their implications for the 2020 election.

Here is the column:

If politics were poker, this week represents the moment President Trump and his opponents both went all in on immigration. The Supreme Court granted a wish for Trump by accepting a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created by President Obama in 2012. That followed the first highly anticipated Democratic primary debates in which virtually all 20 candidates not only supported the decriminalization of illegal immigration but full medical coverage for undocumented persons.

Together, this sets up immigration as one of the most polarizing issues that will face voters in the 2020 election. If these and other Democratic pledges were actually implemented, they would place the United States on the far extreme of immigration policies. While often cited as having more enlightened systems, most of our European allies have rejected some or all of the immigration proposals by the Democratic candidates.

The two nights of debates produced few truly defining moments other than author Marianne Williamson dismissing all of the plans being offered by the other candidates and insisting she would simply “harness love” for political purpose. Most candidates were not ready to join Williamson in a harmonic convergence circle to realign the universe. Instead, they rushed to outdo each other on immigration policies, coming close to fulfilling conservative stereotyping of Democrats as the party of open borders.

With the Supreme Court now set to hear the appeal during its October term, a major immigration decision is likely to be issued before the 2020 election. Trump is arguing that, if Obama had unilaterally created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program after Congress refused to do so, then he should be able to unilaterally end it. He could well prevail. The strongest argument by challengers is that Trump failed to satisfy the “notice and comment” period that is needed. That step could be satisfied by the Trump administration without changing the outcome.

These issues will be debated in the context of a worsening immigration crisis. Earlier this year, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led Democrats in dismissing the crisis as purely “manufactured” by Trump to build public support for a border wall. Today, with a recent 32 percent increase in illegal crossings and the government reporting roughly 150,000 migrants stopped or arrested in a month, even Democrats acknowledge this crisis. While some South American countries like Uruguay and Ecuador have easier paths to citizenship, these proposed changes would essentially negate the most serious penalties for unlawful crossings. Yet, the political gravitational pull is clearly moving Democrats toward some of the most lenient immigration policies across the world.

Decriminalization

Prompted by debate moderator Jose Diaz Balart, the candidates largely supported decriminalization of illegal immigration. Kamala Harris declared that an undocumented immigrant is a “civil violation” and “not a crime.” Elizabeth WarrenJulian Castro, and others on the debate stage also have embraced decriminalization, essentially by eliminating Section 1325 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to make unlawful entry a civil violation, even if you cross the border without papers. But other Western countries like England and Germany, indeed most countries, criminalize unlawful entries. European countries like France are pushing for greater criminal penalties not only for legal immigrants but for those who assist them.

No deportation

The decriminalization of unlawful immigration alone simply does not constitute an open border policy, since migrants can still be deported under civil provisions. But many of the candidates also have voiced opposition to deportation for a wider and wider array of undocumented workers. Most candidates agreed that, if someone had not committed a criminal offense beyond unlawful entry, they should not be deported.

European countries, however, actively deport undocumented migrants. Germany is pushing forward a law allowing for expedited deportations of immigrants who fail to establish asylum claims, and even making it a crime to inform migrants of pending deportations. France has called for more deportations across Europe while expediting its own deportations. Other nations already expedite deportations or are moving toward that. 

Full health benefits

Every candidate, when asked about health care for the undocumented, agreed to providing full medical benefits under ObamaCare. Estimates place the cost of medical care for the undocumented at nearly $20 billion a year through emergency Medicare payments and other federal funding. Estimates on the costs of expanding that to fully cover all 11 million or more undocumented persons, run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. By pursuing such a change, the candidates are at odds with Obama, who not only deported a record number of immigrants during his two terms but rejected the case that ObamaCare would cover the undocumented.

Birth citizenship

All of the candidates have supported birthright citizenship for children of undocumented persons. Yet, a national pollshows that less than half of Americans at 48 percent support such citizenship for the children of those living here illegally. The support rises significantly for noncitizens here legally. Although rarely reported, the United States is in a minority of some 30 countries that recognize such birthright citizenship. The “jus soli” rule of right of soil is rejected by our closest allies in Europe and most other countries that follow the “jus sanguinis” rule of right of blood.

The current position of Democratic candidates on this also contradicts prior positions of party leadership. In 1993, former Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation to limit birthright citizenship to the children of American citizens and legal residents. Then there remains an unresolved question of constitutional law on whether such citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. If so, then a constitutional amendment would be required for the United States to join most of the world in rejecting claims that birth on American soil makes a child an American citizen.

Democrats have also favored drivers licenses, state scholarships, and even some voting rights for undocumented persons. At the same time, they oppose a move by the Trump administration to give favored status to immigrants with needed skills, such as doctors, in securing citizenship. This is a policy widely practiced in Europe and other countries. Together, the aggregate of all these policies would make the United States one of the most open and permissive countries for undocumented migrants.

Trump and the Democratic candidates now appear locked into positions on the extremes of immigration policy. In the middle of this battle are the voters, who will be asked to decide not just on the next president but on the very meaning of and conditions for American citizenship in this era.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Public of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

102 thoughts on “Democrats and Trump Go “All In” on Immigration”

  1. Washington Examiner

    “SAN DIEGO, California — The Trump administration has not installed a single mile of new wall in a previously fenceless part of the U.S.-Mexico border in the 30 months since President Trump assumed office, despite his campaign promise to construct a “big beautiful wall.”

    In a statement last week, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency overseeing border barrier construction, confirmed that all the fencing completed since Trump took office is “in place of dilapidated designs” because the existing fence was in need of replacement…..”

  2. The cult consensus is that photo ops promoting Lil Kim as a world leader, and for which he has produced nothing is a win for their dear leader. After all, he got on TV gain.

    In the meantime, he continues to lie about Obama and dismantle his foreign policy accomplishments, since he has none – zero, nada – of his own.

    1. My goodness. What a bunch of ignorant statements by Anon who can only repeat talking points but knows very few details and forgets the details provided that are very credible or have been proven.

      So many generalities stated by Anon in place of specifics. One has to wonder why or rather one doesn’t have to wonder for it is a fact that Anon knows very little that he talks about. Most people recognize that Trump’s recent visit with Kim was more than a photo op. That is something common for Obama but in the case of being at the DMZ Obama stood behind bullet proof glass and had to use binoculars. Trump is not a coward like Obama or Anon.

      As far as Iran that is debateable policy where I firmly agree with Trump. The idea was to rid Iran of its ability to produce nucler weapons. The Obama agreement insured that Iran could legally produce nulcear weapons and the money to help produce them along with stabilizing the Iranian regime and supporting terrorist organizations. If that was what the Iran deal was for Obama succeeded, but if Obama was anxious for Iran to not get the bomb his agreement failed miserably.

    2. They don’t watch American tv in North Korea, do they?

      I find it hard to understand why you guys are so freaked out about “photo ops.” Kim’s aims do not depend on photo ops.

      You guys think the American press is more significant than it is. Which perhaps explains why you slavishly whoreship the NYT and WaPoo. Go on back now and see what they want you to think about today and regurgitate on the internet.

      And, since it so annoys you that I provide sources of news about China from outside your magisterium, here is another update from Hong Kong

  3. This thing about giving illegal immigrants medical care? BACKDOOR TO LEGALIZING ALL OF THEM

    Also, once they have the free medical, they will never leave….
    and the incentive for coming will make the others come even faster. DUH!

    wow, must be nice to get free medical care while the rest of us have to pay for it. oy vey

  4. OT: Many on the left would like to downgrade Trump’s visit to the DMZ and going across the DMZ into North Korea. I didn’t hear the MSM report that when Obama visited the DMZ he did so behind bulletproof glass and had to use binoculars (Fred Fleitz). That demonstates a not so subtle difference between the two leaders.

    1. I’m very proud of President Trump and his historic meeting with Kim and crossing with confidence into the DPRK. The war has been over for 60 years and it’s time to get over it. Dictators like Kim are what they are. Foreign leaders. The US is not the world court to rectify all systems into ones like our own.

      Just be strong and if a good deal can be made which secures our interests and those of our regional allies, then do it.

      1. Kurtz, intelligent people are proud of our President. On a further note the NYTimes again tried to describe policy based on what they wished to write instead of what the President has said. NYTimes stated we were looking for a freeze. Trump states we are looking for denuclearization.

        https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2019/07/01/fleitz-discusses-north-korea-iran-and-china/

        Summary at: https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/451152-former-bolton-aide-pushes-back-on-report-of-nuclear-freeze-with-north-korea

        This video discusses the above and compares how Obama acted vs how Trump acted. Obama wanted any deal with Iran no matter how bad and it is bad because it provides them the cover and legality to build nuclear weapons which is exactly the opposite of what the deal was supposed to do. Trump doesn’t want to play that game. He wants a real deal with North Korea that includes denuclearization.

        The video also deals with Huawei which IMO is one of the most important issues regarding any China trade policy. This is also one of the scarier points.

        1. Denuclearization is possible but unlikely. It is a good goal however and worth playing for the big win.

          Obviously, there will be no chance of denuclearization without an end to the war and a basic guarantee of sovereign security for the DPRK. Some people fail to see the obvious and for some reason want to insult the President for opening the door to what is possible.

          The ROK is not going to defeat the DPRK in a conventional war without US and the US is certainly not going to invade. It’s time to stop the charade, and move towards a more peaceable footing. The step into the DPRK was yuuuuuuge. I absolutely applaud DJT. Even if the whole negotiation goes nowhere, this is a welcome development.

          How do South Koreans feel about this gesture? Pretty positive i guess! Shouldn’t we respect our ally?

          South Korea’s Moon calls Trump-Kim summit end of hostility – The …
          https://www.washingtonpost.com

          1. In 1949, if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung. Same thing Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.

            Well, we had good reasons not to let any such thing happen. At the time. Those reasons are obsolete.

            Today, there’s no real effort by the DPRK to prepare an annexation of the ROK. that would be insanity for them. We can move to a more peaceable footing without any serious deterioration in security for the ROK. Which is our fundamental justification for being there.

            Of course if we gave some guarantees and pulled back some, it would reduce the security for the ROK a little. But doesnt the ROK have a voice in this? For generations there was precious little “democracy” happening in the ROK either. Look it up.

            The Korean people have aspirations of trade, commerce, and mutual amity between North and South. This is an ancient nation and it’s their business first and foremost. Personally, I think it’s deeply immoral for the US to adhere indefinitely to a war footing vis a vis the DPRK.

            I realize Kim is a brutal dictator etc etc etc. So have most heads of state throughout history been. What do you think Xi Jinpeng is? The only vote on him comes from the CPC which is full of yes men. But we can do business with them. And they have ICBMs and nukes. Let’s get real.

            1. I suspect the ROK is full of businesses that would love to get their hands on the cheap labor that the DPRK could provide. China probably would not like that too much. You see what I am getting at? Trump is tuned into wider possibilities than the usual Deep State functionaries would like to allow. Good for Trump and good for us and good for the ROK and even the DPRK.

              Maybe not so good for the PRC.

            2. In 1949, if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung.

              Thanks for the issue of your imagination. Always entertaining.

              There were competitive elections in South Korea in 1948.

              1. Really? You better practice up if you want to play fact checker with me on this topics. Go back to your actuarial tables where you’re strong!

                Syngman Rhee was the only candidate that sought election. How is that “Competitive”

                it was also not “across the whole country” — that was the key point.

                It was held under a military occupation, our military occupation, which we essentially inherited from the Japanese. Now if you know anything at all about how these people think about their history, that means, we took over the collaborator regime.

                Now, i have no problem with that history. But i see it for what it was. You’re operating under some kind of fog if you don’t

                Mister Smart Aleck. please go back to school on this topic before you presume to lecture me on such things.

                1. Kurtz, “If” is the biggest word in the English language. Unfortunately that word leads us nowhere because as frequently as not or perhaps more frequently that word is exaggerated to the max.

                  Your premise was not well defined and your conclusion certainly not proven.

                  1. think what you want. The first election was a PR exercise to dress up the US taking over the collaboration regime that was in place under the Japs. I am not the one who needs to prove this conclusion, it’s not a very controversial assertion.

                    You just don’t hear it in America because it makes people mad. You hear it if you talk to Asian people, which I have done at some modest length. Asian people who are very sane, pro-American, well educated, not-communist, normal folks. They’re polite and they don’t tell Americans things they believe might be offensive. I am not easily offended however and so they’ve given me the full measure.

                    I would suspect Trump fully understands this.

                    I am not trying to delegitimize our postwar adminstration, to do otherwise would have been to cede power to the Communists.

                    I believe the US took the right choice by taking over the Jap regime in South Korean, and obviously we couldn’t take it over where the Soviets and Communists had already liberated territory. That’s why the DPRK exists. The ROK would have been crushed by them without us. That would have been bad for the South Koreans, our newly minted Jap allies, and US. So we dressed it up with these um how do you want to call them? Phony elections. To make good newsreels back home.

                    1. “think what you want. The first election was a PR exercise to dress up the US taking over the collaboration regime that was in place under the Japs. I am not the one who needs to prove this conclusion, it’s not a very controversial assertion.”

                      Kurtz, this is the statement under discussion: “if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung.” There is nothing you have said to even modestly prove the statement. One should not deal with the follow up statements until your first and primary statement is dispensed with. I am not looking to prove you wrong rather to limit the effects of the word “IF” in discussion while creating a logical chain of events that is credible.

                  2. In Vietnam, the French tried the same thing we were doing in Korea. However, the situation on the ground was different in various ways, and there were some important social differences that made the strategy untenable, as we eventually found out once we gave it a second go, after the French failed.

                    The key point to understand is that both Kim and Ho were fabulously popular among the Korean and Vietnamese people, because they fought the Japs hard and well. And they really, really, hated the Japs.

                    Our diplomatic strategy was not ignorant. they were well aware of these things and the risk of looking like Jap Foreigner Occupier Regime 2.0. So the elections and window dressing in both places. In the ROK the strategy was viable, over the long haul, and in Vietnam it was not.

                    That is old news, but it’s an opinion-terrain that is necessary to understand even today as it informs our diplomatic involvement. The key idea is nationalism. They want to control their own destinies. We are foreigners at the end of the day. Now they would perhaps rather be ruled by foreigners than starve to death, which is what the DPRK has accomplished for its own sad “citizens,” but we are still foreigners and acting according to our own national interests and agenda in these things and everybody should understand that and not be deluded by propaganda from any direction.

                    1. I havent read all this source but i pulled it up fast and it sensibly discusses the process of genuine democratic evolution in the ROK. 1987 is the first year that they had what we would commonly call “real” elections

                      https://apcss.org/Publications/Edited%20Volumes/RegionalFinal%20chapters/Chapter11Baker.pdf

                      If you talk to a well informed South Korean person, that is not a controversial statement. They generally do not consider Rhee’s election a “real” election.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_South_Korean_presidential_election

                      THAT was the first real election.

                    2. Kurtz, What you are doing is running away from your statement and adding a whole bunch of things that do not pertain. I won’t deal with their legitamacy because that is an endless debate if the goal posts keep changing from post to post.

                      Either prove the statement “if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung.” or can it. Let’s not try to hide the statement under reams of unrelated history.

                    3. Well Allan it’s a hypothetical assertion about alternative history, and as such obviously can’t be proved. So you got me on that one.

                      That doesn’t stop me from making a valid hypothetical assertion. Kim was very popular and was in office 45 years which is a pretty long time. Even with all the oppression and so forth, we would be fools not to think that he had some genuine legitimacy.

                      And that was Rocket Man’s Grandfather.

                      Did you know that he grew up in a Presbyterian family?

                    4. “it’s a hypothetical assertion”

                      Kurtz, you can make a hypothetical assertion anytime you wish but your initial comment was more than hypothetical and was challenged. This present statement should have been made earlier.

              2. from wiki about that 48 election in South Korea.
                —————————————————————

                “In order to be elected, a candidate had to receive at least two-thirds of the votes cast, including blank and invalid ballots. While there were 198 members in the National Assembly, 196 members participated in the voting. Therefore, the number of votes needed to win the presidency was 131.

                Even though Kim Koo did not send his approvals for the new South Korean government and insisted that the lawmakers not cast votes for him, 13 of the 196 lawmakers who voted voted for Kim Koo. The election, however, ended as a landslide victory of the only candidate that actively sought the presidency, Rhee Syng-man, who received 180 of the 196 votes cast. One vote was invalidated, as it was cast for independence activist Seo Jae-pil, who at the time was a US citizen.

                Candidate Party Votes
                Syngman Rhee NARRKI 180
                Kim Koo Korea Independence Party 13
                An Jae-hong Independent 2
                Invalid/blank votes 1
                Total votes cast 196”
                ————————–
                my comment: big surprise that Syngman Rhee won since he was the only active candidate.
                you didn’t think we were going to let just anybody win huh?

                ———————————–
                from a different wiki article about our military government in the postwar period:

                “After the surrender of the Empire of Japan to the Allies, division at the 38th parallel marked the beginning of Soviet and American command over the North and South, respectively. U.S. forces landed at Incheon on September 8, 1945, and established a military government shortly thereafter. The forces landing at Incheon were of the XXIV Corps of the U.S. Tenth Army. They were commanded by Lt. General John R. Hodge, who then took charge of the government. Four days before he arrived in Korea, Hodge told his officers that Korea “was an enemy of the United States”

                On September 9, at a surrender ceremony, Hodge announced that the Japanese colonial government would remain intact, including its personnel and its governor-general. After a major outcry, Hodge replaced the governor-general with an American and removed all the Japanese bureau chiefs, though he, in turn, enlisted the former Japanese bureaucrats as advisors.

                Faced with mounting popular discontent, in October 1945 Hodge established the Korean Advisory Council. The majority of the Council seats were given to members of the Korean Democratic Party which had been formed at the encouragement of the U.S. and was primarily made up of large landowners, wealthy businesspeople, and former officials in the colonial government. A few members of the PRK were offered to join, but they refused and instead criticized the Council appointees for their collaboration with the Japanese.”
                _______________________

                My comment: I think that so many decades later, it’s important to understand how many Koreans and by that I mean many SOUTH KOREANS view our involvement with their country. In simple terms, we took over the occupation regime of the Japs, and even though we’re not evil bastids like the Japs, we were still running the place like a colony for a long time after.

                Now, in that light, what Trump is doing, easily has more LEGITIMACY among South Koreans, than it does among the chattering classes that love to pick at him.

                1. Kurtz, where is the proof for the claim you made?

                  “In 1949, if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung. Same thing Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam.”

                  1. its an assertion i made based on personal study. im not an expert.

                    but these two articles give the overall situation between the end of the war and the end of the french. Ho was extremely popular across the entire country, not just in the North.

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Revolution

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1955_State_of_Vietnam_referendum

                    the choice was between Bao Dai the old emperor with his tarnished fame and Ngo who was not popular but won anyhow after a lot of fraud.

                    My assertion relates to a hypothetical inclusion of Ho Chi Minh– but that is just a thought exercise as neither Bao Dai nor Ngo were going to permit such any such thing. But it’s plausible that in a three way Ho would have had a strong plurality if one could have been under fair conditions.

                    I can’t remember where I first heard the assertion but it’s not really a controversial notion. Hypotheticals like that not that useful but perhaps can illustrate facts of popular opinion that have been overlooked.

                    The only reason i mention it is to bring to mind the possibility that the evil dictator Kim is perhaps less unpopular across both nations than the US media normally suggests. Well to be honest the US media doesn’t report much about Korean popular opinion at all, but you have the usual recitals about how terrible Trump is for talking directly to Kim Jong Il etc etc. And it rarely goes farther than that. What i am saying is, talking to him is a good idea. Maybe we should have talked a little more to our adversaries in the past. Maybe Trump’s initiatives are not bad ones in the minds of Koreans. Shouldn’t Koreans opinions on this matter? After all– it’s not our country!

                    .Now I am no fan of Kim, in my mind he is an evil dictator, who starves and abuses his own people, and a dangerous adversary who threatens US interests; but again, he is a real quantum who can’t be ignored, We should aim for what is possible.

                    1. “its an assertion i made based on personal study. im not an expert.”

                      Kurtz, that is clear. Personal study generally includes obtaining data that can prove your contention. In this case the data requires numbers. Let us hear such data. Let me remind you. We are not dealing with Vietnam. We are dealing only with your statement: “In 1949, if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung.”

                      You were rather specific so let us hear the specific facts.

                    2. They didn’t have polls there in 1949. But if you want to think that Syngman Rhee was more popular among Koreans than Kim back then, you are free to do so. I used to think that too, until I learned better.

                      I don’t want to run down Rhee,. I find a lot there to admire. But he is seen among many Koreans then and even now as a US puppet who oversaw an administrative structure that was an extension of the hated Japanese occupation regime.

                      I’m just sharing what i learned. You are free to consider it wrong.

                      You could not have had a national plebiscite in that time, but hypothetically, I do believe that Kim would have won over Rhee.

                    3. ” But if you want to think that Syngman Rhee was more popular among Koreans than Kim back then”

                      I’m not looking to think anything in particular. I am looking for the data that convinced you to make the statement you did.

                      “In 1949, if you held a plebiscite, one man one vote, across the whole country, they would have elected Kim Il Sung.”

                      Your words were “they would have” Would is a strong word. You could have chosen ‘may have’ an opinion rather than a fact. Alternatively you didn’t need to protect the initial statement which indicates that there is data behind the statement.

          2. Anything but denuclearization is not a long term solution. Of course North Korea is a sovereign nation and with denuclearization should come an end to the Korean War and recognition with trade. This is a US deal.

            1. Fission bombs are not that hard to make. The world is going to have to figure out what the hell to do about that problem.

              I hear the Saudis already have numerous suitcase nukes and if they hadn’t bought any from Russia then they could probably buy some from Pakistan.

              Global stability through diplomacy is a process that requires strength on the US side, combined with diplomatic engagement and an openness to possibilities. That is what Trump is bringing to our people and all the Leftists who are not slaves of the MIC should praise him. And a few have done so! he gets a little bit of grudging praise from the far left, only.

              Of course not the Democrat leadership who are perpetual saboteurs and naysayers. Meanwhile they’re green lighting an even bigger invasion of the US with their crazy proposed policy of legalizing border jumping and giving free medical care to the invasion force. how’s that for security proposals? can anyone trust a Democrat candidate after what they just said?

  5. Meanwhile, back in the real world our lying sack of …… President makes foreign policy decisions based on trolling Obama. You all must be very proud of your insecure weakling of a cult leader.

    “No, Obama didn’t beg Kim Jong Un for a meeting”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/02/no-obama-didnt-beg-kim-jong-un-meeting/?utm_term=.48a0a74d3e2c

    “U.N. watchdog confirms Iran has breached nuclear deal stockpile limit”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/un-inspectors-to-verify-whether-iran-has-breached-nuclear-deal-stockpile-limit/2019/07/01/3c3d4a7e-9bf0-11e9-9ed4-c9089972ad5a_story.html?utm_term=.78680feb59de

  6. “If these and other Democratic pledges were actually implemented, they would place the United States on the far extreme of immigration policies.”

    After reacting with outrage at criticism that the Democratic Party supports open borders, they have come out in support of open borders. Trump’s deportation orders only affects those who have gone through the court system, been ordered deported, and skipped. By claiming that they oppose such deportations, it appears there is no reason we could lawfully deport anyone. Hence…open borders. There are rapists and murderers on this list, that Democrats have come out in the open to enable to remain in the country.

    Other inducements to illegal immigration, brought by Democrats:
    1. A child is a passport past our legal immigration process. Democrats do not want families split up, or detained, which means if you come with a young child, you will be released into the country.
    2. Sanctuary cities.
    3. Free healthcare (see CA) for illegal immigrants, paid for (in CA) by reinstating the fine levied against taxpayers who cannot afford Obamacare.
    4. Lower cost auto insurance than available to citizens and legal residents (see CA)
    5. Section 8 housing for illegals (see Democrats’ outrage that Ben Carson suggested that such benefits be spent on citizens and legal residents, rather than for those who have defrauded the system).
    6. Notice given in illegal alien communities ahead of ICE
    7. Various Democrats calling to abolish ICE entirely
    8. AOC lying about BP being a threat to her, being sexually aggressive with her, or forcing illegals to drink out of toilets. (Facilities have potable water in sinks directly attached to toilets, just like we all have potable water piped to both our sinks and our toilets.) In actuality, there were 13 members of Congress present, AOC screamed hysterically at BP, and they told her to step back out of their faces because she was being aggressive.
    9. Democrats do not want any adults separated from children, making it difficult to rescue children from non-related human traffickers, pedophiles, cartel members avoiding capture, or strangers using them to get in the country.

    The list just goes on and on, and it’s clear which party has thrown their support behind illegal immigration.

    Only a legal immigration system is fair and safe. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state. Our economy will collapse. There won’t be enough housing, food, water, roads, open space, jobs, medical care…Democrats are misguided. In their quest for power, they will turn the United States into a third world country, just as they have turned San Francisco and many parts of LA into Third World enclaves, with homeless people defecating in the street.

    And guess how they’re going to pay for all those floods of illegal immigrants? Higher taxes.

    Want higher taxes and millions of illegal aliens? Want to court Socialism? Vote Democrat. Leftism has made a dystopia out of so many formerly prosperous countries. Are we next?

    1. Oh, Karen, you better believe if a Democrat gets elected POTUS the shitou and coyotes of the world will ramp up their sales and send millions more, fast. It will be an avalanche that makes all prior invasions look like kidstuff.

      The hilarious thing is that they could have had a DACA solution if they only agreed to fund the wall. They aren’t serious about anything besides getting into office and then milking it. They’re not even serious about that.

      The dangerous thing is not that a Democrat will get elected and actually do what they promise. They’re liars about these things. They would certainly not deliver these false promises., HOWEVER, the perception is where the danger lies. the perception among the human smugglers and would be illegal immigrants that if a Democrat wins the door is flung WIDE OPEN. That’s the danger. It would trigger a massive invasion now given what they have said, worse than the mess already by far. This was an incredibly irresponsible and reckless demonstration of foolishness by the Democrat potus candidates. Only 2 refused to pledge to give free health care, minor guys. Biden raised a finger.

      By rebuking this insanity in the primary, Biden might have positioned himself for a win in the general election.
      He could have talked sense into these fools. He could have won the election right there but he’s chicken! You don’t want a chicken for president do you? Biden, a huge disappointment.

      1. Perhaps Democrats might try to backpedal on their open borders policies if they won the Presidency, and swept Congress, but they would have put in place a juggernaught. They would have empowered extremist activists. The cartels would have ramped up operations. They would have weakened immigration laws. I don’t think they could put the genie back in the bottle, and the country would fall to ruin.

        There seems to be a firm conviction, even among Leftists, that America is impervious to destruction. They could remake her, abolish many of her liberties, destroy capitalism, and somehow, she would survive as a prosperous, safe country.

        Every mighty civilization throughout antiquity has fallen. The United States is not immune from internal rot.

        It doesn’t matter that many Democrat voters have the best of intentions.

  7. I predict that there will be some terrorist act and the Dems will go down into the tunnel and shut up about migrant rights for awhile. Trump right now could beat anyone on the Dem list except maybe Biden.

    1. “I predict that there will be some terrorist act ”

      What do you mean predict. Just the other day Andy Ngo was attacked by antifa. Antifa is a fascist orgainzation that goes under the banner of being antifascist when they are really left wing fascist groups of people that use unlawful violence against civilians for political aims that advance the Democratic Party and intimidate anyone who might support Trump or interfere with their goals.

      Andy was nearly killed in front of the court house. He put his hands up for surrender and these bas-tards beat him more. There were no police there to stop the violence or prevent anyone from being killed. When he was outside of the “killing fields” in order to get an ambulance he was told he had to go back through that violent left wing mob.

      He was hospitalized with a brain hemorrhage. That is what our leftist friends seem to stand for on this list. They might not be involved in the physical attacks but I will bet some would be happy to be in the level 3 or even 2 of the antifa crowd helping the violent members escape after their criminal acts.

      Nazi’s stand for National Socialism and were born and split from communist groups. They were on the left and we saw in Nazi Germany groups just like antifa that would beat up people in the street many of whom were Jewish. When they split from the communists they killed their former allies as well. Many were probably sociopaths.

      What we are seeing today that some on this blog have openly supported is not that much different than what occurred in Nazi Germany prior to Hitler taking over.

  8. Immigration is a policy you’d better get right since there is no going back. You lose control of your borders; you lose control of your country. Any government failing so miserably in that regard is rightly described as an occupation government of an invader and ought to be overthrown.

    1. “You lose control of your borders; you lose control of your country”

      Mespo, surprisingly that statement flies over the heads of many of the people on this blog. That is why they deal in minutia.

      1. Allan:

        It’s what Victoria lectured Disraeli: “We can be said to conquer only what we can defend.” We either have self-determination or we don’t.

        1. We either have self-determination or we don’t.

          Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, BMI > 25. Self-determination, self-regulation, subduing varied carnal and spiritual appetites and personal sacrifice do not describe Americans. 80% – 90% of chronic medical problems in Americans are caused by lack of self-control and lifestyle choices

          During the russia, Russia, RUSSIA, hysteria not too long ago, my colleagues and I would joke that if Russians invaded our shores, few Americans would be capable of defending their homes, land and towns from foreign invaders. They would be out of breath by running from their kitchen into their bedroom closet to hide.

          It is getting worse

          1. I think those of us south of Maryland would do just fine. Given the dearth of foreign landing craft off the Outer Banks, apparently the Russians do too.

            1. “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
              John Adams, ‘Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,’ December 1770
              US diplomat & politician (1735 – 1826)

                1. https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/alexandersolzhenitsynharvard.htm

                  “A decline in courage may be the most striking feature which an outside observer notices in the West in our days. The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole and separately, in each country, each government, each political party, and, of course, in the United Nations….Should one point out that from ancient times declining courage has been considered the beginning of the end?”

                  In other words Mespo, meet me at the gym at 5:30 AM and we will discuss further while showing courage. Fact: There are plenty of Stairmasters at the gym. Opinion: making excuses

                  🏋🏼‍♂️

    2. mespo

      do you really not know that BOTH major parties will allow almost unlimited numbers of undocumented new customers, patients, clients and cheap laborers to continue entering our country? the 1% will not suffer nor be inconvenienced by the exploding population growth…just like the oligarchs in all other third world country.

  9. Dear JT….when you berate Donald Trump for saying the liberal news media is the enemy of the people, consider joining him. Trump is right.

    Dear Media: Your Failure to Condemn Antifa Proves Donald Trump is Right About You…

    Dear far-left, rabidly anti-Trump media:

    One of your own was attacked by Antifa this weekend. Andy Ngo is an independent journalist who’s actually interested in reporting more than he is interested in virtue signaling about how much he hates Trump on Twitter. Which I cannot say for Jim Acosta, Brian Stelter, Rachal Maddow, or any number of your illustrious media members, be they reporters, anchors, or models for frightening choices in haircuts. Regardless for which outlets Ngo reports, he is a reporter. A journalist. A member of the media. Based on how highly you all esteem yourselves, you’d think just to be part of media, regardless for which outlet one reports, would enter one into the elite club of firefighters dashing into the fray to get the truth. Well. Andy Ngo dashed. He entered the fray. He got the truth. He also got bashed around, milkshaked, and was in the ER with a brain bleed.

    https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/dear-media-your-failure-to-condemn-antifa-proves-donald-trump-is-right-about-you/

  10. Will the voters hold their noses and elect a Democrat, knowing that each and every candidate was pandering to the favored victim of the day, our uninvited guests who’ve overstayed their welcome?

    The answer is “yes”, as long as Congress, the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury are still in the funny money business. Quantitative easing is mainstream. Trump’s Tweeting for it so the recovery of 2017 has legs into 2020. Not even the First Billionaire is immune to the lure of “free stuff”, so he’s going to look bad denying it to the voters and their kin.

    It’s unlikely Trump can out-bid the Presidential wannabes of the Democratic Party, because “jobs for everyone” isn’t as seductive a torch song as “free stuff for everyone”. It’s going to be a crappy time to be old in America, because both parties may take elderly votes for granted and decide they could provide for many young societal clients for what it costs to save one elderly life from cancer or heart disease.

    1. Quantitative easing is mainstream.

      The last round of QE was nearly seven years ago. Currently, the increases in the consumer price index are running at < 2% per year.

  11. “…free white person…”

    Understanding that “Crazy Abe” Lincoln “won” the deliberately split and fixed 1860 election with 39.8% of the vote and that everything “Crazy Abe” and his similarly fraudulent successors did was and is anti-American, unconstitutional, invalid and illegitimate, inclusive of the corruptly and improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments,” the law that still bears is that of the American Founders and that which constitutes original intent, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795 and 1802, thrice iterated to establish beyond any shadow of a doubt their immutable authority and dominion and their effect on the restriction, limitation and “entitlement” to vote in a republic which has been extant in democracy since its Greek and Roman inception.
    ______________________________________________

    Federal naturalization laws (1790, 1795, 1802).

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “…a republic, if you can keep it.”

    Ben Franklin, 2019, we gave you “…a republic, if you can take it back.”

    1. This is just in from a video on the internet. A migrant from El Salvador jumped a fence at the border and got caught. The camera and audio has him saying: “Where da white women at?” The border guard replies: “This isn’t Blazing Saddles!”

      1. A migrant from El Salvador jumped a fence at the border and got caught.

        Clearly he is physically fit. Ask an American to jump over a crack on a sidewalk and he will say he has a disability while waving his SSI check and Cheetos

        To see the Central Americans walk for miles, swim bodies of water, climb trees and walls, all the while having children in proves these people are driven. If only half of American citizens had this drive. The only drive I see in Americans is when they visits hospital clinics to demand attention for a self-induced malady, or run over a customer in a parking lot at Costco to park near the front of the store

          1. Gotta be careful of the rocks for ricochet, not that any of these ladies would miss. Target shooting is great fun.

        1. Estovir – it’s true. There is an entitled generation whose helicopter parents have insulted them from learning how to fail, and try harder next time. Their tender personal feelings are so critical that the world must align to avoid upsetting them. They all want to start out in management, and that includes making policy before they’ve ever learned how to make a budget or paid taxes. They falsely proclaim America is racist and abhorrent. Meanwhile, those who actually lived in racist, dangerous countries without any capitalist opportunities work thrice as hard as the entitlement generation when they get here.

  12. “Inside the Secret Border Patrol Facebook Group Where Agents Joke About Migrant Deaths and Post Sexist Memes”

    ‘The three-year-old group, which has roughly 9,500 members, shared derogatory comments about Latina lawmakers who plan to visit a controversial Texas detention facility on Monday, calling them “scum buckets” and “hoes.”’

    by A.C. Thompson July 1, 10:55 a.m. EDT

    https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-border-patrol-facebook-group-agents-joke-about-migrant-deaths-post-sexist-memes

    “The Border Patrol Facebook group is the most recent example of some law enforcement personnel behaving badly in public and private digital spaces. An investigation by Reveal uncovered hundreds of active-duty and retired law enforcement officers who moved in extremist Facebook circles, including white supremacist and anti-government groups. A team of researchers calling themselves the Plain View Project recently released a hefty database of offensive Facebook posts made by current and ex-law enforcement officers.”

    1. Doxxing law enforcement for political purposes.

      One of the problems with Facebook being controlled by activist Leftist corporations, is that their speech is censored and spied upon. Apparently, even retired law enforcement is not immune from such spying.

      You will not see such doxxing of Leftist Democrats.

      Alexandria Ocasio Cortez visited a Border Patrol facility, along with 13 other Democrats. Accounts showed that she started hysterically and aggressively screaming in their faces, getting into their personal space that would have garnered serious repercussions if any male did that to her. The officers firmly told her to step away from them.

      She went on Twitter and claimed that she was not safe from the BP officers. She said that they told women to drink out of the toilet right in front of her. As it turns out, the toilets have an attached sink, instead of side by side. It’s the same potable water that flows to both, just like pipes bring the same water to our toilets and sinks in our own houses. They were not drinking out of toilets, but rather a sink with potable water. The facilities are overrun with record-breaking hordes of thousands of illegal aliens, and they’re complaining about the cheap fixtures?

      This kind of extreme, allegedly fabricated, constant assaults on Border Patrol officers will generate resentment and criticism. Gallows humor about migrants and their deaths on a private page is catalogued.

      I posit that Democrats don’t care about migrant children deaths. They enacted policies that tempt parents to bring their vulnerable children on a perilous journey, because they are a ticket to skip the lengthy immigration process. Most are economic migrants, and are not being chased by criminals. How could they be, as they have to pay criminals over $13,000 to get here? Democrats fight against changing those policies, which makes them partly responsible for those deaths. Their actions show they are not willing to stop their behavior in order to save lives. In addition, parents shoulder a lot of the blame. Just because kids are a ticket into the US doesn’t mean parents have to use them. HuffPo ran an article about how many mothers send their daughters with Plan B One Step to prevent pregnancy, knowing that there’s an over 85% chance of being raped. Still worth it, to them, because an unaccompanied girl can be allowed to stay, and send for her family.

      I was filled with frustrated anger at the photo of the drowned father and toddler daughter. His own mother begged him not to go, but he said he wanted to make more money in America so he could build a house. The kid was his ticket in. He got to the river, and was frustrated because he wanted to present himself with the kid at the border on the other side. He refused to wait by the river with everyone else. Instead, he swam against a strong current, in filthy, contaminated water that makes BP officers sick every year, and plopped her on the other side. Then he turned his back on his toddler, unattended, and swam back for his wife, who presumably couldn’t swim. Obviously, the little girl jumped in. He went back for her, got exhausted, and they both drowned, while his wife was apparently helpless to do anything but scream. This parental neglect would have been recognized for what it was in any other circumstance except this. I doubt he could have dragged his wife across that current if she couldn’t swim, which meant they would have drowned, and then the kid would have fallen in and drowned too. There were no armed desperados shooting at them to make them desperately flee. He wanted a better job, felt entitled to break our laws to take it, and killed himself and the daughter it was his duty to protect along the way. There was a legal immigration process in place that he refused to go through. It took too long. He was willing and apparently able to pay many thousands of dollars in order to line jump.

      While I agree that when employees’ private actions become public, they can harm the reputation of the employer, it should be noted that there is a double standard. The Left can say absolutely anything it wants about BP, with impunity, while they are helpless to complain about it. It is concerning that Leftist doxxing revealed their private conversations, regardless of whether their speech was good or bad, and that it is selectively applied.

    2. easy answer. DONT USE FACEBOOK. I feel bad for these unsophisticated workaday cops who don’t understand that FACEBOOK IS A SURVEILLANCE OP of the elites.

      Detectives probably get that. These were not detectives.

  13. Hinduism with taxpayer paid unborn baby murder

    Hinduism is not what you think it is. It is a religion of polytheism allowing a “believer” to pick and choose deities that suits their fancies. Find one deity that condemns abortion in Hinduism and there are 3 other deities who guide believers how to perform one.

    1. Hinduism allows for the caste system, creating untouchables. It is hardly a source for morality or the ethical treatment of other human beings.

      There are certainly many good hearted Hindus in the world, but as a whole, it has its issues.

      1. OT religion allowed for slavery and St Paul told slaves to mind their masters. Most of humanity’s existence has been under one sort of caste system or another.

        In America, caste is informal and depends on money, assets, income, and how it is managed across generations, or not. It hides itself but it exists.

        There are many fine things about the ancient Hindu religion but today’s Hinduism is something quite different, rather more just a hodgepodge of local superstitions. Religions often devolve and degenerate, as do many other social forms.

        And that is ironically one of the insights of ancient Hinduism, devolution. Gold age, silver age, iron age (kali yuga). Like Hesiod. Or think of the prophecy of Daniel about the feet of clay. Ancient wisdom, ignored by the faith of modern people in “progress”

        1. I think it was also Paul who said that women should not teach in the Church, although women were actively prophesizing and teaching at the time. I think there was some disagreement about whether he meant women in general, or the unruly ones in the preceding passages. Based on my limited knowledge of Paul, I think he meant women in general. After all, he was a product of his times.

          There is a class system in America, but it lacks the rigidity in India. Most wealthy people are self made, and there is certainly vertical socioeconomic movement in both directions.

          1. Karen, only about 1/3 of Forbes Richest 400 Americans come from poor to middle class backgrounds, and several studies show declining social mobility in the US since the 1970s, and actually lower than in some European countries. Income inequality is as high as it was in the 1920s.

  14. The Democrats are appealing to their leftist Marxist base and one can see from video’s that some of todays most prominent Democrats disagreed with the present positions just a short while ago. Biden was pummeled for being a racist. I don’t think he is terribly bright but I don’t think he is a racist though he holds some awkward opinions.

    The Democrats need to lose badly so the party reorganize and even readopt some of the positions prominent among prior Democrats such as freedom of speech and association.

    1. Today’s Democrat leadership is totally out of touch with the working class people of America

      Whom they want to further oppress with more teeming hordes of law wage competition, and tax them to pay for their free health care to boot

      not sure this is even fairly called Marxism, to be honest, it’s just pure anarchy in my viewpoint. They’re running to the Left of the Bolsheviks now.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/democratic-debates-immigration.html

      1. True, they’re totally out-of-touch, but large swaths of the wage-earning population will just pull the D lever forever and ever. With the odd exception here or there blacks, Puerto Ricans, California Chicanos, and trashy single-mothers vote Democratic no matter what.

  15. As far as automatic birthplace citizenship reform, the Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads:

    “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article”. Considering that at the time of Ratification in 1868,
    the “citizenship clause” was not all inclusive, and was understood by Ratifiers to at least exclude newborns to 1) foreign diplomats, 2) a foreign invasion, and 3)
    Indians not taxed. Congress widened eligibility to automatic birthplace citizenship to Native Americans in 1924, establishing the precedent for the powers vested in
    Amendment 14 – Section 5.

    Congress should therefore be the body to fine-tune the reach of automatic birth citizenship. It will take a new 117th Congress, but I could see the voters turning hard against
    “defacto-open-borders” Dems in 2020. I prefer this terminology to describe the Dems’ position.

  16. Fifty years ago the Dems were a more than reasonable alternative for non-warmongering Americans desiring a strong middle class. When Dems went all in for taxpayer paid abortion on demand even for children and without parental knowledge, that’s when they jumped the shark. It’s been all down hill since then.

    When you see one of America’s top most warmongers Lindsay Graham say positive things about Kamala Harris, you know KH is a top tier shill for TPTB, especially the MIC type.

    If Tulsi could get off her ultra left pro abortion stance she might have a chance to attract a good portion of right leaning centrists and GOP types tired of war, but she won’t so she can’t. I don’t see how she squares her Hinduism with taxpayer paid unborn baby murder.

    1. Maybe it’s because she’s from Hawaii. A small chain of islands that could easily be overpopulated in a decade if you ended the usual left wing approach to promoting contraception and abortion.

      Furthermore, she’s Hindu I believe, mostly because her white American mom was a hippie. Her Samoan dad was some kind of Christian I think. The gays don’t like him and they mistrust Tulsi. She may be running to the left to try and neutralize the gay opposition.

      Here is what wiki says about her dad, who by the way, was a Democrat

      “In 1995, Gabbard founded the nonprofit Stop Promoting Homosexuality America,[2] which filed for the trade name Alliance For Traditional Marriage, “to educate the general public about the necessity of preserving traditional marriage”.[3] Gabbard served as president[4] until the organization’s involuntary dissolution in 2004.[5] He became well-known for his advocacy for Hawaii Constitutional Amendment 2 (1998), an amendment that gave the state legislature “the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples”.[6][7][8][9] As of June 2011, Gabbard was still against same-sex marriage and civil unions.[10] In 2011, Gabbard asserted in a Hawai’i State Senate floor speech that government should get out of the marriage business altogether.[11]
      ……
      Shortly after 9/11, Gabbard became the founder/chairman of Stand Up For America, a non-profit educational organization that promotes patriotism and aims to “increase our awareness of our identity as citizens of one nation under God.”[9] SUFA maintained public Christmas lights displays in 2004[10] and in 2006[11] that specifically celebrated the Christian origins of Christmas, “as a reminder of what the Christmas season is really all about.”[10] The Stand Up For America website came under criticism in September 2010 for promoting Gabbard’s daughter’s campaign for the Honolulu City Council, and SUFA took down a page in question.[12]”

      Gabbard deserves support. She is just mouthing the platitudes about the other issues, the key thing with her is opposing the MIC

    2. a more obvious question princess would be how are all the Democrats in congress who are Catholic so heavily in support of abortion. ask Nancy perhaps?

      1. Most people today who call themselves Catholic are not. The number of Catholics at our parish who volunteer for the usual ministries helping the poor, the sick, the orphaned, etc are less than 20 people. At parish workshops on the faith or bible studies: less than 10 show. The sermons are OK but hit the major points of service, love, humility and relationship with God, yet I often comment to my wife that few people really bother to practice any type of introspection or application therein.

        Protestantism is even worse, which is why there are so many denominations: all are derivations from Catholicism and started their own church because they did not get their way, e.g. King Henry VIII, divorce was denied, he started Anglicanism.

        such is our world today

        1. Henry VIII plundered Church lands. But why. He wanted a male heir and Katherine of Aragorn could not deliver. The Pope could have found grounds for annulment just as they often do today on the flimsiests of cases. Henry maybe shouldn’t have been allowed to marry her in the first place since she had been married to his older brother (Leviticus 21) But the Church allowed that, and rather than just admit the mistake and take a hit to its pride, and possibly antagonize Spain, it picked the opposite course and dared Henry VIII to act like a king. Big surprise that he did, huh? Prideful arrogance from Rome! Dressed up by Catholic history as theological integrity. That’s my view as a Catholic, though not one that the priests would like.

          A cunning Pope would have seen the eventual disaster a defection by England could cause the Church, and just given him the annulment and had done with it.

          Instead, it lost all of England, which accelerated the process of the Reformation and the disaster of the 30 years war, and the perpetual failed relationship between Catholic and Protestant nations which is the troubling legacy of “The West”

          In retrospect, the Church, quickly realized what a horrible mistake it had made, and the only way to salvage it was to depict Henry VIII as a greedy monster. Well, maybe he was but no more so than a lot of other greedy monstrous kings who had the perpetual sanction of Rome besides him!

          What Henry recognized, is that he had to plunder all the Church lands, perhaps, or suffer them to be a constant thorn in his side. Henry did what a lot of smart kings did before and besides him, and set up an anti-Church. How many antipopes have their been, can we even count them? They don’t much teach how many other convenient decisions the Popes made throughout history without making a big theological issue out of things, because they don’t want to let go of that one big thing.

          Long before Henry VIII, the popes messed up the situation with the Eastern Church badly too, centuries before the Reformation. But they have an excuse after the fact for that too. And yet, seeing the total mess that’s become of it, later Popes have removed the anathema and tried to make nice with the Orthodox, who are sticking to the faith better than the Church in the West after all. And the notion of maintaining a position above the nations has quietly fallen by the wayside in Rome now too.

          It’s indeed a miracle the Church still survives at all, after one generation of incompetent leadership after another, it MUST be the Holy Spirit at work!

          1. It’s indeed a miracle the Church still survives at all, after one generation of incompetent leadership after another, it MUST be the Holy Spirit at work!

            You sound like a typical “k”atholic.

            Vatican II invited, nay begged, lay Catholics (like you?) to get involved which was over 50 years. You do have your own personal copy of the Vatican II documents and post-conciliar documents, right?

            The ordained are charged with principally confecting the Sacraments which means everything else is on you and me. The Catholic Church has indeed taken a plunge like every other institution in America and Western Europe but not so withing Latin America, Asia and Africa. If lay Catholics, which make the majority of “Catholics”, bothered to exercise daily their priestly ministry, we wouldn’t need the priests and Bishops to be leaders. As it is the US bishops have shown themselves to be as flagrant hypocrites as you and me.

            get busy and become familiar with all of those Dogmas you lament that have changed. They haven’t. What has changed is that Catholics have abdicated their responsibilities to act holy. Being a Catholic entails two domains: serve God and serve your fellow man. If you don’t do the former then surely the latter is not an important matter either.

            Oremus

            1. ha ha i have heard these lectures so many times it makes me chuckle. save your lectures for someone who was a cradle Catholic. I was a convert. They must not have done it right or maybe I’m just a reprobate.

              the Church is a hierarchy. you know what that means, right? The clerics are in charge.

              “The ordained are charged with principally confecting the Sacraments which means everything else is on you and me. ”

              Ha, ha, you must not have had much experience in Church business. The bishops are 100% in charge of EVERYTHING. Subsidiarity is a principle but in operation, it’s only for their administrative convenience. It allows them to harvest more unpaid labor for the laity, to fill in where the collapsing vocations have left a yawning chasm. But if they had the scratch to do otherwise, they could just pull up the rug whenever they want.

              I admire the Church but for different reasons than most people do. It’s pointless for me to explain. I understand it well enough to understand that my humble opinion does not count. That is an illusion that many American Catholic conservatives cherish. That is a product of living in a “Democracy.” let me tell you, the Church is anything but. That’s ok, I can live with that. Meanwhile you experts can optimize it and I’ll say out of your way.

            2. Estovir – I was raised Catholic. One branch of my family has been Catholic since the pagans converted. Another created quite the scandal when my Baptist Grandpa married my Catholic Grandma.

              My own crisis of trust in the Church came with the pedophile scandal. Cardinal Mahoney refused to release personnel records because he said it would open him up to a lawsuit. Our tradition is that martyrs were willing to be eaten by lions, burned, drawn and quartered, rolled down a hill in a tumbler with spikes, all in defense of the faith. They were supposed to know true north, and right from wrong. Mahoney was not up to facing lions, or even some lawsuits, to defend the lambs in the congregations under his purview.

              The scandals are ongoing, with orgies at seminaries, pedophiles in every country that I’ve researched, new allegations, priests abusing nuns…At some point, I came to the conclusion that there is rot all the way up to the Administration. I believe that abusers must be in the decision tree. There is no way the Holy See was unaware of what was going on. How can they teach right from wrong to a congregation when they don’t know it themselves?

              How the Church handled this was wrong, and continues to be wrong. Donations are ending up paying for lawsuits. Properties are getting sold off, sometimes right under the feet of the nuns living there. I was greatly disappointed in how Pope Francis interfered with a Council of Bishops about this problem.

              Honestly, I think one of the root causes is celibacy. I’ve heard many of the arguments for it. It wasn’t until 1123, I think, that priests were forbidden from marrying. Aside from the sacrifice to God, I recall reading that there were quarrels within the Church about inheritance for children produced from married priests, who lived on Church property.

              In Medieval Times, priestly celibacy had a lot to offer. It was one of the few avenues available for scholarly study, steady meals, and shelter. The alternative was a brutish short life in a hovel, with the pigs. It was also a traditional path for younger sons, other than the military.

              Non celibate priests have been a problem all the way back to 1123, and even before. It is against human nature for most people to live a celibate life.

              In modern times, it will be difficult to fill the priesthood with well adjusted, healthy people if a lifetime of celibacy is a requirement. The promise of living a celibate life with other men, ended up creating some gay seminaries and conflicted gay priests. A male only community would, in and of itself, attract a higher proportion of gay men than many other professions, which leads to a lot of people failing to remain celibate. That’s why so many seminaries have rules against men being alone with another man.

              https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/17/us/it-is-not-a-closet-it-is-a-cage-gay-catholic-priests-speak-out.html

              The Administration of the Church is in crisis. I have a son. I always thought I would raise him Catholic, but I don’t trust them anymore, not with my lamb. I would also want the Church to allow birth control, and for women to be priests. It is strange that Mother Theresa could not be a priest. God was pretty clear about what he wanted, going so far as to have Moses carve the Ten Commandments out of stone. An argument I have heard against women priests is that all the apostles were men. I don’t think women would have been listened to by a Middle Eastern audience 2,000 years ago. There are also three verses I am aware of used to support this ban.

              I hope the Catholic Church solves this crisis. My parents are still Catholic, and they believe that the Church will never change if people walk away. I don’t see how the congregation has much power to affect how the Church is run.

              1. It’s not the Catholic faith that’s the problem, but rather the fallible human beings running it. The longstanding problems are due to those humans creating a culture of abuse, enabling it, protecting it, and passing it down, year after year.

              2. Karen S .
                I never saw a hint of impropriety in my years in the Catholic schools and the Catholic Church.
                I probably got to know about 25 priests, and never heard of anything untoward.
                It turns out that one of the priests who was briefly in one of the local parishes…..a young, athleletic priest who had been a boxer and filled in as a teacher and coach at times….it turns out that he was the one priest that I knew who was mentioned when “the damn burst” and there was a flood of allegations against priests in the diocese.
                He was conseling a girl in her late teens who was a bit ” on the wild side”.
                Getting her pregnant was not supposed to be a part of the counseling, and about 30 years after the fact, this became public knowledge.
                It was too bad…..he was a nice guy, a popular priest, but he screwed up and made a major mistake.
                If the girl who’d’ “been around’was 17-18-19….I don’t know who it was in her exact age….and he’s a 26 or 27 year old virgin, there are some mitigating factors.
                But obviously he really messed up….I think he was tranferred shortly after the girl was known to be pregnant….and had to live with what he’d done.
                I don’t know how the Church handled the girl and her baby….I’m guessing she “left town” for a while, gave birth, and the baby was lit up for adoption.
                So this was the one case from the 1960s from out 3 local parishes that I knew about.
                The 1970s were a completely different story….there was one priest in particular who should have ended up in prison for his behavior.
                I got to know a lot of the details of this guy’s offenses, as a couple of members of a family to that I knew well broke “that priest’s story” wide open in the late 1990s.
                They had good reason for coming forward and exposing this priest and the cover-up that shielded him.
                One of them didn’t pull any punches in his public letter to the editor, and I told his older brother….a close friend…to relay my complements to his brother.
                There was an interesting case of a “breakaway parish” in St.Loius…..St. Stanislaus, I think….but overall, Catholics “stayed with the program”, paid the “assessments” levied on the parishes to pay for part of the class action lawsuits.
                Too long of a comment by me already, but you might be interested in looking at the St .Louis parish that tried to buck the system.

                1. What boggles my mind is that the Church still does not seem to understand what to do if there is an allegation of sexual assault or pedophilia. They talk about internal reviews. They used to send them to treatment centers. Counsel them. In many cases, they threatened the victims and their families. There was also a time in which the victims were forced to be castrated in Catholic psychiatric hospitals in the Netherlands. It was supposed to be not only a cure for homosexuality, but also a punishment for shaming the priest abusers.

                  Call. The. Police. If they want to do an internal review or defrock the priest, fine, but notify the family, and law enforcement, and cooperate with the latter.

                  Any employment with authority over and contact with children will attract pedophiles. The problem here was that the Church protected the priests, and often transferred them to new parishes. They hid it from parents, lied about it…

                  The Catholic Church does not only have a pedophile problem. It has an enabler problem. Abuse became system in the Church, and I believe abusers infested the Administration. There is not other explanation that makes sense as to why the Church would enable and defend adult abusers instead of child victims of grooming and sexual assault.

                  A grave issue is that the Church has so much authority over the congregation, that they do not seem to be answerable to it when the clergy, itself, has serious ethical issues.

                  1. Karen, a 33 year old man has a lawyer send you a letter saying Fr. So-and-So fondled him when he was 14. You call in Fr. So-and-So and he tells you, no, I did not fondle this person 19 years ago. What do you do?

                    I’m not stacking the deck, Karen. This is the modal type of accusation that chancery staffs are asked to evaluate.

                    1. Accusations made decades after the fact are very difficult to prove. That is true of pedophilia cases as well as adult sexual assault. However, if someone can describe identifying marks of a priest naked, then the priest is in trouble.

                      However, there were many accusations made contemporaneous to the alleged abuse, which were ignored, brushed off, etc.

                      One of the persistent problems is that when a priest had multiple accusations of sexual assault, they would quietly send him to rehab, and then on to a new parish.

                      In addition, there is the insurmountable problem of the confessional. Anything confessed to a priest during the sacrament cannot be disclosed. However, there are still administrative avenues.

                      If there is an accusation of sexual misconduct or assault, they should have called the police immediately. It’s not up to the clergy to play detective.

                2. https://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/st-louis-archdiocese-and-st-stanislaus-reach-settlement-that-makes/article_c876ca45-4999-5a2b-8b5b-03a7a48ab145.html
                  Karen S.
                  Thanks to revisions made to this site about a year ago, I’m not able to read your most recent comment.
                  They come out like
                  t
                  h
                  I
                  s
                  on mobile devices I use.
                  Anyway, I first saw an article about this conflict in the St. Z
                  Stan parish in St. Loius in the Wall Street
                  Journal about 15 years ago.

                  1. Anonymous – I know just what you mean about the formatting problems on mobil devices. It helps if I rotate my phone to landscape. Otherwise, I don’t respond too deep on a thread for that reason when I’m out.

                    I’ll have to look up more information about the parish you mentioned. Thank you.

                    1. Karen S. and Absurb,
                      Most case that I knew about that were settled in the diocese I was in were not contested by the diocese. While priests might be frequently transferred under normal circumstances, there were clear cases if “kicking the can down the road” when the impropriety of an offending priest came to the attention of the bishop(s). That was something of a paper trail.
                      Additionally, these were generally very credible people and accounts that surfaced, albeit decades later in some cases. Some of who had continued to loyally stick with the Catholic Church as active members.
                      As one example, the case that I’m most familiar with involved a priest who was “involved with” total of c. a dozen
                      underage student over an extended period. That priest’s reaction seemed to be that he was offended that to this came to light and made him look bad, after he’d successfully kept his activities a closely guarded secret for years.
                      It was like “why are you bothering me with this?”. I can tell you what blew this particular case wide open. A seminarian who’d been one of the priest’s victims found out that this priest was once again going to be assigned to a school….I think it was as principal in a boys’ Catholic school. This guy studying to become a priest wrote that directly to the bishop to try to prevent this from happening, and the bishop brushed him off.
                      He was trying to get this settle administratively, “in-house”, and not “go public”. That’s how loyal ( I’d call it musguided loyalty) this guy was to the Catholic Church.
                      But when the bishop brushed him off, he wrote an extended letter to the editor blowing the lid right off what had been a closely held secret.
                      I’ll mention another offending priest and the cover-ups that really got this diocese in trouble. Once numerous and credible accounts of his offenses came pouring in, he ultimately left the priesthood. I think he was allowed. to leave, rather than booted out .
                      His subsequent career was as a child psychologist for the state. It’s inconceivable that a man with his history would be allowed in to be in a position like that . The stupidy and carelessness in handling these matters at least up until about 20-25 years ago, was secular as well as clerical.
                      Rather than try to find a useable reply box, I’ll branch off in this comment to the St .Loius breakaway parish. I know parishioners who had contributed a lot to their Church. And in numerous case, they could point to the contributions from their families to the same church, going back several generations. When these parishes were “assessed”….. expected to contribute as part of the multi-million $dollar class action settlement by the diocese of the sexual abuse scandal….the feeling was that they’d paid for their Church, their parents/ grandparents, etc paid for that church, and now they’re being asked to pay again for misconduct that had nothing to do with their particular church or the priests who’d served there.
                      I followed the St. Louis “church revolt” for years; there were very fascinating, unique legal and clerical/ cannon law issues involved. What surprised me was not that one “uprising” in that St. Loius Church, but that there were not more of them in numerous diocese in the U.S ( there’s no space to sign in, and the “save my name, email etc is not working:so this will post as “anonymous”.

                    2. John   B Accused Jesuit Per statement released by Diocese of Spokane 11/07, O’Brien was named in accusation that was found to be credible or proven. He died in 1989. No further information on alleged abuse found. This may possibly be the Br. John O’Brien who taught latin at Gonzaga Prep in Spokane Spokane, WA Source:
                      Statement by Diocese of Spokane 11.21.07; Diocese of Spokane List of Admitted, Proven or Credibly Accused Perpetrators of Sexual Abuse 11.03.09; Good Jesuit, Bad Jesuit 11.12.09
                      Assignments:
                      N/A
                      O’Donnell
                      Patrick G. 1971 P Settled Diocesan Removed 1985. Abused at least 65 boys in 1970s-1980s in Spokane & Seattle. Worked as a psychologist for teens in Bellevue after leaving active priesthood. Sanctioned in 1984 for abuse while a priest. Sanctions lifted 1986. License permanently removed 1/04. At least 2 victims committed suicide. Named in new suit filed 2/08 by 4. Admitted guilt and settled 11/08 for $5M but can’t pay. Two plaintiffs settled before 5/09 trial; Last 2 plaintiffs settled during trial. Settlements 5/12. Name included on archdiocese’s list 1/15/16 of clergy and religious with admitted, established or credible allegations against them of sexual abuse of a minor. Spokane,
                      This is off of the internet, so I’m not revealing anything that is not already public knowledge. This former priest’s subsequent career was as a licensed psychologist in Washington State, but it may have been in private practice….not working FOR the state as I stated earlier.
                      There is a LONG list of “admitted”, “confirmed”, and “alleged” offenders from that diocese, which was one of the earlier ones to declare bankruptcy.
                      There were numerous twists and turns in the legal wrangling that I won’t try to review. I think there were cases outside of the class action settlement that are still ongoing.
                      The last time I checked, the Catholic Church paid out over $2 Billion nationwide in settlements for these kinds of cases.
                      I don’t know if I can sign in to the microscopic box below, so this and related comments that posted as “anonymous” were submitted by me. Tom Nash

        2. It is true that Henry VIII started the Church of England in order to get divorced. (She was lucky she wasn’t beheaded. Divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived.)

          However, Martin Luther caused the great schism due to serious problems in the Church that the Administration failed to rectify. The selling of indulgences alone was obviously corrupt. Those who taught right from wrong could not discern it for themselves. The Church eventually abandoned selling salvation for money, so Luther had a point.

          It was a wasted opportunity for the Church to audit its practices and improve. Martin Luther was no angel, himself, being antisemitic, among other personal failings. Rather, it took the Church nearly 500 years to say the Mass in a language the congregants could actually understand, many of whom did not speak Latin. I think this change happened in the 1960s. The Tridentine Mass has its place and benefits, but there should be an option for non Latin speakers to attend a Mass they understand.

          As for modern times, religious observation in general is falling, while agnostics, atheists, and non practicing behavior increases. Mere spiritualism is not enough, however, as studies show true benefits in health and wellbeing among those who attend services regularly and are active in their faith. It is part of the erosion of our country.

          1. Karen, while the social benefits of church are disappearing and society becoming more atomized, there are many benefits to the abandonment of belief in supernatural beings. We don’t agree that increases in non-believers helps the “erosion of our country”.

            1. Anon, it is fair to argue whether a supernatural being exists in the form of a God but in your case too much of your opinion rests on an unbelieveable amount of arrogance.

              I don’t promote religion but you said it yourself “society becoming more atomized”. Tbat is not necessarily a good thing. Man has natures that left uncontrolled can lead to terrible acts. Community or religion may restrain such acts. We saw that in Nazi Germany in the last century and we are seeing a bit of that today in antifa’s attacks on individuals. Take a look at the brutality against Andy Ngo. What do you think binds those anifa folk together? For one thing their leftist ideology. In other words they have replaced one religion with another.

      2. Mr. Kurtz,
        At one time, Catholic dogma was taken seriously by most American Catholics.
        That’s probably no longer the case. There’s a very long list of Catholic politicians, some SC Justices, etc. who are examples of “the new” American Catholics.
        Without reviewing or summarizing that list, Joe Biden once said that something to the effect that the “tradition of being a Catholic” was important to him.
        As a Democrat, he’s not allowed to be pro-life…..that political party pretty much shut down that kind of heresy within their ranks years ago.
        Biden’s comment about “the traditional of” being Catholic sums up the position of a lot of people who consider themselves to be practicing Catholics.
        They aren’t all that serious about actual Catholic dogma, but they like things like the Sunday gatherings and “the performance of” the Mass, etc.
        I was at a service some years ago where a visiting priest had some unusual instructions on who was eligible to come up and receive communion.
        I went to Catholic schools for 10 years ( all the way through the 6th grade, like Jethro Bodine😉), and what the priest said was diametrically opposed to what I was taught in school, and my understanding of the “does and don’t” of receiving sacraments, Catholic services, etc.
        But as a non-practising Catholic👺 since college, decades ago, I wasn’t “up on” possible changes in dogma/ allowable practices in the “new American” Catholic Church.
        After Mass, I asked a good friend, a strong “traditional” Catholic, when they changed eligibility for receiving communion.
        He was not terribly pleased with the priest, whom he knew, and angrily said ” They DIDN’T change it”.
        My only real experiences with the Catholic Church is when I’ve attended Baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc. in Catholic churches.
        Based on that, and some conversations with friends who still consider themselves to be practicing Catholics, it looks like there is A LOT of lattitude for what local/ regional clergy and parishioners can and can’t do.
        A co- worker was married to a Catholic woman from a strongly Catholic family. He’d attend church with her, but did not become a Catholic.
        The parish priest asked him “when are you going to convert to Catholicism” and the guy said “when you in the Catholic Church make up your minds what you stand for”.
        He was on good terms with the priest, and the priest acknowledged that he had a point. What my co-worker and friend said to the priest succinctly made a valid point.

        1. Yeah Tom I am not on the bash Catholic Church bandwagon. I am not an apostate, but I’m a sinner and non-observant and going to steer clear for now and run my chances with God because I trust Him more than the Church.

          We’ll see how it shakes out. If I get my time cut short before I can make my last confessions etc., then it will have been God’s will to send me to damnation and hellfire anyways I guess. I know that’s a heresy to say too of course, that’s predestination, but I am not smart enough to keep track of all that anyways.

          1. since this post was about immigration, let me say this. The Church should shut its trap about countries that are trying to police their borders from mass migration.

            I can hardly believe they have this out there now. This is not dogma this is just political interference in the legitimate affairs of the state

            http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples.cfm

            it’s also encouragement of lawless behavior. they’re sinking pretty low with this stuff now.

            If they think Europe will do better with another million Muslim refugees however, well, they may get the chance to find out before too long. One day St Peters may end up like the Hagia Sophia if they keep it up.

            1. The way this sounds, Pentecost will eventually be a day one which we all speak different dialects of Spanish. Or Arabic.

            2. Re Mr .Kurtz’s comment that “the Church should shut its trap about” “immigration……I’ve previously recommended in these threads that The Vatican be investigated for meddling in the 2016 election.😉😄

Leave a Reply