Do I need to dissect your own writing and deliver it back to you?
If you feel the need to, go right ahead.
"I believe the devil uses semantics to deceive people. The devil's lies seek to undermine loving others as yourself. We can observe that many people are under lies, and they even lie to themselves. It's easy to deceive people simply by using terms that change the reality of the situation into what it is not. One needs only to promote a false premise which people will end up unconsciously accepting as true. For example, the descriptive term "secure" applied to the border actually means to "protect" the border as in protect it from foreign invasion, which does not apply to asylum seekers or refugees."
75%+ easily want the border secured. Most all conservatives, and most democrates. Only the Elites, CEOs, etc. want the border open. The huge growing population of the US that wants crime down, the border closed, do not believe your lies and obfuscations. They don't care about your word semantics of what 'secure' means. They want the border closed. Just like it is in virtually every other country of the world the borders are closed.
Respectfully, this above is a strawman argument, (a logical fallacy). It's a no brainer that a secure/protected border is better than an unsecure/unprotected border. What makes you think anyone would be against secure borders? That's a good example of what happens when a person is consciously unaware that they subconsciously accepted a false premise which changed their perception of reality. Look and see that that's exactly what my post is saying. Notice the accusations you mount against me, claiming the majority of people want the border secured and crime down and they do not believe my lies and obfuscations; But the sentiment manifesting in your feelings that I'm against you is all based on the false assumption/belief that I'm not one of those people that want crime down and the border secure.
Subsequently your post does not approach to dissect anything I wrote, but it does prove my argument of how easily people can be manipulated by lies believed to be true. Your commentary proves in the spiritual context that the devil does use semantics to deceive people into not loving others as themselves. My post was indeed about identifying a lying spirit that divides people; A spirit that justifies turning away from compassion towards others through mischaracterizing desperate and destitute people, and instead implying that they are people we need to fear and be protected from. To rephrase, my sentiments above are saying that we need to beware of false premises that justify cruelty by slandering others in negative prejudice.
I therefore point out that article IV of the constitution section 4 is what is being cited in the OP of this thread, and that the Constitutional meaning is the context of what my post was responding to.
That is why I pointed out that the application of the phrase "secure border" would not be referring to asylum seekers and those seeking refugee status, and it is not what article IV section 4 meant when it guarantees to "protect" each and every state from "invasion". To rephrase, my post is drawing a clear distinction between foreign invaders up to no good and desperate people showing up at the border seeking refugee status.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
"75%+ easily want the border secured. Most all conservatives, and most democrates. Only the Elites, CEOs, etc. want the border open."
A
secure border in the sentence above implies
a border protected from illegal immigration, which is not representative of those lawfully presenting themselves as seeking refugee status.
As a spiritual matter, your articulation makes no distinction between the presence of a threat to one's own carnal comfort, and the discomfort of compassion when seeing another desperate destitute mouth to feed showing up at the border.
I note that you end the above statement by conflating the meaning of an "unsecured" border with an "open" border. That's a source for confusion when articulating this topic because it creates a false dichotomy. An open border would presumably allow people to move freely between two countries with no restrictions. Therefore, reasoning upon a true dichotomy, the opposite would be a closed border which in a strict sense would imply no foreigners would be allowed to enter the country with few exceptions (See the Berlin wall).
---------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
"The huge growing population of the US that wants crime down, the border closed, do not believe your lies and obfuscation".
First off, it's unreasonable to assert that the population of the USA has even seen my post, nor pondered the lies and obfuscation you claim are contained therein. Moreover, nothing I said is a lie or an obfuscation. On the contrary, I am stating a fact for the very purpose of clarity. And I note that it's a fact that the legal definition of a "refugee" is as follows: "A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster". Subsequently, those lawfully seeking refugee status in the USA are not the "invasion" the writers of the Constitution were referring to when they promised in article IV section four that every state Government is guaranteed protection from invasion.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;..."
refugee
ref·u·gee
ˌre-fyu̇-ˈjē
ˈre-fyu̇-ˌjē
Synonyms of refugee
: one that flees
especially
: a person who flees to a foreign country or power to escape danger or persecution
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
"They don't care about your word semantics of what 'secure' means. They want the border closed. Just like it is in virtually every other country of the world the borders are closed."
First off, the population of the USA is not even reading my post. Secondly, they're not my "word semantics" as I didn't write the Merriam Webster dictionary, nor did I write the Constitution. And thirdly, the list of countries with actual closed borders is quite small.
Another obvious lie we can observe over and over is Trump saying that without a border there's no country, as if the border between Mexico and the USA disappears because migrants can cross it. The fact of reality is that people have been crossing back and forth across that border since long before his grandfather ever immigrated here, and the country hasn't ceased to exist. This falsehood is so far removed from reality, it's delusional.
Clearly you're the liar. Because a country with no borders is not a country.
Respectfully, Trump is simply using hyperbole to make the claim that if we don't have a secure border, it therefore follows that there is no border, and subsequently there is no country. That's accepting a false premise since an unsecure border or even an open border is still a border.
Moreover, when Trump is arguing for a secure border, he implies subliminally that that Democrats are against a secure border which is not even true. The actual problem is that there are not enough resources allocated by congress to deal with the large numbers of people, so blaming Democrats for not having a secure border is just propaganda.
It is an unpoliced region. That becomes lawless. Like Afghanistan, Eastern borders of India and many other places.
Migrants don't just get to cross borders in 90% of the world's countries for 100+ years. And these are not migrants. And they are breaking the laws of this country. You don't get to call them migrants and ignore US law. Because Scripture tells you to obey the laws of the govt. you are under. Not help subvert them with nice words and revisions.
An irrelevant argument to subvert laws and justify the breaking of them. The USA has borders. No one that I know of is concerned about what went on prior to that. You cross borders with Visa, Green Cards, etc. By following the law.
You are the falsehood and delusional.
To secure the border and prevent illegal entry the necessary resources and authority must be given by congress. However, it's not against the laws of this country to come here seeking refugee status, nor is it against the Constitution to show compassion for people in need of help.
Recently, I've heard people complain that as a priority we should be protecting our own borders instead of helping Ukraine, as if asylum seekers and refugees are somehow comparable to tanks and soldiers destroying villages and whole cities. This falsehood actually creates a false equivalency between people who come here seeking to make a better life and foreign military forces literally coming to annihilate anyone who stands in their way.
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, about the US Southern Border citizen's safety
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, about your concern for Russia's security in the face of Nato?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, what bout NATO's and the USA's assurance over the last decades Not to do what they are doing to Russia?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, for Serbia and NATO/US unilaterally attacking, destroying, and breaking up that country?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, over Kyiv bombing Donbass region for the last decade?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, over Kyiv slowly strangling the Russian culture out of it's Russian citizens?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, over 46 bio labs Obama should probably be credited with standing up in Ukraine on Russia's Borders?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, on how you are OK with Russia projecting it's military in Cuba? Or is it only the USA that gets to slowly encircle Russia?
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, on the Western elites and the US's vitriolic hatred of the Russian Slavic people? Russia has not recently been in and attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya like the US.
- Can you share with us your concern, previously posted, on the US illegally pumping oil out of any number of countries? Iraq, Syria, Libya...
- Or are you just the latest flavor of the month type christian. No foundation in truth or fiction as to what is going on in your own country and has been going on since at least 1930 and is growing in the last 30 years.
None of these issues listed above dispute the fact that
asylum seekers and refugees are not comparable to tanks and soldiers destroying villages and whole cities.
However, looking at your list of concerns, I'd again point out that it is a spiritual war, and that the fear/distrust of others, accompanied with greed has resulted in destructive/non-productive outcomes for everyone. As a Christian it affirms my conviction that without the knowledge of God contained in the Spirit of Christ, it would be difficult to resist the carnal temptation to point fingers of blame and turn against one another in the insanity of a baseless fear conceived in negative prejudice.
You think the US should invite 10 million people per year? I'm guessing moving 10 million people per year from low-climate agenda countries to high-climate agenda countries is good? What about that Green Agenda. I guess that is the thing. Liberal agendas are like the faucet, Turn them on and off as needed.
The problem with Lies and Obfuscations is like a divided house. You end up with no leg to stand on as your new agenda eats into your old agenda, ad nausea.
Peace and Blessings
It is written that perfect Love casts out all fear. For what it's worth I understand the basic fear that drives the insanity of this world to be an unbelieving, distrustful, self-perpetuating and self-destructive hypocritical cynicism. My hope is not in this world. In my Christian walk I'm dealing with events I have no control over but nevertheless I must respond to with either morality or immorality. And in doing so, I come to realize that step by step I must either become the crucifier of others or become the one who is crucified; I must either conform to Christ or conform to this world.
