Illegal Immigration

Time Magazine Cover = #FakeNews

Published by Papa Giorgio

Oooops, Time Magazine’s open border propaganda exposed (h-t, LIBERTY DAILY):

Also, “According to a new Rasmussen poll, a majority of Americans blame illegal immigrant parents for the child crisis on the border over the U.S. government.” THE DAILY CALLER continues:

The media has put a hyper focus on the separation of families at the border over the last several weeks, leading President Donald Trump to sign an executive order ending the separation. Current U.S. law does not allow families to be detained together if the parents are referred for prosecution for illegal border crossing.

However, the Rasmussen poll shows that Americans don’t blame the Trump administration for the approximately 2,000 children who have been separated from their parents.

54 percent of likely voters polled by Rasmussen said that they think the parents are more to blame for breaking the law.

Only 35 percent said the government is more to blame for the crisis.

Further, 54 percent of voting Americans agree with President Trump’s assertion that “The United States will not be a migrant camp. And it will not be a refugee-holding facility — it won’t be.”

The survey of 1000 likely voters was conducted on June 19-20………

See also: SOOPERMEXICAN

Jake Tapper Put Into Detention (Mark Levin)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Administration for Children and Families spokesperson Kenneth Wolfe told Newsweek on Wednesday that it had as many as 10,852 undocumented children in its custody—a significant jump from the 8,886 that were in the agency’s custody on April 29, according to the Washington Post. spokesman for HHS’s Administration for Children and Families told
  • In fiscal year 2013, under the Barack Obama administration, the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) had as many as 25,000 unaccompanied children in its care across 80 shelters, according to a July 2014 article in Mother Jones.

(Via NEWSWEEK, with a h/t to DAILY WIRE)

Here is the WASHINGTON POST article titled,

  • “Mexican kids held for months as punishment for border-crossing” (dated: March 11, 2015)

LAREDO, Tex. — Last spring, as Central American children flooded into Texas in a way he had never seen in his three-decade career, Border Patrol agent Robert Harris decided to experiment.

His intelligence analysts estimated that 78 percent of the guides smuggling other migrants were Mexicans younger than 18 — teenagers often hired or conscripted by drug cartels that knew they would not be prosecuted if caught — and he wanted to attack this loophole.

“Why don’t we remove these juveniles from the smuggling cycle?” Harris, the outgoing commander of the Laredo sector of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, recalled thinking.

Now, as a result of that decision, young Mexicans are being held for months without charge in shelters across the United States, sometimes without their parents’ knowledge. Since the program began in May, 536 juveniles have been held — 248 of whom have been deported to Mexico after an average stay of 75 days, according to Border Patrol statistics. Mexican authorities say some of these repeat border-crossers have spent as much as six months in U.S. custody while they await an appearance before an immigration judge.

During their detention, they are questioned by U.S. authorities and then transferred to a network of facilities run by the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, across 15 states. While confined, they undergo psychological evaluations and take English courses. Some are allowed tourist-type activities, such as going to the beach or museums, according to Mexican consular officials in Texas. At least one youth earned a high school general equivalency diploma.

“We haven’t heard of any mistreatment,” said Erasmo R. Martinez, Mexico’s consul in McAllen, Tex.

But the little-known program, called the Juvenile Referral Process, has worried human rights groups and some Mexican officials who fear that it puts the children at risk. They view it as a way for U.S. authorities to gather intelligence about cartels and think it endangers the children who could be targeted as informants when they return to Mexico. Some question the legality of the extended detentions.

“Our concern is that the program’s real intent is to interrogate the kids,” said Maureen Meyer, an expert on Mexico and migrants at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA). The kids are “often questioned about the criminal groups they are working for and then subsequently returned to Mexico with no apparent concern about the implications for them.”

While in custody last year, one Mexican boy who worked as a guide shared information with U.S. authorities about the location of stash houses used by migrants as they move through the United States, according to his lawyer’s written summary of his case. When he returned to Mexico, he learned that armed men had forced their way into his home and killed a relative’s son. The men told the family that there had been raids on cartel hideouts and arrests and that they believed the boy was responsible. His half-brother was later killed by the same group. The boy, his lawyer said, has since been in hiding.

Harris said the Border Patrol does not have a system to track what happens to the juveniles once they return to Mexico. The program does appear to be discouraging them from returning illegally to Texas, he said. The patrol calculates that just 7 percent of the children who have gone through the program have been picked up again crossing the border.

In the past, Mexican minors picked up by the Border Patrol normally would be deported by bus, sometimes on the same day they arrived. Some of these kids have been captured more than 60 times, and Harris’s officers have identified about 800 young smugglers operating in Texas. Human rights workers in Mexico and the United States say these kids are often forced to work for the cartels or risk retaliation against themselves or their families.

Drug cartels “exploit hundreds of juveniles, using them as smugglers, guides, and scouts; in turn these juveniles are responsible for smuggling thousands of illegal aliens and large amounts of narcotics,” the Border Patrol told WOLA in a statement about the program.

The program began in May in two Border Patrol sectors, Laredo and Del Rio, consisting of nearly 400 miles of the Texas border with Mexico.

“The moment it started, it took us all by surprise, because there wasn’t an announcement,” said Reyna Torres Mendívil, director general of the Mexican Foreign Ministry’s office for protection of Mexicans abroad. “Where were they taking these children?”

Border Patrol agents would refer them to the U.S. attorney’s office, but typically, unless there are aggravating circumstances, they won’t be prosecuted. So this period of detention is intended to be a punishment in lieu of a criminal charge. The shelters they are sent to also house juveniles from Central America, awaiting flights home; last year, the Mexican kids accounted for about 1 percent of all the detainees in these facilities.

In November, Oscar Jaime Rodriguez Mendoza, a 16-year-old from the border town of Reynosa, left for the United States and didn’t come home.

“We didn’t know what had happened to him,” said his mother, Leonor Mendoza, a 37-year-old clothing vendor.

She finally learned that he had been sent to a shelter in California. From there, he was allowed to talk to her by phone every night for 10 minutes. Oscar told his mother that the kids were grouped by risk or behavior — purple, yellow, green — and that some couldn’t leave the facility. Oscar was a purple, he told his mom, with the least restrictions. On one occasion, he got to go ice skating.

“It’s a type of punishment so they won’t cross as much,” his mother said. “For me, sincerely, it’s okay. It will discourage him from doing it again.”

Mexican authorities say they don’t want these minors to be stigmatized or criminalized by U.S. authorities. Mendívil, of the Foreign Ministry, said that not all repeat border-crossers are cartel-linked smugglers. She cited the case of one child who crossed repeatedly to buy used clothes for his mother to sell in Mexico.

“We’re in favor of what is in the best interest of the minor,” she said. “Many of these kids may have legitimate claim to perhaps be reunited with family in the U.S. We want them to have their day in court and be heard. If they are threatened, if they are victims of trafficking, if they have been in a family crisis situation, they deserve to be heard and protected from whatever is threatening them.”

At the local level, Mexican immigration officials along the border consider the program effective because they’ve found that it discourages children from working as guides.

“It’s excellent for us,” said Erasmo Rodriguez, an immigration official in the border town of Piedras Negras. “We’ve received many fewer minors.”

In the first two months of the year, just five repeat crossers from the area were deported to his office. Before the Border Patrol program, he said, dozens would be returned in a normal month.

The Executive Order Trump signed will not last… here are some examples of how and why it will fail. The first source is Leftist, FYI:

Trump can’t overrule the Flores settlement with the stroke of a pen…

[….]

The Flores settlement now at the center of the family separation crisis has a 30-year history. In the 1980s, several lawsuits were filed over the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the care of the US government. One was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled her home country to find an aunt who was living in the United States, but she was detained by federal authorities at the US border.

Flores and other minors in federal custody sometimes had to share sleeping quarters and bathrooms with unrelated adult men and women. Flores was strip-searched regularly, and she was told she could only be released to her parents, not her aunt. The ACLU asserted in its lawsuit that Flores and other unaccompanied children had a constitutional right to be released to “responsible” adults, as the Marquette Law Review documented in a review of the Flores settlement’s history.

The case went through several federal courts before reaching the Supreme Court in 1993, and the high court mostly sided with the government. But the real consequence was a consent decree agreed to by the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs in the litigation in 1997. The decree, known as the Flores settlement, set standards for unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities.

(VOX)

 

 

 

DHS Secretary Nielsen Gives The Press A Time-Out (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals and abuse. (CHICKS ON THE RIGHT)
  • See NATIONAL REVIEW’S excellent article (h-t POWERLINE): “The Truth about Separating Kids”

NEWSMAX recaps the presser for us:

…Nielsen said that previous administrations had also at times separated children from immigrant parents at the border, though “their rate was less than ours.”

“So I want to be clear on a couple of other things,” Nielsen said. “The vast majority, vast, vast majority of children who are in the care of H.H.S. right now — 10,000 of the 12,000 — were sent here alone by their parents. That is when they were separated. So somehow we’ve conflated everything.

“But there is two separate issues. 10,000 of those currently in custody were sent by their parents with strangers to undertake a completely dangerous and deadly travel alone. We now care for them. We have high standards. We give them meals, we give them education, we give them medical care. There is videos, there is TVs, I visited the detention centers myself — that would be my answer to that question.”

[….]

“But they absolutely did this. This is not new,” she said. The Trump administration, she said, was engaging in the practice more frequently because U.S. law forbids the government from detaining “family units” apprehended while crossing the border for longer than 20 days.

[….]

Nielsen described a crisis on the southwest U.S. border, where she said illegal crossings exceed 50,000 people a month — “multiples over each month last year.” Authorities have observed a 325 percent increase in crossings by unaccompanied children and 435 percent increase in crossings by families since this time last year. Asylum claims have surged 1,700 percent in the last decade, she said, creating a backlog of 600,000 cases.

CNN and Quinnipiac University each released polls on Monday showing that two-thirds of Americans oppose Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy for border crossings that has led to children being taken from their parents. But both organizations also found that a majority of Republicans support the policy.

ProPublica published a recording it said was made last week in a U.S. detention center in which 10 Central American children can be heard crying for their mothers and fathers. One unidentified Border Patrol agent remarks, “Well, we have an orchestra here. What’s missing is a conductor.”

Nielsen said she’s “not in any position to deal with hearsay stories. If someone has a specific allegation,” she said, “we will look into it. ”

[….]

Trump continued to blame Democrats, falsely, for a policy that even members of his own party said he could end with a single phone call.

The president said at a White House event on Monday that “all of the problems” the U.S. is having with immigration are “very strongly the Democrats’ fault.” He insisted again that his family separation policy was the consequence of “horrible laws” that the opposition party refused to agree to change.

“The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility,” Trump vowed. “You look at what’s happening in Europe, you look at what’s happening in other places; we can’t allow that to happen to the United States, not on my watch.”

[….]

Several Democrats have charged that Trump is attempting to use the children’s plight as leverage to force them to accept changes to immigration law they oppose, including construction of a wall on the Mexican border and curbing legal immigration.

“That’s a very cowardly response,” Nielsen said. “It’s clearly within their power to make the laws and change the laws. They should do so.”

After denying that the family separation policy existed in a tweet on Sunday, Nielsen defended it in a speech earlier on Monday in New Orleans and said border authorities “will not apologize for doing our job.” People seeking asylum in the U.S., she said, should go to official ports of entry instead of crossing the border illegally…

Immigration Law and Families |John Eastman|

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder discusses the policy of separating children from their families if they have crossed over the border illegally with Dr. John Eastman (a law professor and constitutional law scholar). Professor Eastman brings some needed clarity to the topic. This related article brings more clarity to the issue:

See also, “Michael Steele: Trump May Put Your Children in a Concentration Camp“

Democrats Defend MS-13

Published by Papa Giorgio

Tucker: MS-13 is a living reminder that the Left’s position on immigration is a lie. The media tell you that every immigrant, legal or not, is a future brain surgeon or tech company founder. Therefore immigration controls are unnecessary. If they admit that MS-13 is bad and must be stopped, they’d have to admit that when some countries send their people here, they aren’t sending their best.

Santa Clarita On Fox and Friends

Published by Papa Giorgio

(FOX NEWS) The Santa Clarita city council on Tuesday voted to oppose California’s “sanctuary state” law and to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state.

City council members voted 5-0 to officially oppose Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.

Multiple California cities and counties have opposed the bill — which was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in October 2017 — but Santa Clarita is the first city in Los Angeles County to do so.

As CALIFORNIA Goes, So Goes the NATION

Published by Papa Giorgio

CALIFORNIA UNDOCUMENTED POPULATION

This is with thanks to BLACK PIGEON SPEAKS! Using the numbers below and the idea (fact really) that the largest population of illegal immigrants live in California, I would say California illegal population is at least 13% of Cali’s population. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to say, then, that it could be as high as 20% (so 2-of-every-10 residents). Here are some other factoids:

  • Most undocumented immigrants are from Latin America. Nationwide, 78% of undocumented immigrants are from Latin America—a slight majority (52%) come from Mexico alone. Most of the others (13%) are from Asia, although Africa and Europe also account for hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants in the US. The Pew Research Center (PRC) estimates that as of 2014, 71% of California’s undocumented population was Mexican-born.

Yale Professor: There Are “22.8 Million Undocumented Immigrants” In America, Double Official Estimates

A working paper by Dr. Mohammad Fazel Zarandi from the Yale School of Management, coauthored by two other Yale professors, estimates that there are 22.8 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

This is over double estimates compiled by the Department of Homeland Security, which claims 11.1 million illegal aliens live in the US.

The paper’s abstract outlines some of the reasons why their estimate is both higher, and better than the current government statistics:

We apply standard operational principles of inflows and outflows to estimate the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States, using the best available data, including some that has only recently become available. We generate a lower bound for the number of undocumented immigrants using conservative parameter values that underestimate inflows and overestimate outflows.

Our lower bound is close to 17 million, 50% higher than the most prominent current estimate of 11.3 million, which is based on survey data and thus different sources and methods. Standard parameter values generate an estimate of 22.8 million undocumented immigrants, twice as large as the current estimate.

Conservatives have argued for well over a decade that the number of illegal immigrants is widely underestimated by the government, and think tanks which base their calculations on government data—finally academics are beginning to take an independent look at the problem.

But the fact that the paper needed to be written at all highlights an insidious problem: we really don’t know how many illegal immigrants live in the US.  With that in mind, I think it’s worth surveying the research on the topic—at the very least I’ll be able to give you some context for the broader debate….

Debating Our Cities “Sanctuary” Status (Santa Clarita)

Published by Papa Giorgio

A strain on Facebook’s “Santa Clarita Community” page is keeping people (myself included) up late at night. What got this party started was the below graphic and comment (click to enlarge):

FIRST-and-FOREMOST — many mentioned that Joshua chapter 29 is non-existent — like how the Left views clearly enumerated powers in the Constitution. Non-existent. But discussion of the statement in the Original Post (OP) also riled people us, including myself.

It reads:

  • After seeing all these so called “christians” protesting the sanctuary laws, i feel ashamed to be part of this community. People aren’t thinking of the consequences of getting rid of said laws. #sanctuarysantaclarita

Here is my response to this:

Hmm, what makes me embarrassed is that Christians do not use a proper hermeneutic, and apply 21st century understanding/context to Biblical and Ancient Near East laws, history, and culture. Here is a primer on these cities (4-partial excerpts from the many commentaries available for those seeking context – since it is king – rather than straw-men, red-herrings, and non-sequiturs):

CITIES OF REFUGE

This had been described already in Exodus 21:12–14, as well as Numbers 35 and Deuteronomy 4 and 19. Exodus 21 places the law of asylum at the head of its discussion of capital offences. It describes how God will designate a place for the unintentional killer to flee for safety. Numbers 35:9–15 defines six places as towns of asylum, three east of the Jordan and three to the west. Verses 22–28 go on to state that the town must guarantee protection for the person who is found not guilty of murder, but if the person wanders from the town he may be killed by the avenger of blood. Deuteronomy 4:41–43 describes the three towns of asylum east of the Jordan which Moses designated in that area.

Richard S. Hess, Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 305.

1. The Lord spake unto Joshua … Appoint out for you cities of refuge—(See Nu 35:9–28; De 19:1–13). The command here recorded was given on their going to occupy their allotted settlements. The sanctuaries were not temples or altars, as in other countries, but inhabited cities; and the design was not to screen criminals, but only to afford the homicide protection from the vengeance of the deceased’s relatives until it should have been ascertained whether the death had resulted from accident and momentary passion, or from premeditated malice. The institution of the cities of refuge, together with the rules prescribed for the guidance of those who sought an asylum within their walls, was an important provision, tending to secure the ends of justice as well as of mercy.

4. he that doth flee unto one of those cities shall stand at the entering of the gate of the city—It was the place of public resort, and on arriving there he related his tale of distress to the elders, who were bound to give him shelter and the means of support, until the local authorities (Jos 20:6), having carefully investigated the case, should have pronounced the decision. If found guilty, the manslayer was surrendered to the blood-avenger; if extenuating circumstances appeared, he was to remain in the city of refuge, where he would be safe from the vindictive feelings of his pursuers; but he forfeited the privilege of immunity the moment he ventured beyond the walls.

Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, vol. 1 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 155–156.

One of the first ordinances after the announcement of the Ten Commandments provided for the future establishment of cities of refuge (Ex. 21:12–13). These cities, providing havens for unintentional manslayers, are discussed in detail in Numbers 35:6–34 and Deuteronomy 19:1–14. The present chapter discusses their appointment after the Conquest (see their locations on the map “Canaan in the Conquest” near Josh. 3).

The fact that these cities are discussed in four books of the Old Testament marks them as being of great importance. It is apparent that God wished to impress on Israel the sanctity of human life. To put an end to a person’s life, even if done unintentionally, is a serious thing, and the cities of refuge underscored this emphatically.

In the ancient world blood revenge was widely practiced. The moment a person was killed, his nearest relative took responsibility for vengeance. This ancient rite of vendetta was often handed down from one generation to another so that increasingly larger numbers of innocent people died violently. The need in ancient Israel for the refuge that these special cities provided is evident.

Donald K. Campbell, “Joshua,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck, vol. 1 (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), 362–363.

The need for these cities grew out of the fact that in the ancient world, and to some extent in the Near East even today, there was a custom according to which, if a member of a family or clan was killed by someone, either intentionally or accidentally, the family would gather together and appoint one of its members to be an “avenger of blood” for his relative. This was a world in which the basic legal maxim was “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” So if a member of the family was killed, it became the duty of the avenger of blood to track down and kill the murderer. Clearly, there was a certain primitive justice in this system. But a person could be killed by accident, and if that were the situation, it would be an injustice if the avenger were allowed to proceed.

[….]

Once in the city, the frightened man was to appear before the elders, as the text in Joshua shows. He was to state his case, explaining why the death was accidental. Then, if the elders of the city judged that there was no malice aforethought and the death was indeed accidental, they were to admit him to the city, where he was to live in safety. It was necessary for him to remain there until the death of the high priest serving at that time. After that, he could return home in safety.

James Montgomery Boice, Joshua (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2005), 108–109.

After I posted the above, JESSIE responds with this:

I respond:

I was responding to the OP* [posted by ALEX], but thanks. And I would bet your understanding of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and the first time it was invoked as something supporting a separations of church and state is lacking. But hey, thanks.

[Here is] the context in which my response was written:

“…what makes me embarrassed is that Christians do not use a proper hermeneutic…“

Which was a response to:

* “After seeing all these so called ‘christians’ protesting the sanctuary laws, i feel ashamed to be part of this community. 

Now, the assumption could be that ALEX is ashamed to be part of this community (the SCV) because Christians who live in the SCV do not rip Joshua out of it’s cultural and historical context — in which case my comment is somewhat null… but still making a salient point.

But if ALEX is saying that he is a “true Christian” because he takes Joshua out of context, and then applies it to sanctuary cities regarding immigration (modern legal dilemmas), then, my comment has weight.

DIMITRI was nice enough to share his support…

PAQUITA joined the convo in a way that caused a few responses. (BTW, BILL Q’s responses were great.) Here is her opening salvo:

  • Church is a festering ground of sinners. That’s why people go to church. Deep down inside we all know how rotten humans can be to each other. Therefore, I’m not surprised that a few Christians are at the forefront of such demonstrations. They are not the voice for an entire congregation . Everyone has their own version of Christianity. In many churches they are divided , over, on going issues. Yet, the irony of some churches is to go the world over in the name of their God & put a nice face in prayer to basically sucker people to become members. However, their agenda isn’t about inclusion or bettering anyone or love for their fellow man, but their numbers. It’s the oddest thing how people feel so much hate when most church pastors spend hours spreading compassion. However, there’s a lot of hateful preachers too & haters share a strong bond psychologically.

(As an aside, the church IS filled with sinners, she is correct. The human condition is awful. Thank GOD for Jesus [Romans 7:25a is a response to the human condition enumerated from verse 14]. But by stating such in no way supports her jump to the issue at hand or how she encapsulates it.)

I said,

So to be against sanctuary cities is hateful? And then this lawful, secular position is applied to what it is to be a true believer?

...…...

wow.

PAQUITA responds to me specifically:

  • Sean G sure it’s hateful, against your follow man. God creates all & didn’t put those little lines on the maps. The world is ever changing. People screw it up with the violence, anger, competitive , complaining, bad ideas, and festering selfish ideas of this belongs to me, me, me. This earth belongs to everyone. No one is taking Mother Earth to the grave. The future generations will proceed. Each one of us is here for a short time & to get greedy & not share the earth is really backward thinking. After all China & India surpass the USA in populations. Do you realize those two countries each have over a billion population? This here mass of land of the USA from east to west can support the 316,000,000 million we have.

I respond:

POINT ONE >> To quote you PAQUITA, “…sure it’s hateful, against your follow man…“

May I share what I think is foolish and brings harm to the many women who decide to make the trek from South and Central America? And mind you, I wish to show you that the more hurtful position to women is yours, and not my own, or even Trump’s – so bear with me.

I asked all my Left leaning family members and friends to name one or two things that come to mind regarding why they think Donald Trump is a bigot or racist. I wrote on three of the most popular examples given by these 40+ people who responded.

Number one was Trump’s statement that “Mexico was sending its rapists and drug dealers.” (I do have the full quote on my site if you wish to view it.)

The issue is, is this statement true in its essence. OBVIOUSLY most immigrants aren’t necessarily coming from Mexico, but, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (a Left leaning org) had previous numbers of 60% of the women making the trek from the lower Americas being raped. This has been revised to 80-percent.

You read that right.

80%

…Now, this doesn’t mean all the men coming across our borders are rapists. Many may be (more on this in a second), but I suspect some of the rapes occur by residents of wherever these women are passing through, or by the Coyotajes (which I show a news footage piece about “rape trees” by these traffickers on my site).

But, a good number of these rapes are happening by the criminal element traveling to and across our border as well. So by not controlling the border and giving haven to these criminal elements, not only are the women from these areas at risk, but the women of all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds here in America are also being put at risk.

Which explains these criminal record percentages committed by illegal aliens as VERY high (comparing their percentage of the general population).

So, back to my point. Your position on immigration and our border seems to be protecting crimes against women. Which I would assume to the women having been or being raped would seem pretty hateful an act — especially at the time.

POINT TWO >> To quote you PAQUITA, “…God creates all & didn’t put those little lines on the maps…“

I will assume you have not read much of your Bible. God created different cultures and languages at the Tower of Babel. Not only that, but I suggest you read up on YHWH’s dealings with the Israelite’s and giving the differing tribes boundaries to live withing the boundaries of other nations.

One example of the GENIUS of GOD is that these boundaries, cultures, and languages, stopped (and has and will stop) mad men from taking over the world. For instance, WWII.

If we had no boundaries and all had a similar culture, a Hitler could have easily swayed many more than he did. And may have eventually taken over most of the world with his Socialism. 

But as the Nazis advanced across the map, they were crossing borders and entering into self-selected cultures (via Free Will — which God created) which rebuffed this advancement. And finally, the various cultures that did joined forces as Allies and defeated Nazi Germany. 

So you can see — I would hope — the benefits of nation states and the importance of protecting our varied cultures and histories.

In responding to BILL Q, PAQUITA noted that she “was raised a southern baptist & than we became seventh Day Adventist.” (All misspellings in the original.)

POINT THREE >> PAQUITA, No Seventh Day Adventists speaks of “Mother Earth.” Dumb. Most “Seven Dayers” I meet are young earth creationists. And there are healthy 7-day churches that rebuke much of Ellen G. White’s teachings, and others that embrace her teachings.

But even they are not New Agers, which is what you are sounding like.

CHRIS summed up the discussion between PAQUITA and BILL and myself (TL/DR means: too long, didn’t read):

PAQUITA then responded to a comment by CHRISTOPHER M…

  • “…quote those bible versus: facts please. Borders didn’t exist when the Bible was written…”

I respond to the border issue:

FIRST Here is a map of the ANCIENT NEAR EAST IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES. These empires were ruled by differing peoples and cultures and many writings in stone speak [jump to historical example from the Sumerians] of these kings and rulers going into other lands and defeating the people who considered this their land and enslaving them:

SECOND Here is a map of the Tribes of Israel in OLD TESTAMENT TIMES — the borders you see were instituted by God through the priests in their theocratic faith (or, guided at times by YHWH through the priests, through judges, or through a king, etc):

And this THIRD example (not during Biblical times) is about the warfare over natural resources here in America BEFORE and after the Settlers arrived (short video):

FOURTH… and most important: 

ICE Director Squashes “Retaliation Charge” by Democrats

Published by Papa Giorgio

During an interview, Thomas D. Holman (Deputy Director and Senior Official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE]) deals with the charge by the Left that sending more ICE agents to California and other sanctuary cities is retaliation. Director Holman squashes that charge with common sense thinking and notes that immigrant communities would rather the state and these municipalities cooperate with ICE… the entire interview can be heard here:

These sanctuary cities are not safer either… another Democrat lie.

“You’re a Humanitarian, Trump is a Nazi” – Ingraham to Vicente Fox

Published by Papa Giorgio

Laura Ingraham receives former Mexico President Vicente Fox who has most noticeably been a virulent critic to U.S. President Donald Trump since the American 2016 elections.

Main Stream Media Blames Schumer For Failed Shutdown

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder goes through an interview where CNN’s Brooke Baldwin presses Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) about what the Democrats got in return for shutting down the government. Even Brooke Baldwin is taken back by the spin. Other clips from CNN show that the onus lays at Schumer’s feet… what I mean by that is when you have lost CNN, you know you are in deep doo-doo.