Immigration - Thank-You Cardinal O'Malley

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
helping refugees in Syria and Somolia with a travel ban…and a proposed wall for our neighbors to the South. Doesn’t sound very helpful if you ask me.
 
No ones saying we shouldn’t have any immigration at all so Aquinas’ point isn’t being ignored by any side.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The African American experience, for example, is as much a part of American identity as northern factories.
Click to expand...
Yes, blacks have been here as long as whites. That doesn’t detract from my point.
It is not a question of intentionally and actively changing the racial makeup of the country. It is a question of accepting what is happening and not taking intentional and active steps to stop any such thing. Please do not conflate the two.
Click to expand...
Ah, the myth of neutrality. In point of fact, there can be no neutrality, the law must either provide for the demographic displacement of the native population, or prevent it. Even if demographic change isn’t explicitly on the minds of the legislators, the law cannot but favor one outcome.
 
joemel said:
helping refugees in Syria and Somolia with a travel ban…and a proposed wall for our neighbors to the South. Doesn’t sound very helpful if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Refugees, by definition, find refuge in the first safe nation they arrive in. We can certainly help them by providing aid to them in those locations, so they can more easily return home once danger has ceased.
 
So, joemel,
How would you cap immigration in to the US? How many immigrants do you think the US can handle? Mexico has 127 million people, and one-third of Mexicans would like to immigrate to the US, so 40 million. Joemel, can the US handle that population? What’s the percentage of Central and South American people that would like to come here? From Africa? From Asia?
How many immigrants should we allow in? Maybe the USCCB knows. Maybe the USCCB knows how to educate all those people, many of whom are not educated in their native language well.
Probably pnewton and Leaf By Niggle know, if joemel doesn’t know the answers
 
Arkansan said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It is not a question of intentionally and actively changing the racial makeup of the country. It is a question of accepting what is happening and not taking intentional and active steps to stop any such thing. Please do not conflate the two.
Click to expand...
Ah, the myth of neutrality. In point of fact, there can be no neutrality, the law must either provide for the demographic displacement of the native population, or prevent it. Even if demographic change isn’t explicitly on the minds of the legislators, the law cannot but favor one outcome.
Click to expand...
You cannot just call something a myth just because you find it inconvenient.
 
RCIAGraduate said:
Isn’t this legislative compromise to an extent unfair because:

For many Dreamers, the United States has been the only country they’ve ever known, just because they look Mexican or Central American doesn’t mean they are any lesser American (they were raised here for the majority of their life) or that they can be easily integrated into the home country of their parents. In some cases, there is no linguistic or in-depth cultural connection. What can make this look egregious is the idea that they need to prove that they have to “prove” that they deserve to be in the place where they’ve been born and raised.

Limits and barriers on legal immigration seem quite unfair because it closes the door of opportunity for those who are waiting and are willing to go through the process legally.

Additionally, on a separate note, I understand the arguments on immigration restrictions but I can’t help but be concerned about the insinuations in this debate especially here in CAF. One poster basically said America should remain a “white majority” nation and another implied that the cultures of some illegal immigrants are incompatible to America even though these immigration come from predominately Catholic countries.
Click to expand...
RCIA, please watch your facts, don’t succumb to words that just support emotional appeal.
  • If they were BORN here then they are citizens, not dreamers in DACA. If they were born in another country, that is where they have the native right to reside.
  • We shouldn’t care if our policy seems unfair to people from another country. First and foremost our policies must be fair to our own citizens, the people our Govt is responsible for. We already have loads of poor and disadvantaged that are looking for opportunity. Why make them compete with illegals for entry level jobs? Start thinking about being fair to your actual neighbors.
  • The US is responsible for providing opportunity to it’s citizens, not the rest of the world. If you feel their home countries don’t provide enough opportunities, that is a completely separate problem, which isn’t addressed by siphoning off their most motivated citizens.
Regarding our color pallet, that cat is already out of the bag. We are already a very diverse and multi-cultural country. Containing future immigration to manageable numbers will make us more stable, but not turn us ‘white again’.

It’s not a death sentence if an economic migrant returns to their legal country of residence.

I repeat, the priority of the US Govt should be what’s in the best interest of it’s actual citizens, not the people who want to be here from somewhere else.
 
Last edited:
It’s a myth because it doesn’t square with reality. A law which objectively tends to produce a certain result (whatever that result may be) isn’t “neutral” with respect to that result in any meaningful sense.
 
Thanks for the links!

If Mexico is imperfect (aren’t we all) and needs to have some serious readjustment, then that should be the focus. Bleeding off their most motivated citizens does little to help the many millions left behind, and it does harm the people at the bottom of the US job food chain who are being replaced by an invasive species, to use a fish & wildlife term.

I am all for US aid that actually helps other countries improve their governance, which improves the life of their citizens. I’m not sure what it would look like, but I’m supportive, if it works on the actual problems in some countries. My guess is corruption is the key.

I’m all for balanced trade with these countries, where we help them grow their economy to both our advantages.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Bleeding off their most motivated citizens does little to help the many millions left behind, and it does harm the people at the bottom of the US job food chain who are being replaced by an invasive species, to use a fish & wildlife term.
Click to expand...
Mass immigration is one of the best examples of why a purely emotional altruism is bad. In point of fact, the immigration system we have now is bad for just about everyone except the specific individuals who actually get to immigrate (and their employers). Most immigrants are more skilled than the average person in their own country, but less skilled than the average person in ours, with the result that their migration drags both our country and theirs down economically. And of course, they take jobs from poor Americans who need them.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
It’s a myth because it doesn’t square with reality. A law which objectively tends to produce a certain result (whatever that result may be) isn’t “neutral” with respect to that result in any meaningful sense.
Click to expand...
Let’s get specific. The outcome we were speaking of was the racial mix in a certain country (Japan or the US or wherever). The law certainly can be neutral on the subject. In the US we currently have no law that is designed to produce a majority white nation. Nor do we have any law that forces whites to become a minority. If whites do become a minority, it will not be because of some law that says so. It will be because of the free choice of people - to have more children or to immigrate. And that is the way it should be with respect to this question - neutral. There should not be a law or a policy that says the US should always be a majority white nation.
 
Last edited:
Arkansan said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
40.png
Arkansan:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Nor do we have any law that forces whites to become a minority.
Click to expand...
If you push someone off a cliff, it’s pedantic and silly to claim that you didn’t “force” them to fall to the ground.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about pushing anyone off a cliff.
Click to expand...
We’re talking about pushing a whole country off a cliff.
Click to expand...
How is allowing some race other than the white race to dominate the nation the same as pushing it off a cliff?
 
A country is defined by its people. If you replace the people, you effectively have a new country, even if its territoriality identical with the old one.
 
Last edited:
No. Collective identity is easily passed down from generation to generation. It’s not easily passed laterally from natives to recent migrants.
 
Arkansan said:
A country is defined by its people. If you replace the people, you effectively have a new country, even if its territoriality identical with the old one.
Click to expand...
I think a country is defined by its ideals more than by its race, in the case of the US, the ideals of freedom, the rule of law, and the blending of cultures. It has always been so. Continued immigration is in keeping with that tradition of national identity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top