P
pnewton
Guest
It does not depend on whether he has proper legal documentation to show he has the right to expect compassion from a red-blooded American citizen, for starters.
Last edited:
- Status
T
Theo520
Guest
No you are projecting, none here have said we don’t show compassion to an illegal. We can be compassionate in their treatment, yet still send them back to their family. People awaiting deportation are cared for medically, fed, clothed, and obviously sheltered.
P
pnewton
Guest
You also said, “…how does it get any worse for them.” Depending on where they are sent back, it might indeed get much worse.
Anyway, the idea that charity begins at home, which I do not agree with, would not take into account citizenship anymore than it would race, religion or social status. It is a proximity principle that we help the ones that God puts in our path.
Anyway, the idea that charity begins at home, which I do not agree with, would not take into account citizenship anymore than it would race, religion or social status. It is a proximity principle that we help the ones that God puts in our path.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
It sounds like you want to hide them in your basement rather than deport them?
They are economic migrants, if they were actually in fear of their life then they qualify to stay and not be sent back, we’ve got that covered.
If they are living on the street, this is also not a good place for them BTW.
A
Arkansan
Guest
What are the ideals that differentiate Spain from Portugal? Guatemala from Honduras?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Let’s stick to the subject of the thread, which is Cardinal O’Malley’s statement. It does not mention E-Verify or anything like that.LeafByNiggle:
Does this mean you would support the requirement for employers to use E-Verify?
This question pre-supposes that the only relevant effect on natives of allowing immigration is through their competing with natives for jobs. I think there are other relevant effects that should be considered if you want to decide upon the overall effect on our economy.
I disagreed with that conclusion then and I disagree with it now.
J
joemel
Guest
Oh so take in the Mexicans seasonally? To work the fields, I guess, because why…no one else will, not even those unemployed Americans? Then, send them back? Strange idea…don’t agree, but it’s your reply. “Do my bidding, now go away”? Now rest on high with warm fuzzies that you “helped” someone? How and why did you even think to “help” them, let alone in this demeaning manner? …Yes, we do have a moral duty to help the poor of the world and we should act on it. There is no one over the other, you disperse aid as much as you can and get others to do the same, i.e. other countries. They should be involved just the same, God gave us the world and us to each other, We are to take care of one and and all. “WE” does not just have to be the US, it includes other nations and people. Nationalism is directly opposed to this and isolates one country from another leaving many to suffer.
A
Arkansan
Guest
This is as a clear an expression of purely emotional altruism as you can get, and demonstrates well what’s wrong with the attitude. Such an attitude of willful obliviousness to the reality of the world leads to adopting policies, such as you advocate, which will offer immediate help to specific individuals but work to the long-term detriment of all. Is feeling good about yourself really worth inflicting damage on the rest of humanity?
J
joemel
Guest
Intervening, assisting, helping proactively within another country’s
borders is never easy and has to be done collaboratively as too many people
suffer otherwise. The moral compass has to be the guide.Its the direction I
believe we need to head in. Transparency, honesty, etc…Maybe some same
guidelines can originate from the same processes that are involved when
humanitarian assistance’s are offered to enemy countries when disaster
strikes. Humanitarian aid is often given authorization, not always but at
least sometimes. However, I don’t think sitting on the sidelines is an
answer.
borders is never easy and has to be done collaboratively as too many people
suffer otherwise. The moral compass has to be the guide.Its the direction I
believe we need to head in. Transparency, honesty, etc…Maybe some same
guidelines can originate from the same processes that are involved when
humanitarian assistance’s are offered to enemy countries when disaster
strikes. Humanitarian aid is often given authorization, not always but at
least sometimes. However, I don’t think sitting on the sidelines is an
answer.
Last edited:
J
joemel
Guest
Read the previous links I posted to catch yourself up, then go to https://www.englishgrammar101.com/ to help with typing out your responses
J
joemel
Guest
If you had been following the posts you would have noticed that neither side of the argument has been short sighted, both have had short and long term goals with each one considering several different ramifications. Appeals have gotten emotional at times, but that’s almost to be expected. Your comments jumping in on the tail end of the argument shows that you haven’t read what has already been said. Go back and see what both sides have said, then feel free to comment
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
What are you, the forum police? Rude.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
I believe that a lot of migrants would actually prefer s guest worker program. Canada has an arrangement like this.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Why are you being so condescending? Your response doesn’t even make sense.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
What’s wrong with seasonal work? If we do it legally, they’ll be paid better and have legal protections they don’t as illegals. Most farm work is seasonal, always has been. Mexican’s can choose not to take the work but I expect they will as it benefits both our people. I did seasonal service industry work when I was a student.
Going back to ‘fixing Mexico’, the Vatican has a better chance of making a difference since they are actually responsible for the Catholic churches and parishioners in Mexico. All the Bishops in Mexico report to Rome. There is no responsibility like this between the US and Mexico. Thus it’s not meddling for the Church to engage and intervene, it’s their responsibility.
Also since 85% of Mexico is Catholic, if the Church wanted to improve education or clamp down on corruption, they have significant manpower to focus and get results.
The US has just a couple hundred embassy staff and some USAID bribe money. We would definitely be seen as meddling, very different than if all the Mexican Bishops are calling for reform.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
It is easy to make general “let’s do good things” assertions; the problems always come in the implementation of policies to achieve those lofty goals.
Besides, I am taking Cardinal O’Malley’s statements seriously, especially where he said: "Catholics, in particular, offer a critical voice in this national debate." So, engage the debate: do you support or oppose the mandatory use of E-Verify?
The overall effect on the economy is a very different consideration from the particular effect on specific individuals. It may well be better for the economy to import masses of workers who will take jobs in the building trades even if it puts hundreds of thousands of natives out of a job. Which in your mind takes precedence: growing the economy at the expense of citizens, or protecting citizens at the cost of growing the economy?
Really? You think laws are just passed without regard to their effects? What is the purpose of passing any legislation if not to achieve a particular goal?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Cardinal O’Malley was referring to the national debate over immigration. That does not mean I must take a strong position on every subject tangential to immigration, like E-Verify. But just to satisfy your curiosity, I am not opposed to the use of E-Verify in hiring.LeafByNiggle:
It is easy to make general “let’s do good things” assertions; the problems always come in the implementation of policies to achieve those lofty goals.
Besides, I am taking Cardinal O’Malley’s statements seriously, especially where he said: "Catholics, in particular, offer a critical voice in this national debate." So, engage the debate: do you support or oppose the mandatory use of E-Verify?
They are passed to achieve a particular goal. It just may not the goal of who gets a job.You are still assuming that those natives put out of one job will not find a better job specifically because of the presence of the immigrants who grow the economy as consumers.
LeafByNiggle:
Really? You think laws are just passed without regard to their effects? What is the purpose of passing any legislation if not to achieve a particular goal?
E
Ender
Guest
Exactly. Given that we have these programs today it isn’t clear why you oppose them.
If they come voluntarily then they do so because they find it in their own best interest. That’s what a job is all about. What is the better way to help someone: give him benefits he did not earn, or give him a job which benefits him by allowing him to purchase what he needs from what he has earned?
Should we offer the same benefits to the unemployed Guatemalan as to the unemployed Arizonan? To answer yes is to demonstrate a complete failure to understand what can and cannot be done in the real world. To answer no is to acknowledge that your statement is incorrect - our first duty is to our own citizens.
These statements always sound so noble when they are generic, and they always fall apart as soon as the talk becomes specific. There are billions of poor in the world. How are we to help them all? Propose a specific immigration program.
E
Ender
Guest
First, E-Verify is central to the issue; it is not some outlying concern. Even more than the wall it is probably the single most important change we can make to deter illegals from staying in the country. This is going to be an interesting debate; one can only wonder what kind of excuses will be invented to oppose a plan that effects only those who are here illegally.
That’s all that was stated, and in the passing of those laws consideration has to be taken regarding the effect on citizens, not simply whether or not it is best for immigrants.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
The key facts people ignore is that full employment is bad for businesses but very VERY good for the poor and minorities, especially black youth who can finally get a job.
Illegal immigrants displace the people we need to get working the most, the people at the bottom of the hiring food chain.
Illegal immigrants displace the people we need to get working the most, the people at the bottom of the hiring food chain.
- Status