Wednesday, June 11, 2025

Riots should be suppressed swiftly and harshly

In an article at Postliberal Order, I argue that the Trump administration has the right under natural law to intervene to suppress riots of the kind seen in Los Angeles this week.

Posted by at

127 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 11, 2025 at 9:37 AM

    Excellent article and very much needed, Ed. This should also help your MAGA detractors realize that you are not a Never-Trumper who reflexively criticizes whatever Trump does. I am the Anonymous who started the sub-chain regarding Trump deserving credit for his opposition to critical theory DEI. I agree with your critique of Trump on the abortion issue. It does seem to me [and Britt Hume and others] that many of Trump's opponents have become so deranged that they now reveal their hatred of the U.S.A. They did not wait until Trump went after immigrants whose only offense was entering the country illegally; instead they oppose deporting violent criminals who are here illegally, and they oppose it by threatening ICE and law enforcement. Madness which must be dealt with strongly or we have no nation left.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 11, 2025 at 11:10 AM

    https://apnews.com/article/rodney-king-riots-national-guard-los-angeles-69114889118a85f8f29c4d76c076a45f

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/11/los-angeles-protest-history

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 11, 2025 at 1:51 PM

      Excellent articles that explain what is happening in L.A. and how it compares to the past.

      Delete
  3. Vini TadeoJune 11, 2025 at 12:11 PM

    Nobody waves the Mexican flags harder than people who themselves refuse to live there.

    These guys are CRIMINALS. It is appalling and incomprehensible that they are even allowed to be called Americans at all. The US is more than a Country; it's an Idea. They are challenging and actively trying to destroy the social order and must not be tolerated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJune 11, 2025 at 2:01 PM

    What is the difference between an acceptable and unacceptable protest?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vini TadeoJune 12, 2025 at 3:47 AM

      Not setting cars on fire and not throwing rocks at the police are a great start to the distinction between what an acceptable protest should be.

      Delete
    2. WOLF BRONSKYJune 12, 2025 at 4:59 PM

      Well, that was easy!

      Delete
  5. The Great Thurible of DarknessJune 11, 2025 at 2:51 PM

    Come on. The rhetoric being used by Republicans (and Dr. Feser) around these protests is pure hysteria, calling it an "insurrection" or foreign invasion or claiming at that riots "openly and brazenly [show] contempt for the law, and for the police and public officials who are sworn to uphold it," as though the public nature of throwing a brick through a car window makes it an act of supreme anarchy and a rejection of all human social obligation rather than... you know, just ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation. The real problem here is obviously not the act (after all, Trump himself loves a good riot when he thinks his followers can get away with it) but the motivation behind the riots; the crime of daring to dissent from the conservative view on immigration. It frustrates Republicans to no end that California openly defies their preferred approach to immigation control, and since Republicans are constantly predicting complete societal collapse as a consequence for illegal immigation, they *need* that to be what's happening in California. Never mind the fact that there have been no confirmed deaths and scarcely any injuries, or that Trump fairly obviously sees this as a chance to humiliate a political rival by playing the strongman, and that he therefore (to quote a slightly notorious post by Dr. Feser on the 2020 election) has the means, motive, and opportunity to escalate the crisis for his own gain. No, let's just beat our chests and pretend like a perceived threat to "the state" nullifies the principle of subsidiarity, start screaming for Daddy Trump to save us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 11, 2025 at 7:03 PM

      Lordy! Any obstruction of federal law enforcement is legally considered an act of violence, injuries or no, and the federal government has legal authority to enforce immigration law, since it pertains to the whole of the state, not a constituent part.

      Delete
    2. bmillerJune 11, 2025 at 8:00 PM

      Hi Thurible,

      Doesn't the "ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation" reject one's "human social obligation"?

      Aren't there other ways than rioting "to dissent from the conservative view on immigration"?

      Finally, are you claiming that Trump is responsible for planning and executing the riots? If that is the case, then why would you defend the rioters motivations since you've also indicated that they are complicit in Trump's evil scheme?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 12, 2025 at 9:50 AM

      If California wants to have open borders then that's the kind of "dissent from the conservative view on immigration" that, rather than being supported by the principle of subsidiarity, calls for a squashing. Since, clearly, the Californian state is showing itself inept to deal with immigration. And if there weren't an immigration problem, there wouldn't be rioters.

      Delete
    4. MPJune 12, 2025 at 1:22 PM

      On its own, setting cars on fire might not be the worst of crimes, but it is an especially sure and obvious sign that we are not dealing with a just rebellion or protest. If fact, it is a sign we are not even dealing with an unjust rebellion that is still effective.

      If we see that there are dead bodies around the protesters, it might still be that they got killed on accident, or that those are people whom the protestors considered spies, or dead protestors. If we see that protestors are throwing Molotov cocktails or stones into police, it might still be that this is a just rebellion, we still have to investigate further. Even setting houses on fire might still be meant as a punishment directed to some specific people thought to be guilty of some specific crimes.

      But setting random cars on fire obviously does not help to achieve any goals of a just rebellion or protest.

      It is just destruction for the sake of destruction. It is as if someone was desperately trying to provide a counterexample to the proposition that every voluntary human action is directed to some good.

      Thus, in a way, such "protestors" are shown not to be merely criminals, but something closer to "hostis humani generis".

      You might note that if we look at rebellions that actually achieved their objectives, you will find a suspicious lack of cars being set on fire. Look at Wikipedia's articles about Euromaidan, resistance to 1991 Soviet coup attempt, Ceaușescu's final speech, even October Revolution. Where are the images of burning cars?

      Delete
    5. TonyJune 13, 2025 at 3:50 PM

      is pure hysteria, calling it an "insurrection" or foreign invasion or claiming at that riots "openly and brazenly [show] contempt for the law, and for the police and public officials who are sworn to uphold it,"

      Just how, exactly, is throwing a brick through a car window in broad daylight in front of law enforcement NOT contempt for the law and for the police who were watching as you contemptuously violated the law?

      Let's be clear here: it's one thing to peacefully protest (which is legal), and another thing to destroy property as the mechanism of your protest. Speaking out, marching, etc, makes your opinion known to those paying attention, and to those who had the occasion to be near your protest. That's what protests are for, making your opinion - and your discontent - known, by words and actions geared to speech. The speech is legal, and protected activity.

      Making your discontent known not by WORDS but by breaking things (that belong to others) is per se immoral and is illegal. It's a different KIND of act than speech to make your POV known. The intent on breaking the law isn't an accidental adjunct that just happens to be attached to speaking, it is the chosen means of expressing your view. By choosing that means, you are intrinsically expressing contempt for the law and for the people present whose office is to defend the law, and moreover that contempt is that you intend to express.

      rather than... you know, just ordinary wanton property damage with a political motivation.

      That's just it: willing wanton property damage with political motivation JUST IS an intent to be a society wrecker.

      Most (but not all) of the rioters who have been hoodwinked into the "let's riot to express our discontent" concept may not be explicitly aware of the nature of their action, but their action HAS that nature all the same: "Society" and "law" are not simply a collection of legos that have been accumulated over time, where you can - at will - just re-arrange the pieces however you feel like. Customs and laws are an interwoven fabric of many layers and dimensions, and damage to some of the threads always affects many other parts. Wantonly slicing into the fabric with disregard for its interconnectedness means you cannot readily predict how far the damage will go before the rest of the fabric resists further damage. You cannot intelligibly say "I only meant to bring down a small part of society, (which I don't like), not the whole thing." Throughout history, many small rebellions ended up having far-reaching (and far-destroying) consequences, because one damage leads to another. (For want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.)

      It is LIKELY that THIS time, an intentionally fomented riot will bring down the CA or US government? No, not likely. But it is likely that doing that will have short range consequences that damage respect for law, which has other consequences that cause more bad laws being made, which has other consequences (like more bad police being hired), which, etc....which then is one of the factors that eventually brings about a destructive revolution. You don't have to predict that THIS riot will bring down society, to note that rioting is of such a nature as to tend toward that result, of its very nature. The fact that many actors in society will try to oppose that destruction - and this time will probably succeed - doesn't change that.

      Delete
  6. aliciaJune 12, 2025 at 7:11 PM

    To break up the rioters why don't the police work with the Catholic Church... get some loudspeakers and blast the rioters with music by Marty Haugen and Dan Schuette?

    Just imagine: they're all angry doing riot stuff and what have you, then their ears are flooded with "Sing a New Song". They pause for a moment, confused, looking around. They go back to their prior occupation of breaking this and tagging that... and then, "Gather Us In". They start shaking their heads to get some space from the suffocating lyrics of a Haugen. By the time "We Are Many Parts" comes on they are sapped of all their strength.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Miguel CervantesJune 12, 2025 at 9:08 PM

    The rhetoric used by Trump at Fort Bragg to justify calling in the army was demeaning to the soldiers attending. To call a few hundred femonazis with rings in their noses an invasion of aliens is truly silly. Riot police exist to deal with riots. Getting the army in to deal with US citizens burning a few boxes is just a cruel joke - for the army, for the "rioters", for everybody. Of course, this is good politics for Trump in his constituencies far away from the pretexts. Careful there. Five minutes of expediency could break the US. Good work Commander in Chief. Nobody has quite done that yet. Oh well, the horrific misdemeanor of irregular residency must justify it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 13, 2025 at 7:52 AM

      Miguel Cervantes,

      Gee. If the rioters are helping Trump politically and you don't want to help Trump politically, then shouldn't you complain that the rioters should stop rioting instead of dismissing them as inconsequential?

      TDS

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 3:55 PM

      Yes, his speech to carefully vetted members of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg was an hour long political rant, where he again claimed the 2020 election was stolen from him.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 3:56 PM

      If speech was demeaning why did all the news hours report that he was cheered.

      Delete
    4. Miguel CervantesJune 13, 2025 at 6:52 PM

      No, because the outcome is going to be less importance for the woke mob, a downgrade for the WASP/Trump agenda, and more consciousness for Hispanics. When WASPs moved (through illicit mass migration) into that part of the world, they bought into all of this.

      Delete
    5. bmillerJune 14, 2025 at 8:15 AM

      Miguel,

      I see. So you're saying the rioters are helping Trump politically and not helping Trump politically.

      Also illicit mass migration should be allowed, but it is also a bad thing.

      I wonder if you listen to yourself.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 8:27 AM

      Getting the army in to deal with US citizens burning a few boxes is just a cruel joke

      News reports indicate buildings damaged and a few destroyed, dozens of businesses looted, and $23M in damages. That's not "a few boxes". Fireworks rockets and molotov cocktails sent directly into police isn't "a few boxes". Stop being silly.

      Riot police exist to deal with riots.

      Actually, mayors have asked for, and governors have provided, National Guard units to handle riots, for a long time. Newsom did so 5 years ago. These same National Guard are also called on to deploy for oversees combat missions at times: they are military units. And riot police operational methods are not really much to prefer over National Guard. Quote from AP:

      a teacher from South Central Los Angeles, said she vividly remembers as a teen seeing black smoke from her porch during the 1992 uprisings.

      She said some people in her neighborhood were still more afraid of the police than the National Guard because once the troops left, local police “had the green light to continue brutalizing people.”

      The difference here is not especially the character of the units being sent in, but more that they were sent by the President, not with the governor's consent but against it. But this not the first time that has happened, either: Eisenhower did it in 1957 to enforce desegregation, and Kennedy did it in 1963.

      There is certainly some gray area here: it isn't a massive protest killing hundreds of people, but both the mayor or the governor seems to want ICE and the US government to fail in carrying out its lawful mission of deporting violent illegal aliens and they apparently don't really mind some lawless violence to bring that about, and it was certainly a nationally organized arrangement. There is a similarity to the governors who wanted desegregation to fail. Maybe Trump is playing up the level of danger a bit, but Newsom himself made a political ploy that set the groundwork. They kind of deserve each other.

      Delete
    7. AnymouseJune 14, 2025 at 9:07 AM

      When WASPs moved (through illicit mass migration) into that part of the world,

      Pure BS. The vast majority of European immigration into the US before the 1920s was legal. And the vast majority of Anglo movement into the US southwest (which mainly occurred after the US obtained the land from Mexico) was of already-legally-American anglos. While there were some illegal anglos who immigrated to the southwest after the US got a serious immigration limitation policy (e.g. the 1924 Act), it wasn't an illicit mass migration, and the vast majority of illegal immigration into the southwest after that was by Hispanics.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 4:54 PM

      "AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 3:56 PM
      If speech was demeaning why did all the news hours report that he was cheered."
      Because all those who attended were pre-screened :
      https://www.military.com/daily-news/2025/06/11/bragg-soldiers-who-cheered-trumps-political-attacks-while-uniform-were-checked-allegiance-appearance.html

      Delete
    9. Miguel CervantesJune 14, 2025 at 8:14 PM

      Hello there George. Good to see you firing on three pistons at least.
      Miller, the answer is to both questions is yes. The ability to make distinctions is vital to good discussion.
      Anonymous/e, yes, just a few boxes. Compare to the Champions League riot in Paris, which the Gendarmes handily dealt with despite more than 500 incinerated cars. Its all politics. After getting his headlines, Trump is now calling off the raids on restaurants, farms and clothes manufacturers. He knows too well that deporting all these hardworking misdemeanour dooers will indeed Make America Poor Again, real quick.
      But the nonsense will go on. Silly WASP dislike of the Hispanic, Catholic world will keep Trump/Vance/Miller rattling that cage until they really get what they didn’t want.

      WASP's moved into this part of the word via mass illicit immigration in the nineteenth century, allowing them to violently takeover what is now the SW of the US.

      Delete
    10. bmillerJune 15, 2025 at 11:03 AM

      Miguel,

      I agree that "The ability to make distinctions is vital to good discussion." But since you haven't told us what distinctions you have in mind we are left with contradictions.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 3:37 AM

      I can see the distinctions, but I'm not going to tell you if you can't work it out. Would you like a handkerchief?

      Delete
    12. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 10:40 AM

      Thanks for the offer anonymous person, but I'm good. I'm glad you think you can see unarticulated distinctions, but I'd rather not guess so I'll wait for the author to respond.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 1:30 AM

      Yes. It's quite highbrow round here.

      Delete
  8. Catholic WorkerJune 13, 2025 at 10:12 AM

    It would be great if conservatives who agree with this article would then stop yapping about how China handled Tiananmen Square, or how any communist country deals with counter-revolutionary protests.

    As Feser puts it, "riots are not like criminal activity of the kind best dealt with patiently and subtly. Of their nature they require an immediate and severe response."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 13, 2025 at 11:11 AM

      Catholic Worker,

      Since you are good with how any communist country deals with counter-revolutionary protests, then are you good with Trump's use of federal force in this situation?

      Delete
    2. MPJune 13, 2025 at 1:42 PM

      So, how many cars did the protestors in Tiananmen Square burn?

      "Riot" is not a synonym of "Protest" or "Rebellion".

      If the "protestors" would be trying to overthrow the Federal government, to get California to secede, to get ICE to stop enforcing the immigration laws, we would still have to check if their goal is just or unjust.

      But none of those goals is furthered by setting random cars on fire.

      Instead, serious rebels might consider stealing the cars, stealing the fuel to make Molotov cocktails, moving the cars to make a barricade... But setting them on fire in random positions is just pointless destruction, proving that those "protestors" are merely rioting for the sake of rioting (with any grievances they might be claiming to have being a mere pretext) - and that warrants a harsh response.

      As I noted before, somehow even October Revolution did not require setting cars on fire.

      Delete
  9. AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 11:17 AM

    The violence in L.A has been greatly exaggerated to suit Trump's authoritarian agenda.
    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-06-11/ice-protests-images-los-angeles-distort-reality

    ReplyDelete
  10. SMackJune 13, 2025 at 11:23 AM

    I couldn't read the whole article, so am responding to what I could read and to what I surmise was said from this and that, plus what I saw excerpted elsewhere.

    I think the situation is more complicated than this. First, unless you think that the US has never adequately handled riots before, then it's certainly striking that Trump escalated so quickly, and so much more quickly than anyone in the past.

    In particular, it seems to me there is a real question -- one we will never now get answered -- whether that did not, in fact, accelerate and worsen the riots. It was certainly not unreasonable to interpret it as a provocation, and provocations in delicate times are foolish, not wise; destructive of the societal order, not conducive to its healing.

    Next, there is a real question about the difference between protesting and rioting. This seems to be complicated. Many of those present seem to be protesting in an acceptable and peaceful way. Yet our country now has a group of hardened agitators who will try to turn any protest into a riot, it seems (especially on the left, though I foresee that spreading to the right). Undoubtedly the rioters must be dealt with, and harshly, and yet the government should and must keep in mind who the enemy is, here, what their goals are, and that in a sense both sides (protesters and government) should want these agitators brought down and brought to justice.

    I don't see Mr. Trump's rhetoric to be in any way sensitive of that, or anything other than dishonest and likely to agitate worse.

    Next, Mr. Trump is clearly interested in calling this an "insurrection," and I think that if one is honest, it's pretty clear that the reason he's interested in that is so that he can invoke the insurrection act and take unprecedented steps of exercising power against Americans at home. This is a purely authoritarian impulse, in line with many of his other actions. To ignore this dynamic here seems culpably naive, to me. Every authoritarian is looking for a crisis in which to permanently step up exercise of state power. To ignore this and to encourage one to act any more harshly than necessary -- not that some harshness is not, in fact, required here -- is exceptionally irresponsible at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 14, 2025 at 9:13 AM

      SMack,

      You make some good observations with some balance. Let me add some things I think you missed.

      This is not the first time we've seen these types of organized riots spiral out of control so it is not unreasonable to predict that this one too would have without the National Guard being called in. So Trump could have kept hands off like last time or take action like this time. I like the odds of much less death and destruction with the Guard in control. The left won't stop calling him a dictator in either case, so they've essentially given him nothing to lose on that front.

      Regarding provocations. The rioters (and Newsom's inaction) was the proximate provocation of Trump action of calling in the National Guard (and by the way this type of action is not unprecedented). It's certain that the organizers and their compatriots saw this possibility are were ready with the pre-written "Trump is Hitler" press releases. I don't think anyone who has been paying attention doesn't already know this.

      Taxpayers are paying a group of NGOs to stage protests and riots, paying for the destruction the rioters cause, paying for the police to stand around watching the destruction and then paying more for LE to end the destruction. I'm pretty sure taxpayers are also paying for the embedded LE in the rioting group.

      It's all a really bad (and unoriginal) theater performance that we're all forced to pay for.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 15, 2025 at 10:03 PM

      Next, there is a real question about the difference between protesting and rioting. This seems to be complicated.

      It's not really that complicated. In a peaceful protest, people hold signs, march, chant slogans, call out evil behavior and evil people, and obey lawful order. In a disorderly but still non-violent protest, the protestors don't first get permission to use the park or street, but then they do all above stuff. They cause disruption by being in places where they didn't have license to be (e.g. blocking city streets) but not by violence or destruction. In a petty destructive protest, people engage in MINOR acts of vandalism, e.g. strewing trash around, along with the above, and generally run away from the police in order not to be caught, but they don't FIGHT with the police. When you have people destroying cars, street equipment, trashing stores and other private buildings, and engage the police with active resistance by fighting or similar means, there you have a violent protest with "modest" damage. When you have people burning buildings and cars, and EVEN A FEW people are killed, and many police are directly threatened with injury or death, that's a riot.

      I have gone to the March for Life protests a couple dozen times: there was never a shred of violence or destruction of anyone's property. It's easy to protest without it getting out of hand. If destruction and violence are occurring widely, it's because some people want it to.

      Delete
    3. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 9:21 AM

      Good example Anonymous.

      The National March for Life annually protests the intrinsically evil act of killing innocent people without violence or disorder of any kind.

      I'll bet all of the LA rioters are also abortion supporters.

      Delete
  11. AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 2:36 PM

    Just so long as you also agree that the right to speak, to assemble publicly and to protest should be protected, and that the actions of a few idiots don’t cancel the rights of the others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 9:59 AM

      Actually, the actions of a few idiots CAN restrict the rights of others - at least temporarily. For example, the LA Mayor imposed a curfew, surely a restriction, on account of the disorders. More generally, when a riot has broken out, the rights of peaceful protestors can be temporarily set aside to quell the riot: the government can tell them that they can protest some other time or some other place, but not right now in the middle of chaos. Insisting that you have a right to continue to protest right there, after violent agitators have fomented destruction of property and reckless endangerment of persons, is just dumb.

      Because it is now clear that the same underlying groups of agitators have pushed the violence agenda for years, (having a hand in other violent events e.g. BLM) it is problematic to turn a blind eye to the connectedness of the protest movement here being pushed, and the organized violence of these background players. Each individual protest might have some (maybe most) innocent persons who just want to protest, but some of them want chaos and disorder, and some of the organizing people explicitly want the violence. These are not spontaneous protests that just happen to all occur at the same time to urge "no king".

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 12:10 PM

      Surely "spontaneity" isn't a pre-requisite for the exercise of one's constitutional rights.

      I don't know if I've ever participated in a protest before the first election of our current president. But I've witnessed or participated in local demonstrations such as BLM, the Women's March, and No Kings, and I've personally never seen a single act of violence, or its aftermath.

      I wouldn't have bothered to even post here were it not for our current president's threatening that anyone who protested--just protested-- against his military parade should expect to be opposed with force. I know he's not exactly a master of nuance, but the clear implication was "Sit down and shut up."

      Sorry, by the way, to be posting anonymously. The name is Rick Allen. My url was found invalid, repeatedly, for some reason.

      Delete
    3. MPJune 14, 2025 at 3:17 PM

      Also, peaceful protestors could just keep the order themselves, restraining the rioters. It is not unheard-of.

      But, of course, in order for that to happen, the peaceful protesters have to want the order.

      Delete
  12. AnonymousJune 13, 2025 at 6:47 PM

    Both sides are being told different stories, seeing different "movies", and being fed different narratives about what is going on. Be wary that you diligently check both sides - forming your judgment on the basis of partial or heavily biased information (say, information that plays up, or plays down, the seriousness and extent of violence going on) is a very bad idea. Remember that both sides are trying to sell you a story, and act accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. beekeeper177June 14, 2025 at 5:43 AM

    I'm not against harshly suppressing riots in principle, but what if they are or they will be methods of suppressing riots relatively non-harshly, or with less harshness? I mean riot control methods that specialized police units use. There are ways of using specific tactics and strategies, psychology etc. so that riot can be delt with effectively, but with less harshness than just using brute-force methods, like unspecialized units may use. For example skillfully using verbal communication, combined with threats, deescalating violence, targeting specific individuals that incite and escalate violence (not all demonstrators may be violent), skillfully dispersing crowds. High levels of harshness (especially undiscriminatory) may be inflamatory, escalate violence, make demonstrators radicalized and because of this reasons less harsh methods can sometimes be more effective in dispersing a crowd. All im saying is we have specialized units for a reason and their specialization is not in being more brutal necessarly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 14, 2025 at 12:24 PM

      Hi beekeeper177,

      Do you have some examples of these techniques, who uses them and where they have been used effectively? Do you think that the LAPD, the National Guard and Marines are unaware of these technics?

      I doubt that anyone, especially Dr Feser, thinks indiscriminate harshness is morally acceptable. And I wonder what US LE organizations think it is effective to brutalize everyone. I'll want to stay out of that town.

      Delete
  14. ficino4mlJune 14, 2025 at 6:04 AM

    1. Relatively few demonstrators are "rioters." Justice requires that a response to people destroying property (or worse) not spill into wholesale violent actions by state personnel against non-violent demonstrators. To bring in the military at an early stage, when the LAPD is already trained in handling such disturbances, requires justification more nuanced than a blanket invocation of Natural Law.
    2. Inclusion of the modifier "harsh" runs on thin ice. It's VERY easy for the harshness to become a desideratum as a feature not a bug. A state that begins to value harshness as such begins to sow the seeds of its own weakness. Look at Iran. "Harsh" as a piece of rhetoric is not needed for police actions to be swift and just--those will deter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 14, 2025 at 11:50 AM

      ficino4ml,

      I couldn't read the entire article because I don't subscribe.

      Did Dr Feser claim he favored violent actions against non-violent demonstrators? And did he merely invoke a blanket invocation of Natural Law as the only reason for approving bringing in the National Guard early?

      Finally, do you think there are any cases where "harshness" is appropriate? If so, is dealing with a riot one of those times or not.

      From what I could read, Dr Feser was not advocating for harshness "as such". He was advocating for it in this case and claimed that not taking harsh action was analogous to failing to repel an act of war.

      Delete
  15. Miguel CervantesJune 14, 2025 at 6:28 AM

    The French gendarmes dealt with the Champions League riot in Paris two weeks ago. No need to get the army involved, despite 264 cars being torched. Makes Los Angeles' loss of five self-driven cars look like a picnic. It's all just politics. The Left haven't a hope of running any sort of insurrection, as their idiotic, loser slogan "No Kings Day" proves. But, thanks to Trump and Vance and Miller letting their dislike of the Catholic world to their south get them all emotional and reckless, a new player may be in the making.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 14, 2025 at 11:22 AM

      Miguel,

      Since that riot in Paris came after a sports victory celebration and the LA riots were planned and coordinated assaults on the federal government there is no comparison. Trump didn't send in troops to Philly after the Super Bowl riot either.

      Did you know that illegal immigration is a felony under Mexican law? So does Mexico hate all other countries?

      Delete
    2. MPJune 14, 2025 at 2:56 PM

      "The French gendarmes dealt with the Champions League riot in Paris two weeks ago. No need to get the army involved, despite 264 cars being torched." - gendarmes are a part of the French Armed Forces, so, apparently, there was a need "to get the army involved".

      Also, as far as I can tell, the army (or National Guard) was used, because the Federal government has a right to order army around, but has no ordinary uniformed police force it could use instead (and the State government is mostly on the side of the rioters).

      Delete
    3. Vini TadeoJune 14, 2025 at 5:40 PM

      I'm really surprised that you are deliberately omitting the fact that two people were killed, and at least 192 other people were injured, just to soften the fact of the nature of the attacks in California and push your (obvious) political ideas through the comment section.

      I live in a third-world country, and not even here are people so aggressive (save, Rio de Janeiro) as these riots in California. If the police force is inapt to the task, the next step is military or federal intervention (as in any Republic, we also had that here in Rio). So, next time, don't try to eschew or omit relevant facts (like the death toll or the number of injuries) to soften the fact and push your political ideas dishonestly as the way you did -- that's kinda cringe.

      Delete
    4. bmillerJune 15, 2025 at 6:12 PM

      MP,

      Thanks for the information that the French gendarmes are a part of the national French Armed Forces. I learned something new today.

      Delete
    5. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 1:27 AM

      No. The Gendarmes are not really the army. Like the Guardia Civil in Spain, and the Carabinieri in Italy, they are styled military forces and have generals etc, but they don't fight in wars, as a rule. The US National Guard is a reserve force for the army. Mostly part timers, they are inadequate for dealing with both wars and excitable protestors. As for the marines, no comment on their day and a half training program for dealing with protests. Banana republic stuff.

      Delete
    6. bmillerJune 17, 2025 at 10:39 AM

      Anonymous

      Yes, the Gendarmes are really part of the French Armed Forces:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Gendarmerie

      The National Guard and Marines have both been deployed during riots in the past. In fact actually in LA.

      Delete
    7. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 6:12 PM

      Technically but not really, because the gendarmes, carabinieri and Guardia civil do not fight wars, as a rule.. Past use of part time soldiers to handle protests has been as unfortunate as this one. With the peanut in Chief now threatening to kill other heads of state, the US is fast becoming the world's biggest joke.

      Delete
    8. bmillerJune 17, 2025 at 7:13 PM

      The gendarmes serve one purpose of the French Army, so yes, they are "really" part of the French Armed Forces. Just like the National Guard becomes part of the US Armed Forces when activated. Your TDS is noted.

      Delete
    9. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 10:20 PM

      Technically, but this function is not
      a military one, just like the cababieri and the Guardia civil. The National Guard's relationship to the Army has nothing to do with this. Please keep returning to repeat the same misunderstood point.

      Delete
    10. bmillerJune 18, 2025 at 6:54 AM

      I agree you keep misunderstanding, but for the sake of argument I'll concede that Trump did not send in the "army" which means the original claim was false according to your own terms.

      Delete
    11. AnonymousJune 18, 2025 at 7:30 PM

      He sent in the part time army without a clue. The worst of both worlds and no comparison to the gendarmes. Checkmate. You ought to change the subject.

      Delete
    12. bmillerJune 18, 2025 at 8:28 PM

      I'm satisfied. You now agree with me that Trump did not send in the "army".

      Thanks for the conversation.

      Delete
    13. AnonymousJune 19, 2025 at 6:56 PM

      That's good. We all agree that Trump sent in the army, not the gendarmes/carabinieri. I have won you over. Even better than unconditional surrender.

      Delete
    14. bmillerJune 20, 2025 at 8:38 AM

      Ha ha. One of the strangest discussions I've had. Thanks for the entertainment.

      Delete
    15. AnonymousJune 20, 2025 at 6:18 PM

      All's well that ends well.

      Delete
    16. bmillerJune 22, 2025 at 4:51 PM

      Hey Miguel.

      Peace be with you.
      https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/264845/new-study-reveals-the-rosary-rivals-modern-meditation-for-mental-health-benefits

      Delete
    17. AnonymousJune 23, 2025 at 12:25 AM

      You win some you lose some. No need to go imagining things. By all means tranquilise yourself. Do have the last word. You should be able to think of something nice and full of goodwill.

      Delete
    18. bmillerJune 23, 2025 at 1:25 PM

      Saying the rosary every day is calming. Wouldn't call it "tranquilising".

      I would also recommend exercise, healthy eating, getting good sleep and avoiding those "tranquilising" substances. I find all of these things help reduce my stress levels and proneness to anger.

      Delete
    19. AnonymousJune 23, 2025 at 6:08 PM

      I'm so happy for you.

      Delete
  16. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 8:49 AM

    Here’s a solid natural law-based counter-argument to Edward Feser’s claim that the president has an unfettered moral duty to "suppress the riots":


    ---

    🧭 1. Natural Law & the Common Good

    While natural law emphasizes safeguarding the common good, it also demands that authority serve justice and the human dignity of all individuals. The mere presence of disorder or civil unrest does not automatically justify any and all force. Instead, the state must act justly—using no more coercion than is strictly necessary, and always prioritizing both public safety and moral proportionality.


    ---

    2. Distinguishing Protest from Riot

    Feser lumps all civil unrest together, but natural law tradition—rooted in thinkers like Aquinas—recognizes a crucial distinction:

    Peaceful protest expresses legitimate grievances and is often a morally necessary response to injustice.

    Rioting or looting, by contrast, harms the innocent and undermines the rule of law.


    A natural-law-aligned response demands nuanced discernment and targeted action: protect both law and moral protest, while isolating and containing violence.


    ---

    3. Subsidiarity & Local Cultivation

    Natural law supports subsidiarity—public order is best achieved locally, by actors closest to the conflict (e.g., city and state governments). A heavy-handed federal intervention can disregard local understanding and escalate violence. If, say, California or its municipalities have working protocols and experienced police or the National Guard ready to manage unrest, jumping the federal chain can undermine local autonomy and violate the moral limits on power.


    ---

    4. Principle of Double Effect

    Under natural law, using force may be permissible if the harm caused is not disproportionate to the objective of restoring public order. Crushing dissent under an “iron fist,” however, risks overreaction—suppressing not only violence but free expression, thereby damaging the very moral foundations that justify governmental power.


    ---

    5. Justice Rooted in Rights

    Natural law isn’t authoritarian; it’s rights-based. It affirms:

    Right to lawful assembly and to protest.

    Due process even for individuals accused of violent acts.


    Blanket use of force without assessing individual guilt, or broadly criminalizing protest, violates those rights. That would conflict with natural law’s insistence that authority must be just, not arbitrary.



    ---

    ⚖️ Final Thought

    A natural-law defense of federal intervention would need to show that (1) riots seriously threaten the common good, (2) local authorities are utterly unable, (3) force is narrowly tailored, and (4) fundamental rights remain protected. But Feser’s argument tends to treat unrest as a monolithic threat—ignoring vital moral distinctions among protest, disturbance, and violence.

    In short, natural law demands both moral rigor and restraint—not blanket authoritarian force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vini TadeoJune 14, 2025 at 11:03 AM

      This looks like something coming straight outta ChatGPT or Grok...

      Delete
    2. MPJune 14, 2025 at 3:42 PM

      Generative AI? Which one? And what prompt did you use?

      By the way, "Feser lumps all civil unrest together" with dividing it into "Peaceful protest" and "Rioting or looting" is already pretty clearly not right, as even the first sentence already talks about "Edward Feser’s claim that the president has an unfettered moral duty to 'suppress the riots'".

      Not that this is very surprising: Generative AI does not really understand what the text says (if you read more of this blog, you can probably already guess that something like "intentionality" might be relevant here). Be careful with it.

      So, do you have an argument you yourself would like to make?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 6:07 AM

      Hey, ChatGPT, this is not a counter-argument to the article since it expressly allows suppression in precisely the circumstances which Feser recognized.

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 10:01 AM

      @MP

      Arguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it.

      It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument, but more of an argument of the type or scope of response that natural law truly allows and requires.

      Peace be with you mate

      Delete
    5. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 10:45 AM

      It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument,

      That was not the original claim as shown below:

      "Here’s a solid natural law-based counter-argument to Edward Feser’s claim..."

      Delete
    6. Vini TadeoJune 16, 2025 at 3:16 PM

      "Arguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it."

      But the problem is that a machine (which cannot reason at all) articulated it. It is like getting advice on Ethics from Peter Singer: he may get a concept or another *right*, but some weird scheissa will happen along the way.

      Delete
    7. MPJune 17, 2025 at 11:55 AM

      "@MP Arguments stand or fall on their own independent of whomever articulated it." - unfortunately for you, AI is not a "who", it's a "what".

      And if you do not think that the task of extracting an argument from all this text is worth the effort, why are you unhappy that others also think it is not worth the effort?

      (Also, I did read that text, and there seems to be one rather interesting argument, partial answers to which have already been given in other comments. But I refuse to give any more details before you give some sort of "proof-of-work".)

      "It also wasn't just an argument against Feser's argument, but more of an argument of the type or scope of response that natural law truly allows and requires." - so, I'll repeat my question: what was the prompt?

      You know, we can at least learn something useful about writing prompts...

      Delete
  17. ficino4mlJune 14, 2025 at 10:52 AM

    @ Anonymous who formulated a NL counter-argument: good points. You express more fully what I was trying to express.

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousJune 14, 2025 at 9:25 PM

    The parade in Washington was self-defeating if intended to convey a sense of order and authority. The marching was so out of line and undisciplined that might have been a gathering of recruits. Trump was having a birthday, but where were the other dignitaries of the nation? The President's non-stop antics are making the country look evermore like a banana republic.

    ReplyDelete
  19. NickJune 15, 2025 at 12:40 PM

    Except on January 6, which Donald Trump instigated, right Dr. Feser?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Edward FeserJune 15, 2025 at 11:14 PM

      No, no exceptions.

      Delete
    2. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 8:45 AM

      Nick,

      How about you? Do you support just as vigorous a prosecution of the LA lawbreakers as those charged in the January 6th event?

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 1:18 PM

      Trump pardoned them.

      Delete
    4. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 7:36 PM

      Anonymous,

      I asked Nick the question, but in case you are Nick, all that answer does is dodge the question I asked.

      A large number of January 6 protesters went to jail for years. The question was whether he thinks the LA lawbreakers should be charged and sentenced the same as those J6 people.

      Here is a J6 person that was in jail for 18 months for holding a door closed and shoving an officer's riot shield. He thinks the LA protesters are worse:

      https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/6-reasons-no-kings-riots-are-far-worse/#comments

      I'm not defending his actions that resulted in prison time. I agree with Dr Feser that people who break the law should be prosecuted.
      I'm just want to see if the people downplaying the LA riots are going to apply the same standards to his behavior as to those whose cause they sympathize with.

      Delete
  20. AnonymousJune 15, 2025 at 5:07 PM

    It looks like business interests, economic reality and widespread protests are causing to Trump to rethink his immigration policy.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-reversal-may-exempt-farms-hotels-immigration-raids-rcna212958

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM

      Well, it should. There is something strange about seeing heavily armed men chasing young farmworkers down a produce field just because they are undocumented migrants.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOev2uQtN8

      Delete
    2. bmillerJune 16, 2025 at 7:38 PM

      Not so unusual. Lawbreakers usually try to avoid arrest.

      Delete
    3. AnonymousJune 16, 2025 at 11:11 PM

      I don't consider an undocumented immigrant who hasn't committed a criminal offense and who has been working here for years a lawbreaker.
      Half of all farm workers are undocumented immigrants. Neither do the majority of Americans consider them lawbreakers.

      Delete
    4. bmillerJune 17, 2025 at 7:20 AM

      Anonymous,

      It's a good thing then that you are now getting correct information. You may have got yourself into trouble otherwise.

      Here is the AI generated answer:

      Here's a breakdown:
      First Offense (Misdemeanor):
      Fines under Title 18, Imprisonment of up to six months, and Or both fine and imprisonment.
      Subsequent Offenses (Misdemeanor, or Felony if previously deported):

      Fines under Title 18.
      Imprisonment of up to two years.
      Or both fine and imprisonment.
      Re-entry after deportation can result in significantly harsher penalties, potentially up to 20 years in prison, especially with prior convictions.
      Other Penalties:
      Marriage Fraud:
      .
      Can result in up to 5 years imprisonment, fines up to $250,000, or both.
      Re-entry after Removal for Specific Crimes:
      .
      Penalties vary but can include up to 10 years for a single felony (other than aggravated felony) or 3 misdemeanor convictions involving drugs/crimes against a person, and up to 20 years for an aggravated felony.
      Deportation:
      .
      Regardless of the criminal penalties, individuals apprehended for illegal entry or re-entry face deportation proceedings.
      Civil Penalties:
      .
      In addition to criminal penalties, civil penalties like fines may be imposed.

      Delete
  21. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 12:48 PM

    In the spring of 1936, my grandmother, Ilse Stanley, had just returned from a theater tour that had kept her away from Berlin for almost the whole winter, only to discover a city in which "more and more friends were missing." Soon after her return, a cousin arrived at her home. The Gestapo, her cousin told her, had taken her husband away to a concentration camp. In her 1957 memoir, The Unforgotten, my grandmother describes asking her cousin about the reasons for her husband's arrest Her answer:

    "Because he was a criminal with a record. He had paid two fines in court: one for speeding and one for some other traffic fine. They said they finally wanted to do what the court had missed doing all these years: to get rid of all Jews with criminal records. A traffic fine a criminal record!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 17, 2025 at 3:45 PM

      Gee. Does the Jewish state of Israel now allow illegal immigrants to stay in Israel because of this?

      I didn't think so.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 8:52 PM

      @bmiller

      Your kingdom is of this earth

      Delete
    3. bmillerJune 18, 2025 at 7:00 AM

      No Anonymous June 17, 2025 at 8:52 PM, I am only a pilgrim on a journey which I hope ends with my Savior Jesus Christ.

      Delete
  22. AnonymousJune 17, 2025 at 2:47 PM

    Stop with your AI
    https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ocpd/child_protection/training/day3/immigrationcheatsheetbysnhforgalamcclasspdf.pdf

    https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illegal-immigration-a-crime-improper-entry-v-unlawful-presence/

    This is from a businessman who uses undocumented workers:
    https://www.wptv.com/news/palm-beach-county/let-them-stay-deportation-changes-for-undocumented-farm-hotel-and-restaurant-workers

    This small town was solidly for Trump. The ICE arrested Carol.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/28/us/missouri-immigrant-trump.html

    The man from Denmark, married with children, working here for many years made a error in his paperwork and has been imprisoned by ICE
    https://www.wlbt.com/2025/05/20/danish-man-living-mississippi-detained-by-ice-naturalization-meeting/

    Trump voter begs immigration court to release her terminally ill father who is undocumented
    https://www.instagram.com/reel/DK-4_NloW2_/

    Undocumented immigrants support our economy
    https://alabamareflector.com/2024/08/02/study-says-undocumented-immigrants-paid-almost-100-billion-in-taxes/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 17, 2025 at 4:24 PM

      Anonymous of June 17, 2025 at 2:47 PM

      It seems you were trying to respond to me because you said "Stop with your AI" but then most of the links you posted were irrelevant to the subject.

      The only relevant link, www.findlaw.com, agrees with what I posted regarding people illegally entering the US, which the people on the Youtube most likely did. If they had visas and overstayed they are also to be deported and then face stiffer penalties if they come back in illegally.

      So you should now change what you do or do not consider breaking the law to conform with reality.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 18, 2025 at 1:58 PM

      The links were relevant. but you either didn't read them, didn't understand them, or you wish to remain ignorant. And there was no Youtube video. It was Instagram.

      "So you should now change what you do or do not consider breaking the law to conform with reality." "Change what I do?" "Breaking the law?" Huh? I don't need to conform with reality. But you have lost contact with reality.

      Delete
    3. bmillerJune 18, 2025 at 5:11 PM

      Anonymous June 18, 2025 at 1:58 PM,

      The subject was breaking the law. Specifically the people attempting to avoid arrest by ICE agents whom I labeled as lawbreakers as shown in the Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOev2uQtN8. You claimed that you did not think they were breaking the law, so I've been trying to show you what the law is, how they broke the law and the penalties for breaking the law.

      I can tell from your descriptions and the titles of the links that most are not related to what the law is. That some people may have been mistakenly arrested, should be released for health reasons, support our economy etc, etc etc have nothing to do with the reality of what the law is and what breaking the law means. That is the reality I am talking about.

      You misunderstood the statement you quoted at the end. The meaning is that since it seems you did not understand the reality of what the law is, you should change your understanding to match reality. What you do consider breaking the law and what you do not consider breaking the law should match reality. Don't you agree?

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 19, 2025 at 2:33 PM

      What I know is that you cannot argue coherently and write clearly. That youtube video was not in my post, nor in any post of yours.
      Here are some more links to educate you
      https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-deportation-undocumented-immigrants-policy-change-rcna213356
      https://www.dharlawllp.com/is-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-a-crime/#:~:text=What%20is%20the%20Difference%20Between,not%20considered%20a%20federal%20crime.
      Here is a Youtube video for you
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2___bFZwYM
      Polls show Americans want dangerous criminals arrested/deported, not hard working undoc immigrants who have been working here for years.

      Delete
    5. bmillerJune 19, 2025 at 3:40 PM

      Anonymous June 19, 2025 at 2:33 PM

      You addressed my AI post which was in the context of a thread started by Anonymous June 15, 2025 at 5:07 PM. The Youtube video was in that thread. You shouldn't have referenced my post if you wanted to change the subject. Also if you don't want people to confuse you with the dozens of other anonymous posters then choose a label, but don't complain about the confusion you cause otherwise.

      Finally, it appears that you are unable to understand what a lawbreaker is. Educator, educate thyself.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJune 20, 2025 at 1:46 PM

      The June 15 post wasn't mine, but I agree with it. It looks ridiculous to see armed ICE agents in full tactical gear chasing, not gang members, not violent criminals, but undocumented farmworkers. That's not what most Americans think ICE should be doing.
      https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-06-19/trumps-immigration-policies-are-viewed-more-negatively-than-positively-by-americans.html

      I note your inability to comment on any of my links. You prefer not educate yourself.
      And your misunderstanding of what a law breaker is reminds of Inspector Javert in "Les Misérables," who insisted that Valjean knew his way in the dark because he was a "law breaker" while Javert claimed "mine is the way of the law."
      He didn't understand that the law itself was unjust until the end and then he couldn't live with himself. But no, you won't throw yourself in the Seine river like Javert did. You are "a pilgrim on a journey to meet Jesus Christ."
      I wish you well on your journey.


      Delete
    7. bmillerJune 20, 2025 at 4:56 PM

      Anonymous June 20, 2025 at 1:46 PM

      As I mentioned, your failure to pick a name to use just causes confusion.

      As far as your posts are concerned, I'm not interested in having a discussion with someone who will not argue in good faith. If you think improperly entering the country is not breaking the law you are simply wrong. And that's true not just in the US but every country on earth. Unless and until you can agree to this simple fact there it's clear we have no common ground from which to begin a conversation.

      If your position is that laws should not be enforced, then you are no follower of Jesus.

      Delete
    8. AnonymousJune 21, 2025 at 12:33 PM

      No, bmiller, you are confused and you don't even try to have a discussion. You just want someone to agree with you and that I won't do . You just repeat the same thing over and over. The CATO Institute believes in limited government and free markets. But even they acknowledge ICE law enforcement has gotten out of hand.
      https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions
      You are right. There is no common ground.
      So get back on your road to Jesus.

      Delete
    9. bmillerJune 21, 2025 at 2:34 PM

      Anonymous June 21, 2025 at 12:33 PM

      If you don't agree with me, then why don't you simply tell me what law says it's legal to improperly enter the US. This is what I'm basing my assertion on:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

      You keep wanting to change the subject, so I take that as your tacit acknowledgement that I'm correct and you know it.

      What I find interesting is your analogy of sending someone home to Mexico equivalent to sentencing someone to a hellhole prison full of criminals. You're entitled to your opinion, but I find that disgusting.

      At the same time you seem to be on the same side at the fellow in the picture at the top who is waving the Mexican flag. That's like Jean Valjean waving the flag of the Bagne of Toulon from your perspective. I'm also pretty sure his position is that the Southwest US should be part of Mexico. So from what you've told us of your opinion of Mexico you must want to sentence all the people of the US Southwest to a hellhole prison.

      For the record, I don't share you view that Mexico is a hellhole and is peopled by criminals.

      Delete
  23. AnonymousJune 22, 2025 at 12:34 PM

    Well, I have included multiple links and told you what the law is. You are confused about the term "undocumented immigrant." I will use the same link I used previously:
    https://www.dharlawllp.com/is-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-a-crime/

    Only in your fervid imagination did I say Mexico is a hellhole peopled by criminals. You are confusing me with Trump who does believe that.
    Remember him saying "Mexico doesn't send their best people to us, they send us their worst: murderers, rapists, criminals"? People come from Mexico to seek a better life here. When they are uprooted from their families, homes and jobs and sent back to Mexico, they go back to nothing. The guy with the flag your referenced was a criminal and a lawbreaker, but you cannot equate undocumented immigrants with him. If you do, then you are a Javert and his obsession with legalism destroyed him.

    "If your position is that laws should not be enforced, then you are no follower of Jesus."
    You don't know your Catholic theology. The laws regarding immigration and how to enforce them are matters of prudential judgment about which Catholics can disagree. Abortion is an authoritative teaching of the Church to which Catholics must assent and I do. But a follower of Jesus can disagree about U.S. immigration policy. If you don't know that, you need to study your Catholic theology harder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 22, 2025 at 9:28 PM

      Anonymous June 22, 2025 at 12:34 PM,

      Are you incapable of picking a fake name to avoid confusion or are you just trying to be rude?

      You are confused about the term "undocumented immigrant."

      I never used that term, so no one is confused, you're just being dishonest. Now you've gone beyond tacit silence and attempting to change the subject to knowingly attempting to deceive people. The dharlaw site does not "tell me what law says it's legal to improperly enter the US." as you falsely assert it does. So please stop pretending you faithfully follow Catholic theology (hint: the 8th commandment actually means you shouldn't lie).

      I've shown you 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien. It's a law. Violating a law is also known as "breaking the law". It follows that one who "breaks the law" by improper entry as an alien can be called a "lawbreaker" in the English language. In fact you used that term yourself in your last post. So are you Javert?

      they go back to nothing.

      You just told me that going to Mexico is going to nothing. You're not exactly saying that Mexico is a hellhole, but that's close. I wish you'd stop insulting the country of Mexico. Mexicans are proud of their country.

      The laws regarding immigration and how to enforce them are matters of prudential judgment about which Catholics can disagree.

      Except that I have not been explicitly arguing for or against the prudence of any law prohibiting the improper entry into the US or any other country. I have been arguing that such laws exist, there are penalties associated with breaking those laws and people who break those laws are likely to suffer those penalties (which are nothing like being sent to a hellhole).
      You've been telling me I'm and evil and heartless because I'm giving you what so far has been uncontested as accurate information.

      You may not like the laws and disagree with how they are enforced, but you are not the country's lawful authority which is charged with enforcing the laws of the land. In the US it's your right, as a citizen, to legally protest and work to change the law, but it's not your right to break the law and it is immoral (and illegal in some cases) to encourage others to break the law. I'm sure Catholic members of the Mafia rationalize that since all laws really are "matters of prudential judgment" it's OK to whack another criminal.

      Delete
  24. AnonymousJune 23, 2025 at 1:17 PM


    "Are you incapable of picking a fake name to avoid confusion or are you just trying to be rude?"
    I have been posting here for 10 years as Anonymous. How is that being rude? If my name causes you "confusion," it's because you are confused.
    "I never used that term (undocumented immigrant) so no one is confused, you're just being dishonest. " I used the term because you fail to realize this from that law site:
    "There is a vast percentage (45%) of undocumented people that do not enter this country illegally. They may enter legally but may overstay their visa, work without authorization, etc." Further, I don't think the other 55% should be deported in the ruthless Gestapo-like manner that ICE is doing now. They should be given a path towards citizenship. Even Joe Rogan, who supported Trump, thinks that ICE is now "crazy."
    https://torontosun.com/news/world/joe-rogan-not-a-fan-of-trumps-workplace-immigration-raids

    "I wish you'd stop insulting the country of Mexico. Mexicans are proud of their country." Only in your strange mind could it be an insult to say Mexicans have more opportunity in this country. Why do you think they come here?

    "You've been telling me I'm evil." I 've never said that. You're just thin-skinned. Or maybe you need therapy.

    I made my comment about immigration policy being a prudential issue because you said this,
    "If your position is that laws should not be enforced, then you are no follower of Jesus." Who are you to say that?
    A person can disagree with how immigration law should be enforced and still follow Jesus, because that IS a prudential issue. About half of all Americans disagree with Trump's immigration policy.
    Your reference to the Mafia and prudential judgment is ludicrous. Mafiosi are Catholics in name only. They don't rationalize what they do because they are evil, and the last three popes have condemned them.

    You are just flailing around here now.














    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. bmillerJune 23, 2025 at 8:40 PM

      How is that being rude?
      It's rude, because it is disruptive to dialog as you proved when you attacked me for thinking you were a different anon.

      I used the term because you fail to realize this from that law site:
      No. You lied. Now you claim you can read my mind, which you have to know is also untrue.

      Only in your strange mind could it be an insult to say Mexicans have more opportunity in this country. Why do you think they come here?
      You must hate Mexico. You have told me that sending people back to their home in Mexico is akin to sending them to hard labor in the Bagne of Toulon, a hellhole prison. Then you told me that there is nothing for them in Mexico and by implication for anyone else. Mexico's GDP is in the top 10% in the world. So stop hating on Mexico as some primitive hellhole.

      Of course some people want to make more money no matter what and so are willing to break the law to make more money. Want to know what the 3 largest black markets in the US are according to the Treasury Secretary?
      1. Undocumented labor
      2. Illicit drugs
      3. Human/sex trafficking

      The people involved in all 3 of these criminal activities are just trying to make a better life for themselves. And they are all related to improper entry into the US.

      Who are you to say that?
      You said yourself that some people are criminals and so I assume you think that at least some laws should be enforced. You really need to read more carefully what people write, since I was making a broad statement that laws should be enforced. As in, it is for the common good of a nation to enforce its laws and it is the moral duty of the lawful authority to do so. Of course one can think a particular just law would not be prudent to enforce but it would still be immoral to break the law or encourage others to break the law. If you want the law changed, in the US the lawful mechanism for that is getting the legislation changed through the democratic process, not to just claim your personal prudential judgement gives you the right to encourage breaking that particular law.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 24, 2025 at 1:12 PM

      "It's rude, because it is disruptive to dialog as you proved when you attacked me for thinking you were a different anon."
      What I said was, "the YouTube video wasn't mine. If you think that's an attack or rude, you're a weakling. And if you get so easily "disrupted," then you need to learn how to concentrate.

      "I used the term because you fail to realize this from that law site:
      No. You lied. Now you claim you can read my mind, which you have to know is also untrue."
      No, you are still confused and now you are frustrated. You never acknowledged from the Dhar law site what was said about undocumented immigrants. Go and read it now.

      "You must hate Mexico. You have told me that sending people back to their home in Mexico is akin to sending them to hard labor in the Bagne of Toulon, a hellhole prison."
      No, you are lying, bmiller. You referenced the Bagne of Toulon in your 6/21, 2:34 pm post when you confused Jean Valjean with the rioter/criminal waving a Mexican flag in the picture. In fact, you accused me of being on his side, which is a calumny. And I didn't say there was nothing for them in Mexico. You lied again. I said there was more opportunity here. Educate yourself:
      "The main reason why Mexicans emigrate to the United States is to improve their economic situation" From CSIS.org.
      And although I never called Mexico a hellhole (that was your term), the nation has been hit hard by violence. Educate yourself:
      "While Mexicans previously migrated mostly to seek out economic opportunities—and most of the migrants were young men traveling alone—recently, the share of Mexican families migrating has increased. Many are fleeing states in southern Mexico, such as Guerrero, Chiapas, and Oaxaca, that have been hit hard by intracommunal and criminal violence and extortion." From CFR.org

      "not to just claim your personal prudential judgement gives you the right to encourage breaking that particular law."
      As you fail to comprehend, how we should enforce our immigration policy with those immigrants who didn't come here legally, but have been living here for years, working, married, raising families is a prudential matter. Our immigration system is broken, and instead of trying to fix it in human manner, the Trump Administration is behaving ruthlessly. If you cannot see that, you are willfully blind and ignorant.
      https://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2025/06/19/opinion-ice-raids-like-the-one-in-south-park-are-cruel-and-wasteful/
      https://www.morningagclips.com/ice-raids-and-their-uncertainty-scare-off-workers-baffle-businesses/
      https://nevadacurrent.com/2025/06/24/broadacres-closure-shows-how-fear-of-ice-raids-is-actively-destabilizing-entire-communities/








      "There is a vast percentage (45%) of undocumented people that do not enter this country illegally. They may enter legally but may overstay their visa, work without authorization, etc

      Delete
    3. bmillerJune 24, 2025 at 2:30 PM

      Crotchity Old Man,

      You never acknowledged from the Dhar law site what was said about undocumented immigrants. Go and read it now.

      I read it and acknowledged that "The dharlaw site does not "tell me what law says it's legal to improperly enter the US." as you falsely assert it does." Reading it multiple times does not change that fact.

      No, you are lying, bmiller. You referenced the Bagne of Toulon in your 6/21, 2:34 pm post when you confused Jean Valjean with the rioter/criminal waving a Mexican flag in the picture.

      This is the paragraph before the one you referenced:

      What I find interesting is your analogy of sending someone home to Mexico equivalent to sentencing someone to a hellhole prison full of criminals. You're entitled to your opinion, but I find that disgusting.

      You likened someone enforcing immigration laws by sending a violator back to Mexico as being the same thing as sending Jean Valjean to a hellhole prison. In case you missed it, in Les Miserables, the Bagne of Toulon was the prison Jean Valjean was sent to and it was depicted as a hellhole prison and was full of criminals.

      And I didn't say there was nothing for them in Mexico. You lied again.

      I actually quoted you. "they go back to nothing"
      When they are uprooted from their families, homes and jobs and sent back to Mexico, they go back to nothing. Sounds like Mexico hate to me.

      And although I never called Mexico a hellhole...
      I see you're just searching for a word that means the same thing.

      As you fail to comprehend,...
      You are entitled to your opinion, but if you really believe that immigration laws are a matter of prudential judgement, then you cannot claim that people who come to a different conclusion fail to comprehend. If it is lawful to arrest and deport illegal aliens then it should be done in the most efficient and safe manner as possible. Ideally, illegals should return home on their own since that would cause the least disruption and give them a path to return in a legal manner. Resisting arrest endangers everyone, just like running from cops after they see you run a stop sign endangers everyone.


      "There is a vast percentage (45%) of undocumented people that do not enter this country illegally. They may enter legally but may overstay their visa, work without authorization, etc

      https://www.lawfirm1.com/removal-proceedings/unauthorized-employment/

      Read the section titled "Penalty for Working Without a Work Permit in the USA" and below.
      Deportation
      Ineligibility To Extend Or Change Status
      Revoked Visa/Inadmissibility For Future Entry
      Ineligibility for a Green Card

      Overstay a visa:
      https://legal-info.lawyers.com/immigration/visas/what-happens-when-you-overstay-your-visa.html

      "There's not much difference under U.S. immigration law between someone who enters the country unlawfully without a visa, and someone who stays past the time permitted under their visa. When you overstay, you become what's called "out of status." If U.S. immigration officials catch up with you, will will likely be removed (deported), and face further consequences."

      Delete
    4. AnonymousJune 25, 2025 at 1:56 PM

      "Crotchity Old Man" You little mama's boy.
      And this is what the Dhar's law site says:
      "There is a vast percentage (45%) of undocumented people that do not enter this country illegally. They may enter legally but may overstay their visa, work without authorization, etc".
      And it does also say that it is illegal to enter the USA by slipping across the border. But that doesn't justify mindlessly and ruthlessly arresting them, without regard for their particular circumstances. Like in these examples involving wives of military veterans:
      https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/06/army-sergeant-thought-his-family-was-safe-then-ice-deported-his-wife-shirly-guardado/
      https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-detains-marine-corps-veteran-wife/

      "You likened someone enforcing immigration laws by sending a violator back to Mexico as being the same thing as sending Jean Valjean to a hellhole prison. In case you missed it, in Les Miserables, the Bagne of Toulon was the prison Jean Valjean was sent to and it was depicted as a hellhole prison and was full of criminals."
      No, ignoramus, you are still confused. As I said earlier, the man waving the Mexican flag is a rioter and a criminal. It is ludicrous to compare him to Valjean. And then you accused me on being on the side of the rioter, which is another calumny. Your pilgrimage to Jesus is not going well.

      "I actually quoted you. "they go back to nothing"
      When they are uprooted from their families, homes and jobs and sent back to Mexico, they do go back to nothing. Sounds like Mexico hate to me. "
      Use your common sense, what's left of it. Immigrants who have been here for years and who have a good job and a place to live and are ripped away and sent to Mexico do go back to nothing. They've lost their better paying job and place to live, their belongings. "Sounds like Mexico hate to me." Sounds like more of your ignorance to me.

      "And although I never called Mexico a hellhole...
      I see you're just searching for a word that means the same thing."
      As I proved in those links, Mexico has problems with crime and lack of opportunity. The word hellhole was yours. Own it.

      "As you fail to comprehend,...
      You are entitled to your opinion, but if you really believe that immigration laws are a matter of prudential judgement, then you cannot claim that people who come to a different conclusion fail to comprehend. If it is lawful to arrest and deport illegal aliens then it should be done in the most efficient and safe manner as possible."
      It is being done in a cruel and ruthless manner. Our immigration system is broken. And about half of the American people do not believe those who came here illegally but are not criminals and are living productive lives should be deported. Eventually, as outrage mounts, it will change.

      "There is a vast percentage (45%) of undocumented people that do not enter this country illegally. They may enter legally but may overstay their visa, work without authorization, etc"
      Overstay a visa:
      https://legal-info.lawyers.com/immigration/visas/what-happens-when-you-overstay-your-visa.ht"

      Yes, I know. And many people who overstay, do not renew, etc, have done so by oversight. We don't have enough immigration courts and officials to process them. You want mass roundups, mass deportations with no regard for the circumstances, just snatch them up. You are on the side of cruelty and rashness. I am not.
      https://www.dailycardinal.com/article/2025/04/trumps-deportations-arent-just-cruel-theyll-also-crush-the-american-economy
      https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/press-release/new-report-details-catastrophic-impact-mass-deportation-plans/
      https://civilrights.org/blog/the-human-costs-of-trumps-immigration-crackdown/





      Delete
    5. bmillerJune 25, 2025 at 5:07 PM

      Crotchity Old Man,

      And it does also say that it is illegal to enter the USA by slipping across the border.

      Yes. 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.. Finally you admit the truth.

      No, ignoramus, you are still confused. As I said earlier, the man waving the Mexican flag is a rioter and a criminal.

      At this point it's obvious you can't understand the point no matter what I say. I made 3 separate points.
      1. Your analogy of sending Mexican illegal aliens home as being the same as Javert wanting to send Valjean to prison implies that Mexico is analogous to that prison (the Bagne of Toulon)
      2. The fellow with the Mexican flag is most likely an illegal alien and is on your side against sending illegal aliens to Mexico. It makes no sense to wave the flag of a hellhole prison in a protest against sending people to that hellhole prison.
      3. That fellow with the flag also most likely wants the Southwest US to become part of Mexico, and thus become part of the hellhole prison you want no one to have to be sent to.

      Please stop thinking about the guy with the flag for a second and realize I was talking about the first point. Your Les Miserables analogy implies Mexico is a hellhole prison....period.
      Of course it's ludicrous to compare that guy to Valjean. That was my point. But it's not a calumny to point out that you are on his side wrt not deporting illegal aliens. At least that's what you've been telling us.

      Your entire argument is that Mexico, the 15th largest economy in the world and with approximately the same crime rate as the US is such a horrible place that no one should be sent back there after breaking the law in this country. Somehow illegal aliens no longer have relatives in the country of their birth once they leave? Taking a pay cut and having to move back home is an unthinkable punishment for getting caught engaging in black market activity? People get laid off and have to move all the time without having committed any crime. Happened to me more than once. BTW, I used the word hellhole because of your analogy of Mexico being like the prison in Les Miserables. You've done nothing to change your analogy and in fact keep doubling down on it.

      Yes, I know. And many people who overstay, do not renew, etc, have done so by oversight. We don't have enough immigration courts and officials to process them.

      OK. You just argued that there is such an overwhelming number of lawbreakers that we've reached a point of emergency, and emergencies justify emergency action.

      It seems that it's really difficult for you to understand and/or respond to my points and I've done the best I can. You can have the last word.

      Delete
    6. AnonymousJune 26, 2025 at 1:45 PM

      Little Mama's Boy,

      "And it does also say that it is illegal to enter the USA by slipping across the border."
      Yes, I never said it was legal, but our method of enforcement is unjust, per the multiple links I gave you.

      "1. Your analogy of sending Mexican illegal aliens home as being the same as Javert wanting to send Valjean to prison implies that Mexico is analogous to that prison (the Bagne of Toulon)."

      That is your implication because you lack reading comprehension. I brought up Javert because of his ruthless pursuit of Valjean, and his mindless obsession of the law over justice, which is what drives you.

      "The fellow with the Mexican flag is most likely an illegal alien and is on your side against sending illegal aliens to Mexico. It makes no sense to wave the flag of a hellhole prison in a protest against sending people to that hellhole prison.
      3. That fellow with the flag also most likely wants the Southwest US to become part of Mexico, and thus become part of the hellhole prison you want no one to have to be sent to."

      You don't know what the flag-waving rioter was thinking. What he thinks is irrelevant. He's a criminal and belongs in prison.
      This was your calumny on 6/21, 2:34
      "At the same time you seem to be on the same side at the fellow in the picture at the top who is waving the Mexican flag." To say I am on the side of a criminal rioter is a calumny.

      "Mexico has approximately the same crime rate as the United States."
      Don't you know how to Google? Mexico's murder and violent crime rate is much higher.
      https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/murder-rate-by-country

      "People get laid off and have to move all the time without having committed any crime. Happened to me more than once."
      Getting laid off a job in the USA and then getting another one happens a lot in this country, the land of opportunity. It is in no way analogous to being deported to another country. This is from 2024 but is still relevant as to why immigrants come here:
      https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2024/05/17/desperate-migrants-help-prop-up-the-u-s-economy-i-went-to-meet-some-of-them-at-the-border/

      "OK. You just argued that there is such an overwhelming number of lawbreakers that we've reached a point of emergency, and emergencies justify emergency action"
      As I have said before, the immigration system is broken.
      https://www.boundless.com/blog/us-immigration-courts-3-million-case-backlog/#:~:text=A%20shortage%20of%20immigration%20judges,time%2Dconsuming%20litigation%20in%20courts.

      "It seems that it's really difficult for you to understand and/or respond to my points."
      I have by far supplied many more links than you which you either ignore or are unable to refute. I have explained that we should not ruthlessly deport people who are not criminals but are here legally and contributing to our economy. I will give you one more example of our cruel immigration policy
      https://www.tpr.org/border-immigration/2025-06-25/ice-arrested-a-6-year-old-boy-with-leukemia-at-immigration-court-his-family-is-suing

      "I've done the best I can."
      We have been at it awhile. I just think you are wrong about how we should enforce our immigration laws.







      Delete
  25. bmillerJune 23, 2025 at 9:49 PM

    FYI

    You can create a fake name and use it here and still remain anonymous.
    Just click the triangle next to the line:

    Comment as: Anonymous

    Then click on the "Name/URL" menu item.

    You will see to lines:

    "Name"
    "URL"

    Then enter some fake name in the "Name" line and hit CONTINUE.

    It can be any text you want. In your case I suggest "Crotchity Old Man" :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. bmillerJune 25, 2025 at 7:38 PM

    New video surfaces of ICE harshly returning Mexican citizen to Mexico:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2ncJ6ciGyM

    ReplyDelete
  27. Miguel CervantesJune 26, 2025 at 3:33 AM

    The US is now 23% Hispanic, more than Canada's 19% of Francophones. Instead of trying to get "deals" that humiliate Tel Aviv's enemies, the US should do a deal with itself and recognise that Hispanics are not a bunch of immigrants who need to melt in like the Irish and the Poles. The United States, to survive, needs to recognise that it's a bi-lingual country. Talk of hard borders and law and order misses (or tries to postpone) the most important issue.

    ReplyDelete
  28. bmillerJune 26, 2025 at 9:35 AM

    Doesn't make sense to me to say that the only way for a nation to survive is to cease to be a nation.

    It is also Church teaching that laws are for the common good, that breaking the law is a sin and the state is morally obligated to punish the offender. From the CCC:

    2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

    Condoning the action of lawbreakers is destructive to the social order not just in the particular case of a particular law and lawbreaker, but to the entire structure of respect for the law and so the justice we owe each other as members of the society including the lawbreaker.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miguel CervantesJune 26, 2025 at 5:59 PM

      Yes George, but there are greater, historical injustices that continue. Qubbling about papers being in order and littering the streets is hypocrisy in comparison. Common sense demands the US face this issue if it wants to survive. The English spent hundreds of years pretending the Irish were just British subjects like everybody else. It didn't work. If they had recognised them the way they recognised the francophone "canadiens", the British Isles might still be one big country.

      Delete
    2. Step2June 26, 2025 at 7:28 PM

      Trump's honoring of Robert E. Lee, a traitor and mass killer of US soldiers provides some insight about his respect for the law. It seems bizarre to claim, as a criteria for being regarded a true Christian, the elected convict deserves an infinite amount of leeway to use emergency powers to toss due process into the wood chipper while immigrants guilty of a misdemeanor should be abducted by unidentified masked agents and potentially be sent to foreign gulags.

      Any concerns about trafficking also apply to deportees being relocated to the Darien Gap, a region notorious for drug and human trafficking.

      Delete
    3. bmillerJune 27, 2025 at 6:11 AM

      If a country cannot maintain its borders or enforce its laws it is a failed state:

      Wikipedia:
      A failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions, lacking effective control over its territory and borders. Common characteristics of a failed state include a government incapable of tax collection, law enforcement, security assurance, territorial control, political or civil office staffing, and infrastructure maintenance

      People who claim to be Catholic, or who claim to be promoting Catholicism need to stop condoning breaking the law and destroying social order if we are to believe them.

      Miguel,
      I see you addressed me as George. Is George some demon that communicates with you when you get high? Just asking because I've seen you rant against anon posters who you accuse of secretly being someone named George.

      Just so you know, I am still bmiller and no demon named George is posting as me.

      Delete
    4. Miguel CervantesJune 27, 2025 at 8:49 PM

      It's reassuring to learn that you're not a demon, George. I think it's important not to apply the nineteenth-century model of airtight borders between ethno-states, within the Christian West.

      As an example of the old Christian West's approach, it's useful to look at late sixteenth-century/early seventeenth-century Spain. There was a mass influx from Occitania in southern France (which is little remarked on now - these migrants were Christian). At the same time, Madrid was organising the mass expulsion of the Moriscos because they were not Christian (necessitating the twelve-year truce with the Protestant part of the Netherlands in order to free the army up to oversee it). Spain was not considered a failed state (it was at its high point) for allowing the influx of Occitanians, who spread over the country, especially the capital.

      This example shows the old Western ability to make distinctions in migration policy. This is lacking in the one dimensional WASP debate on the ethics of migration. Suddenly borders become sacrosanct when the issue is the exclusion of ten million hard-working Cathiolics, but ultra flexible in the case of Hindus and Sikhs, who speak English and won't question the WASP Establishment.

      The real issue is failure on the part of WASP culture to accept that the US is now bi-lingual, like Canada. Its prejudice can be seen on screen and in its musical culture, which both celebrate Afro-Anglos (11% of the population now), but continue to portray Hispanics (23%) as maids and narcos. Time for the US to stop interfering overseas and spend time alone (to use Solzhenitsyn's advice to his compatriots) in order to "do the deal", come to a new concord with itself. The US is no longer the Thirteen Protestant Colonies of 1776, nor the country whose "illegals" flooded over Mexico's northern border before 1848, or even that of McKinley, who trumped up a war against Spain in order to get the US an "empire". WASPs need to adopt a bit of Thomistic realism and come to terms with the quarter of the country that will never share their civiisation the way that Afro-Anglos can.

      Delete
    5. Step2June 28, 2025 at 4:37 PM

      The implication of a failed state is a fever dream; Trump's hostile rants about a 51st state aside, there aren't any borders in dispute with Mexico or Canada.

      There is also a huge difference between being unable to enforce the law and deciding whether or to what degree it should be enforced. We have seen how the Supreme Court majority is often willing to abandon enforcement and overturn unanimous lower courts if it goes against their partisan activist interest.

      Delete
    6. bmillerJune 28, 2025 at 7:39 PM

      Spain was not considered a failed state (it was at its high point) for allowing the influx of Occitanians, who spread over the country, especially the capital.

      Doesn't look like the Occitanians were breaking any laws if Spain knowingly allowed them in. But the Muslims (and Jews) who resisted expulsion would have been. I agree that Spain was not a failed state at that time since they were in control of their borders, who gets in and who gets out. American citizens (and Catholics who wish America well) should want the same for the US.

      I think St Thomas would agree with me that it is more important for a state to first ensure it is not a failed state before it attends to dictating to its citizens what music videos it must watch. Also, I doubt he would put the importance of a nation being bi-lingual at the top of the list either. I have read a lot of his works but not all so I could be wrong.

      Sincerely George
      &#128520
      &#x1F608

      Delete
    7. Miguel CervantesJune 29, 2025 at 12:51 AM

      The question of a bi-lingual country was not an issue in Saint Thomas' time because nobody then could have imagined a country where a were told they had to speak one national language. In his time, most states were peopled by a variety of languages and patois. Courts might use one or more languages, but that was about it, unless one refers to Latin, which wasn't a vernacular of course.

      Borders were porous in Baroque Europe, and movements across them were not highly regulated as in the modern nation state. There could be large movements of "undocumented" aliens without entailing a failed state. What bugs the US WASP establishment is not "papers not in order".That can be fixed at the stroke of a pen. As past amnesties of millions of these "dangerous criminals" shows, the US did not become a failed state, just a more Catholic country). The real annoyance to the system is the "threat" of large numbers of people from the Catholic sphere who they don't wish to accept, as they have the afro-anglos.

      Delete
  29. bmillerJune 29, 2025 at 11:43 AM

    I am unaware that the federal government has made it illegal to speak any particular language. St Thomas was probably against that.

    St Thomas did however think it was just and wise for a state to limit who comes in as well as when and under what conditions someone can be granted citizenship.

    https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2105.htm#article3

    He also condemned using evil means to obtain what one thinks is a good result. It goes without saying that encouraging people to break the law is evil.

    Sincerely,
    George
    😈
    😈

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Miguel CervantesJune 29, 2025 at 10:30 PM

      Hello George. You're reading more into my premise than what's there. Read it again, "nobody then could have imagined a country where a were told they had to speak one national language".

      As for breaking laws, Christians have a duty to resist those that are unjust, for instance, many of the laws and particularly the procedures being pursued by the WASP establishment led by Trump. Saint Thomas even envisaged violent resistance, and the overthrow of tyrants who violated natural law.

      Delete
    2. bmillerJune 30, 2025 at 1:24 PM

      Miguel,

      I don't live in a country that tells its people they have to speak one national language. Which country do you live in?

      As we've seen, St Thomas affirms that nations have the right to legally control who can enter and remain and so both the US of today and Spain in the 16th century is/was in concordance with natural law. The laws in the US came about via Congressional legislation which reflect the will of citizens of the US. No tyrant decreed the laws but the citizens of the country through their elected representatives, the legitimate authority. So the US laws seem to pass scrutiny.

      It would be nice to see if you actually have a natural law argument against 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien.. So far most of the people commenting on this thread are incapable (in many ways) of making any cogent argument. Since you claim to be familiar with Aquinas I would expect you, if any, to make a cogent argument. Will I be disappointed?

      Sincerely,
      😈 George 😈
      Your personal demon ;-)

      Delete
  30. Miguel CervantesJune 30, 2025 at 5:11 PM

    I thought you said you weren't a devil, George. You shouldn't demean yourself. Plenty of humans have obssessions about people too, you know. It's most probable that you do live in a country that prescribes at least one official language which all citizens are required to be competent in. This applies in Moscow, Rome and Tel Aviv, but didn't in the time of Saint Thomas. There is a hierarchy of laws. Technicalities cannot be used to oppress 10 million hard working Catholics, when the true motive is maintaining the WASP establishment. The practice of sixteenth-century Spain in permitting an irregular mass immigration, after it had taken place, demonstrates that these legalities are not absolute.

    ReplyDelete
  31. bmillerJune 30, 2025 at 7:28 PM

    Well, I said I wasn't George but since you don't believe that, I figured you wouldn't believe George wasn't your personal demon either. So I figured I would just go with it.

    In any event, I got the answer to my question. No cogent natural law argument will be forthcoming.

    Have a good night and God bless the USA.

    ReplyDelete
  32. bmillerJune 30, 2025 at 8:40 PM

    Google AI: Do third generation Mexican Americans think of themselves as Americans?

    "Yes, third-generation Mexican Americans overwhelmingly identify as Americans. Studies show that as generations move away from immigration, the sense of belonging to the United States increases, with a majority of third-generation Mexican Americans identifying as "typical Americans".

    ReplyDelete
  33. Batallón de San PatricioJuly 1, 2025 at 11:54 PM

    The United States has an obligation to allow entry to any from Hispanic America who may desire it because it is directly responsible for the worst problems of the region. Its drug culture and the deportation of gangsters groomed in the US to central America are entirely to blame for the cartels and gangs plaguing Mexico and other countries. NAFTA and United States interference generally in the economies and politics of the region must answer, and wear the consequences. It's sheer hypocrisy to pick on migrants for the equivalent of jaywalking when the larger crimes of Washington regimes of all parties cry out to heaven.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)