“Offensive” in the sense of breaking the rules against infighting (personal insults) in the comments, not “offensive” in the sense of being vile or salacious or obscene. In a previous comment, I posted a link for you to the rules on the blog about infighting. Long ago I found that I needed to be pretty strict about those rules or the entire comments section would quickly become one big poo-flinging insult party, like so many blogs.

On the topic of DACA, as I wrote earlier, “rights” are not about whether a person feels a certain way. We’re talking about legal rights, which have nothing to do with feelings. Do you think that if a person who came here illegally as a child and therefore does not have the legal right to work (or to stay in the country) is then granted that right, that somehow that doesn’t count as a newly-granted right because of how the person felt before? Or because you felt he actually should have had that right before? One can be highly sympathetic to the plight of Dreamers and believe wholeheartedly that they should be granted various rights, including even citizenship, without coming to the odd conclusion that Dreamers already had those rights because of feelings.

I have no idea what this “please ban me” thing is about. I will ban you if you cross the line, but you haven’t crossed it. If you want to leave you’re free to leave, of course, or to come and go. It sounds like you feel you need an intervention or something in order to stay away?

Blogs can have certain addictive qualities (or Twitter, or Facebook, or lots of other things online), and they can eat up a lot of time. I certainly often feel I spend too much time here. Sometimes I spend it arguing with people with whom I’m at loggerheads. It can be frustrating—as though the people on each side speak different languages. Nevertheless I believe it often has value, although it sometimes can come to take too much time from other, more pleasant (or necessary) things in life.

Please ban me. I mean that with all sincerity, the very dictionary definition of the word. It’ll save both of us a lot of time, and I mean that with all civility. I made a mistake coming back here, your blog is not for me. Nothing more needs to be said.

So, please, ban me.

I have no idea what comments where so offensive that you had to remove them.

Granting work permits to people that see themselves as Americans because they came here as children, know no other country, and are culturally American isn’t an ‘extra right’. The issue about these kids is that they see themselves as only Americans, unlike their parents who came as adults from somewhere else.

You told me nothing i didn’t know about DACA. You did tell me about yourself.

I have no more reason to waste my time with you than you with me.

Of course I have every right to ban you or anyone else.

I don’t tend to be eager to ban people, though. I removed your offensively insulting comments on this thread, and I’m letting you know that they’re not acceptable.

Nor will I spend a lot of time engaging you on issues, particularly ones for which the answers are obvious. Just as a single example, of course DACA gives people “extra rights” they didn’t have without it, in particular the right to get a work permit. If you don’t know that, you know next to nothing about DACA—which is first and foremost a legal document, not some sort of emotional pat on the back. I’m not here to give you an education from scratch—way too time-consuming. Educate yourself.

Your comment reminded me of the Republican explanation for removing the Medical Expenses deduction as “it’s a once in a lifetime deduction, wouldn’t you want to have your taxes lower every year?.” That ignores that for the chronically ill it isn’t just once in a lifetime, it’s every year. So the pertinence…

The children brought here illegally by their parents have always faced deportation. We can ignore that for ‘well, it only happens when’ but we would ignore the cases where ‘when’ didn’t apply while they know those cases well. DACA doesn’t grant those children ‘extra rights’, it grants that those children are culturally American, think of themselves as Americans, know no other place than America, are not Mexicans, Central Americans, or South Americans and know they are Americans with the rights of Americans. When they reach their majority, they then face that America rejects them.

Further, the arguments of granting ‘extra rights’ and ‘rewards the parents’ is the argument of those that still sees them as only illegals, like Dave does. Me, i think it is a moral imperative to reject both arguments, recognize that they aren’t guilty of the misdemeanors of their parents, and that it is only about them as cultural Americans. I embrace jus soli (many English speaking countries don’t), citizenship by parentage, but I also have to embrace cultural American citizenship for those that know no other country. Trump is right in this regard, Congress needs to step up and face this elephant.

Finally, if you mean my comment @ Dave January 11th, 2018 at 1:59 pm:, I was harsh in asking him what does he know about Hispanics, but that ties into all his comments. This meme about Democrats importing voters, no better than that of Republicans always gerrymander to defeat minorities, ignores that Hispanics are already here, have always been here, are the largest ethnic group, and that Democrats realize that Dreamers are actually important to Hispanic Americans. If you meant my comment to Ymar Sakar, well his comment was disjointed. I am coming from four years on a very combative blog, so I’m not as civil as I was when I first commented on your blog or Bookworms. That’s not an excuse, just an explanation. If you find me too harsh now, you have every right to ban me. I have no right to comment here, it’s all by your largesse.

Before DACA was in place, these people ordinarily were not being sent back anywhere unless they had committed a serious crime, and often not even then. (And in fact, to be eligible for DACA under Obama, a person needed to have “NOT been convicted of a felony, certain significant misdemeanors [including a single DUI], or three or more misdemeanors of any kind,” too).

Sure, there are those who would like to get rid of DACA and send them all back to wherever they had come from as children (for example, that’s the position Dave stated in this thread). But that’s a small minority who would advocate that position. Most people who are against DACA want it ended because it grants its recipients extra rights compared to what they had before DACA, and rewards their parents’ illegal immigration, not because they want to send them all back. I don’t think there’s much chance at all that they will be sent back, either; it’s a highly unpopular position.

And by the way, you can make your points and also disagree with people without insulting other commenters here. I don’t always catch it when people insult others, but I try to nip it in the bud. Otherwise the comments descend into back-and-forth name-calling. I call your attention to this and this.

“Because Americans and humans still believe in the need for a Ruling Class, which might as well be their free press, even though they complain constantly about lack of transparency and being lied to.” This is simply disjointed. Nothing more needs to be said.

“The notion that DACA deal grants the Democrats millions of new voters only make sense if chain immigration remains in place.” No, it also includes all the people that agree that it’s a moral imperative to not send kids raised as and identifying as Americans to countries that are wholly foreign to them over a misdemeanor that their parents, and not they as children, committed.

Further, what else do you not know about Hispanics, the largest ethnic group in America, beyond what you’ve shown? You think Hispanic-Americans can’t see the moral imperative and can’t identify with these kids?

Humans complain, and then they go back to their vomit. Classic behavioral conditioning for slaves.

The Demoncrats pretend to honor your election systems, and Americans pretend their elections matter in return.