According to my Grandma (who is 82 years old), my Great-Grandfather had to have a sponsor who would ensure that my Great-Grandfather had job. So, are you implying that my family is composed of liars?
It actually is true. Our family sponsored people from Germany. My dad had his own business and he would give them jobs. This was in the late '50’s and early '60’s. It’s not done that way anymore.
Is there? I always worry about assumption, even common ones, presented as axioms without evidence. This same fear of too many people is what drives China’s birth control policy, something I also do not agree with. People are a resource, if properly managed. They need not be a drain or burden.
Is someone had actually said this, I would agree with you. Catholic teaching does not require an open border policy. My quote of the Catechism did not say it did, nor do I think many Catholics deem it prudent. My objection was an immigration policy that is prejudicial against the poor. I am 100% in favor of tight border security and knowing who passes in and out. I am in favor of allowing anyone that is not a criminal in or out, as long as they enter legally. I am also totally in favor of a resident tax on those living here for social services. Where I part company with many conservatives is that I think all should be allowed to come here that want. I think this country can easily absorb the tens of millions that would want to be here. In fact, in case no one has notices the obvious, we already have.
As I said, I do not think anyone has and you have misrepresented the opinions of others. Rather I think discussion is not served by loaded rhetoric (like calling immigration an invasion) and varrying the font size. I have never understood that. In posting, it is considered to be shouting and it looks like the poster is loosing it.
not at all, stories get started in families all the time and expounded on while telling. No one is lying. Perhaps that was the requirement by 1927, in earlier times, say the 19th century, it certainly was not. I apologize.
From my experience on this forum, it is certainly not the simple fact that they favor strict immigration laws which makes me question certain specific contributors’ compasssion. It is the fact that they have stood by while Mexicans have been called “dirt” and said many other statements which reek of lack of compassion.
I did not say more knowledgable. I said my betters. They do have the authority and the charism to guide the faithful in matters of faith and morals. Yes, I have to know when they cross over to personal opinion, but I can not let my own politics color my judgment of when this is the case.
It is not the way Jesus lived and taught. I refer you to the rich man and Lazarus. Besides, the poor working class are not “vagrants.”
No, no, no, no, no. The labeling of laws as uncharitable does not translate to labeling people as uncharitable. Can we at least get past this strawman before he is beat to death? It is not that difficult of a mental concept. We have social compassion that we can work through as a society. We also have charity that we exercise through the Church. Finally we have our own personal charity that we show to those around us. Prudence in one area does not translate to an accusation in another. We can beat this horse until it is dead, but a little thought would be preferable.
In our need to help the poor, are we to turn a blind eye to the injustices caused to the rest of society specifically by this problem? What about the gross overload of bankrupted medical facilities, the increased crime, the billions spent on bi-lingual education, the expanded government welfare programs adding to a deficit and taxpayer burden that can never be relieved? What about the anti-American sentiment we are witnessing from hostile foreign students with no desire to assimilate or have a common language and flag? How does this serve the cohesiveness of society and cause a unity of one people of God?
Please provide an example. This is against forum rules.
I have never seen you label people as uncharitable but the below poster is what I’m talking about.
Nor, speaking of the poor, can I ever recall that Jesus preferred *one race *of people over another.
A few months ago, I kept some samples of posts people made about immigration, here they are. I have learned around here that those who favor more liberal immigration laws are kept on a much more tight leash than those who are very anti-immigration, so I will post the examples. Please forgive the lack of names and dates, I guess you will have to trust me that these came from this forum. On none of these posts, not once did anyone who was taking the anti-immigration side of the argument speak up against these statements.
Here is a whopper:
Gotta love this one:
This one could have been posted on a anti-catholic protestant web site against a lot of us catholics, if you change the type of school:
%between%
Um, the current generation of blacks in public schools are overwhelmingly native born – thus legally here. It makes no difference that their ancestors were forcibly brought here. Yours is frankly an off-topic comment. The issue is justice and the conditions of poverty, for legal and illegal residents. Urban blacks are legal residents, several generations removed from slavery. They are overwhelmingly (in urban areas) underserved, given spare public resources in contracted economic times.
Well thanks. I’ve not seen anyone on this thread post like that. Unless you can match the quote to a poster on this thread, I’d say it’s off topic.
Pulease.
I could, but I won’t and it is not off topic, because all I was doing was commenting on why some of us consider the anti-immigration crowd as lacking in compassion. You asked for backup, I gave it. If I did, I as you requested, I think I would get in a little trouble on this forum. These type of comments seem to go unnoticed by most on this forum when the subject of immigration arises.
The story about the rich man and Lazarus is a story about the dangers of materialism, not about amnesty for illegal aliens.