Immigration Laws

[DiegoRivera]

I have read some excellent points of view in this thread and live in a city rich with a varity of ethnic groups.

It is true that there is no easy answer to this problem of illeagal immigrants or revamping controlled immigration. We only have to look at US policy in the past on the matter of who was allowed into the country and who was not. In addition, the financial reasons as to why certain policies where chosen to become laws.

I only ask myself what does this topic have to do with my spiritual life in realtion to the Trinity and my fellow beings?

 

[ROESHAMBOW]

Elections Immigration Laws,
As we begin this new year those of us with concerns about illegals, and Immigration Laws. We should make every effort to seek out the candidate who speaks the truth about what they will do if elected to office. Our Church allows us to discern this if we pray for it. We are a country of immigrants this is what made us a strong and just country, once upon a time. America was not perfect, in all our country did or does in our name. Those of us who vote and choose poorly, bare some of the responsibility for our present condition.
Those who can legally vote and do not, bare MORE.
Remember the old saying “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me”.
God grant us the wisdom, not to be fooled twice!
So many, individual sacrifices made by so many of Gods children, continue to be made for one of our remaining freedoms in this country.
The right to vote.
I have always liked that bible passage (where I know not.)
“I put before you fire and ice” or maybe it is “Praise the Lord fire and ice.” My point being,
God always gives us a choice to exercise our free will, or submit to his will. God grant us the wisdom to choose rightly.
In regards to the “aliens in our midst.”
Seems, there is something in the good book about, our individual conduct, about that too…
May the year ahead prove to be one that draws us all closer to God.
PAX
ROESHAMBOW

 

[kama3]

EVERY country has immigration laws.

ONLY the United States is being singled out … that it alone should have open borders.

Yes, because US does something very strange and unique about immigration.

The US, like any other country, has the right to refuse people to enter the country. The US, like any other country, has the right to deport the illegals.

But what the US is doing, is that it allows illegals into the country (by not protecting the borders); then it allows them to live there (by not deporting them) and even automatically gives their children citizenship. In effect, it creates a large underclass of people who are productive members of society, yet they are stripped of basic rights and live in a constant fear of deportation. The US has entire sectors of economy which are based on the labor of illegals. That creates conditions for abuse and exploitation.

Deporting illegals and sealing the border would be a just act from the point of view of upholding the law.
Granting illegals the right would be just from the perspective of charity.
But, maintaing a large population of illegals, and basing economy on it, is unjust regardless from which side you are looking at it.

 

[socialcath101]

USCCB supports the dream act!

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/migrants-refugees-and-travelers/dream-act-bishops-statement-2011-06-18-archbishop-gomez-on-dream-act.cfm

 

[DasErlibnis]

USCCB is just flat wrong. Period.

But on another note, is anyone else noticing Obama trying to buy the immigrant vote? He’s behaving EXACTLY like the political character in the movie, “Gangs of New York.”

…boy is this one a Loaded thread now! I just criticized the USCCB and the President! Bring it on…

But ill tell you a truth. Illegal aliens are NOT in the immigration process, they’re not on the books. So, while there is the powerfully overt symbolic gesture, and a nod to Hispanic populations, there is this other thing, the Legals. Who are they? We know there are many, but Obamasan suggestion of "whatever it takes…get em signed, and don’t bother checking their credentials…) this isn’t merely ludicrous, its calculated. But then it must also require a motive.

Here’s your motive, because motive is ALWAYS the same, to make yourself more powerful, surround yourself with like-minded people. So that’s who Obamasan is bringing into the country with his “sign and drive” event.

And just HOW does Obamasan think? Well, we already know he’s a Communist pig! And we already know that he hates straight, white, Christian, American males.

And that’s who he’s letting in…the infiltrators.

You can’t destroy America from the outside. We’re too big and have too much military might. But you can make us eat our own tail, Oroborous-style. And because we love Jerry Springer, we’ll do it.

The more diverse our interests are, the more we will destroy ourselves. We will consume ourselves.

 

[socialcath101]

USCCB is just flat wrong. Period.

But on another note, is anyone else noticing Obama trying to buy the immigrant vote? He’s behaving EXACTLY like the political character in the movie, “Gangs of New York.”

…boy is this one a Loaded thread now! I just criticized the USCCB and the President! Bring it on…

But ill tell you a truth. Illegal aliens are NOT in the immigration process, they’re not on the books. So, while there is the powerfully overt symbolic gesture, and a nod to Hispanic populations, there is this other thing, the Legals. Who are they? We know there are many, but Obamasan suggestion of "whatever it takes…get em signed, and don’t bother checking their credentials…) this isn’t merely ludicrous, its calculated. But then it must also require a motive.

Here’s your motive, because motive is ALWAYS the same, to make yourself more powerful, surround yourself with like-minded people. So that’s who Obamasan is bringing into the country with his “sign and drive” event.

And just HOW does Obamasan think? Well, we already know he’s a Communist pig! And we already know that he hates straight, white, Christian, American males.

And that’s who he’s letting in…the infiltrators.

You can’t destroy America from the outside. We’re too big and have too much military might. But you can make us eat our own tail, Oroborous-style. And because we love Jerry Springer, we’ll do it.

The more diverse our interests are, the more we will destroy ourselves. We will consume ourselves.

Why are you opposing the Bishops?!

 

[pnewton]

USCCB is just flat wrong. Period.

Why are you opposing the Bishops?!

The bishops when they comment on or support a specific law are not teaching doctrine. Therefore, opposing their opinion is not the same as opposing them or any Church teaching. By the same token, their is no way the opinion of any bishop on a specific law can be said to be “wrong.” It is just an opinion. Before it is dismissed out of hand though I would like to think Catholics would try and understand why they support it, and by no means take delight or pride in disagreeing with them.

 

[socialcath101]

The bishops when they comment on or support a specific law are not teaching doctrine. Therefore, opposing their opinion is not the same as opposing them or any Church teaching. By the same token, their is no way the opinion of any bishop on a specific law can be said to be “wrong.” It is just an opinion. Before it is dismissed out of hand though I would like to think Catholics would try and understand why they support it, and by no means take delight or pride in disagreeing with them.

The way you described that was very intellectual

 

[ROESHAMBOW]

The following quote from EWTN should be taken into consideration:
Washington D.C., Jan 20, 2012 / 02:45 pm (CNA/EWTN News).-"**** The Obama administration announced Jan. 20 that it will not expand an exemption for religious groups that object to its requirement for health insurance plans to cover sterilization and contraception – including abortion-causing drugs – free of charge**** Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a Jan. 20 statement that religious employers who object to providing the coverage will be required to comply with the new law by Aug. 1, 2013, one year later than the initial deadline. Sebelius noted that “important concerns” had been “raised about religious liberty.” Those speaking out against the mandate included many Catholic organizations, such as schools, hospitals and social agencies, which serve all people in need, regardless of their religious affiliation. During the comment period that followed the announcement of the rule, the administration received an outpouring of criticism from believers of various religious backgrounds. Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ pro-life committee, argued against the regulation, warning that Jesus himself would not qualify for the religious exemption. In December, a group of more than 60 evangelical, Baptist and Jewish leaders voiced their objection to the mandate in a letter to President Obama. They observed that “religious organizations beyond the Catholic community have deep moral objections” to the proposed mandate.
Sebelius said that those concerns were given “very careful consideration” and asserted that the final rule “strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services.” While the rule will take effect for most employers on Aug. 1, 2012, Sebelius said that there will be a one-year “delayed implementation” of the mandate for nonprofit employers who do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans due to religious beliefs.
“This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule,” she said. Sebelius added that these employers will be required to inform employees “that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.”
The announcement comes one day after Pope Benedict XVI warned of “grave threats” to religious liberty in the U.S.
an address to a group of U.S. bishops visiting in the Vatican, the Pope voiced great concern over “certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.” He said that it is “imperative” for “the entire Catholic community” in the U.S. to realize that the threats are “hostile to Christianity.”
Can we expect, any good from the present order of things? Change is required, our (name removed by moderator)ut
is in the vote.