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

[livnlern]

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 the reason Democrats want to give the immigrants citizenship is because they see them as potential Democrat votes. If the ones who come across the border would be Republican voters then we would see the Republicans arguing to give them citizenship and Democrats doing everything they can to stop them from gaining citizenship and having a chance to vote. For both political parties, it’s all about the votes and about gaining and retaining power. One side just pretends to care about the people. I strongly believe that party systems are what has been destroying America. There should be no political parties at all. And everyone who runs for office should run based on their own merits alone without any political party or special interest lobbies involved. I also think that there should be a two-term limit a lifetime for all politicians. Some Senators and Congressmen have been in office since the 1960’s. It’s ridiculous!

I completely agree with you on the term limits. Some of these politicians have been in there for so long they’ve lost any connection with real people and think they have the answers to everything. They are there as public servants, not to make a lifetime career of it and live off the taxpayers. They have far too many benefits as well.
I understand why the Church stands up for illegals. They are poor people and most of the ones I’ve seen are very hard working. The problem comes in where they become legal and because they’re minorities, they automatically vote Democratic. The Dems are pretty much against everything the Catholic Church stands for. So in essence, they’ll be voting for things that go against the teachings of our church.

 

[seakelp]

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.

This is 100% correct. It’s not a crime to enter the country illegally - but it is a crime to reenter after deportation.

 

[seakelp]

I completely agree with you on the term limits. Some of these politicians have been in there for so long they’ve lost any connection with real people and think they have the answers to everything. They are there as public servants, not to make a lifetime career of it and live off the taxpayers. They have far too many benefits as well.
I understand why the Church stands up for illegals. They are poor people and most of the ones I’ve seen are very hard working. The problem comes in where they become legal and because they’re minorities, they automatically vote Democratic. The Dems are pretty much against everything the Catholic Church stands for. So in essence, they’ll be voting for things that go against the teachings of our church.

That is NOT a reason to continue to mistreat them.

 

[livnlern]

That is NOT a reason to continue to mistreat them.

Mistreat? I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

 

[seakelp]

Mistreat? I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

You don’t believe deportation and the destruction of families is “mistreatment?”

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

In the case of Mexicans, at least, children born here of Mexican nationals have dual citizenship, recognized by both Mexico and the U.S. From my admittedly anecdotal knowledge of it, deported parents often do leave their children here in the care of relatives or others because of the free education, Medicaid and welfare available to the children here. Very, very frequently, the parents return under a different set of ID and go on as if nothing happened.

A little off topic, but not much, I don’t think most people have any idea how robust the phony ID business is in this country. I knew one of the makers well. She even offered to make me a set just for fun; an offer I declined. One of the reasons why “E-verify” is essentially worthless as a check on illegals working in this country, is that potential employers are prohibited by law from further investigating ID that is regular on its face. Since the really good fake ID makers always use real and plausible social security numbers, E-verify does nothing more than confirm that the ID maker is highly skilled and, therefore, charged quite a bit.

ICE, however, can look behind ID. Most of the “raids” one hears of (or used to) are actually arranged between the employers and ICE. Employers who believe they have a lot of illegals but are prohibited from actually investigating, send the ID copies to ICE…all of them so they won’t be accused of “discriminating”. If ICE figures out that a lot of them are phony, they arrange a “raid”. But because Obama won’t enforce immigration laws to speak of anymore, those have died down a lot.

Why did ICE do those employer “raids” everybody bemoans so much? Because that’s the only way to catch any number of them. Once the word goes out that ICE is looking at even one person, all the rest of them disappear, and usually return as “somebody else” with a set of ID to prove it.

That can reach absurd lengths. I have known of employers who would see a worker deported, then come back as “another person” within a month or two. If his ID looks good and checks with E-verify, they have to hire him even though they recognize him as his previous person.

 

[livnlern]

You don’t believe deportation and the destruction of families is “mistreatment?”

When people come here illegally they know there’s a possibility of deportation. I’m not saying it’s a good thing to break up families, but there’s a risk involved in entering a country illegally and having a baby born there.
I won’t pretend to know what the answer is to this problem. But the Church needs to address the issue that the people from Mexico who come here and become citizens go on to vote against the teachings of our Church.

 

[lynnvinc]

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”.

Yes, of course peoples have always been moving around. And there was a civilization here in the middle of the US, the Mississippian (which we’ve named) centered at the Cahokia mound in SE Illinois (a huge structure some 1000 x 900’ & 100’ high), stretching over a large portion of the mid-west and to the east. It fell apart long before 1492.



This is not at all off-topic. This land does not rightly belong to us, it was stolen by robbery and genocide by thieves and murderers (my antecedents and even some of my relatives), who rightly should not have benefitted from their atrocities.

We American citizens and residents should consider ourselves keepers, not owners, of the land, to be kept in good condition as God intended (and commanded in Genesis) and shared with those who want to come here…in an orderly fashion, without further “oustings” of people who are already here, and within the carrying capacity of the land – which is still very vast. We are very much underpopulated. Of course when the impacts of climate change really start kicking in within a few decades the carrying capacity of nearly all the lands of the earth may start being diminished well below the populations. By the end of this century I think it will start becoming a vicious killer musical chairs of ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources.

We have not protected creation and are bringing on this devastation ourselves, and mainly to the poor peoples and indigenous peoples. We do not deserve to have this land. We do not deserve any good or benefit at all. But God graciously deigns not to punish us … yet.

 

[pnewton]

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

It is much more applicable and accurate than illegal. And yes, it is always my wish to have precision over rhetoric.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course there’s rhetoric on both sides. The pro-illegal-immigration-Open-Borders crowd likes to condemn the use of “illegal” on the grounds that “no person is illegal.” (Insert emotional manipulation.)

But the “illegal” does not refer to “person.” It is very specific. It refers to their immigrant status as not being legally pursued and awarded. When one does not go through procedures, one is residing in another country or territory “illegally” – i.e., without permission of the civil authorities.

Criminality is a different matter.

 

[RACJ]

Christ didn’t tell us not to put ourselves out to help others.

Christ never said that nations should destroy themselves by allowing limitless people with different, sometimes destructive agendas to arrive unfettered. You and I should indeed “put ourselves out” to help others, but when you see your nation being destroyed in front of your eyes, the natural, and moral, and just. response is to try to stop it.Jesus overturned the money changer’s tables in the Temple. At this moment, those whose goods were overturned did not feel “comforted”. But He was defending what is good, righteous and Holy. Freedom is imminently imperiled in America, and I don’t want our great nation, governed by “We the People” to lay in ruins b/c her people has lost her will to survive. Rob

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When people come here illegally they know there’s a possibility of deportation. I’m not saying it’s a good thing to break up families, but there’s a risk involved in entering a country illegally and having a baby born there.
I won’t pretend to know what the answer is to this problem. But the Church needs to address the issue that the people from Mexico who come here and become citizens go on to vote against the teachings of our Church.

I don’t see a consideration of ‘why’ people come here. Is that not something Christians should give consideration?

Would you call for the Church to address the way those who become citizens vote if they voted along political lines that you agree with? We can’t remove people acting on their faith based consciences to accomplish political goals, for either side. How one decides to vote, or what political party they decide to align with, should they gain legal citizenship, is not a part of the equation, in my honest opinion. Should we ask the Church to support removing the rights of citizens who were born here, to accomplish a political goal?

 

[pnewton]

But the “illegal” does not refer to “person.”

I have never objected to the word being use properly, as an adjective. There is no plural for the word.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christ never said that nations should destroy themselves by allowing limitless people with different, sometimes destructive agendas to arrive unfettered. You and I should indeed “put ourselves out” to help others, but when you see your nation being destroyed in front of your eyes, the natural, and moral, and just. response is to try to stop it.Jesus overturned the money changer’s tables in the Temple. At this moment, those whose goods were overturned did not feel “comforted”. But He was defending what is good, righteous and Holy. Freedom is imminently imperiled in America, and I don’t want our great nation, governed by “We the People” to lay in ruins b/c her people has lost her will to survive. Rob

The problem for me is that I see believing that the nation will come to ruins denies my faith that Christ can accomplish anything, especially if we follow His commands without question.

I have seen a moral decline, worldwide, in my lifetime. I have seen both of the major political parties, of this country, in control while this decline continued. Neither party is completely righteous, anymore than either party is completely evil. They are parties of men, of this world. Parts of the Gospel are supported by both parties. The perfect party does not exist through the secular.

‘Forcing’ people to a single political view is not Freedom.

 

[RACJ]

You don’t believe deportation and the destruction of families is “mistreatment?”

You try setting up shop after illegally crossing the border in any other country, and see what happens to you. Our treatment of illegals is far mor humane than it is in Mexico. Let me say this: If legal and illegal immigrants who became citizens all of a sudden decided to vote for candidates who believed in the sovereignty of the individual (Republicans), every Democrat would want them herded back in cattle cars. Our insane immigration policy is all about POWER to the Democrat Party. Best, Rob

P.S. Yes, I know that some pols labeled “Republican” stand for “progressive”, all-controlling big government as well. I oppose them every bit as fervently.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You try setting up shop after illegally crossing the border in any other country, and see what happens to you. Our treatment of illegals is far mor humane than it is in Mexico. Let me say this: If legal and illegal immigrants who became citizens all of a sudden decided to vote for candidates who believed in the sovereignty of the individual (Republicans), every Democrat would want them herded back in cattle cars. Our insane immigration policy is all about POWER to the Democrat Party. Best, Rob

P.S. Yes, I know that some pols labeled “Republican” stand for “progressive”, all-controlling big government as well. I oppose them every bit as fervently.

How they vote has nothing to do with this. It is politicized to support a view of how it should be handled. It would be no different to say, ‘Republicans would stand for them staying if they became citizens and voted republicans.’ Would that be a correct assessment?

You can come to America and become a citizen of this free country, but you must agree to support only partisans of a particular party?

 

[RACJ]

The problem for me is that I see believing that the nation will come to ruins denies my faith that Christ can accomplish anything, especially if we follow His commands without question.

I have seen a moral decline, worldwide, in my lifetime. I have seen both of the major political parties, of this country, in control while this decline continued. Neither party is completely righteous, anymore than either party is completely evil. They are parties of men, of this world. Parts of the Gospel are supported by both parties. The perfect party does not exist through the secular.

‘Forcing’ people to a single political view is not Freedom.

Well, the Democrat leaders, every one of them, support every moral evil in the name of “civil rights” and “children”. This includes destructive immigration policies designed to overwhelm every institution, and keep THEM in power in perpetuity. We all have brains, and if we do not utilize them to determine rational policies, God will not save us from ourselves. Blessings, Rob

P.S. Constitutional Republicans would still reject this, b/c our financial and social systems would still be pulverized by the weight of the anvil of tens of millions of new arrivals.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, the Democrat leaders, every one of them, support every moral evil in the name of “civil rights” and “children”. This includes destructive immigration policies designed to overwhelm every institution, and keep THEM in power in perpetuity. We all have brains, and if we do not utilize them to determine rational policies, God will not save us from ourselves. Blessings, Rob

So we should take away free will that God could but does not? The answer is to follow His Gospel, which is not fighting, or forcing others to Him.

Love is an important tenet of Christianity. The republican message during the election did not convey that love, on the subject of immigration, in my and other people’s opinions. Would those percentages have been as high among Hispanic voters if they found the republican view sympathetic to their own situations, and that of their family and friends? We can save ourselves, if we have faith in Him and follow all His Gospel teachings. There are the non-negotiable issues. But the way we handle other issues has an affect on the non-negotiable.

 

[seakelp]

You try setting up shop after illegally crossing the border in any other country, and see what happens to you. Our treatment of illegals is far mor humane than it is in Mexico. Let me say this: If legal and illegal immigrants who became citizens all of a sudden decided to vote for candidates who believed in the sovereignty of the individual (Republicans), every Democrat would want them herded back in cattle cars. Our insane immigration policy is all about POWER to the Democrat Party. Best, Rob

P.S. Yes, I know that some pols labeled “Republican” stand for “progressive”, all-controlling big government as well. I oppose them every bit as fervently.

Rob, if you are correct about the political demographic justification, why did President G.W. Bush support amnesty? Why did President R. Reagan provide amnesty? Why do Republicans in border states support immigration reform - including opening the border to more immigrants?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

You don’t believe deportation and the destruction of families is “mistreatment?”

Again, that’s like blaming the justice system for splitting up the Manson family.

I can see having sympathy, and we should look at whether we can do better, but let’s lay blame squarely where it laws - on the person who to the risk, and got deported. That’s why it is called risk.

I still see a lot of platitudes but no proposed solutions. like I said, if all we are going to do in here is say that we need to work on a just immigration system that protects our security and respects the dignity or workers and families, lets all agree, and close the topic. There is no need to clutter these boards with pages on generic platitudes.