Cardinal Mahony compares Arizona immigration bill to Nazism, Communism [CWN]
- Status
W
Worthy5
Guest
The Church should stay out of politics.
M
momor
Guest
It is better to read the original blog article by the cardinal than the limited news article.
cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizonas-new-anti-immigrant-law.html
He is basically making the point that without a comprehensive immigration system to allow needed workers to come here legally the punitive laws don’t make much sense.
I tend to agree.
cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2010/04/arizonas-new-anti-immigrant-law.html
He is basically making the point that without a comprehensive immigration system to allow needed workers to come here legally the punitive laws don’t make much sense.
I tend to agree.
T
tr1strev
Guest
And thanks be to God that he is moving on. Typical of the behavior of Mahony.
L
Lujack
Guest
The Cardinal is right on this one. Its a very poor decision on the part of the legislature; “Papers, please?” is not a question that ought to be asked on American soil for people who are just traveling. Then, there is one more important point: it is de facto racial profiling. I can guarantee that white-skinned Lujack, speaking with a Northeastern accent, will never be asked for identification under this law.
And I dispute that the Church should stay out of politics; morality doesn’t cease to exist merely because the issue is national in scope. If the government takes an immoral action, it is the duty of the Church to call it out on that immoral action. That’s something it has never shown any qualms about doing, and hopefully never will.
And I dispute that the Church should stay out of politics; morality doesn’t cease to exist merely because the issue is national in scope. If the government takes an immoral action, it is the duty of the Church to call it out on that immoral action. That’s something it has never shown any qualms about doing, and hopefully never will.
T
tr1strev
Guest
And I can also guarantee that your state is not being literally overrun with illegal aliens with the cost and safety implications that apply. That being, of course, if you currently reside where that Northeastern accent comes from.
L
lynx
Guest
Biggest understatement in the last 2000 years. But, I like where you’re going
L
Lujack
Guest
What does this kind of a thing even accomplish?Biggest understatement in the last 2000 years. But, I like where you’re going
L
lynx
Guest
A secular nation?
D
dennis01
Guest
I respect Cardinal Mahoney for speaking up about what he thinks is right, but wonder why he believes America shouldn’t control its borders. It’s also troubling that he supports his case against the Arizona legislation, in part, by mischaracterizing it.
But Mahoney also mischaracterizes, as immigrants, people who have sneaked into the United States.
Those “undocumented” immigrants have avoided the formal screening process that my neighbors’ grandparents and great grandparents went through when they immigrated legally to the United States from Mexico.
The open-door policy Mahoney seems to prefer doesn’t weed out criminals or people suffering from serious communicable diseases. … or terrorists. Neither will his overheated rhetoric.
But Mahoney also mischaracterizes, as immigrants, people who have sneaked into the United States.
Those “undocumented” immigrants have avoided the formal screening process that my neighbors’ grandparents and great grandparents went through when they immigrated legally to the United States from Mexico.
The open-door policy Mahoney seems to prefer doesn’t weed out criminals or people suffering from serious communicable diseases. … or terrorists. Neither will his overheated rhetoric.
M
momor
Guest
I’m not defending everything the cardinal thinks, but don’t you agree that we do not have a system in place that allows for the ingress, egress, and tracking of **seasonal **workers? Shouldn’t getting such a system in place be the first thing we do rather than the last? Immigration is about coming here to live permanently and is not the same as work permits. Many workers would be content to come and go and not stay here if they could do so legally and easily. It would also prevent the influx of families who are not here to work but are here to try to continue being a family.
S
SuscipeMeDomine
Guest
I’m sure Nancy Pelosi agrees with you.
W
Worthy5
Guest
My friend, scanning the article, these are illegal immigrants—what part of illegal is difficult to understand. The illegal immigration problem has been out of hand for years. And morality, if that is what you think this law does no service too, is not the exclusive and only purpose of the civil law. And if you believe so, then what argument do you have against communism?–you dont. That is the form of order in monastaries—it works there, but not for society as a whole.
Regards,
G
gakroeger
Guest
Oh what a tangled web we weave…
This problem was created not because of the lack of laws, but by the lack of law enforcement and proper administration of immigration policy. It has been further compounded by immoral politicians gaming the system for their own political gain.
One party in particular has determined that one great way to gain votes is to give citizenship to those who jumped the line of those seeking legal citizenship (because of poor administration of the immigration process), and expect as their reward these new citizens to vote for them; neat way of slapping in the face those who put them in office in the first place. Of course these politicians are very smooth; they lie with ease and are able to convince the masses that they are truly humanitarian rather than the self serving people they really are.
I believe the good bishop is truly attempting to be a compassionate humanitarian, however, there are more people being treated unfairly here than just the illegal (and legal) immigrants the long suffering taxpaying citizens are also caught by these self serving politicians.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Please spare us if you are referring to the abortion issue. There are plenty of threads on that–and the policy of limited govt provides a basis for a “legal” pro-choice position. The Church has no rubric of authority on issues of American law, only on essential matters of faith and morals.
L
Lujack
Guest
You’re going to convince anybody with one-liners that you think are oh-so-witty?
L
Lujack
Guest
Those grandparents and great-grandparents could just come here, though. They’d be rejected if they were carrying communicable diseases or were anarchists, but other than that, they didn’t have to spend years and years waiting in desperate poverty for their “turn”. The concept of an illegal immigrant couldn’t even have existed in the 1800’s, unless they were an anarchist.
L
Lujack
Guest
I don’t understand any part of your post past the first two sentences.
L
Lujack
Guest
First off, you responded to the wrong post. “What kind of a thing does this even accomplish?” was directed at a contentless one-liner that wasn’t even really on topic.
If we had a proper immigration policy, like the one that we used to have before the nativists hijacked the system in the 1920’s, we’d be in much better shape.
One party in particular likes to demonize the Rodriguezes as somehow different from the Ippolitos and the O’Haras, to try and gain the votes of the descendants of the Ippolitos and the O’Haras. If there was a way that those folks (or the Cohens, or the Grabowskis, or any group you can imagine) would have been denied access, they would’ve been sneaking in, too.
The long-suffering taxpaying citizens had the good fortune to be born in the United States. They weren’t so desperate for a better life that they snuck though a desert at great risk to themselves to live in poverty that is less desperate than the poverty that they came from.
L
Lujack
Guest
How is the treatment of people not a matter of essential faith and morals? And under the Catholic position, there is no grounds for a legal pro-choice position, since the Church requires the belief that life begins at conception; there is no way out of that.
- Status