"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
We can’t start thinking about alternatives until we stop thinking within the rigid framework of a false dichotomy, namely “open borders” vs. Wall. There’s a wide spectrum of options in between those two extremes.
Click to expand...
That there are immigration problems other than illegals sneaking across the southern border doesn’t make that any less of a problem, and the wall is intended to address only that one so it isn’t all that clear there are a variety of alternatives. If we want to resolve that one, particular issue how can it be done without some kind of physical barrier?
It’s perfectly reasonable to protect borders from crime and disease, for example, while still expanding the number of legal ports of entry, redirecting taxpayer money to providing lawyers and social workers instead of a an even more militarized border, addressing the factors pushing migrants out of their homes, and removing all of the layers of bureaucracy that prevent a swift and attainable process for acquiring visas and citizenship.
Click to expand...
These are all different aspects of the immigration problem, and they should all be addressed, but they can all be handled independently not just of the wall but of each other, and they all allow for valid differences of opinion about what needs to be done. More significantly, there is no moral distinction to be made between proposals to solve this or that problem.
But I definitely disapprove of how the current administration is screaming about “illegals” while (conveniently) making it all but impossible to emigrate here legally.
Click to expand...
First, this isn’t true, but second, what is the argument that the US has an obligation to accept everyone who wants to come here? And if we don’t take them all then placing limits is reasonable and necessary, and where is the justification for assuming that limitations equal racism?
 
I just have 2 questions for you.
Did you vote in the 2016 presidential election?
If yes, who did u vote for?
Your answer or lack thereof will explain every issue we may disagree on.
No pressure, because I seriously don’t “care” about the answer. It might just clear up everything I’m not understanding about your logic.
 
Bre6785 said:
I just have 2 questions for you.
Did you vote in the 2016 presidential election?
If yes, who did u vote for?
Your answer or lack thereof will explain every issue we may disagree on.
No pressure, because I seriously don’t “care” about the answer. It might just clear up everything I’m not understanding about your logic.
Click to expand...
I think this badgering of @blackforest with questions that have nothing to do with the validity of the arguments put forth is serving no good purpose other that to jockey for position as the “most pro-life poster on the planet.” It reminds me very much of the McCarthy hearings.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
40.png
blackforest:
We can’t start thinking about alternatives until we stop thinking within the rigid framework of a false dichotomy, namely “open borders” vs. Wall. There’s a wide spectrum of options in between those two extremes.
Click to expand...
That there are immigration problems other than illegals sneaking across the southern border doesn’t make that any less of a problem, and the wall is intended to address only that one so it isn’t all that clear there are a variety of alternatives.
Click to expand...
That’s only true if you have already narrowed your focus that one specific problem. Clearly the problem is wider than that. By focusing on just that one solution you are essentially deciding that that one solution is the best one for the wider problem.
 
That’s not true but I will ask a different way. Though I am still interested to know the answer.
Different question.
Do you believe it’s the job of the government to take care of its people?
Meaning, are programs like WIC, health care, food stamps, ect ect benefits or entitlements.
The way a person votes absolutely dictates how they believe the government should interact in their and everybody else’s daily life. Which in turn explains alot about how they believe the boarder issue, and how our bishops respond to it, should be handled.
 
Bre6785 said:
That’s not true but I will ask a different way. Though I am still interested to know the answer.
Different question.
Do you believe it’s the job of the government to take care of its people?
Meaning, are programs like WIC, health care, food stamps, ect ect benefits or entitlements.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if you are still questioning blackforest or if you are asking me now. I will assume you are asking me. And I will answer.

It is the job of government to do whatever the people decide they want their government to do. If they decide it should build lots of bike paths, then it should build lots of bike paths. If they decide it should sell off national forests to mining interests, then that too is the job of government. And if the people decide that the government should provide a level of basic health care for all of its citizens, then the government should provide a level of basic health care for all of its citizens. The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

Now if you are asking me, as one of the people, if I would like government to provide a level of basic health care for all of its citizens, I would say yes. But that is just my opinion.
The way a person votes absolutely dictates how they believe the government should interact in their and everybody else’s daily life.
Click to expand...
That is a very questionable assumption. A candidate has positions on a variety of issues, and there are the other candidates to consider. You cannot possible know how I feel about, say, the military draft, just by who I voted for for President.

Einstein is said to have remarked, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” I think you are trying to simplify a complex question beyond what is possible.
 
Ender said:
That there are immigration problems other than illegals sneaking across the southern border doesn’t make that any less of a problem, and the wall is intended to address only that one so it isn’t all that clear there are a variety of alternatives. If we want to resolve that one, particular issue how can it be done without some kind of physical barrier?
Click to expand...
A lot of build-the-wall folks complain about Latinos not learning English quickly enough. In that spirit, let’s make sure we’re using our own language properly: “Illegal” is an adjective, not a noun.

Second, it will never be done. You’ll always have undocumented immigrants. Wall or no wall. When will the fanatical measures stop? A giant roof so foreign planes don’t land? Locking tracking devices on the ankles of every foreign visitors, as if they’re livestock, to make sure their visas don’t expire?

Don’t think of immigrants as scary people. Instead, remove the red tape and make it easier to apply for citizenship. Make is easier to get the documents, and fewer people will be here illegally. Easy as that. That is not the same as so-called “open borders.” Official Church teaching supports me.
LeafByNiggle said:
I think this badgering of @blackforest with questions that have nothing to do with the validity of the arguments put forth is serving no good purpose other that to jockey for position as the “most pro-life poster on the planet.” It reminds me very much of the McCarthy hearings.
Click to expand...
You are correct, thank you. I will no longer be indulging in this or any similar line of questioning.
 
I’m actually feeding cattle right now, but I will get to this ASAP, because you are full stop proving my point.
 
I agree with @blackforest on some of the suggestions that need to be addressed. I would add consequences for anyone hiring illegal immigrants. There wouldn’t be any desire to enter illegally if no one would risk hiring them. This would include everyone from farmers, construction and your next door neighbor hiring an illegal to clean her house.

I am not opposed to the IDEA of a wall but I’d much rather see a tech solution rather that a physical barrier due to environmental concerns…disruption of migratory patterns and the ease of tunneling,etc.

I think immigration numbers need to be determined on need of workers in various fields and adjusted accordingly every year. Not just what country they are from. I also think immigration and refugee numbers need to be separate. We should always be able to respond to refugee needs regardless of immigration needs.

I’m sure there are people that do want total open borders but I think they are few. Most want reasonable numbers and policies that don’t take years to complete and use ridiculous standards or paperwork.
 
I’m not sure if you are still questioning blackforest or if you are asking me now. I will assume you are asking me. And I will answer.

It is the job of government to do whatever the people decide they want their government to do. If they decide it should build lots of bike paths, then it should build lots of bike paths. If they decide it should sell off national forests to mining interests, then that too is the job of government. And if the people decide that the government should provide a level of basic health care for all of its citizens, then the government should provide a level of basic health care for all of its citizens. The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.
What you are describing here is democracy.
I wish alot of the “laws passed” were actually givin a vote from the people, a majority rules democratic vote, I think things would be alot different right now. But I digress
We actually live in a constitutional republic.
Government run or subsidized care
Do you know and understand what socialism is?
 
That blows my mind, not for one second would I hesitate to answer that question if asked.
I think the non response is the response, but I also think u probably know my answer…
Maybe i’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure u would be too in a guess.
 
Bre6785 said:
What you are describing here is democracy.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am describing democracy and any other form of representational government where the government is responsive to the will of the people. Pure democracy is just one of them, and I was not referring to it specifically.
We actually live in a constitutional republic.
Government run or subsidized care
Do you know and understand what socialism is?
Click to expand...
Yes. Are you going to start badgering me with questions too?
 
Is that a serious statement?
Let me rephrase. Do you know and understand the history of socialist governments (societies),
And is that what u advocate for?
 
Last edited:
Pattylt said:
I agree with @blackforest on some of the suggestions that need to be addressed. I would add consequences for anyone hiring illegal immigrants. There wouldn’t be any desire to enter illegally if no one would risk hiring them. This would include everyone from farmers, construction and your next door neighbor hiring an illegal to clean her house.
Click to expand...
I agree that if we are going to have laws against hiring undocumented people we should enforce those laws. And to some extent, enforcing those laws will probably discourage some who just wanted to make more money and was otherwise doing OK. But for some that are fleeing for their lives, the prospect of not finding work in the US is not enough of a disincentive. If you are swimming out of swamp with alligators right behind you, you will not stop to consider if you will find enough food to eat on land.
I am not opposed to the IDEA of a wall but I’d much rather see a tech solution rather that a physical barrier due to environmental concerns…disruption of migratory patterns and the ease of tunneling,etc.
Click to expand...
👍
I think immigration numbers need to be determined on need of workers in various fields and adjusted accordingly every year. Not just what country they are from. I also think immigration and refugee numbers need to be separate. We should always be able to respond to refugee needs regardless of immigration needs.
Click to expand...
👍 on that too.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
But for some that are fleeing for their lives, the prospect of not finding work in the US is not enough of a disincentive.
Click to expand...
I would consider that a case of a refugee, not an immigrant. Thus, they should be considered separately.
Thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top