D
diggerdomer
Guest
Show me ONE example where the USCCB ignores an encyclical.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tigg
Guest
I did…read my post again! (Hint, hint…)Show me ONE example where the USCCB ignores an encyclical.
E
Ender
Guest
Here are some examples of very specific recommendations which we can use to judge any immigration solution supported.
- the United States should sign the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families*
69. A broad legalization program of the undocumented would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations
This statement is even more problematic as it makes a claim to a fact which cannot be known and about which there is significant disagreement. Are we to assume that something becomes true simply because a bishop pronounces it to be so? To me this is an appalling document and exemplifies pretty much everything that is wrong with the USCCB and the confusion that reigns among our bishops as to their proper roles, and an involvement in politics is not one of them.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which is that this comment from Bishop Wester purports to be a statement of all the bishops when it is almost surely not the case. He may be the chairman of the USCCB committee on migration but he has no authority to speak for any other bishop, let alone all of them. Second, the opposition of the Arizona bishops appears to be a great deal less histrionic than Bishop Wester implies, inasmuch as they only expressed “concerns” about it, nowhere described it as draconian, and nowhere do they make a comment about the amended bill that actually addressed some of their concerns.I am referring to this statement by the USCB chairman of the Committee on Migration: usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml
This statement includes this: The U.S. Catholic bishops stand in solidarity with the bishops of Arizona in opposing this draconian law.
While Catholics may be obliged to follow the teaching of the Church they have no such obligation to follow the ill-formed political opinions of its bishops.Catholics are only obliged to follow that teaching according to their properly formed conscience, as the Church teaches.
Ender
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Which #? Sorry…I don’t really want to scroll through all the messages and guess. Thanks.I did…read my post again! (Hint, hint…)
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Yes, of course, Bishop Wester’s statement cannot be taken singly equivalently to an official USCCB statement. But, still, if he’s saying what he does, why do you deny it?This is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of which is that this comment from Bishop Wester purports to be a statement of all the bishops when it is almost surely not the case. He may be the chairman of the USCCB committee on migration but he has no authority to speak for any other bishop, let alone all of them. Second, the opposition of the Arizona bishops appears to be a great deal less histrionic than Bishop Wester implies, inasmuch as they only expressed “concerns” about it, nowhere described it as draconian, and nowhere do they make a comment about the amended bill that actually addressed some of their concerns.
While Catholics may be obliged to follow the teaching of the Church they have no such obligation to follow the ill-formed political opinions of its bishops.
Ender
So we agree that the USCCB AND the Bishops of Arizona disagree with the law. The fact that they express their disagreement in different “histrionic” (your term) ways is really then not that important is it? The point is, they disagree with the law.
If you think the Bishops (both U.S. and Arizona) have ill-formed opinions, that is your prerogative as a Catholic who presumably has a well-formed conscience according to Catholic teaching on what a well-formed conscience consists of. I think it’s dangerous (in a neutral and not pejorative sense of the term) and challenging, maybe even prophetic, to disagree with the consensus of Bishops. Thanks for your response.
E
Ender
Guest
Why should I care? I am not obligated to share their personal concerns nor do those concerns constitute “Church teaching”. The Church is silent on the Arizona law and I wish the bishops had shown the good judgment to be silent as well.So we agree that the USCCB AND the Bishops of Arizona disagree with the law. The fact that they express their disagreement in different “histrionic” (your term) ways is really then not that important is it? The point is, they disagree with the law.
This is why I am so opposed to what the bishops are doing. When they speak out on political issues they confuse Catholics as to what their obligations are regarding the proper response to their comments. They blur the line between their clerical role as teacher of the faith and their lay role as concerned citizen. We may be be obligated to obey the former but we have no obligation at all to the latter and they do us a grave disservice by implying otherwise.If you think the Bishops (both U.S. and Arizona) have ill-formed opinions, that is your prerogative as a Catholic who presumably has a well-formed conscience according to Catholic teaching on what a well-formed conscience consists of. I think it’s dangerous (in a neutral and not pejorative sense of the term) and challenging, maybe even prophetic, to disagree with the consensus of Bishops. Thanks for your response.
Ender
T
tafan
Guest
Ender, you are confused as to the purpose of the church’s social justice teachings. They are taught precisely because they are moral issues. Like many complex issues, there are not clear right and wrongs. So the Bishop’s have an obligatino to give us guidance. We have an obligation to consider their guidance in our decisions on these matters. We cannot simply say “Why should I care?”, without even taking the time to read what they have to say.
I would suggest reading the National Catholic Register’s front page article on immigration this week. It points out that the statements in the CCC, while not infallible teaching, is part of the magisterial teaching of the church and as such we are to assent to it.
Then we have the church’s teaching on its role in social justice.
People on the right (of which I am a proud member), do not like to hear that one of man’s fundametal rights is work and a living wage. People on the right do not always like to hear that in all of our decisions along these lines, we should have a preference for the poor. People on the right do not like to to have to listen to the Bishops’ recommendations on many matters. Now, I have disagreed with statements from Bishops’ many times. But I do not denounce their right to weigh in on these issues, I see it as part of their obligation. They are not infallible in their political recoomendations and we are not bound to assent to them. But our Bishop is our primary teacher. We are obligated as Catholics to listen and seriously consider his point of view. The document I pointed out was passed by an overwhelmingly majority of bishops in 2003.
That is serious consideration. This thread (and others I have participated in) make that very clear. People claim to read and know what the church teaches in social justice and then deny such basics as the preference for the poor and the right to work and a minimum wage. When I point these out, people call them marxism or liberatino theology. When I point out what is in the CCC about immigration, one active member on this board claimed to have read the entire CCC and found that it was the only non-infallible teaching (that in itself is wrong) in the book and on that simple point could be dismissed. Ender, you yourself, after having the document pointed to you multiple times, claim it has not recommendations, and then admit you didn’t read it. The parts you did read are, in your words, “generic piffle”. You say the political opinions are ill-formed, yet you do not even take the time to read them or understand why they take the positions they do.
I would suggest reading the National Catholic Register’s front page article on immigration this week. It points out that the statements in the CCC, while not infallible teaching, is part of the magisterial teaching of the church and as such we are to assent to it.
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
CCC 2241Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
CCC 24332433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants. For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment.220
Then we have the church’s teaching on its role in social justice.
COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, paragraph 71.To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce **moral **principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are **required by the fundamental rights of the human person **or the salvation of souls.
COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, paragraph 72the Church’s social doctrine “belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and **particularly of moral theology **
Paragraph 81This social doctrine also entails a duty to denounce, when sin is present: the sin of injustice and violence that in different ways moves through society and is embodied in it[120]. By denunciation, the Church’s social doctrine becomes judge and defender of unrecognized and violated rights, especially those of the poor, the least and the weak COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Paragraph 155The teachings of Pope John XXIII,[314] the Second Vatican Council,[315] and Pope Paul VI [316] have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the Encyclical Centesimus Annus: “the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality; the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth’s material resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself and one’s dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one’s sexuality. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person
People on the right (of which I am a proud member), do not like to hear that one of man’s fundametal rights is work and a living wage. People on the right do not always like to hear that in all of our decisions along these lines, we should have a preference for the poor. People on the right do not like to to have to listen to the Bishops’ recommendations on many matters. Now, I have disagreed with statements from Bishops’ many times. But I do not denounce their right to weigh in on these issues, I see it as part of their obligation. They are not infallible in their political recoomendations and we are not bound to assent to them. But our Bishop is our primary teacher. We are obligated as Catholics to listen and seriously consider his point of view. The document I pointed out was passed by an overwhelmingly majority of bishops in 2003.
That is serious consideration. This thread (and others I have participated in) make that very clear. People claim to read and know what the church teaches in social justice and then deny such basics as the preference for the poor and the right to work and a minimum wage. When I point these out, people call them marxism or liberatino theology. When I point out what is in the CCC about immigration, one active member on this board claimed to have read the entire CCC and found that it was the only non-infallible teaching (that in itself is wrong) in the book and on that simple point could be dismissed. Ender, you yourself, after having the document pointed to you multiple times, claim it has not recommendations, and then admit you didn’t read it. The parts you did read are, in your words, “generic piffle”. You say the political opinions are ill-formed, yet you do not even take the time to read them or understand why they take the positions they do.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
tafan, it certainly is not “piffle,” but it is generic. That’s what many non-careful readers and non-careful thinkers do not understand. These are overarching moral guidelines, not particular domestic policy directives. For example, here is what these statements do not mean:
(1) That only migrants are poor
(2) That the foreign poor are to be preferred over the domestic poor
(3) That we are allowed to deliberately or carelessly compromise a living wage for current residents, in preference for the poor not within our borders
(4) That accidental economic benefit which results in exploitation of that worker, or of legal workers, is a moral good
(5) That utilitarian and expedient economics equals an immigration policy
(6) That utilitarian and expedient economics which maintains and promotes a corrupt, immoral, and unjust policy below our borders is morally acceptable.
(7) That the more-local immigrants who are moderately poor should be preferred by default over more distant immigrants who are (comparatively) far more desperately poor & powerless.
(8) That passivity + inertia = an immigration policy
(9) That economics is always the primary, or the only, basis for an immigration policy.
(10) That passivity which results in severe negative impact upon one or several social structures (medical, educational, welfare assistance) for a current legal population, is a moral good.
(11) That the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are experts in the daily dynamics, and limits, of legal and illegal immigration between host country and other countries.
(12) That the wealth and resources of any particular country are of infinite capacity to satisfy the preferential option for the global poor.
(13) That the Roman Catholic clergy are well-qualified in finite mathematics.
(14) That the Church’s guidelines on immigration – including preferential option for the poor – do not compete with other moral mandates which should imply immigration preference, such as ***protection from forced abortion ***(i.e., China).
(15) That “To the Victor Go The Spoils” (“I made it over the wall in the middle of the night”) is a just moral principle when consequences = compromise to a living wage for an existing legal resident.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(1) That only migrants are poor
(2) That the foreign poor are to be preferred over the domestic poor
(3) That we are allowed to deliberately or carelessly compromise a living wage for current residents, in preference for the poor not within our borders
(4) That accidental economic benefit which results in exploitation of that worker, or of legal workers, is a moral good
(5) That utilitarian and expedient economics equals an immigration policy
(6) That utilitarian and expedient economics which maintains and promotes a corrupt, immoral, and unjust policy below our borders is morally acceptable.
(7) That the more-local immigrants who are moderately poor should be preferred by default over more distant immigrants who are (comparatively) far more desperately poor & powerless.
(8) That passivity + inertia = an immigration policy
(9) That economics is always the primary, or the only, basis for an immigration policy.
(10) That passivity which results in severe negative impact upon one or several social structures (medical, educational, welfare assistance) for a current legal population, is a moral good.
(11) That the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church are experts in the daily dynamics, and limits, of legal and illegal immigration between host country and other countries.
(12) That the wealth and resources of any particular country are of infinite capacity to satisfy the preferential option for the global poor.
(13) That the Roman Catholic clergy are well-qualified in finite mathematics.
(14) That the Church’s guidelines on immigration – including preferential option for the poor – do not compete with other moral mandates which should imply immigration preference, such as ***protection from forced abortion ***(i.e., China).
(15) That “To the Victor Go The Spoils” (“I made it over the wall in the middle of the night”) is a just moral principle when consequences = compromise to a living wage for an existing legal resident.
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
T
tafan
Guest
Elizabeth, if we are talking about the Bishop’s recommendations, perhaps we should focus on those, instead of some list about what is not said. They don’t say that 2 +2 = 5 either, but I don’t see the need to discuss that point. So if you could point out in the Bishops’ document where any of your points are disputed, that would be a good basis. Otherwise all we have is your rant, which ranges from reasonable points of view, to practically questionable points, to perhaps morally questionable points, to points obvious they don’t need mentioned, to silly points. The latter seems to predominate.
edited to add: rants and the desire to avoid serious discussion seems to be prevelant when the issue of immigration arises.
edited to add: rants and the desire to avoid serious discussion seems to be prevelant when the issue of immigration arises.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No, tafan, I’m not trying to argue extremes, or silly points. What my post demonstrates is specific dispute over the often blindly accepted position from some CAF posters (and to some degree in the general public), in which they wrongly interpret that a moral policy statement emanating from the church = a practical domestic or international policy directive. They do not. IOW, those documents that you have cited do not imply that illegal immigraiton is a moral good. But plenty of statements on CAF about immigration make the assumption that they do, and frankly, your comments also seemed to imply that. So if you didn’t mean to say that, perhaps you should have not generalized in the way you did.
For example, here is just one of your sweeping statements:
For example, here is just one of your sweeping statements:
No one has an absolute right to something that denies someone else the same right. That does not compute with principles of Catholic moral theology.The bishops’ social justice imperatives often do not acknowledge competing, co-existing rights, even within the same category. Moral discretionary judgment is always necessary and often difficult.That is serious consideration. This thread (and others I have participated in) make that very clear. People claim to read and know what the church teaches in social justice and then deny such basics as the preference for the poor and the right to work and a minimum wage.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I find that an offensive statement, given the many serious discussions I have engaged in on CAF over this issue in particular, some of which have included threads that both you and I have participated in. I think you should be ashamed of such an inappropriate comment.rants and the desire to avoid serious discussion seems to be prevelant when the issue of immigration arises.
My list was not a “rant.” It was in fact a thoughtful reflection upon a very, very broad document that is often cited as an overgeneralized permission for default illegal immigration.
T
tafan
Guest
Be offended all you want. On these immigration threads I get called everything from a marxists, to a died-in-the-wool Obama supporter. Your list is a rant since it has almost no bearing on the items being discussed. It could not have been a thoughtful addition to the discussion, since it referred to documents which I have linked to and quoted and the list bears little resemblence to those documents.I find that an offensive statement, given the many serious discussions I have engaged in on CAF over this issue in particular, some of which have included threads that both you and I have participated in. I think you should be ashamed of such an inappropriate comment.
My list was not a “rant.” It was in fact a thoughtful reflection upon a very, very broad document that is often cited as an overgeneralized permission for default illegal immigration.
There is nothing in the Bishops’ document that supports illegal immigration. There is a lot that supports a comprehensive reform of our immigration system.
T
Tigg
Guest
Since you want to talk about prophecies, how about this one which is approved by the Church?If you think the Bishops (both U.S. and Arizona) have ill-formed opinions, that is your prerogative as a Catholic who presumably has a well-formed conscience according to Catholic teaching on what a well-formed conscience consists of. I think it’s dangerous (in a neutral and not pejorative sense of the term) and challenging, ** maybe even prophetic,** to disagree with the consensus of Bishops.
The work of the devil will infiltrate even **into **the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, and bishops against other bishops.
Our Lady of Akita, 1973 -1981
Your post implies you believe (as I do as well) that we are in an age of apostasy. The words of Our Lady, as prophecied, is exactly what is going on within the world court of bishops today. I can give you recent, concrete examples such as Bishop Sample of Marquette not allowing a retired auxiliary bishop to come into his diocese to speak to certain social justice groups on homosexuality because his previous talks were CONTRARY to Church teaching. If you do a search on this forum, you can read the actual article. Are you the one who asked, “WHICH bishop are we to believe?” Since they no longer speak with one united voice even to defend authentic Church teaching, WHY do you think we are obligated to accept their statements when it comes to political matters? I suggest that faithful and orthodox Catholics are the ones defending truth. To answer your previous question as I’ve already done in my prior post, Humanae Vitae was soundly rejected by the American bishops in defiance of a papal encyclical.
T
Tigg
Guest
Please answer this question.So we agree that the USCCB AND the Bishops of Arizona disagree with the law. The fact that they express their disagreement in different “histrionic” (your term) ways is really then not that important is it? The point is, they disagree with the law.
The bishops do not uphold the rule of law (which is our Constitution) and yet the Catechism states that a nation has the RIGHT to protect its sovereign borders and those immigrating here have the OBLIGATION to uphold the laws of the host country. Do you see the contradiction? We have a national community but the Church is where all of humankind is accepted as brothers and sisters. How do we also respect the common good of our national family while at the same time embracing illegal aliens who, by all accounts, are draining this society economically as well as impacting it in other tremendously damaging ways? The gospel mandate makes it imperative that we provide temporary help to the poor but this is not on the same level as trying to dismantle a country’s legal public policy during a time of great economic distress and high unemployment directly affecting God’s people in this nation.
Another thing you advocates of illegal immigration might answer for me. No mention is ever made by our bishops of the current imbalance in immigration and the fact that the majority are Latinos coming to this country to better their status. Why are they not speaking for those in other third world countries who have it so much worse off than Hispanics due to political oppression and true starvation and homelessness. What about those dying from disease and lack of medical care? If we are truly to be a Christian nation, those in such appalling conditions should be helped before others coming from Mexico who still have a peaceful home and enough to eat.
The whole thing makes no sense to me from a Christian perspective. But when you view it as part of a political agenda, then you can begin to connect the dots. Why is the gospel message being so misrepresented? I simply don’t understand.
T
Tigg
Guest
Please……here is the reality of what our bishops/clerics have been saying and doing:There is nothing in the Bishops’ document that supports illegal immigration.
humanevents.com/article.php?id=15657
associatedcontent.com/article/243271/illegal_immigrants_the_catholic_church_pg2.html?cat=37
I imagine that the “full rights” they are asking for includes voting rights not to mention that congressional representation of those citizens who have lived here all their lives will be seriously misrepresented and distorted in the electoral college process. This is PURELY POLITICAL:
oregonfaithreport.com/2010/06/immigration-reform-jesuit-5-point-plan-to-congress/
Are you saying that our bishops don’t politically understand what’s really in the works on the Hill? Because “Comprehensive immigration reform” is nothing but a euphemism for amnesty.There is a lot that supports a comprehensive reform of our immigration system.
The DREAM Act has bipartisan support from Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senator Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). It would allow illegal aliens who came to this country as children to become permanent residents if they attend college or enroll in the military. That’s an amnesty.
The Ag Jobs bill would allow illegal farm workers and agricultural guest workers to become permanent residents. That’s another amnesty.
T
tafan
Guest
Tigg, there are varying thoughts among Bishops, please do not expect me to spend much time reading or defending anything Cardinal Mahoney has to say. He is not my bishop, I am not obligated to listen to him.
But it is not just a euphemism for any particular recommendation. It is a call for a solution to the problem.
Getting away from the Bishop’s stance for a moment, I will add from a political stance:
One of my pet peeves on thiis subject is how much conservatives are willing to forgoe their principles when it comes to this issue. The idea that a obviously broken law can simply be enforced is absurd. The idea that a government can control strong market forces without increasingly draconian measures is absurd. The idea of favoring a solution that entails huge federal expenditures and a large increase in federal government law enforcement capabilities goes against conservative ideals. The movement towards a “show-me-your-papers” society goes against conservative ideals. The idea that our government cannot adopt policies towards other countries showing favortism goes against conservative ideals.
There have been thoughtful conservatives, (Bill Buckley,RIP, Geroge Will, Bill Krystol, Michael Medvel, Ronald Reagan all come to mind), who understood these contradictions. Unfortunately these conservatives have been drowned out of the discussion.
Edited to add:
You all have a good day. I am out of here for the time being. Need to get back to work.
One of their recommendations is a path to citizenship or permanent residence for illegal aliens. Why is this support for amnesty? The proposals in the past have called for fines, some quite significant, to existing workers if they want to stay. That would certainly not be amnesty (by definition, amnesty is a grant of a pardon. A civil/criminal penalty in the form of a fine is certainly not a pardon. And we must remember, the law broken by the vast majority of these people is simply a misdemeanor (according to you guys, that law is sufficient).Are you saying that our bishops don’t politically understand what’s really in the works on the Hill? Because “Comprehensive immigration reform” is nothing but a euphemism for amnesty.
But it is not just a euphemism for any particular recommendation. It is a call for a solution to the problem.
Getting away from the Bishop’s stance for a moment, I will add from a political stance:
One of my pet peeves on thiis subject is how much conservatives are willing to forgoe their principles when it comes to this issue. The idea that a obviously broken law can simply be enforced is absurd. The idea that a government can control strong market forces without increasingly draconian measures is absurd. The idea of favoring a solution that entails huge federal expenditures and a large increase in federal government law enforcement capabilities goes against conservative ideals. The movement towards a “show-me-your-papers” society goes against conservative ideals. The idea that our government cannot adopt policies towards other countries showing favortism goes against conservative ideals.
There have been thoughtful conservatives, (Bill Buckley,RIP, Geroge Will, Bill Krystol, Michael Medvel, Ronald Reagan all come to mind), who understood these contradictions. Unfortunately these conservatives have been drowned out of the discussion.
Edited to add:
You all have a good day. I am out of here for the time being. Need to get back to work.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
And not in any of those cases have I called you those names or other names. Your criticism is off-topic, misplaced, objectively offensive, and inappropriate. Deal with it.Be offended all you want. On these immigration threads I get called everything from a marxists, to a died-in-the-wool Obama supporter.
Actually it was you, not I, that used the document you cited to imply generalizations that the document does not support (even according to your own words in this very post I’m quoting, to wit),Your list is a rant since it has almost no bearing on the items being discussed.
On other threads I have never disputed the country’s need for a complete overhaul. You know that full well. I may agree or disagree with other posters, and with secular policymakers, on specific reform proposals, but I will always speak out in favor of global justice, not just local justice. So should any faithful Catholic and any honest clergy member.There is nothing in the Bishops’ document that supports illegal immigration. There is a lot that supports a comprehensive reform of our immigration system.
E
Ender
Guest
Because, by putting them ahead of people who followed the law, it rewards criminal behavior rather than punishes it.One of their recommendations is a path to citizenship or permanent residence for illegal aliens. Why is this support for amnesty?
One of my pet peeves is when someone invents a silly theory, attributes it to his opponents, ridicules it and imagines he has said something decisive.One of my pet peeves on thiis subject is how much conservatives are willing to forgoe their principles when it comes to this issue.
It is not the laws that are broken it is our will. I think we would see that the Arizona law would be simple to enforce and would be quite effective. I believe the Obama administration realizes this also which is why they have decided to bring a suit against the state to stop its enforcement. If the law could not be enforced they would have no reason to oppose it; it is precisely because it appears to be workable that it is seen as such a threat.The idea that a obviously broken law can simply be enforced is absurd.
This is done all the time by what are known as “regulations.”The idea that a government can control strong market forces without increasingly draconian measures is absurd.
True, this would be against conservative principles … fortunately there are solutions that wouldn’t require either.The idea of favoring a solution that entails huge federal expenditures and a large increase in federal government law enforcement capabilities goes against conservative ideals.
We already have a show-me-your-papers society; the Arizona law adds nothing new.The movement towards a “show-me-your-papers” society goes against conservative ideals.
Ender
T
tafan
Guest
I never said I opposed the Arizona law, quite the opposite. I read it and I see nothing wrong with it. It is a fairly well written piece of legislation, which is rare in this day and age. I wrote on this very thread that there was nothing wrong with it.
As to your comment about regulations controlling market forces, go back and see what I read, please note the word “strong”.
If the law was not broken, we would not have the problem we do with undocumented workers.
As to your comment about regulations controlling market forces, go back and see what I read, please note the word “strong”.
If the law was not broken, we would not have the problem we do with undocumented workers.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.