Illegal Immigration

[tafan]

The story about the rich man and Lazarus is a story about the dangers of materialism, not about amnesty for illegal aliens.

We are not talking about the poor working class, we are talking about illegal aliens.

There are many ways to address the problem of undocumented immigrants in a just fashion without amnesty.

In particular, why not adopt a widespread temporary worker visa program? Why not allow undocumented immigrants to pay a fine for their illegal overstay of a visa or illegal border crossing? I would even argue the fines should probably be increased from what they are now. Allowing a way for workers to go back and forth solves a lot a problems. First of all, it helps secure the borders, since your remove 99% of the people crossing illegally now and the only ones left are probably smuggling drugs. You allow much more freedom of movement, so that in poor economic times here in the US, the workers are much more likely to go back to Mexico (now they are loath to do so on their own, since getting back to the US is so risky). You allow all workers to start having their own social security accounts, taxes are tracked and paid correctly. You get rid of much of the human trafficking problem.
None of this implies amnesty.

 

[starshiptrooper]

There are many ways to address the problem of undocumented immigrants in a just fashion without amnesty.

The correct term is illegal alien.

In particular, why not adopt a widespread temporary worker visa program?

Why not? Because many illegal immigrants overstay their visas.

Why not allow undocumented immigrants to pay a fine for their illegal overstay of a visa or illegal border crossing?

Because these fines would be paid with the tax dollars they recieve through welfare programs. We should give them 25 lashes instead.

First of all, it helps secure the borders, since your remove 99% of the people crossing illegally now…

Legalizing prostitution would also eliminate the crime of prostitution.

I strongly suggest the following steps be implemented to combat the invasion of illegal aliens.

1. Build a fence and take any other measures needed to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border.
2. Make English the national language.
3. If we arrest anybody, we check to see whether that person is a legal resident.
4. Make sure illegal aliens recieve no welfare.
5. If we find an illegal alien we do these 2 things

a. Give him 25 lashes.

b. Use his assets to pay for any public services he has used and his trip out of the US.

1. If a deported illegal alien tries to apply for citizenship, his application is rejected immediately.
2. Anchor babies are sent back with their parents.
3. Those who aid, harbor, or employ illegal aliens should face fines, flogging, or prison.

 

[sidbrown]

My papers were checked at the Hamburg airport on a flight coming from Frankfurt in 2009.

I was speaking of checker guys on the border between adjacent European countries such as France and Germany, between Spain and France, between Austria and Hungary. There are none. This is unlike the situation between the adjacent North American countries of Mexico and USA.
I was not speaking of checker guys for travel from the USA to Europe. Since the USA has one of the highest crime rates in the world today, it is obvious why the Europeans would have a checkpoint between USA and any European country.

 

[sidbrown]

What makes a priest or even a bishop necessarily more knowledgeable about the intricacies of immigration policy than your next door neighbor? I will point out again: there are no moral questions here, only practical ones. .

I don’t see how this can be true according to his Most Reverend Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony who has taught that it is a crystal clear mandate from God that aliens must be welcomed and embraced in their community. When an Illustrious and Most Reverend Cardinal speaks of a crystal clear mandate from God, I believe that in matter of faith and morals such has as been taught here, Catholics have a serious obligation to assent to the teaching of His Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Eminence Cardinal Mahony.

 

[tafan]

starshiptrooper:

The correct term is illegal alien.

Is it? Terminology is also picked by both sides of any debate for their own purposes. You pick yours, I pick mine. If you can show me in the US legal code where that term is used, I will accept it, otherwise, I will assume it is simply your preferred term, but it is not mine.

Why not? Because many illegal immigrants overstay their visas.

Answert makes very little sense.

Because these fines would be paid with the tax dollars they recieve through welfare programs. We should give them 25 lashes instead.

Not worth responding to, simply slanderous and unsupported.

Legalizing prostitution would also eliminate the crime of prostitution

Where did I say that we should legalize illegal border crossings? I did not, I simply said we should have a more just and widespread means for people to come here to work legally.

 

[Tigg]

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.

Do not be confused. I am not anti-immigrant at all, but I am opposed to those who enter this country illegally. It is unfair of you to categorize the entire “anti-ILLEGAL immigrant crowd” with this sampling of bigoted statements and completely disregard our reasons for the debate.

 

[Tigg]

Is it? Terminology is also picked by both sides of any debate for their own purposes. You pick yours, I pick mine. If you can show me in the US legal code where that term is used, I will accept it, otherwise, I will assume it is simply your preferred term, but it is not mine.

This has already been answered in Post #111 and link given to Cornell.

 

[qui_est_ce]

a. Give him 25 lashes.

1. Those who aid, harbor, or employ illegal aliens should face fines, flogging, or prison.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see how this can be true according to his Most Reverend Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony who has taught that it is a crystal clear mandate from God that aliens must be welcomed and embraced in their community. When an Illustrious and Most Reverend Cardinal speaks of a crystal clear mandate from God, I believe that in matter of faith and morals such has as been taught here, Catholics have a serious obligation to assent to the teaching of His Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Eminence Cardinal Mahony.

Then explain how it is that only Cardinal Mahony is able to discern God’s mandate. If this is truly a mandate from God, why has no other bishop been able to discern it? Why is the pope unaware of this? Why has the USCCB been silent on this subject? There are two possible explanations: Mahony is the only bishop in the Church to whom God has revealed his mandate, or Mahony is wrong.

Either way, I would still have no obligation to assent to his position because he is not my bishop and my bishop has made no such assertion. In point of fact, no one has an obligation to accept his comment as he is (thankfully) no longer anyone’s bishop.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

That is true - but effective immigration policy is about neither and the bishops do us a disservice by implying that their political preferences are our moral obligations.

I did say I thought the law immoral. A little basic logic can show the distinction between believing that a law is immoral and believing everyone who supports that law is immoral.

Explain how the law is immoral. In fact I would be curious to know how any law that does not contain something intrinsically evil could be immoral. Laws permitting abortion are immoral but laws that merely have harmful consequences are not, of themselves, immoral. They are simply mistakes. People who support a law that is not itself intrinsically evil behave morally if their intentions are good and behave immorally if their intentions are immoral but the effectiveness of the law itself is in both cases irrelevant.

This is the case with immigration. There is nothing intrinsically evil in controlling who can enter the country or in preferring one group over another, including preferring the skilled over the unskilled. There is nothing intrinsically evil in insisting that illegal aliens not be favored over the law abiding in determining who will or will not be granted citizenship therefore no law specifying the number and type of people who will be granted immigration status can be called immoral. Specific recommendations can certainly be attacked as unworkable and mistaken, but they cannot be called evil.

Ender

 

[tafan]

This has already been answered in Post #111 and link given to Cornell.

Post #111 is wrong. The complete term “illegal alien” does not occur in the US legal code, which BTW makes illegal entry a misdemenor payable by a fine not to exceed $250. The term illegal alien implies an ongoing state of crime. That is not how the criminal justice systems works in the US. It is not analogous to our Catholic faith where one can be in or out of a state of grace. Crimes are individual actions/event. So it was illegal for them to enter or to overstay their visa. Current law, which most of the anti-immigration crowd says shoudl be sufficient, makes these misdemeanors with low fines.

I suppose many of us have committeed misdemeanors with fines in the $200 range, as such are we “illegal”.

OTH, I understand the usage of your term, it is good for propaganda purposes, from your perspective, it would seem very legitimate.

 

[tafan]

Then explain how it is that only Cardinal Mahony is able to discern God’s mandate. If this is truly a mandate from God, why has no other bishop been able to discern it? Why is the pope unaware of this? Why has the USCCB been silent on this subject? There are two possible explanations: Mahony is the only bishop in the Church to whom God has revealed his mandate, or Mahony is wrong.

Either way, I would still have no obligation to assent to his position because he is not my bishop and my bishop has made no such assertion. In point of fact, no one has an obligation to accept his comment as he is (thankfully) no longer anyone’s bishop.

Ender

Gotta laugh that its always a liberal bishop like Mahoney whose examples you guys throw about. Wonder why? There are very good, conservative bishops, eg Chaput in Denver, who take a good moderate view towards our immigration policies. I find a lot of wisdom in some of these guys. But I am sure you are afraid of Chaput’s name coming up as it discounts your case that we are all raging, far left-wing liberals.

 

[Tigg]

Post #111 is wrong. The complete term “illegal alien” does not occur in the US legal code, which BTW makes illegal entry a misdemenor payable by a fine not to exceed $250. The term illegal alien implies an ongoing state of crime.

Well if you don’t believe the law universities are giving a correct definition, then I’d say your use of the term “illegal immigrant” is faulty as well. In popular usage, an “immigrant” is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an “immigrant” is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.

Call it whatever you wish, but I’m not much into political correctness.

 

[tafan]

Well if you don’t believe the law universities are giving a correct definition, then I’d say your use of the term “illegal immigrant” is faulty as well. In popular usage, an “immigrant” is generally understood to be a person who migrates to another country, usually for permanent residence. Under this definition, therefore, an “immigrant” is an alien admitted to the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident.

Call it whatever you wish, but I’m not much into political correctness.

True to form, you guys don’t even take the time to read the other side’s arguments. I did not use the term “illegal immigrant”. I don’t think there is a legally defined correct term, I think I made that clear also. I could be wrong, but I doubt you guys know any better than I.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Americans plundered Africa for slaves, and brought them to America

Actually this is wrong. Most slaves were captured in Africa by other African tribes and sold into slavery. No Americans went “slave hunting” in Africa.

That does not make what happened right, but it is important to know the truth behind slavery when you attempt to place blame.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Post #111 is wrong. The complete term “illegal alien” does not occur in the US legal code, which BTW makes illegal entry a misdemenor payable by a fine not to exceed $250. The term illegal alien implies an ongoing state of crime. That is not how the criminal justice systems works in the US. It is not analogous to our Catholic faith where one can be in or out of a state of grace. Crimes are individual actions/event. So it was illegal for them to enter or to overstay their visa. Current law, which most of the anti-immigration crowd says shoudl be sufficient, makes these misdemeanors with low fines.

I suppose many of us have committeed misdemeanors with fines in the $200 range, as such are we “illegal”.

OTH, I understand the usage of your term, it is good for propaganda purposes, from your perspective, it would seem very legitimate.

I prefer to use the term “undocumented alien”.

 

[Ender]

Gotta laugh that its always a liberal bishop like Mahoney whose examples you guys throw about. Wonder why? There are very good, conservative bishops, eg Chaput in Denver, who take a good moderate view towards our immigration policies. I find a lot of wisdom in some of these guys. But I am sure you are afraid of Chaput’s name coming up as it discounts your case that we are all raging, far left-wing liberals.

Say what? I was responding to sidbrown’s reference to the comments of Cardinal Mahony; are you suggesting I should have answered him by analyzing the comments of Bishop Chaput? If you want to quote what Chaput has said on this subject, go ahead.

Ender

 

[tafan]

I prefer to use the term “undocumented alien”.

I have no problem with that term. It is actually the most technically accurate term and should carry the least baggage from either side.

 

[tafan]

Say what? I was responding to sidbrown’s reference to the comments of Cardinal Mahony; are you suggesting I should have answered him by analyzing the comments of Bishop Chaput? If you want to quote what Chaput has said on this subject, go ahead.

Ender

Suggesting exactly what I wrote, nothing more or less.

 

[tafan]

Do not be confused. I am not anti-immigrant at all, but I am opposed to those who enter this country illegally. It is unfair of you to categorize the entire “anti-ILLEGAL immigrant crowd” with this sampling of bigoted statements and completely disregard our reasons for the debate.

Sorry, when these statements were made, many of the your side was on active on those threads and were completely silent. It has been demonstrated again and again, that any proposed changes in the laws to make legal immigration more available is very much opposed to your side, so the term anti-immigrant is perfectly valid. It is by no means meant to be a term of derision. It is just the way your side thinks. Example, yesterday, I proposed a broader temporary workers program as part of a solution and it hax garnered zero support.