America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have a good point. How many people have ever gone faster than the speed limit? That’s technically breaking the law, but do we consider anyone who has ever done that (everyone) an “illegal”? I think the Republican Party has had it right in most things except for this one issue. But at the same time, I know that both parties hold to their position based on the prospect of either gaining or losing votes. I know that if the ones who come across the border would be Republican voters then we would see the Democrats doing everything they can to stop them from gaining citizenship and having a chance to vote.

That’s the problem for the men of the Church. They speak on morals and Americans quickly look for a political gain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said, ‘Christ didn’t tell us not to put ourselves out to help others.’

You said, ‘He didn;t call us to put out others to help others though, either.’

I said, ‘Who’s being put out?’

You tell me - it was your vague quote to begin with.

We’re supposed to have faith in Christ, enough faith to ‘feed the hungry,’ ‘clothe the naked,’ ‘give shelter to the stranger,’ ‘care for the sick,’ and ‘visit the imprisoned.’ I don’t see His teachings as being about self, as much as it was about others. What we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. What we have not done for the least of His, we have not done for Him.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I said, ‘Christ didn’t tell us not to put ourselves out to help others.’

You said, ‘He didn;t call us to put out others to help others though, either.’

I said, ‘Who’s being put out?’

We’re supposed to have faith in Christ, enough faith to ‘feed the hungry,’ ‘clothe the naked,’ ‘give shelter to the stranger,’ ‘care for the sick,’ and ‘visit the imprisoned.’ I don’t see His teachings as being about self, as much as it was about others. What we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. What we have not done for the least of His, we have not done for Him.

I know. You are quote good and quoting scripture and various themse, but very light on specifics, and you are good at responding to points people make with questions. I don’t see anyone not wanting to clothe the naked, or feed the hungry. I also don’t see many plans, unless you favor open borders and no immigration policies period. If so, say so.

We all get that. What I don’t see is solutions that don’t hurt others (outsides ourselves). Like you said, we can’t do evil to do good. So we cannot endanger or rob from children in the future, no matter how good the cause is, as you say. I could also argue we shouldn’t allow people to come and foster an evil agenda through the voting booth in order to do good (as we perceieve it). So that cuts both ways.

If we aren’t going to get into specifc solutions, we might as well all agree that we need to care for the poor and needy, and close the topic. Without solutions, there isn’t going to be much to discuss on these boards.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I said, ‘Christ didn’t tell us not to put ourselves out to help others.’

You said, ‘He didn;t call us to put out others to help others though, either.’

I said, ‘Who’s being put out?’

We’re supposed to have faith in Christ, enough faith to ‘feed the hungry,’ ‘clothe the naked,’ ‘give shelter to the stranger,’ ‘care for the sick,’ and ‘visit the imprisoned.’ I don’t see His teachings as being about self, as much as it was about others. What we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. What we have not done for the least of His, we have not done for Him.

You still don’t get it. You made refernce to us being willing to being put out. Very true. But that supposes someone (us) is put out, willingly for Christ.

So why ask who is being put out? If you don’t know, don’t make a statement about being put out. You just drag out topics with endless questions. It’s great for your post count, but makes these topics way too long.

Likewise, Christ did not encourage people to take money from the children gathered at his skirts in order to feed the hungry, hich is what we are doing. Robbing from our children to help others may seem noble, but it is criminal. Offer a solution that is cost-neutral, promotes Catholic values accross the board, and you’ll have a truly Christian solution.

Anything else ends up doing evil to promote good, as you already said.

 

[seakelp]

Likewise, Christ did not encourage people to take money from the children gathered at his skirts in order to feed the hungry, hich is what we are doing. Robbing from our children to help others may seem noble, but it is criminal. Offer a solution that is cost-neutral, promotes Catholic values accross the board, and you’ll have a truly Christian solution.

Anything else ends up doing evil to promote good, as you already said.

I don’t think cost neutrality is a valid standard to evaluate policies whose purpose are to serve and enable the poor.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I don’t think cost neutrality is a valid standard to evaluate policies whose purpose are to serve and enable the poor.

If we are paying the cost, I agree. If we are risking the lives of our children and the poor themselves, I disagree. How good are the poor going to be if our country crumbles into financial ruin? How much good are we going to do for them then?

Tell me - what causes have you deemed worthy of not assigning a cost? Take Greece for example. They have literally tossed people dependent on the government out in the street to fend for themselves because of their financial collapse. Surely they should continue to fund those poor and needy, correct?

God call us to holiness, but he also calls us to be good stewards. He gave us intelect for a reason. Look at the guy who buried his talenst in the ground. He essentially squandered God’s gifts.

If it were a simple matter of endless giving, we would just continue to print money for every good cause there is, and we’d solve everyone;s problems tomorrow.

Surely you realize the basic of economics make this sort of thing not feasible.

So what is the plan for what sacrifices we need to make to get our debt under control, and truly help the poor and needy? That isn’t callousness talking, but financial sense and prudence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If we are paying the cost, I agree. If we are risking the lives of our children and the poor themselves, I disagree. How good are the poor going to be if our country crumbles into financial ruin? How much good are we going to do for them then?

Tell me - what causes have you deemed worthy of not assigning a cost? Take Greece for example. They have literally tossed people dependent on the government out in the street to fend for themselves because of their financial collapse. Surely they should continue to fund those poor and needy, correct?

God call us to holiness, but he also calls us to be good stewards. He gave us intelect for a reason. Look at the guy who buried his talenst in the ground. He essentially squandered God’s gifts.

If it were a simple matter of endless giving, we would just continue to print money for every good cause there is, and we’d solve everyone;s problems tomorrow.

Surely you realize the basic of economics make this sort of thing not feasible.

So what is the plan for what sacrifices we need to make to get our debt under control, and truly help the poor and needy? That isn’t callousness talking, but financial sense and prudence.

Financial sense and prudence? Where did Christ teach that to help others?

I don’t think things are as dire as others, but we must have a strong faith in Christ. If we suffer for the least of His, we have suffered for Him.

 

[seakelp]

If we are paying the cost, I agree. If we are risking the lives of our children and the poor themselves, I disagree. How good are the poor going to be if our country crumbles into financial ruin? How much good are we going to do for them then?

Agreed. But I think going from, “We can’t drive the country into the ground in order to help the poor” is a far cry from “cost neutrality in immigration policy.”

God call us to holiness, but he also calls us to be good stewards. He gave us intelect for a reason. Look at the guy who buried his talenst in the ground. He essentially squandered God’s gifts.

I think this is reasonable. But I’d maintain what I said immediately above.

If it were a simple matter of endless giving, we would just continue to print money for every good cause there is, and we’d solve everyone;s problems tomorrow.

Inflation, bro.

Surely you realize the basic of economics make this sort of thing not feasible.

Of course.

So what is the plan for what sacrifices we need to make to get our debt under control, and truly help the poor and needy? That isn’t callousness talking, but financial sense and prudence.

Again, I agree. And not being much of a policy wonk, I honestly can’t give you much in the way of numbers. If I recall my basic macroecon course, though, immigration stimulates weak economies. I’d be willing to bet that there is a relatively inexpensive solution to immigration that doesn’t result in the sort of injustices we see today.

Will such a solution be cost neutral? Probably not. But I think we can probably come up with an immigration solution that is justifiable financially. I think it would probably revolve around increasing the number of Mexican folks who are allowed to immigrate legally. We’d probably incur a cost to review of their immigration documentation and applications (to screen out “bad” applicants), but I can’t imagine it’d be more costly than the current law enforcement strategy we have right now.

That’d cut down on illegal entry, at least, and create a boom in the tax-revenue-generating population.

Honestly, that’s mostly speculation (though not unfounded). But my main point, again, is that cost neutrality shouldn’t be the standard for evaluation of immigration policy. We have to give the poor preferential treatment, after all.

 

[livingwordunity]

Maybe Obama’s real plan is to discourage them from wanting to come here by destroying America’s jobs and economy. Because if there are no jobs in America they won’t have a reason to want to come here. Problem solved.

 

[lynnvinc]

And, of course, the map of the various tribes would have changed from time to time. Immediately before white settlement, a Siouxan tribe, the Osage, had driven all other tribes out of the area in which I live, converting it to a virtually deserted “hunting preserve”.
Pre-settler Kentucky was much the same way, having been depopulated by powerful Ohio Valley tribes.

More easterly tribes eventually drove the Osage into Oklahoma, then, under settler pressure (there was some intermarriage) moved on themselves.

As I mentioned before, the Comanche, a tribe from the Rocky Mountains and related to the Utes, drove the Apaches from the southern plains. The Sioux and Cheyenne drove other tribes out of the northern plains.

While there were some tribes that held more or less constant territories for some time, the whole thing was in flux, depending on who won the last inter-tribal war.

Europe wasn’t much different for a long time. Earlier (likely Mongolic) people were driven out by Iberians, who were then conquered by Celts, who were then conquered and Romanized by Romans and their various allies, then significantly supplanted by Teutons, Avars, Magyars. Formerly Teutonic lands became Slavic. On and on.

There is no “single photograph” of the “homelands” of various peoples until relatively modern times. Before that, it was all a “moving picture”.

Even the Aztecs themselves weren’t “originals” in the Valley of Mexico. They were relative latecomers, probably from the Pacific coast of Mexico. They did call their semi-mythical place of origin “Aztlan”, but that Aztlan certainly didn’t include the American southwest, the actual occupants of which would have mightily contested any assertion that it did.

Nor do linguistic similarities determine cultures or nationalities. If it were so, then Finland and Hungary and Turkey would all be one country.

It’s called the “domino effect,” how European immigrants coming in from the East pushed Eastern tribes west, who pushed tribes to their west further west, who pushed tribes west, and so on.

The Cheyenne, for instance started out in N. Wisconsin, sedentary wild rice gatherers, of the Algonquin language group. They were pushed ever westward via the domino effect, for a time being pairie horticulturalists, until they were pushed into the Great Plains where they hunted buffalo, along with the Sioux, etc.

 

[pnewton]

I think the Republican Party has had it right in most things except for this one issue.

GWB wanted it be the one to initiate immigration reform which included a compromise on amnesty, allowing a path to citizenship. He was opposed by his own party.

It is a tough issue.

 

[pnewton]

As was pointed out, familes are torn apart every time someone goes to jail…

However, people go to jail and get out. They only stay in long term for serious crimes. Imagine breaking up a family for years for a non-criminal violation of a civil statute, say running a red light, and you have a better comparison. I think the rule of law makes amnesty problematic, but the balance of justice makes the current system more problematic.

 

[twoshoes]

What source do you have for it creating more suffering than it solves? Those that have moved to this area are productive hard working people. Some live in less than desirable conditions, but I’ve seen them at the Western Union sending money home to support families./QUOT

Who’s jobs do you think are taken by illegals, not mine, not yours, but the low income who work at fast food resturants, construction jobs, lawn service job. Don’t give me the political propaganda that they are jobs no one wants when 44 million people are on welfare, 13 % of the population is either unemployed or under employe or fallen off the government statistics… It has hit the minority population the hardest, 44% unemployment, you need to look around you, Not all people on welfare want to be there. Illegals take low income jobs with a massive 12 million more in the low income labor pool. If you haven’t taken a basic economic course it suggest you do. A large supply of low wage labor keeps wages low. It also stagnate wages up the pay scale.

I suggest you google sex trafficking you will be enlightened also forced labor, my diocese is in a constant battle with vegetable farmers and super markets , over this issue. There are constant report in my area about sex trafficking. These issues are never as simple as the left would want you to believe.

Are the illegals hard working people, yes. Are they looking for a fair wage, yes. Most are very good people and they are fighting for the same crumb all the poor are made to fight for, but that doesnot change the facts the illegals take jobs from the poor, they are forced into slave labor, sex trafficking, families broken up for the scrapes of the rich in this country. If you have ever hired an illegal you created this condition. I won’t even get into the medical and educational problems created by this migration. When you have answers for these problems let me know we all could benefit, but dont say they don’t exist.

Mexico has vast resources and could be a leading country in the world, but the corruption that dominates the political and criminal eliminte has created the poor in that country, pray for an end to that.

 

[pnewton]

they are forced into slave labor, sex trafficking, families broken up for the scrapes of the rich in this country. If you have ever hired an illegal you created this condition…

That has gotten to be one of the least logical arguments I have seen. It is akin to, “Black people run prostitution and dope. If you ever hired a black person you created this condition.”

 

[SamH]

However, people go to jail and get out. They only stay in long term for serious crimes. Imagine breaking up a family for years for a non-criminal violation of a civil statute, say running a red light, and you have a better comparison. I think the rule of law makes amnesty problematic, but the balance of justice makes the current system more problematic.

Non-criminal? Civil statute? Where are you getting this stuff?

 

[J_Peterson]

I have difficulty understanding how enforcement of immigration laws “breaks up families” except by the CHOICE of the family members. If, say, one is an illegal immigrant from Mexico and is deported, there is nothing preventing him from taking his family back to Mexico with him.

The children are born here so they are American citizens. The parents country won’t necessarily take the children so they end up in foster care. Sure there were choices that led to the situation and one of them was to have a baby.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s called the “domino effect,” how European immigrants coming in from the East pushed Eastern tribes west, who pushed tribes to their west further west, who pushed tribes west, and so on.

The Cheyenne, for instance started out in N. Wisconsin, sedentary wild rice gatherers, of the Algonquin language group. They were pushed ever westward via the domino effect, for a time being pairie horticulturalists, until they were pushed into the Great Plains where they hunted buffalo, along with the Sioux, etc.

I gues I led you and myself into non-topicality, but I do want to at least comment that the movement of tribes like the Osage was pre-Columbian. There are many other examples. Anthropologists in regions like mine have only recently started uncovering the layers and layers of indicia of the various and diverse groups that previously inhabited this area. And, of course, the Aztecs themselves were very recent arrivals in the Valley of Mexico before Cortez. Indian tribes displaced each other with regularity before Columbus.

The plains tribes were not pushed onto the plains, they were drawn onto them by the vast quantity of buffalo there. Granted, Indians could rarely access those billions upon billions of pounds of protein until they gained access to horses. But they moved out onto the plains on their own, displacing the relatively sparse indigenous populations there. In doing so, they enjoyed much better health and a population boom. The Comanches moved out of the Rockies onto the southern plains before whites were in either place. Horses preceded settlers by about a hundred years in those places. Horses were, indeed, a precipitating factor for a lot of the movements, but they were not the causative factor. The causative factor was the desire of one population to take what had been the property of another, weaker group. It wasn’t unique, as I pointed out. The history of Eurasia was essentially no different.

But, attempting to return to the topic, just because people can move about en masse under some circumstances and have reasons to do it, their doing so is not necessarily “just”, nor is the resistance of the indigenous population necessarily “unjust”.

 

[pnewton]

Non-criminal? Civil statute? Where are you getting this stuff?

An immigration attorney.

“Criminal” is a term that varies. If you remember during the “de-criminalization” of marijuana phase we went through last generation, the word never had to do with making marijuana legal, just making it no longer criminal. That is why I keep using traffic citations as a comparison. I could also use the lowest level of assault or public intoxication just as easily. Illegal, non-criminal.

This is why those found to be here illegally are deported, not incarcerated. This also jibes with my own experience incarcerating and deporting them.

 

[pnewton]

Biased blog, but like I said, it does jibe with what I know of the process.

stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-immigration-law-civil-or-criminal.html#!/2011/08/is-immigration-law-civil-or-criminal.html

[Deportation] is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions … which the Government of the nation … has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application

 

[SamH]

An immigration attorney.

“Criminal” is a term that varies. If you remember during the “de-criminalization” of marijuana phase we went through last generation, the word never had to do with making marijuana legal, just making it no longer criminal. That is why I keep using traffic citations as a comparison. I could also use the lowest level of assault or public intoxication just as easily. Illegal, non-criminal.

This is why those found to be here illegally are deported, not incarcerated. This also jibes with my own experience incarcerating and deporting them.

So that’s your wish - it doesn’t really apply here.