21 hours ago, tai4de2 said:

Presumably, you don’t recognize the authority of any nation to control who enters and remains in its territory? Because there’s not a single nation on earth encompassing land that didn’t involve some form of migration+conquest, etc., in its past.

If you’re a foreigner in Thailand, following Thailand’s visa and immigration processes for example, that makes you quite the hypocrite.

Oh dear. 🤡. Seems you missed the emoji in my post and chose not to quote it in your reply. Quite the troll, aren't you.

20 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

When the original immigrants arrived in the USA in the 17th century it was totally uncivilised and there were no laws So how could they possibly be considered illegal.

Of course. I know that. Hopefully the emoji I included in my comment helped readers to work that out.

8 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Oh dear. 🤡. Seems you missed the emoji in my post and chose not to quote it in your reply. Quite the troll, aren't you.

8 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Of course. I know that. Hopefully the emoji I included in my comment helped readers to work that out.

How on earth is anybody supposed to know what all these childish emojis mean , the one you chose to use in your post came up as "zany face" when I hovered my cursor over it

What on earth is that supposed to mean? I have no idea, So your hope that it may "help" other members understand your comment was ridiculous.

This is a forum used by grown men not teenage girls. You need to grow up and act your age rather than your shoe size

11 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

How on earth is anybody supposed to know what all these childish emojis mean , the one you chose to use in your post came up as "zany face" when I hovered my cursor over it

What on earth is that supposed to mean? I have no idea, So your hope that it may "help" other members understand your comment was ridiculous.

This is a forum used by grown men not teenage girls. You need to grow up and act your age rather than your shoe size

😂

11 minutes ago, Watawattana said:

😂

well nothing else need be said on the subject, You have validated my comment perfectly, Now run along.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

well nothing else need be said on the subject, You have validated my comment perfectly, Now run along.

Just remember I'm laughing at you.

On 2/27/2026 at 6:01 AM, unblocktheplanet said:

No humanity. Wonder how many in the administration and ICErs call themselves Christians?

Why do you expect a Church to be above the law? What makes them so special? Where in the US Constitution does a religious group have special powers to be exempt from the laws that everyone else must respect?

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Why do you expect a Church to be above the law? What makes them so special? Where in the US Constitution does a religious group have special powers to be exempt from the laws that everyone else must respect?

Law, law, law! You believe in the law but those enforcing them do not!

Churches have always been a sanctuary for the oppressed and dissidents. They should be at least one place where anyone can go to for refuge and respite.

9 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Law, law, law! You believe in the law but those enforcing them do not!

Churches have always been a sanctuary for the oppressed and dissidents. They should be at least one place where anyone can go to for refuge and respite.

There is no legal basis to support your claim of sanctuary. The SCOTUS already gave its ruling in 1990 that supported the apprehension of criminals and unauthorized migrants in religious facilities. There were additional rulings on 1st Amendment rights that upheld the right of the government to enforce immigration laws in any location.

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies and are confusing the rendering of shelter and food for the poor as the same as providing a hideaway or shield for criminals and unauthorized migrants.

The Sanctuary movement for unauthorized migrants and others subject to deportation, became popular in the 1980's. It reached its heyday when the Obama administration instructed the INS and CBP to avoid religious facilities. Once, Obama left office, the directive was stopped.

Yours is an arbitrary position, that is impossible to allow, unless one is willing to accept ongoing abuses. . Your logic holds that a religious facility can "shelter" anyone from their apprehension for their unlawful activities. For example, it would allow any religious cult, such as those who engage in child abuse and arranged marriages of children such as a sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints, could be are shielded from the entry of Child Protective Services. Any group could proclaim its facility a religious facility and then operate illegal activities from the premises such as a brothel, drug trafficking, money laundering etc. free from regulatory enforcement. Your logic would also allow a religious facility to be above the law.

The entire Administration and many members of Congress and the Senate who back this heinous president are CINO's. Christian in name only. It's likely that very few of them have ever uttered a prayer outside of church, and have absolutely no spiritual foundation within their lives. The administration policies reflect that, and so does their undying commitment to Trump regardless of how extreme and regardless of how lacking in decency or humanity MAGA policies are.

So kudos to these churches for standing up to toxic power and oppressive tactics. ICE are the new domestic terrorists.

On 2/28/2026 at 7:16 PM, KhunLA said:

It's a criminal act to illegally enter the USA, and do it a 2nd time, and it's a felony.

So Trump did it 17 times?

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

There is no legal basis to support your claim of sanctuary. The SCOTUS already gave its ruling in 1990 that supported the apprehension of criminals and unauthorized migrants in religious facilities. There were additional rulings on 1st Amendment rights that upheld the right of the government to enforce immigration laws in any location.

You have been watching too many Hollywood movies and are confusing the rendering of shelter and food for the poor as the same as providing a hideaway or shield for criminals and unauthorized migrants.

The Sanctuary movement for unauthorized migrants and others subject to deportation, became popular in the 1980's. It reached its heyday when the Obama administration instructed the INS and CBP to avoid religious facilities. Once, Obama left office, the directive was stopped.

Yours is an arbitrary position, that is impossible to allow, unless one is willing to accept ongoing abuses. . Your logic holds that a religious facility can "shelter" anyone from their apprehension for their unlawful activities. For example, it would allow any religious cult, such as those who engage in child abuse and arranged marriages of children such as a sect of the Church of Latter Day Saints, could be are shielded from the entry of Child Protective Services. Any group could proclaim its facility a religious facility and then operate illegal activities from the premises such as a brothel, drug trafficking, money laundering etc. free from regulatory enforcement. Your logic would also allow a religious facility to be above the law.

Churches have served as sanctuaries for over 1,600 years, with the practice of offering refuge from authorities formalized by the Christianized Roman Empire in the late 4th century (circa AD 441). This tradition, rooted in earlier Greek and Roman concepts of asylum, provided protection for those fleeing violence or persecution.

42 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Churches have served as sanctuaries for over 1,600 years, with the practice of offering refuge from authorities formalized by the Christianized Roman Empire in the late 4th century (circa AD 441). This tradition, rooted in earlier Greek and Roman concepts of asylum, provided protection for those fleeing violence or persecution.

What's your point? A reference to an uncorroborated copy and paste serves no purpose other than to demonstrate that you have no credible basis with which to support your claim. It has no relevance. You insult people's intelligence when you throw out references to Greece and Rome. These are the same culture's that formalized slavery and the horrific punishment of those who were not citizens. Oh yes, the sanctuary must have worked so well for the millions of slaves upon who's backs ancient Greece and Rome were built. Tell that to the Christians covered in pitch and set alight at the games of Rome.

This is about a specific set of circumstances involving the enforcement of legitimate laws that apply to anyone entering the USA, not your imagined utopia of centuries ago. The USA was founded in approx. 1776. That's about 250 years ago. The USA has its own laws. The SCOTUS has made repeated rulings over the past 35 years that support the regulatory enforcement action of the government.

21 hours ago, Watawattana said:

Just remember I'm laughing at you.

Is that supposed to bother me ?

19 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Churches have always been a sanctuary for the oppressed and dissidents. They should be at least one place where anyone can go to for refuge and respite.

Even serial killers and paedophiles ? don't be ridiculous

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Churches have served as sanctuaries for over 1,600 years, with the practice of offering refuge from authorities formalized by the Christianized Roman Empire in the late 4th century (circa AD 441). This tradition, rooted in earlier Greek and Roman concepts of asylum, provided protection for those fleeing violence or persecution.

People fleeing violence or persecution is hardly the same as criminals evading justice,

13 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Is that supposed to bother me ?

Do you think I care?

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

People fleeing violence or persecution is hardly the same as criminals evading justice,

Ordinary families who've built a life in the US, been productive members of society, are criminals just because they don't have some govt papers?!?

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

What's your point? A reference to an uncorroborated copy and paste serves no purpose other than to demonstrate that you have no credible basis with which to support your claim. It has no relevance. You insult people's intelligence when you throw out references to Greece and Rome. These are the same culture's that formalized slavery and the horrific punishment of those who were not citizens. Oh yes, the sanctuary must have worked so well for the millions of slaves upon who's backs ancient Greece and Rome were built. Tell that to the Christians covered in pitch and set alight at the games of Rome.

This is about a specific set of circumstances involving the enforcement of legitimate laws that apply to anyone entering the USA, not your imagined utopia of centuries ago. The USA was founded in approx. 1776. That's about 250 years ago. The USA has its own laws. The SCOTUS has made repeated rulings over the past 35 years that support the regulatory enforcement action of the government.

You're right--no way to corroborate AI. (We'll all be dumber soon.)

However, my minor subject at university was Classics--for six years. When studying ecclesiastical history, all textbooks, religious texts and professor said churches have always been a place of sanctuary.

I am not arguing for no borders, no limits (though I find that an intriguing thought). I just think that people who have proven themselves model Americans for a period of time, say, five or ten years should be grandfathered in and given papers.

That should happen here, too, btw.

Regarding Rome or the Ottomans is deflection. Xian Inquisition, slavery in America aso.

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Even serial killers and paedophiles ? don't be ridiculous

Are serial killers and paedophiles oppressed dissidents? Didn't think so.

Comparing immigrants without papers to them is completely warped.

55 minutes ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Are serial killers and paedophiles oppressed dissidents? Didn't think so.

Comparing immigrants without papers to them is completely warped.

But nobody is talking about oppressed dissidents

criminals are criminals, and illegal immigrants are just that , many of them have additional convictions in their home countries often for serious crimes, they are not all innocent asylum seekers seeking escape from oppression, what about those who are known to be members of criminal gangs? Illegal immigrants are not subject to any checks or any vetting , that is why they sneak in , as such nobody knows what their history is, and there is no reason for any of them to be given the benefit of the doubt.

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

When studying ecclesiastical history, all textbooks, religious texts and professor said churches have always been a place of sanctuary.

What happened 100's of years ago has no bearing on the present in this respect, same goes for the views of the leftist academics that teach that rubbish

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

people who have proven themselves model Americans for a period of time, say, five or ten years should be grandfathered in and given papers.

And you think that will help solve the problem of illegal immigration ? Nobody hurling abuse at or obstructing law enforcement officers going about their duties can be considered model citizens

Oppressed dissident

1 hour ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Ordinary families who've built a life in the US, been productive members of society, are criminals just because they don't have some govt papers?!?

correct , in the same way that ordinary people, even born and bred citizens, caught driving a car, or carrying a gun for example are considered criminals if they do not have the correct piece of government paper, Is that too hard to understand

I assume you have been here for a while , and entered legally , ?

Try overstaying your visa, or failing to meet the requirements and see what happens , be sure to report back prior to your deportation

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

correct , in the same way that ordinary people, even born and bred citizens, caught driving a car, or carrying a gun for example are considered criminals if they do not have the correct piece of government paper, Is that too hard to understand

Both cars, for which all illegals must have licences, and guns, which I'd prefer no one have, are lethal weapons. There are ordinary, working families who should be grandfathered. It's compassionate but we seem to not have any of that. Papers are more important.

4 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

But nobody is talking about oppressed dissidents

NO? Their own countries don't count?

criminals are criminals, and illegal immigrants are just that

TOO BAD you are heartless

many of them have additional convictions in their home countries often for serious crimes, they are not all innocent asylum seekers seeking escape from oppression

WHAT PERCENTAGE? Miniscule.

what about those who are known to be members of criminal gangs? Illegal immigrants are not subject to any checks or any vetting , that is why they sneak in , as such nobody knows what their history is.

DOES THE US know what your history is, or mine? Obviously, the guy below with the face tattoo might just be dangerous. The gangs in the US, though, are primarily US citizens living in poverty and so resort to crime.

and there is no reason for any of them to be given the benefit of the doubt.

YOU don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt?!? What a bleak life!

What happened 100's of years ago has no bearing on the present in this respect, same goes for the views of the leftist academics that teach that rubbish.

SO houses of worship are not relevant to modern society, in your view? Can't argue with history, Dude.

And you think that will help solve the problem of illegal immigration ? Nobody hurling abuse at or obstructing law enforcement officers going about their duties can be considered model citizens.

WERE I in the US, believe me, I'd be on the front lines against these murderous thugs.

Oppressed dissident

8 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

Ordinary families who've built a life in the US, been productive members of society, are criminals just because they don't have some govt papers?!?

Yes, exactly! Now you're getting it! Well done.

Apropos of nothing at all, a friend without a driver license took his wife's car out yesterday. When the police stopped him on a minor road infraction, he told them he was en route to his place of gainful employment, he does this all the time, and the lack of some government paper shouldn't interfere with his ability to carry out his productive daily routine. Oddly, they didn't buy that as an excuse! 🤔

7 minutes ago, tai4de2 said:

Yes, exactly! Now you're getting it! Well done.

No, they're not criminals. It's a civil infraction.

2 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

criminals are criminals, and illegal immigrants are just that

TOO BAD you are heartless

Emotional blackmail attempt noted, and rejected.

Look, I get it. You and people like you live in kumbayaland with its imagined duty of sharing anything and everything you own with anyone and everyone who claims they need it.

Me on the other hand: I reject that childlike utopian marxist garbage... Someone breaks into my country, I want them rounded up and removed ASAP.

You will claim I am selfish, heartless, whatever. I will claim you are a gullible simping fool. You will then fall back on any of several tired numerous tropes about how ICE is behaving unconstitutionally, etc. -- all of which I reject as stemming from and being tainted by your feminized socialist-leaning worldview (which as should be obvious by now, I reject out of hand).

And 'round and 'round we go!

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

No, they're not criminals. It's a civil infraction.

Says you. But whatever; rounding every last one of them up and sending them back wherever they came from, or some facsimile thereof, is an excellent aspirational goal.

Your America-hating "the USA owes the world whatever it says it needs" credo is getting crushed this year, and I'm giddy with excitement about that.

1 minute ago, tai4de2 said:

Says you.

Yes, because that's the fact.

"Your America-hating "the USA owes the world whatever it says it needs" credo is getting crushed this year, and I'm giddy with excitement about that."

Huh, where did that come from? Why do people always come with these kind of personal attacks when they have no argument and/or have been caught lying?
Rhetoric.

11 hours ago, unblocktheplanet said:

You're right--no way to corroborate AI. (We'll all be dumber soon.)

However, my minor subject at university was Classics--for six years. When studying ecclesiastical history, all textbooks, religious texts and professor said churches have always been a place of sanctuary.

I am not arguing for no borders, no limits (though I find that an intriguing thought). I just think that people who have proven themselves model Americans for a period of time, say, five or ten years should be grandfathered in and given papers.

That should happen here, too, btw.

Regarding Rome or the Ottomans is deflection. Xian Inquisition, slavery in America aso.

You are given to word dumps. Large amounts of words that are unrelated to the topic at hand and that offer nothing of value. Words for words sake. First you make unsubstantiated claims. Then when confronted with the actual truth, offer irrelevant and nonsensical statements about other scenarios that have no relationship to the original claim. And then when the nonsense is exposed again, you offer more unrelated statements that serve no purpose.

It is wonderful that you want to offer sanctuary and let anyone seek it, whether it be an undocumented migrant, or a violent rapist. Your ideal system has no way of knowing or of screening the claimants. It also requires an wide acceptance that any group calling itself a religion could offer sanctuary to any and all, no matter the circumstances. Do you ever think your great ideas through or do you just throw out absolute impractical imaginings and expect others to blindly accept the consequences?