MennoNet.com

Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 9:34 am If no person is “illegal”, no person is “undocumented” either. They could bring their documentation with them.

Some people simply don’t have visas that authorise them to work in another country. And some don’t have visas authorising them to enter at all.

Before someone enters another country, they should plan ahead for how to pay for shelter, food, and so forth. America has a crisis right now with unaffordable housing so it doesn’t make sense for anyone in dire straits to enter here. Why not stay in a place with a lower cost of living?

Immunization requirements. The immoral temptations are huge. For politics. Utter degeneracy of politics.

The Hutus called Tutsi cockroaches, Jews were called vermin and an infestation, the Russians are invading their neighbors to fight Nazis, the enemies of the US have been red men without souls, godless commies, huns, japs and gooks, African Americans have continually been called monkeys. All this precedes and facilitates tragedy. In the build up to the first Iraq invasion, my pastor pointed out Saddam Hussein was being called a "mad man" who must be "put down like a rabid dog" and he warned against dehumanization. I wish there were more pastors like him today, the sheep are wandering into dangerous territory.

Calling groups of people names such as cockroaches, vermin, etc. is dehumanizing. However there is a big difference between the names you listed, than identifying the status of a person. Is identifying a person who committed a crime, as a "criminal", dehumanizing? Is saying a person who consistently speeds, as a "speeder", dehumanizing? On a different level, here in Lancaster county we have many different kinds of Mennonites. They are often identified with the conference they are with. Weaverland Conference are either the "black bumpers" or "Hornings", Groffdale Mennonites are identified as "Joe Wengers" or "horse and buggy Mennonites", Mid-Atlantic Conference are known as the "Homer Bombergers" and Stauffer Mennonites as "Pikers". Identifying a group of people is not dehumanizing. So why is it dehumanizing illegal immigrants as just that, "illegal immigrants".

POTUS regrets he called an illegal immigrant, "illegal". Yet he never reached out to, nor expressed regret to Laken Riley's parents on a personal level for the brutal murder of their daughter. He never expressed regret that this murderer was allowed into this country illegally. He doesn't reach out to the families of multiple others who were killed or harmed by illegal immigrants. But he did voice his regret on prime time news about his terms used for a brutal murderer. Quite different than than his reaction to the death of George Floyd.

Grace:
So why is it dehumanizing illegal immigrants as just that, "illegal immigrants".

Obvious+blatant political posturing.
As DanZ spoke to above, exploiting SOTU for CAMPAIGNING, dividing, not uniting.

biden has (been used) to do so much harm from the White House bully pulpit.
Even in his compromised condition, his habits of decades of politics are so ingrained, he can still manage to blurt them out.

Careful, tho. Much worse is lined up right behind him.

Would the term “lawbreaker” be better?

Or “intruder”?

temporal1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:31 am

Grace:
So why is it dehumanizing illegal immigrants as just that, "illegal immigrants".

Obvious+blatant political posturing.
As DanZ spoke to above, exploiting SOTU for CAMPAIGNING, dividing, not uniting.

Republicans do this... the former president did this in his rants (official or otherwise and often more incoherent) all the time. In fact, We would all be doing the same thing if we happened to be in that position. Some of us, in these forums, sound rather 'presidential' as it has come to be defined/exhibited in this era.

Jazman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:38 am

temporal1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:31 am

Grace:
So why is it dehumanizing illegal immigrants as just that, "illegal immigrants".

Obvious+blatant political posturing.
As DanZ spoke to above, exploiting SOTU for CAMPAIGNING, dividing, not uniting.

Republicans do this... the former president did this in his rants (official or otherwise and often more incoherent) all the time. In fact, We would all be doing the same thing if we happened to be in that position. Some of us, in these forums, sound rather 'presidential' as it has come to be defined/exhibited in this era.

As i think Dan was alluding to, SOTUs, traditionally, have been moments when presidents attempted to address Congress and the country for unity, good will, even if it required some imagination. SOTUs, generally, were not “politics as usual.”

DJT did surprisingly well, with SOTU and formal speeches, to a largely unappreciative audience.

My use of the word, “presidential,” is also reference to former times when presidents were expected to be presidents of ALL legal U.S. citizens.

In his earliest speeches, obama did a nice job of sounding presidential. unfortunately, he morphed into the biden/clinton schtick, and became divisive in his speeches, even overseas. i recall appleman being a bit perplexed at some of obama’s “less than presidential” speeches overseas.

DJT can be rough and silly. But when it comes to formal speeches, he does well. In words and presentation.

i hope the old ways are not forgotten. They’re encouraging and useful. For domestic and foreign politics.

Josh wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:41 am Would the term “lawbreaker” be better?
Or “intruder”?

Invader? Good question.
Esp considering self-serving politicians bait them to commit crimes. Pawns?! - that, for sure.

Idea:
Let’s keep the illegals, deport worthless double-talking politicians!

Jazman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 6:38 am

temporal1 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2024 11:31 am

Grace:
So why is it dehumanizing illegal immigrants as just that, "illegal immigrants".

Obvious+blatant political posturing.
As DanZ spoke to above, exploiting SOTU for CAMPAIGNING, dividing, not uniting.

Republicans do this... the former president did this in his rants (official or otherwise and often more incoherent) all the time. In fact, We would all be doing the same thing if we happened to be in that position. Some of us, in these forums, sound rather 'presidential' as it has come to be defined/exhibited in this era.

Note that some of us aren’t defending the former President here (I think a few of the non-Anabaptist posters may be, though). I prefer to judge the sitting President in isolation.

Josh wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2024 8:34 amNote that some of us aren’t defending the former President here (I think a few of the non-Anabaptist posters may be, though). I prefer to judge the sitting President in isolation.

That is fine, but that is not the point of this thread. This is a thread about State of the Union Addresses.
Perhaps a discussion about the "sitting president in isolation" could be taken up elsewhere...

And for those who have forgotten the topic of the OP, and have turned this thread into the usual partisan rhetoric, I suppose I will need to post my usual appeal.

Please keep partisan comments/debates out of this thread - avoid comments that reflect negatively on either right-leaning or left leaning political persuasions or characters. Please keep this thread focused on the topic.