Why do people hate ICE...

rjs330 said:

If you support a givernement that does not outlaw homosexuality then that contradicts scriptural teachings. And your commitment to scripture is questionable. See how that works? If you support a governement that allows no fault divorce then your commitment to scriptural teachings is questionable.

I'm glad you recognize Christ's teaching is for his followers and not a governmental mandate. That being said I believe we can do both. We can treat illegals humanely and still deport them as fast as possible. There certainly have been questions regarding the conditions the illegals have been held in. Although I have yet to actually see these conditions. The illegals have been arrested, so as long as their detention status is no different than the typical inmate of a prison, then I don't have any issues with it.

Give them food, water and medical care as needed and put em in an 8x10 cell until they are deported. Even Jesus didn't tell believers to release all the prisoners.

Click to expand...

I see you recognize that supporting a government which does not prohibit homosexuality be seen as inconsistent with biblical teachings. So , why don’t you understand that endorsing a government that treats individuals inhumanely is also contradictory to these values.

Deporting half a family to another country while leaving an eight-year-old child in America is not humane. If you believe otherwise, our views on humanity and the love Jesus taught differ greatly.

If you think it's humane to deport a man who came to the United States at age five, has lived here for thirty years, and now force to leave his wife and child behind for a foreign country he doesn't know, then our understanding of humanity and the meaning of Jesus' love differ greatly.

Christians cannot separate government responsibilities they support from individual adherence to Gospel teachings. Whether in their homes, churches, communities, as individuals, members of a church, part of a larger community, or as a nation, practicing the teachings of Jesus is expected in daily life. Distinguishing between personal and communal application does not align with the principles taught by Christ.

Christians who adhere to the teachings of Christ in their personal lives but support governmental actions that contradict those teachings will be reminded by Jesus on the day of judgment, "I never knew you."

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

FAITH-IN-HIM said:

It is relevant, as it reflects the character of someone supporting this policy. His stance appears to be "rule for thee but not for me."

Click to expand...

What’s wrong with that? Rules can be changed as circumstances change.

SoldierOfTheKing said:

What’s wrong with that? Rules can be changed as circumstances change.

Click to expand...

If the sole circumstance that changed is that it is now you instead of me, or vice versus, then the problem is hypocrisy.

DaisyDay said:

If the sole circumstance that changed is that it is now you instead of me, or vice versus, then the problem is hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

As a traditional conservative, I had hoped that following President Trump’s departure from office, the party would return to pre-Trump era conservatism characterized by greater moderation and centrist ideas, thereby fostering unity and compromise with others for greater good. However, that hope appears to be fading each day. It seems that both conservatism and the Republican Party are increasingly losing influence.

After the passage of the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party lost African American voters for generations; since then, the GOP has never received more than 20% of the African American vote. In 2024, President Trump achieved nearly 45% support among Hispanic voters—primarily due to the Democratic Party’s inability to fulfill promises made to the Hispanic community. Nevertheless, the mass deportation policies implemented under President Trump have caused significant concern among Hispanic Americans, demonstrating that when Republicans advocate for "mass deportation," it results in families being separated and homes disrupted. This experience has likely diminished future support from Hispanic voters, suggesting that, much like with African American voters, the Republican Party risks losing Hispanic voter support for generations to come.

Since 2010, the Republican Party has focused on consolidating a single demographic and its interests. However, this group's share of the electorate is declining and is projected to lose majority status in America in near future.

Over the last 15 years, the percentage of people identifying as Christian has dropped by 17%, further weakening the coalition the Republicans once relied on.

Another emerging concern for Republicans is Pope Leo’s redefinition of the term "pro-life." Today, leading Catholic authorities are directly raising questions such as, “Can you be pro-life if you support mass deportation?” In the near future, mainstream Protestant communities in America will be forced to address this issue. Although not all Protestants may shift their perspective, some are likely to reassess their views. This could lead to divisions among pro-life supporters: one group may continue to advocate strictly for the protection of unborn children and opposition to abortion, while others may broaden their understanding of pro-life principles to include social justice issues—such as supporting the poor and caring for those in need—as part of the biblical concept of the “sanctity of life.” As a result, Republicans risk losing another segment of their interest groups in the near future.

Yet, current observations suggest that the Republican Party appears unconcerned with prevailing trends, shifting demographics, or changes in religious affiliation within the United States. They do not seem to recognize many groups distancing themselves from the party or the implications these changes may have for their future.

Trump administration ‘inadvertently’ deported transgender woman to Mexico despite judge’s concern she may face torture there​

The Trump administration admitted it “inadvertently” deported a transgender woman to Mexico this month after a judge ordered she not be removed to the country over fears she may be tortured or violently persecuted. [emphasis added]

“ICE confirmed that your client was removed to Mexico inadvertently,” Department of Justice attorney Shannon Smitherman wrote in an email filed in court. The next day, she wrote, “ICE stands ready to remedy the inadvertent removal by allowing your client to voluntarily reenter the United States if your client wishes to do so.”

“Secretary Neom unleashed ICE to deliver on the President’s mandate from the American people to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country.”

Valletta said:

“Secretary Neom unleashed ICE to deliver on the President’s mandate from the American people to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country.”

Click to expand...

Yes, that lie that it was about 'removing criminals' and the 'worst of the worst' is a large part of what's motivating the anger.

And then there are the methods being used on noncriminals, legal residents, and citizens.

Maybe they should stop lying about the citizens they shoot and/or arrest for protesting their actions.

Federal prosecutors drop charges against Marimar Martinez, woman shot by CBP agent in Chicago​

In a statement on the decision to dismiss the charges, U.S. Attorney's office spokesman Joseph Fitzpatrick said in a statement that federal prosecutors are "constantly evaluating new facts and information relating to cases and investigations arising out of Operation Midway Blitz, the largest ever law enforcement surge in the Northern District of Illinois."

In a court filing, her attorneys pointed to body camera video they said shows the agent turned his wheel and caused the crash before he jumped out of the car and started shooting.

Meantime, federal prosecutors on Thursday also dismissed charges against 70-year-old U.S. Air Force veteran Dana Briggs, who was arrested in September during protests in Broadview.

He was initially charged with felony assaulting or resisting federal agents, but the charges were downgraded to a misdemeanor in October. All charges against him have now been dropped.