CARAVAN heading to The U.S.A ( POLL )

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seagull
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
signit:
And it also reminds me of a piece from a conservative columnist from a few days ago:

column
Anyone who puts the word “humanitarian” in scare quotes does not have the same moral perspective as I.
I don’t agree with all of Howie Carr’s stuff.

He purposely “pushes the envelope” a little bit to appeal to the conservative base.

But he doesn’t lie.

In all the years he’s criticized politicians, he’s never been nailed for a factual untruth. Surely he would have been by now.
 
Also, Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General.

If one is actually calling for the attorney general not to follow the laws of this nation, I don’t know what to say but to say someone has blood on their hands because they are not following the laws of this again, seems rather perposterous.
 
Somewhat I guess you have a point. There are those of us though that would love to see true immigration reform and would never want open borders. My husband has always said the worst thing the US could ever do is open the borders without limits. He believes that if we were to do that it would not raise anyone out of poverty or provide opportunities to anyone. Instead, of lifting them up, it would drag us down. He says this because he believes it takes a long time to overcome personally the way you are raised, and in most of the works that is a corrupt system that has spoiled the mindset of everyone in the country. He would honestly love to see immigration reform though. He has been attempting to bring his family, any of them, parents, sister, cousin, anyone, here just to visit. We cannot qualify them for visitor visas because we cannot “prove” they will return. The US needs some proof that they have an incentive to return to Mexico. They are very poor and live in an area with no hope for improvement. The government sees that as reason they are unlikely to go back. He has a distant cousin who is well off, good job, lives in a city, and he has visited a few times through his employer. If we could make it possible to bring sister in law for visits (mother in law is now gone and father in law is very ill), that would be amazing.

Of course we can travel there, but it’s not always possible. It’s much more expensive for our whole family to travel there than it would be for us to pay their travel here. Between my job, kids school, and until recently the “needs of the army,” our ability to just go and the length of visit was extremely limited. We went for 7 years without seeing any of his family even once.
 
We just want laws that recognize the human right to migrate,
How long have we had a human right to migrate? For centuries (millennia?), many people were not allowed to leave their towns, let alone their countries. They were tied to the land.

Looking at history, the freedom to travel is a relatively recent idea.
 
If that were a fully true statement, no one would be living in the Americas at all. Everyone, even the indigenous, came here from somewhere else.

What is more correct to say is, everyone has the right to migrate IF they have the means and go through the proper process. It is only recently that there have been set borders and laws to follow, but even in the past, migrants faced warring tribes and had to either find empty space or fight for the land they wanted.
 
Corrupt laws throughout history do not argue the case. For centuries, slavery waslegal, does that make it right? The Church teaches two, seemingly opposed views: states have a right to regulate immigration and people have a right to migrate to improve the lives of tgeimselves and their families. They are only seemingly opposed because too many people want to ignore the latter and do not care about a just solution.
 
What do the percentages on your map mean? Because I really don’t believe Georgia is 96.1% Hispanic. I used to live in Georgia. Yes there was a larger community than here (Missouri), but no where near 96.1% of the population.
 
The unified culture should be based on civic appreciation. Social cohesion is important. Americans do not want to live in some international economic zone where everyone is wondering around speaking 18 different languages and cannot communicate with each other. They don’t want to live in a country where the only cultural ties are our love for free enterprise.

People who talk like you have never actually read the works of the Founding Fathers, the Federalist Papers, the immigration acts we’ve enacted and the commentaries on it. They would sound like “nationalists” to many people today and that includes liberal Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

So any calls for social cohesion are seen as “Nazi” to liberals such as yourself. If someone were to define a standard that doesn’t meet the criteria of being 100% multiculturalism with no qualifiers to newcomers whatsoever, then it’s “Nazism”??

This is silly and sad. Social cohesion is necessary for a country to function, for all countries to function. Otherwise nations are merely international way stations for people to go back and forth as they please with no social obligations to the host nation. That’s a very secular liberal cosmopolitan way of thinking, where you think of yourself as a citizen of the world. It’s also a very new concept. Liberals of the past would now be viewed as “Nazis” because they dare to invoke some standards to newcomers and dared to promote some sort of social cohesion for the country.
 
Last edited:
40.png
HarryStotle:
So your thesis is that Trump or some entity favouring him and the Republicans have orchestrated this march to make him look good shortly before the midterms?
I’m saying that IF it’s a setup, you have to look at who would benefit.
That’s clearly Trump and the Republicans.

Of course, there’s always the more reasonable scenario, that it’s not a setup . . .
In the largest possible purview, those who will benefit the very most are the global capitalists whose most precious (think of Gollum here) version of the economy, labour and markets is one unrestrained by national boundaries. That would mean corporate interests like the very wealthy elite and their pandering politicians pushing for open borders have the most to gain by dismantling nations and political sovereignty and replacing these with a central global government as a front for their elitist interests.

One sure way to undermine national sovereignty is to flood sovereign nations with millions of individuals with diverse opinions and cultures to break apart national identities and make sovereign rule very difficult because of the impossibility of finding common ground. Diversity is our strength – 🙉🙊🙈 – in what possible world? The hope of these elitists is to degrade national sovereignty to the point that nations become ungovernable without the imposition of international, top down, control. Be careful what you hope and advocate for, it may come back to bite you very hard.

You just haven’t looked far enough ahead with regard to who will benefit from destabilizing individual nations. I suggest you engage in an honest appraisal of who stands to benefit and who stands to lose from the point of view of the common person at the most basic level of livelihood and well-being, and not from the point of view of the narrative being shilled by the media, leftist politicos, celebrities and well-funded open borders NGOs.
 
You just haven’t looked far enough ahead with regard to who will benefit from destabilizing individual nations. I suggest you engage in an honest appraisal of who stands to benefit and who stands to lose from the point of view of the common person at the most basic level of livelihood and well-being, and not from the point of view of the narrative being shilled by the media, leftist politicos, celebrities and well-funded open borders NGOs.
You have no idea what I’ve looked at, and what I’ve studied, and for how long. Not agreeing with you does not = falling for “shills.”
 
Sometimes media are right and sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes both. Try refuting their claims with actual facts and evidence. It takes a little (OK, a lot), more intellectual legwork than a blanket dismissal, but it makes discussion a lot more respectful and productive. 😉
Great! Now remember that advice next time I cite Breitbart, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Gateway Pundit, or a host of other media.

By the way, the NBC myth claims are, themselves, not substantive. They don’t actually prove anything.

Take the first one, for example.

The myth being “debunked” is that the caravan is directly funded by the Democrats. Did anyone actually make that claim? Look up the definition of straw man.

Last I read, Soros denounced the Democrat party after Hillary lost in 2016. So, I suppose, NBC can legitimately claim the caravan is not being funded by the Democrats even while it deflects about the claims that Soros or associated groups are funding it.

One merely needs to read the article with a critical eye to see it is basically saying nothing while claiming to say something intelligent. 😏 It ain’t.
 
If that were a fully true statement, no one would be living in the Americas at all. Everyone, even the indigenous, came here from somewhere else.
Well, if we’re going to look back as far as crossing the Bering Strait… 😛

You remember half the reason why the early explorers had Indian guides, right? It wasn’t just to manage the linguistic issues— half of their job would be to sit down with the tribe whose local territory it was, and compare genealogies, to find a common ancestor. Then they would be perceived as kin, and not trespassers. If they were trespassers, they would be promptly killed, but kin would be assisted with food, supplies, and other resources, and escorted by local guides.

Nowadays, we’re very fortunate that we don’t have to trace our lineage to find a common ancestor, on pain of death, if we want to travel from Florida to Georgia to Tennessee! 🙂
 
Again I think that Catholics will be split on this issue because instead of going back to the scriptures, Catholic Social Teaching and other stuff that has helped us through matters such as this, we will tend to look at secular writings and such.

One of the most attractive things for me about Catholicism was how it almost reconciles the left/right political spectrum in a way I haven’t seen any other religion do, even more so than Protestant evangelicalism. The latter would have you almost ex-communicate yourself if you held onto anything that wasn’t purely conservative/libertarian. I’ve had evangelicals tell me that if I wasn’t on board with pure free market fundamentalism then I was a heretic, I kid you not.

While I tacitly support our President, I do not support the more chauvinistic elements of his base that have this “my country, right or wrong” mentality. At the same time, we cannot adopt the type of empathy that the left wing has for anyone that even remotely pleads a case of victimhood. Their level of empathy tends to allow them to excuse a lot of of sin. Soon enough if you’re not on board with whatever cause they’re championing next because it goes against your religious beliefs, then you end up being a “heartless monster”.

So Catholics are caught up in the infighting that is the left/right spectrum, which has it’s roots in secularized Christian politics, i.e. Enlightenment politics.
 
Last edited:
You have no idea what I’ve looked at, and what I’ve studied, and for how long. Not agreeing with you does not = falling for “shills.”
Well, okay, your word on that is sufficient, I suppose. 😉
 
Exactly. Warring tribes were border patrol agents! Have you seen this bumper sticker?


Whether you agree with what it says or not, it makes the point that ever since the beginning, migrants were viewed as invaders and were dealt with according to the current residents’ “laws.” And as you pointed out, if the proper “process” was taken, most people were able to find safe passage and even welcomed to stay.
 
I only watch a few minutes of the NBC news each evening as I warm up my TV for Jeopardy at 7.

But even in that little bit of viewing, the rooting interest of the network is pretty much crystal clear.

I know that they hope the Democrats win, but listening to them and expecting objectivity is like tuning in Myron Cope’s program and expecting a fair assessment of the chances of the Steelers versus the Dallas “Cryboys”.
 
Great! Now remember that advice next time I cite Breitbart, Zero Hedge, LifeSite, Gateway Pundit, or a host of other media.
Breitbart. LOL! Media Bias Ratings | AllSides
The myth being “debunked” is that the caravan is directly funded by the Democrats. Did anyone actually make that claim?
Yep. At Montana Rally, Trump Claims Democrats Are Behind Migrant ‘Caravan’ – CBS San Francisco

Alex Jones is saying it, too, but I refuse to link to him. 🙂
 
Last edited:
Representative Louis Gohmert has called for an investigation as to whom could be funding this. I think it was also said, this might violate Rico law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top