“There are millions of LEGAL immigrants from South of the border here. Wouldn’t illegal immigration be discrimination against them and their efforts to do it legally?”

No, I fail to see your logic here. And I note, you didn’t actually answer my questions. So I’ll ask them again:

Do you think race has nothing to do with attitudes about immigrants from Mexico and Central & South America?

“Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country.”

Really, how is that accomplished?

(and why is it relevant to this discussion?)

Ken, There are millions of LEGAL immigrants from South of the border here. Wouldn’t illegal immigration be discrimination against them and their efforts to do it legally? There are quite a few of them weighing in on this over at #walkaway on Facebook. You might find it interesting. Many of them do not see it as fair at all. Do they not matter?

“Nice try making it racial.”

You think race has nothing to do with attitudes about immigrants from Mexico and Central & South America?

“There also comes a time when people need to make their country better.”

And how would these immigrants go about doing that? Not long ago you were insinuating you were very knowledgeable about the immigrants and there situation. Apparently you don’t seem to know much about the situations they are coming from.

“There is an interesting study from Harvard showing something like 80% of African Americans do not want illegal immigration.”

I thought you weren’t “impressed with social science professors these days”?

“Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country.”

Really, how is that accomplished?

(and why is it relevant to this discussion?)

yes, it is important to NOT use the SPLC list as a binary setting (Hate group/Not Hate group), because their are varying degrees. And the SPLC is very good about documenting why a group is on the list.

You have the PC terminology down.

All that attitude about “PC” in your comment was over his use of the term “people of color?” There is a difference between wanting illegal immigration and understanding why most people do it. None of it justifies demonizing human beings whose only crime is entering the US without due process to escape dire or deadly circumstances.

We need a comprehensive, humane response to the issue,yes. But this is far from our greatest problem at the moment and a wall is not the solution anyway. Your argument is long on emotion and short on facts, which is why it is not particularly persuasive. You chastise Warren for pointing out the racist component of the data you were asking us to consider as a source, yet you accuse him of being detached and not caring about the working poor.

Perhaps he should have just thrown a fit over your use of the PC term “working poor.” And because an individual themselves cannot afford to sponsor an immigrant, you imply they have no right to any input on the issue. I’m thinking that you are not unfamiliar with speaking in your own “echo chamber.”

You have the PC terminology down. Nice try making it racial. I don’t think you got the memo that labeling and marginalizing those who disagree with shame censoring isn’t working as well as it used to. Go spend some testimoniala at #walkaway. My guess is if what you say about illegals were correct they would ALWAYS go to a point of entry.

It’s naive to think they don’t know how our system operates better than we do. There also comes a time when people need to make their country better. The silliest thing people do is romanticize it all as you do. I can always tell when I am talking to people who do not live among it daily. Perhaps you hire them to work your yard. You do not live among it like the working poor (of all colors shapes and sizes) do. As I can’t link from this device, there is an interesting study from Harvard showing something like 80% of African Americans do not want illegal immigration. As an expert social scientist who uses proper PC language, I suspect you might have already read it. There are other studies that are equally surprising. So which “People of Color” will you choose? Sad people can’t be individuals anymore. They have to be put in a political identity group for virtue signaling. Just remember that you can sponsor people into this country. But that would mean putting your money where your mouth is.

Of course, those problems exist, but I think existing structures are in place to deal with them. Catch the bad guys but don’t turn all asylum seekers aside. And certainly don’t use false data to make people of color look like they are “invading” our country. They are doing what you and I would do if we faced what they face — leave to find a safer life for our children.

My goodness if you are worried about bias, then don’t listen to FAIR which was started by a white supremacist.

I said I “appreciated your work” on church charlatans. I did not say, “good source”. I think you are too obviously partisan to be a good source. That is just an opinion given in your echo chamber. And, I would imagine, a really good social scientist would recognize the inherent problems of drug cartels, human traffickers and exploitive coyotes for children taken on such a trek. Yes. We need a serious wall for many reasons. Too many illegal teens here are offering free “hits” (heroin) to bring on new customers for the cartels. Teens! It’s a big problem here. The wall is just one deterrent. It’s a start.

And I say that as someone who disagrees with just about everything Grudem teaches. I suppose we both believe there is a God. Lol.

The fact that you don’t think any illegals receive welfare of any kind shows your suburban elitism and ignorance so you can virtue signal your idea of moral superiority. Ok. Then. You know them as your roofer or gardener. I get it. I suggested you start with the center for immigration studies site but I doubt it fits your virtue signaling shallow faux Christianity standards of reputable. And I will try hard to get over your disappointment. (Wink)

You are aware you can sponsor immigrants, right? Why not put your money wherever your mouth is and stop moralizing what others should think?

The Politico piece is mostly opinion, but that’s fine. Read the information presented by the SPLC, verify it with third party sources and decide for yourself. There may be some close calls, but the case against FAIR and CIS is not one of them. There is no nuance on these, and it’s not as if the SPLC just prints a list with a name on it expecting us to trust that alone. Read the facts and check them out.

We’ve had bonafide KKK members serve in congress. There is little doubt we have members right now with essentially white supremacist views. That an organization like FAIR with a carefully crafted image has managed to testify before them is sad, but unfortunately not surprising.