"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you pro-life and adopting unwanted children in foster care? Because that argument is equally fallacious to the one you’re posing.

But since you asked, I did sign up months ago for a program to take in a Honduran family. I have not yet been contacted, but then, I live nowhere near that border.
 
The bishops, as the Pope, live by their faith. They do not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants because the Catholic faith does not discriminate (and neither does Judaism BTW). The bishops are neither liberal nor conservative in such matters: they are servants of Gd.
 
Bre6785 said:
I’m not trying to make anybody feel embarrassed. I don’t really care how you “feel”, that’s most of the problem. People live by and act on emotion rather than think about the consequences of what they ste saying and doing. You didn’t answer the question either. Are you taking a family in?
Click to expand...
Let me state it without using the word “feeling”: What you say on this issue can never cause me to question my position of siding with the clergy of our Church. Your personal questions I dismiss without comment as being inappropriate and irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
It may be worthwhile to review in exactly what context did tell that story. It was in response to a lawyer who asked Jesus “…then who is my neighbor?” It was not a very specific context. It is applicable any time the question comes up as to who is my neighbor. That is a reasonable way to look at the issue of immigration, because we would treat immigrants differently if we truly considered them to be our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan describes two people of different political identities, belonging to different cultural and governmental entities. The parallels are right there. It is not a stretch to see them.
Click to expand...
The story is about someone in extreme distress at your literal feet.
Click to expand...
Do you really think Jesus meant to limit the lesson of “who is my neighbor” to people who are in distress are our literal feet?
 
Also, the USCCB has a vested interest in taking people in. I might actually support them if they were putting their money where their mouth is, but they aren’t. Look and see how much money they bring in each year for taking in immigrants and aliens. 97 MILLION! It’s not charity when you are getting paid. That’s called a lucrative business… it frees up our tithes to be the slush funsd that it is. How much money was spent recently on the USCCB conference? Pretty sure it was over a million.
I am prolife. Are you prolife? I have 6 children of my own. Can’t get more pro life than that. My brother who cannot have his own children adopted 7. Pretty pro life. Our tithe goes to the local Mary’s choice which provides for single mothers, diapers, rent, childcare, food, therapy, help with college. Yes prolife. Stand on street corners in prayer and reparation against abortion. I won’t waste all merit proving “evidence” of my pro life, life. I also have had in the past kiddos writing me letters in Thanksgiving as well as their mommas from Mexico. I’m not here to argue, to make you believe what I believe. I think we probably mostly agree. I guess my question to u is are you arguing for open borders, so anybody and everybody can come in? (IE, against the wall). Or are we in agreement and getting lost in semantics?
 
meltzerboy2 said:
The bishops, as the Pope, live by their faith. They do not discriminate between legal and illegal immigrants because the Catholic faith does not discriminate (and neither does Judaism BTW). The bishops are neither liberal nor conservative in such matters: they are servants of Gd.
Click to expand...
The Church support legit refugees and legal immigrants. Don’t see where doctrine also requires us to give economic migrants the jobs that are needed by our pre-existing poor.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Do you really think Jesus meant to limit the lesson of “who is my neighbor” to people who are in distress are our literal feet?
Click to expand...
You are deflecting again.

it is a parable about helping the person in front of you, not sponsoring children half way around the world (a racket by the way).

I also showed that even when we enforce immigration laws we adhere to the parable - we provide food, shelter, and medical care before deporting illegals.

Principles of subsidiarity should be followed when supporting the poor in other countries.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Do you really think Jesus meant to limit the lesson of “who is my neighbor” to people who are in distress are our literal feet?
Click to expand...
You are deflecting again.
Click to expand...
No, I am directly addressing your comment about how the parable is of limited applicability. And I could say more. If the parable is only about how to treat someone you find beaten by the side of the road as you walk by, there would be no reason for the Church to use that reading in Sunday mass, since that very limited situation so rarely every comes up. Yet the Church does include it regularly in the Sunday mass readings. That would not make sense if the parable had such limited applicability.
 
Yet you keep ignoring the rest of what I posted, you don’t comment on the body of what I say.

Yes, you are deflecting.
 
Here’s the problem. America is a country everybody flocks to because it means you have a better chance to a better life.
Let’s say we start talking in EVERYBODY who wants to come. Think about this for a minute,

No, really, think about that. Have you ever stopped to think about the resources, the money, the room for such a plan?
You should, because at some point you have to say, “I’m sorry, the Inn is full”
Or your risking everybody.
Think about it…
 
Bre6785 said:
I guess my question to u is are you arguing for open borders, so anybody and everybody can come in? (IE, against the wall).
Click to expand...
Providing a just path to citizenship for hard-working immigrants, which the bishops and I both believe in, is not the same as “open borders.” The latter is a product or black-and-white thinking from Right-wing pundits.
 
Theo520 said:
Yet you keep ignoring the rest of what I posted, you don’t comment on the body of what I say.

Yes, you are deflecting.
Click to expand...
And you keep ignoring my direct response to your comment. I would say your accusations of deflecting look more like deflecting on your part.
 
Bre6785 said:
Here’s the problem. America is a country everybody flocks to because it means you have a better chance to a better life.
Let’s say we start talking in EVERYBODY who wants to come. Think about this for a minute,

No, really, think about that. Have you ever stopped to think about the resources, the money, the room for such a plan?
You should, because at some point you have to say, “I’m sorry, the Inn is full”
Or your risking everybody.
Think about it…
Click to expand...
Are you arguing with me, or with the bishops? Because it sounds like you are arguing with the bishops. They are the ones who made statements about justice for immigrants. I am just standing by them, and you want to separate me from them. I won’t do it.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
…we would treat immigrants differently if we truly considered them to be our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan describes two people of different political identities, belonging to different cultural and governmental entities. The parallels are right there. It is not a stretch to see them.
Click to expand...
You’ve confirmed my earlier observation: “it simply implies that good people support open borders, while evil people oppose them.” Your comments have nothing to do with judging the merits of (e.g.) building the wall and everything to do with judging the people who support positions you oppose.

And yes, this is the mindset fostered by the belief that immigration is a moral issue: that somehow the prohibition against rash judgment and the obligations of charity are not applicable here.
 
An even bigger question is, why no wall for our northern border? Lots of illegals come in from Canada. But we all know that this is a racial thing. Most of those Canadians have much lighter-colored skin.
 
YourNameHere said:
An even bigger question is, why no wall for our northern border? Lots of illegals come in from Canada. But we all know that this is a racial thing. Most of those Canadians have much lighter-colored skin.
Click to expand...
Thanks for impugning folks as racist.
Here’s a source that states:
CBS News has learned the number of people caught illegally crossing the United States’ northern border is up 142 percent. Border Patrol agents apprehended 445 people entering the U.S. from Canada during the first six months of 2018; that compares with 184 during the same period last year.
Click to expand...
So, let’s say 900 people were apprehended in 2018 illegally crossing the border from the north.


Number of people apprehended across our southern border in 2018:
Apprehensions on the Southwest border peaked in 2000 at 1.64 million and have generally declined since, totaling 396,579 in 2018.

So, 900 people from the northern border, vs 400,000 people from the southern border. Gee, I wonder why we focus on the southern border? I guess because we’re racist…
 
Last edited:
There is plenty that I do not see eye to eye with the bishops, even The Bishop of Rome, about. I’m not usually on the Social Justice warrior train. Exactly because of this conflict. Everybody can help a neighbor, the actual social justice of the bible, and if everybody did, we would have a wonderful world (not just a country). Nobody can help everybody, that’s fake social justice. It’s where it becomes political rather than moral. Let me ask you, where was the USCCB when Asia Bibi was being asylum? Crickets… I’m sure protecting her would have cost money, not made money… forgive me if I seem a little cynical.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
…we would treat immigrants differently if we truly considered them to be our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan describes two people of different political identities, belonging to different cultural and governmental entities. The parallels are right there. It is not a stretch to see them.
Click to expand...
You’ve confirmed my earlier observation: “it simply implies that good people support open borders, while evil people oppose them.” Your comments have nothing to do with judging the merits of (e.g.) building the wall and everything to do with judging the people who support positions you oppose.

And yes, this is the mindset fostered by the belief that immigration is a moral issue: that somehow the prohibition against rash judgment and the obligations of charity are not applicable here.
Click to expand...
The description of this discussion as one of people who have the same goal in mind and only disagree on the best way to get to that goal is not an accurate one. It would only be accurate if we all agreed on the goal that we are aiming for. But this discussion is more accurately described as one where people have different goals in mind, and want to pursue those goals over the goals others think are important. Is the goal to alleviate suffering? Is the goal to protect Americans from terrorists? From unfair job competition? These are different goals. We should not pretend that we are all aiming for the same goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top