U
Usagi
Guest
Immigrants (even those that entered the country illegally) are required to pay taxes, may not vote, and are not eligible for most benefits (except the ones you first pay into, like Social Securiy and Medicaid).
- Status
R
rosary_warrior
Guest
I’m not even going to comment because you are wrong. The left liberals have made it easy for them to vote and not pay taxes.
U
Usagi
Guest
Some might vote or evade taxes illegally, but I would really like to know how “the left liberals” have made that easy. Certainly not for the DACA folks that are the subject of this thread, who are under all sorts of requirements if they want to keep their status.
T
Theo520
Guest
I don’t think any court has made a ruling on the constitutionality of DACA. Your link was for DAPA
P
PJH_74
Guest
What? How do they not pay taxes, they certainly buy stuff. If they are properly being paid they are paying into a system they can’t take advantage of. You do realize you don’t get benefits with a SSN right? If they are doing this with a false SSN, then the agencies involved need to do a better job. How about those that are being paid under the table, their employers are dodging a number of taxes so those employers are mooching off the system.
As for voting illegally, you do realize Mr Trump’s much heralded committee looking into voter fraud disbanded because it could not find anything right? The DACA people have broken no immigration laws, they deserve a reasonable path to citizenship and ability to obtain a green card.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, the employers are cheating the system, and so are the employees who receive cash payments for their work. Neither of them pays what is owed in taxes.
They are in the country illegally, so clearly they are in violation of the law, otherwise there would be no way to deport them. It could be argued that they ought to have a path to a green card, but granting citizenship is a reward for violating the law. I would not support it.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Sure their presence certainly isn’t proper, but what would YOU do if your parents moved you to a place you don’t belong. You then grew up in a wholly different culture and, in a decent number of cases, not even speaking your “native” language well? To commit a crime you have make the choice to break it. Many of these people were minors completely dependent on their parents, some not even old enough know what was going on. The law broken by them being here was committed by their parents.
U
Usagi
Guest
Right. The people in the DACA program are as innocent as it is possible for someone who is technically in violation of the law to be. And they are all essentially on probation, since they have to be in school or working and not committing any actual crimes or else the “delayed action” on their status ends. And under DACA as it is, they can never become citizens, so they will be in that limbo state forever. And yet they prefer that to deportation, because unlike someone who has lived a full life elsewhere and come here just recently, they have no idea what they would do if sent back to their alleged “home” countries. This is home to them, and they have to live productive American lives, which is more than some citizens manage. They are doing the country no harm and likely doing it good. If you have a reasonable concern that immigrants be vetted, these folks have been. Why are they the target du jour?
P
pnewton
Guest
That is not an answer to the question. It has an answer, but I will go back to the actual question.
Ethics, of course, is about looking at morality universally. That is why Scripture specifically refers the nation of Israel to treat strangers as they would have wanted to be treated in Egypt. Jesus then gives us the rule to treat other as we would be treated. This is not proof-texting, but a constant teaching in Scripture. So when in order to say it is moral to deport these young adults, we would have to say that if we were born elsewhere, but spent our whole life in another country and it was all we knew, that we would want to be deported.
I think it significant that we celebrate as a national holiday Thanksgiving Day, a day in which our early forefathers should have died as illegal aliens but were helped by those who were here before us. This celebration, in the current climate, is sheer hypocrisy.
Ethics, of course, is about looking at morality universally. That is why Scripture specifically refers the nation of Israel to treat strangers as they would have wanted to be treated in Egypt. Jesus then gives us the rule to treat other as we would be treated. This is not proof-texting, but a constant teaching in Scripture. So when in order to say it is moral to deport these young adults, we would have to say that if we were born elsewhere, but spent our whole life in another country and it was all we knew, that we would want to be deported.
I think it significant that we celebrate as a national holiday Thanksgiving Day, a day in which our early forefathers should have died as illegal aliens but were helped by those who were here before us. This celebration, in the current climate, is sheer hypocrisy.
A
Arkansan
Guest
If I committed a crime, I wouldn’t want to be jailed, but I acknowledge that it would be perfectly just. I likewise don’t personally like to pay taxes, doesn’t mean it’s wrong to support them.
Likewise, it’s not necessary that one would want to be deported if such were the case, just that one acknowledges the justice of it.
Were the Indians better off for having open borders?
P
pnewton
Guest
Let me repeat here what Jesus taught, so a watered down version can not be used to assuage one’s conscience.
“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” It is not , “Do unto others as you thing would be just to be done unto you.” That is Kant’s standard, not the Christian standard.
Consequentialism. Morality is not a matter of doing what we think will make us better off. The Indians did what they did out of compassion and behaved morally. Those they helped were better off. Christians have to rise above the mentality of selfishness.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Are you actually arguing that it’s morally wrong to have a criminal justice system, and that it would have been morally wrong for the Indians to have prevented their territory from being overrun?
Or are you just mindlessly virtue-signaling?
Or are you just mindlessly virtue-signaling?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This is not quite analogous the the DACA situation. Rather than trying to find an analogy, why not consider the exact question that pnewton asked you. If you were brought to this country as a child and knew only life here, and then after growing up you were told that you needed to leave the only country you ever knew and go to a strange place, would you still acknowledge it as just? I don’t think so. Imagine right now that you just found out that your parents never told you but they were actually not US citizens but Guatemalan citizens who came here illegally. Would you honestly right now feel in your heart that you needed to go there and live and it would be just? If you say yes than I am just going to have to disbelieve you.pnewton:
If I committed a crime, I wouldn’t want to be jailed, but I acknowledge that it would be perfectly just.
This is also not analogous because everyone in your situation also has to pay taxes, but with the DACA kids, they have to leave while all their friends get to stay here. That would be like you having to pay taxes while no one else in your town has to.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Yes. I admit that I obviously wouldn’t personally like having to go back to my home country in that case, but there would be no grounds on which I could hold it to be unjust.
My analogy was not perfect, but it demonstrated the pertinent point. The enforcement of laws often creates unpleasant situations for individuals. This is an unavoidable part of having laws, and government officials would do great harm to society if they based their decisions on “how would I personally like things to be if I were in this person’s situation”, and not on what will benefit society as a whole.
Your analogy is improper. The better analogy would be between Dreamers and Americans in countries other than America. Obviously, most countries wouldn’t think twice about sending such people back here.
P
pnewton
Guest
No.
No.
Read the OP. I am speaking of morality, that is virtue. What is it with conservatives today and the “virtue-signaling” garbage, as if Jesus did not teach that we are called to be the salt of the Earth. Have you not read?
Next time you use this phrase or see it, remember that Jesus taught the opposite of conservative pundits (quite often, actually). We are called by St. Paul to put on the mind of Christ, as opposed to putting on the mind of Man, nationalism, or Donald Trump. Instead of criticizing those who speak out for morality and virtue, why aren’t conservative pundits who are Christians doing more to signal the need for virtue in our political life?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, 80% of the nation disagrees with you. So your sense of justice is not that common (thankfully).LeafByNiggle:
Yes. I admit that I obviously wouldn’t personally like having to go back to my home country in that case, but there would be no grounds on which I could hold it to be unjust.
E
Ender
Guest
And this is the inevitable end point of any discussion about a political issue that is held to be a moral issue as well. In the end it comes down to charges of “You’re just not a very good Christian. Christ would support my position.” The possibility of a real debate between competing positions is non-existent.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It need not be an endpoint. If the applicability of St. Paul’s writing to the treatment of immigrants is questioned, one can attempt to refute it just as in any discussion of scripture and its applicability. Unless you don’t think it is ever appropriate to discuss whether scripture is applicable to real-life situations.pnewton:
And this is the inevitable end point of any discussion about a political issue that is held to be a moral issue as well. In the end it comes down to charges of “You’re just not a very good Christian. Christ would support my position.” The possibility of a real debate between competing positions is non-existent.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Okay. So when you challenged me for saying that the Indians would have been better off had they not had open borders, and that it is perfectly legitimate and necessary for the state to sometimes subject people to substantial inconvenience in enforcing the law, you were not actually making a serious criticism of what I said.Arkansan:
No.
Making it clear to people how good one thinks one is, will not enlighten anyone. Indeed, Christ vociferously condemned those who put their supposed virtue on display before others.
As a practical matter, virtue-signaling is easier to do with simplistic maxims than with more complicated conclusions, thus it tends to produce sloppy thinking, which can cause very grave harm to the common good if it influences those who have to make decisions affecting it.
P
pnewton
Guest
The person that concedes that immorality is acceptable for political expediency would not be a good Christian. On the other hand, of course debate on morality can be acceptable, if one can support another moral position. So which bishops are opposed to DACA?
- Status