Civil War-again?

[JohnH]

Looks like the politicians are doing much worse than the people they are demonizing. And all that hate talk they are stirring up seems almost calculated to distract from what they are doing.

Which is why I'm saying that instead of saying it's verboten to talk about some rather obvious things (such as 80,000 Somalis end up in Minneapolis yet a fraction of them somehow get involved in a billion dollars of fraud), perhaps we should be willing to talk about these things instead of leaving it up to politicians who decide to tackle it.

If they have evidence, let the politicians produce it in court, and let the guilty be convicted. If publicized hatred and retribution and shows of force and a police state replaces the justice system, we are all in trouble.

They did. A bunch of Somalians got convicted.

In the meantime, let's not do their work for them. It is not Kingdom work.

You're doubling down on "don't talk about this!!" again.

If a group of, say, Amish move into an area, such as they have in Wisconsin, generally speaking the outcome is not, a mere 30 years later, "Wow, a group of nearly entirely Amish people conspired to defraud the government of a billion dollars". This isn't said to say Somalis as people are somehow inherently bad. However, Amish and present-day Somalian values are quite different. One holds a rather strong stance that it's very, very wrong to defraud the government of a billion dollars, and would go out of its way not to protect members doing that. (Amish sometimes protect their own in different areas, but not when it comes to things like this.) Somali values are, apparently, different: one of the challenges of investigating this fraud is the code of omertà where it is very difficult to get people who know about the fraud going on to talk about it.

So perhaps we should be able to openly discuss that, instead of just saying "sorry, this is a forbidden topic." There are some serious problems with Somali culture, just as there are some problems with Amish culture too. We should be able to openly talk about these things.

[Bootstrap]

Actually, I don't think it's even a major hub, is it?

I don't know. WSJ seems to think so. https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/how- ... _permalink

I can't read the entire article, but the non-paywalled part seems to say it is a major conduit to Europe, not to the United States. And for cocaine, not for fentanyl. Even for cocaine, it seems to be a transit route for about 10% of the cocaine entering the United States, from what I read. The main transit routes are through central America and Mexico. The main producers are Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, and people involved in that protection are being pardoned.

Now suppose we really wanted to go after drug trafficking. Wouldn't we want to capture the boat, seize the cargo, and question the people on board to find out who the bigger fish are? If there were actually drugs on the boat, which we simply do not know.

I think that's more than "semantics".

Saying Venezuela is not a major "source" of drugs because most of the cocaine originates outside the country and just moves "through" Venezuela is certainly semantics.

But this war is being justified by fentanyl entering the United States, not cocaine entering Europe. And we do not normally shoot drug suspects on sight or bomb their vehicles, they are captured, evidence is gathered, and they are put on trial. The evidence is used to discover the rest of the network.

I think that is more than semantics.

What is the justification for bombing these boats and killing everyone on board, sinking the evidence and making sure there are no survivors who could testify at investigations?

[Bootstrap]

Looks like the politicians are doing much worse than the people they are demonizing. And all that hate talk they are stirring up seems almost calculated to distract from what they are doing.

Which is why I'm saying that instead of saying it's verboten to talk about some rather obvious things (such as 80,000 Somalis end up in Minneapolis yet a fraction of them somehow get involved in a billion dollars of fraud), perhaps we should be willing to talk about these things instead of leaving it up to politicians who decide to tackle it.

What we are doing right now is talking. I see no indication that this topic is verboten, you bring it up over and over again, just changing the group.

If they have evidence, let the politicians produce it in court, and let the guilty be convicted. If publicized hatred and retribution and shows of force and a police state replaces the justice system, we are all in trouble.

They did. A bunch of Somalians got convicted.

And they were guilty. Now if fraud is what we are actually concerned about, they should stop pardoning people who have committed major fraud, sometimes for much larger sums than these, and they should avoid even the appearance of committing major fraud themselves.

The legitimate target is fraud, not Somalis or other brown people.

In the meantime, let's not do their work for them. It is not Kingdom work.

You're doubling down on "don't talk about this!!" again.

Actually, I am saying this: as Christians, we should read up on what the Bible says about refugees and justice, learn from how Jesus treated people like this, and do the same. We should not spread hatred against groups like this. We should treat them like we would like to be treated.

If a group of, say, Amish move into an area, such as they have in Wisconsin, generally speaking the outcome is not, a mere 30 years later, "Wow, a group of nearly entirely Amish people conspired to defraud the government of a billion dollars".

Suppose someone read the news about Jeriah Mast and perhaps some other incidents of blatant sexual abuse involving plain people. Would it be logical to conclude that plain Mennonites and Amish are mostly sexual abusers? Should Christians promote that stereotype?

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[ken_sylvania]

Actually, I don't think it's even a major hub, is it?

I don't know. WSJ seems to think so. https://www.wsj.com/world/americas/how- ... _permalink

I can't read the entire article, but the non-paywalled part seems to say it is a major conduit to Europe, not to the United States. And for cocaine, not for fentanyl. Even for cocaine, it seems to be a transit route for about 10% of the cocaine entering the United States, from what I read. The main transit routes are through central America and Mexico. The main producers are Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, and people involved in that protection are being pardoned.

Now suppose we really wanted to go after drug trafficking. Wouldn't we want to capture the boat, seize the cargo, and question the people on board to find out who the bigger fish are? If there were actually drugs on the boat, which we simply do not know.

I think that's more than "semantics".

Saying Venezuela is not a major "source" of drugs because most of the cocaine originates outside the country and just moves "through" Venezuela is certainly semantics.

But this war is being justified by fentanyl entering the United States, not cocaine entering Europe. And we do not normally shoot drug suspects on sight or bomb their vehicles, they are captured, evidence is gathered, and they are put on trial. The evidence is used to discover the rest of the network.

I think that is more than semantics.

What is the justification for bombing these boats and killing everyone on board, sinking the evidence and making sure there are no survivors who could testify at investigations?

You claimed that Venezuela is not a major source of drugs, and I was simply pointing out that at least one major news outlet is reporting that they are a major drug conduit even if the drugs originate elsewhere. Last I knew cocaine is still considered a "drug". So yes, I think it is semantics to hand wave away Venezuela's part in the drug trade by saying they're not a major "source" simply because they are a transit hub rather than the actual origin of the product.

I'm not excusing or justifying the attacks on the boats.

[JohnH]

The legitimate target is fraud, not Somalis or other brown people.

Somalis have been granted preferential immigration treatment for a while. It’s legitimate to ask if this is a good or a bad thing, and policy does depend on national origin. It’s not wrong to make decisions based on national origin.

You seem to be saying it is. But when nearly all Medicaid and other similar benefits related fraud in Minnesota is conducted by Somalis, it’s worth finding out why that’s going on.

Actually, I am saying this: as Christians, we should read up on what the Bible says about refugees and justice, learn from how Jesus treated people like this, and do the same. We should not spread hatred against groups like this. We should treat them like we would like to be treated.

People who manage to migrate to a country in order to steal a billion dollars from the people there are not “refugees”. The Bible in the OT speaks of justice with harsh punishments for thieves.

I think removing such people back to Somalia is entirely reasonable. I do not see why they should remain in the United States. Is that unreasonable?

Suppose someone read the news about Jeriah Mast and perhaps some other incidents of blatant sexual abuse involving plain people. Would it be logical to conclude that plain Mennonites and Amish are mostly sexual abusers? Should Christians promote that stereotype?

Let’s go with a different example. Suppose the Amish move to Alberta, claiming they are persecuted in the U.S. because of some reason. Slick lawyers figure out schemes to get them given a special designation where they can basically migrate to Canada en masse. They end up being highly welfare dependent and chronically unemployed. (Somalians in Minnesota are estimated to be unemployed or underemployed at a rate of 80%.) Then it turns out some members of their community have schemed to defraud the Canadian government of a billion dollars.

They also bring problems of abuse with them including a code of silence of refusing to talk to outsiders about it. One of their doctors gets caught performing hundreds of ritual genital mutiliation practices, for example.

It would be very reasonable me to talk about it and say, “Hey, this people group isn’t thriving in Canada. It doesn’t benefit Canada to bring any more in. And we should expel those committing mass fraud, and look into deporting those who collaborated with mass fraud but not to the level to get a criminal conviction.”

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

[/quote]

If I were part of a people group engaging in that kind of mass fraud and deception, I’d try to do something about it. One of the problems with the investigation was so few Somalis would talk about what was going on. That’s a huge problem. We should not have concentrations of un-assimilated groups like that in America.

If the police or Feds came to me to ask me about allegations of welfare fraud, and I knew of people sharing my religion or ethnic group or race who were doing it, I would not decide to refuse to cooperate out of ethno-religious solidarity.

[Southerner]

The legitimate target is fraud, not Somalis or other brown people.

Somalis have been granted preferential immigration treatment for a while. It’s legitimate to ask if this is a good or a bad thing, and policy does depend on national origin. It’s not wrong to make decisions based on national origin.

You seem to be saying it is. But when nearly all Medicaid and other similar benefits related fraud in Minnesota is conducted by Somalis, it’s worth finding out why that’s going on.

Actually, I am saying this: as Christians, we should read up on what the Bible says about refugees and justice, learn from how Jesus treated people like this, and do the same. We should not spread hatred against groups like this. We should treat them like we would like to be treated.

People who manage to migrate to a country in order to steal a billion dollars from the people there are not “refugees”. The Bible in the OT speaks of justice with harsh punishments for thieves.

I think removing such people back to Somalia is entirely reasonable. I do not see why they should remain in the United States. Is that unreasonable?

Suppose someone read the news about Jeriah Mast and perhaps some other incidents of blatant sexual abuse involving plain people. Would it be logical to conclude that plain Mennonites and Amish are mostly sexual abusers? Should Christians promote that stereotype?

Let’s go with a different example. Suppose the Amish move to Alberta, claiming they are persecuted in the U.S. because of some reason. Slick lawyers figure out schemes to get them given a special designation where they can basically migrate to Canada en masse. They end up being highly welfare dependent and chronically unemployed. (Somalians in Minnesota are estimated to be unemployed or underemployed at a rate of 80%.) Then it turns out some members of their community have schemed to defraud the Canadian government of a billion dollars.

They also bring problems of abuse with them including a code of silence of refusing to talk to outsiders about it. One of their doctors gets caught performing hundreds of ritual genital mutiliation practices, for example.

It would be very reasonable me to talk about it and say, “Hey, this people group isn’t thriving in Canada. It doesn’t benefit Canada to bring any more in. And we should expel those committing mass fraud, and look into deporting those who collaborated with mass fraud but not to the level to get a criminal conviction.”

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

If I were part of a people group engaging in that kind of mass fraud and deception, I’d try to do something about it. One of the problems with the investigation was so few Somalis would talk about what was going on. That’s a huge problem. We should not have concentrations of un-assimilated groups like that in America.

If the police or Feds came to me to ask me about allegations of welfare fraud, and I knew of people sharing my religion or ethnic group or race who were doing it, I would not decide to refuse to cooperate out of ethno-religious solidarity.
[/quote]

I am heart broken at how political this is...can the mods plz move this thread to the politics forum.

[Bootstrap]

You claimed that Venezuela is not a major source of drugs, and I was simply pointing out that at least one major news outlet is reporting that they are a major drug conduit even if the drugs originate elsewhere. Last I knew cocaine is still considered a "drug". So yes, I think it is semantics to hand wave away Venezuela's part in the drug trade by saying they're not a major "source" simply because they are a transit hub rather than the actual origin of the product.

I'm not excusing or justifying the attacks on the boats.

A major drug conduit for cocaine to Europe. Not a major conduit for fentanyl to the United States. So the justification for this war is based on a lie.

If drugs are the reason for the war, it's Europe's war, not ours. If we want to fight fentanyl in the United States, it's the wrong country and the wrong drug and the wrong destination.

[ken_sylvania]

You claimed that Venezuela is not a major source of drugs, and I was simply pointing out that at least one major news outlet is reporting that they are a major drug conduit even if the drugs originate elsewhere. Last I knew cocaine is still considered a "drug". So yes, I think it is semantics to hand wave away Venezuela's part in the drug trade by saying they're not a major "source" simply because they are a transit hub rather than the actual origin of the product.

I'm not excusing or justifying the attacks on the boats.

A major drug conduit for cocaine to Europe. Not a major conduit for fentanyl to the United States. So the justification for this war is based on a lie.

Could be. I wasn't disagreeing with any of that, just the claim that Venezuela isn't a major source of drugs.

If drugs are the reason for the war, it's Europe's war, not ours. If we want to fight fentanyl in the United States, it's the wrong country and the wrong drug and the wrong destination.

I wonder what you'd say if somebody said the Russian invasion of Ukraine "is Ukraine's war, not the USA's". At any rate, whether the drugs are going to Europe or to the US, it's not my war.

[JohnH]

I should probably add that there are some fringe groups of plain people who commit crimes and try to stymie investigators. We recently opened a thread about one of them.

If they happened to also be claiming to be “refugees” and were migrants, not multigenerational US citizens, would fully support deporting / denaturalizing them.

People groups who have such values are incompatible with America and don’t belong here. If some people in those groups wish to change their values, then they are on the path to fitting in well as Americans, and I think they will find a good home here.

[Robert]

I think you have frequently tried to shut that kind of conversation down or distract from the subject when it involves people who are actually doing those things on a much larger scale.

Let's keep with I statements.