Civil War-again?

[Southerner]

U.S. policy is not to deport unaccompanied minors. Of course they will repatriate children to be reunited with their parents overseas etc

But no, policy is they don’t deport unaccompanied minors.

Where are you getting that from? Sources, please? Making the claim repeatedly and confidently doesn't make it a fact.

Between 2009 and 2023, there were about 483,432 removal cases involving unaccompanied minors in U.S. immigration courts.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10 ... 3251316528

In 2024, Mexico’s government reported that 28,270 minor children were deported from the U.S. to Mexico. About 11,302 were classified as unaccompanied:

https://www.jornada.com.mx/noticia/2025 ... -edad-8577

A removal case doesn’t mean someone is deported. As I said, policy is to avoid deporting children. They still have removal orders, as does everyone implicitly who has entered without proper inspection.

JohnH, what does any of this have to do w a "Civil War-again"? On and on and on and on and on....

[Southerner]

And on and on and on.

[Soloist]

And on and on and on.

Okay you can be the northerner and John can be the southerner! Now fight!

[Valerie]

Actually, Rosie still lives in Ireland and Ellen presently lives in the Cotswolds. Neither have returned to the US.

They both are a bad influence in their gay lifestyles - on national tv- there were many Hollywood people that threatened to leave if Trump won that I honestly felt we don’t need their influence. President Trump got the complete hatred of LGBTQ which he does not endorse as well as hatred from pro- abortion folks. I see their loud protests in our town & yelling at cars going by. Why do anti-Trump people act so violently? The spirit guiding them is troubling.

I am aware.

And regarding your anti-Trump comment, I have often wondered why pro-Trump people have acted so crazy...I was flying from the West Coast two days before January 6th and I will never forget how crazy some of the people acted who were travelling to DC.

Sooooo, one day. Thanks!

[JohnH]

JohnH, what does any of this have to do w a "Civil War-again"? On and on and on and on and on....

It’s a good example of why civil wars happen. Two opposing viewpoints who basically can’t agree on anything, and one of the sides accuses the other of every possible moral turpitude one can think of:

- Hating migrants
- Not following the Constitution
- Disobeying Bible teachings
- Being some kind of racist, nationalist, etc
- Wanting to hurt families and children.
- Repeating falsehoods
- Being dumb and easily influenced by social media

It would be amazing if the who keep repeating the above could take a step back and consider a more nuanced outlook.

[Bootstrap]

JohnH, what does any of this have to do w a "Civil War-again"? On and on and on and on and on....

It’s a good example of why civil wars happen. Two opposing viewpoints who basically can’t agree on anything, and one of the sides accuses the other of every possible moral turpitude one can think of:

- Hating migrants
- Not following the Constitution
- Disobeying Bible teachings
- Being some kind of racist, nationalist, etc
- Wanting to hurt families and children.
- Repeating falsehoods
- Being dumb and easily influenced by social media

It would be amazing if the who keep repeating the above could take a step back and consider a more nuanced outlook.

If we were following forum rules, we would be unable to hurl accusations against each other. And really, when we hurl broad accusations against "them", we aren't doing much different.

I think Galatians says this about civil war, at least among Christians:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Can we discuss current events in that spirit, or are we no different from the culture warriors around us?

Can we put the moderators out of a job?

[Bootstrap]

JohnH, what does any of this have to do w a "Civil War-again"? On and on and on and on and on....

It’s a good example of why civil wars happen. Two opposing viewpoints who basically can’t agree on anything, and one of the sides accuses the other of every possible moral turpitude one can think of:

- Hating migrants
- Not following the Constitution
- Disobeying Bible teachings
- Being some kind of racist, nationalist, etc
- Wanting to hurt families and children.
- Repeating falsehoods
- Being dumb and easily influenced by social media

It would be amazing if the who keep repeating the above could take a step back and consider a more nuanced outlook.

There’s one basic point that really matters: we need to talk about subjects, not sides, and not make things personal. When we do that, it's not a fight or a civil war.

Discussing what the Bible says or how the Constitution should be understood is not about accusing someone. The same is true for questioning claims or asking for evidence—that’s part of a normal conversation. And if we care about the Bible, the Constitution, or Truth, we need to be able to have these conversations, often from different perspectives.

Also, criticizing politicians or policies connected to a “side” isn’t the same thing as criticizing the people who support them. Disagreement doesn’t have to mean a fight. There are a lot of people here with a variety of opinions about various things, not just two "sides", and if everything is reduced to "my side" versus "your side", and "your side" is guilty of all of the problems, there's really no hope. If political "sides" are our main identity, then the Kingdom of God is a footnote.

If we can keep the focus on ideas instead of turning everything into personal or group accusations, it’s much easier to have a productive and respectful discussion. If we cannot do that, then useless fights are the only option.

[JohnH]

When I’m repeatedly told I don’t follow the OT teachings, am a racist, hate migrants, want to hurt families… it’s hard to have a reasonable conversation, Boot.

[Bootstrap]

When I’m repeatedly told I don’t follow the OT teachings, am a racist, hate migrants, want to hurt families… it’s hard to have a reasonable conversation, Boot.

I get that. If someone directly calls you a racist or says you hate migrants or want to hurt families, that’s personal, and I agree—it shuts conversation down fast. Nobody should be doing that. I think it is also against forum rules. I hope moderators would treat that as out of bounds.

But that’s actually the point I’m trying to make. Talking about whether a policy aligns with biblical teaching, or whether an argument fits the Constitution, isn’t the same thing as saying you are immoral or hateful. Those are subject-level disagreements, not personal accusations—unless they’re turned into “this is what you are.”

If every discussion about ideas, texts, or policies gets experienced as a judgment of character, then real conversation becomes impossible. And I don’t think that helps anyone, on any side. We are seeing a lot of that in the world around us. People seeing those who disagree with them as "the enemy", people who are not worth treating as people.

I’m not defending personal attacks. I’m arguing for keeping disagreement focused on ideas instead of turning it into claims about who someone is. That’s the only way discussion works at all. And we really DO need to be able to discuss what is biblical, what is moral, what is good, what is true, etc. We need to be able to disagree and explore things from various perspectives. Without turning it into a civil war.

[Bootstrap]

Because that rhetoric is false. The left is using that to “scare the public” . They are not doing ethnic cleansing and putting them in concentration camps and killing them like NAZIs did the Jews.

I agree that “Nazi” isn’t an accurate term, and using it just raises the temperature instead of helping the discussion.

It’s also not accurate to pretend nothing serious is happening. Whether we call them “concentration camps” or “prison camps,” the reality is that very large detention facilities are being built, they are boasting about how bad they are, calling them names like Alligator Alcatraz, promoting videos that show how harsh they can be.

Trump didn’t invent Homeland Security. nor ICE.

But this new paramilitary approach, "shock and awe", openly threatening people, tear gassing bystanders, arresting people for watching or recording them, breaking car windows, refusing to investigate when they shoot someone ... that's new.

ICE used to detain immigrants by knocking on their door at 5 a.m. and arresting them at home. They have the addresses, they can do that quietly. They used to avoid this kind of uproar. Now, they want dramatic videos. They want open conflict with local government and police, and play it up on media and social media. They threaten people who disagree with them.

None of this strikes me as pro-democracy. It looks more like an effort to gain power by heating things up, creating conflict, and then justifying emergency measures because of the chaos. I agree that Nazi is the wrong term, but this doesn't seem like pro-democracy either.