R
RandomAlias
Guest
Perhaps you have traveled to Germany?
- Status
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
I have indeed, although it’s been awhile. My mother is British I’ve seen quite a bit of Europe over the years.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Gross exaggeration. The German people understand the difference between national pride and racial supremacy. They do have national pride, and their sense of pride is not the kind that feels threatened by a welcoming posture toward others.
Last edited:
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
Maybe that’ll pay off for them and it’ll work out beautifully. I doubt it though.
I predict major blood shed on the European continent within the next 25 years though as a result of the influx of culturally and religiously incompatible migrants if their numbers get large enough.
I predict major blood shed on the European continent within the next 25 years though as a result of the influx of culturally and religiously incompatible migrants if their numbers get large enough.
P
pnewton
Guest
That is because you are drawing a false contrast. Being poor does not mean one is not productive. James 2 warns us not to despise those who are poor.
The United States is spiritually impoverished, which is why when we think of people being productive we only think of $$$.
P
pnewton
Guest
That would be a preferential option for the near, or a preferential option for a citizen.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
I guess we should structure our government so that the Lion’s share of the goods, services, profits, tax revenue goes to the poorest countries of the world. Is that what you would suggest would fulfill the preferential option for the poor?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Some people actually do want that.
J
JanSobieskiIII
Guest
Well that would definitely solve the supposed income inequality. After awhile no one would bother to continue to produce anything of value.
P
pnewton
Guest
No, that is not what that means. I was only saying that the preferential option for the poor is not “charity begins at home” and should not be confused with it.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Being poor is correlated with being less economically productive. Bringing in poor immigrants will on the whole tend to depress American wages, and cause unemployment among our own poor (especially given that in coming decades there will be less and less need for low-skill work).
This is true, many immigrants from Latin America are more pious than Americans. But I’ve not seen any evidence that they make America better in that regard. If anything, America frequently corrupts them (this is even more true of second generation immigrants). So we get the worst of both worlds, America makes them spiritually impoverished, and they make it physically impoverished.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes. I do not see that as being an issue. Being less economically productive is not being economically counter-productive. Immigration has increased over the last fifty years, but so has the GNP. On the other hand, so has wealth disparity. In any case, whenever we let our bottom line affect our decisions on right and wrong, we have the wrong god.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Bringing in low-skill immigrants drives down wages and drives up unemployment. It may be good for the owners of big business, but it’s not good for ordinary people.Arkansan:
Yes. I do not see that as being an issue. Being less economically productive is not being economically counter-productive. Immigration has increased over the last fifty years, but so has the GNP. On the other hand, so has wealth disparity.
Making economics the sole consideration would be wrong, but there’s no rational reason for considering the effect of (any given policy) on Americans’ (particularly the poorest ones) standard of living to be out-of-bounds.
In any case, my objections to mass migration aren’t primarily economic. Bringing in millions of Asians would benefit the economy, but I wouldn’t support that either.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Studies have shown that common assumption to be false.
K
ktmeyer
Guest
First, he didn’t say we had to embrace ILLEGAL immigration to be Catholic, but that we couldn’t be anti-immigraton.
Second, when people talk about how their own ancestors used to come over legally, I don’t think they realize that in many situations that’s because there was nothing you had to DO to be a legal immigrant, you just showed up for the most part. Vs now, when if you don’t have a high paid skill or a family member here you are likely out of luck, with no actual legal option to immigrate. If these people HAD a legal way to come, they would prefer it, but we don’t give them one.
Finally, illegal immigrants are NOT on welfare, etc. They do not qualify for social programs, but they do pay taxes. They actually help the economy. But of course, that isn’t the point when we are talking morality anyway.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ty/immigration/whydonttheycomeherelegally.cfm
Second, when people talk about how their own ancestors used to come over legally, I don’t think they realize that in many situations that’s because there was nothing you had to DO to be a legal immigrant, you just showed up for the most part. Vs now, when if you don’t have a high paid skill or a family member here you are likely out of luck, with no actual legal option to immigrate. If these people HAD a legal way to come, they would prefer it, but we don’t give them one.
Finally, illegal immigrants are NOT on welfare, etc. They do not qualify for social programs, but they do pay taxes. They actually help the economy. But of course, that isn’t the point when we are talking morality anyway.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ty/immigration/whydonttheycomeherelegally.cfm
K
ktmeyer
Guest
It is EXACTLY what the Irish did, except they didn’t have to be sneaky because we didn’t HAVE immigration restrictions back then! You could basically just show up. You know, those "open borders’ every says would ruin the country…yeah, that’s how most of our ancestors GOT HERE! We didn’t restrict immigration until much later.
So yeah, the Irish did it legally because there was no such thing, basically, as illegal immigration. The immigrants coming now would love to come legally, but for most there is no way to do so. It’s not about “skipping the line”, there is no line. http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ty/immigration/whydonttheycomeherelegally.cfm
And we as a country don’t actually want them to stop coming because it would ruin our economy. We depend on their labor. So instead of acknowledging that and giving them legal protections we keep it on the shady side, which lets companies abuse them and pay them slave wages and the immigrants have to put up with it because they could be deported if they object.
P
Peebo
Guest
Ender1d
godisgood77:
It’s something that’s un-American and it’s certainly not Catholic, and we need to resist it
I wonder if these bishops have any conception of how their comments poison the discussion from the start. Cardinal O’Malley’s comments imply that if someone disagrees with him about immigration policy then that person is somehow less of a Catholic. He has made agreement with his immigration policy a test of whether one is a good Catholic, or, presumably, a bad one.
I really don’t think labeling ones political opponents as un-American and un-Catholic can be considered the Catholic way…or at least is shouldn’t be.
That’s the problem here in the US…people are always putting their own political bias on statements the church makes…instead of seeing it as “Catholic” they see it as “political” because it doesn’t fit with their political beliefs…that applies to both "left"and “right”…that’s because politics has become the religion here in the US
godisgood77:
It’s something that’s un-American and it’s certainly not Catholic, and we need to resist it
I wonder if these bishops have any conception of how their comments poison the discussion from the start. Cardinal O’Malley’s comments imply that if someone disagrees with him about immigration policy then that person is somehow less of a Catholic. He has made agreement with his immigration policy a test of whether one is a good Catholic, or, presumably, a bad one.
I really don’t think labeling ones political opponents as un-American and un-Catholic can be considered the Catholic way…or at least is shouldn’t be.
That’s the problem here in the US…people are always putting their own political bias on statements the church makes…instead of seeing it as “Catholic” they see it as “political” because it doesn’t fit with their political beliefs…that applies to both "left"and “right”…that’s because politics has become the religion here in the US
O
on_the_hill
Guest
At least they never figured out that we’re plotting to overthrow the government and establish a new world order.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I’m not convinced of that. Immigration rates have skyrocketed since 1970 but unemployment seems unaffected. Unemployment rises and falls. Immigration just goes up and up. One might be able to make the argument that immigration contributes to lower wages, but I don’t see immigration as linked to the employment rate.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Formal studies have shown the same thing. The claim of depressing wages and causing unemployment is just fear mongering. The immigrants are also consumers and they create demand and grow the economy.Arkansan:
I’m not convinced of that. Immigration rates have skyrocketed since 1970 but unemployment seems unaffected. Unemployment rises and falls. Immigration just goes up and up. One might be able to make the argument that immigration contributes to lower wages, but I don’t see immigration as linked to the employment rate.
Last edited:
- Status