"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
repentant2 said:
Children of citizens should get citizenship because they are part of the heritage of the nation. It is their birthright.

Foreigners have no birthright to another nations citizenship and the privileges that entails.
Click to expand...
All you are doing is stating a tautology: “Children of citizens have a right to be citizens because children of citizens have right to be citizens.” That is not a reason.
 
Bre6785 said:
Is that a serious statement?
Click to expand...
Yes
Bre6785 said:
Let me rephrase. Do you know and understand the history of socialist governments (societies),
And is that what u advocate for?
Click to expand...
Do you know the history of and how it was misused and abused?

Its a tool like any other. If society wants a monarchy and its good for the people, go for it. Same goes with any other system.

But I wasn’t talking about pure Marxist socialism as much as taking a part of it and using it where it applies.

No hard and fast rules say we can’t mix and match to suit the people.

Free healthcare? Sure. Want a king too? Why not. Don’t want mandatory military service for two years after high school? Then don’t have it.

Why do people who encounter ‘social’ reforms think or act like ‘the Russians are coming!’ Its just an idea, a concept a tool.
 
Because they lead to more and more “reforms”, until you become Marxist.
I know youve heard the phrase
give them an inch, and they will take a mile…
 
repentant2 said:
And a terrible one at that. That the Catholic Church has explicitly condemned.
Click to expand...
The church condemns free healthcare?
Bre6785 said:
Because they lead to more and more “reforms”, until you become Marxist.
I know youve heard the phrase
give them an inch, and they will take a mile…
Click to expand...
Yes well, ideas will always war on but you don’t lose ground seeing the merit in the part of a bad idea. You take that good part and expand on it and work with more new ideas. Its called innovation.
 
repentant2 said:
I expounded in my edit, but that is absolutely a reason. It is a reason that stands on it’s own.

Why do the children of deceased parents inherit their parents belongings? Because it is theirs by right of birth.
Click to expand...
Only because our laws say so. And even that right is limited, as there is an inheritance tax. And our laws also say there is birthright citizenship. So if you are going to appeal to the law in one instance you can’t dismiss the law in another instance.
The nation is a family, citizenship is our inheritance and it should be guarded to ensure it goes to the children of our family.
Click to expand...
Still sounds like a tautology to me.
 
repentant2 said:
40.png
Anrakyr:
Its just an idea, a concept a tool.
Click to expand...
And a terrible one at that. That the Catholic Church has explicitly condemned.
Click to expand...
I invite you to read carefully the passage in the Catechism where socialism is supposedly condemned:
[2425] The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.
Click to expand...
Not quite the unequivocal condemnation you were looking for, is it?
 
First question, about healthcare

All business’s who want to be successful, Want to please their customer. (The person paying the bill, just so we are clear) If I am paying the bill, they will do everything in their power to keep me as a customer. Right? (If i’m not pleased I’ll go elsewhere) even so far as to KEEP ME ALIVE!
With government healthcare, I am no longer the customer. (Not paying the bills anymore)
Who are they beholden to now? It ain’t u. In fact, u are costing the customer more money than u seem to be worth. So, we both know where that leaves me.
If not, just Google Alfie Evans.
If you believe Innovation is a proper word used for socialism, you might want to pick up a history book.
My family’s health is the last “reform” I would want the government meddling in. But then again, i didn’t grow up believing I deserve anything more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Lots of people forget “pursuit of” belongs there.
 
Bre6785 said:
First question, about healthcare

All business’s who want to be successful, Want to please their customer. (The person paying the bill, just so we are clear) If I am paying the bill, they will do everything in their power to keep me as a customer. Right?
Click to expand...
You have a very narrow understanding of American healthcare.
Bre6785 said:
With government healthcare, I am no longer the customer. (Not paying the bills anymore)
Who are they beholden to now?
Click to expand...
The taxpayers like every other country that has public healthcare. who aren’t Marxist frankly they just liked that one bit.
Bre6785 said:
It ain’t u. In fact, u are costing the customer more money than u seem to be worth.
Click to expand...
How is that any different than paying insurance as you do in the states? You pay into a system so it helps you later if something happens. Why not clear out the middle man and just pay slightly more taxes?
Bre6785 said:
If you believe Innovation is a proper word used for socialism,
Click to expand...
I’m going to stop you right there. You are hocked on this point like I want socialism like you to envision it, which I don’t. I like some points of it and think they are worth expanding on. I also like a free market from I don’t like rampant capitalism.

Innovation is the growth of ideas not the stagnant adherence to one.
Bre6785 said:
But then again, i didn’t grow up believing I deserve anything more than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Lots of people forget “pursuit of” belongs there.
Click to expand...
Maybe when you pass on we will finally find a solution better than pursuing and actually have it. Frankly, I’d rather not wait and get it now and share it with you.
 
repentant2 said:
End birthright citizenship.

Cap immigration at 0.5% of US population.

After the third generation, the descendants of immigrants can apply for citizenship provided they and their family have acted with good conduct.
Click to expand...
Why?
Bre6785 said:
I think the non response is the response, but I also think u probably know my answer…
Click to expand...
If you wish to make assumptions or misrepresent my position, then I suppose I can’t stop you. I’m here to discuss immigration, not your views on my other positions.

If representative democracy interests you, then our nation should be siding with the majority. The Majority of Americans Oppose a Border Wall - Pacific Standard
repentant2 said:
Oh lord no. We do not need more foreign born “citizens” being a part of our body politic.

I thought we didn’t want foreign interference in our elections?
Click to expand...
They’re not foreign if they’ve become voting citizens.
 
This is one reason why I won’t answer your questions. You’re getting off-topic. I suppose that everything is related to immigration by seven degrees of Kevin Bacon, but would we please keep this thread more focused?
 
blackforest said:
This is one reason why I won’t answer your questions. You’re getting off-topic. I suppose that everything is related to immigration by seven degrees of Kevin Bacon, but would we please keep this thread more focused?
Click to expand...
Well (and this is only an example please don’t go down that rabbit hole) If ones reasons to stopping immigration are because Muslims then we have to discuss Islam.

I’m all for staying on topic but you have to allow for some wiggle room.
 
That’s fine - I just didn’t want to stray too far off on rambling bunny trails about health care, socialism, etc.

Do you believe that Muslims should not be allowed to emigrate to the U.S.? Or was that just an example to show the various directions the conversation could take?
 
Last edited:
I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but the process from immigration to work visas to permanent residency to citizenship is actually a long and involved one. There is mandatory cultural education coursework, as well as classes in U.S. politics and history that leave them coming out knowing more than most native-born adults. Nobody who “just moved here” gets a say in our politics.
 
CCHcolonel said:
. The state exists to ensure the common good of its people. It has the authority to regulate anything and everything as necessary to do that in accordance with church teaching.

This includes ensuring foreigners don’t usurp the birthright of its own people.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the right of nations to regulate citizenship was ever in question. The debate was over whether there should be birthright citizenship.
repentant2 said:
You’re making an assumption that I support capitalism. I don’t, at least, not how it exists today.
Click to expand...
I was not making that assumption at all when I quoted the Catechism. I quoted the Catechism only to show that socialism as such is not outright condemned by the Church. What is condemned is the "totalitarian and atheistic ideologies" that in modern times has been associated with socialism and communism. Many of the proposals that are called “socialism” today are not atheistic or totalitarian, and therefore the Church does not condemn those proposals (even though they are called “socialist” by some.) It makes as much sense to say the Church explicitly condemns socialism as to say the Church explicitly condemns capitalism (which it also doesn’t).
Part of that should also include the government staunchly defending those privileges, and ensuring the access to them is strictly prohibited to non citizens…
Click to expand...
Only if the citizens of the nation decide that they want to prohibit those benefits to non-citizens. If the citizens decide to be generous with those benefits, who can say they shouldn’t have the right to make it so?
Call it a tautology if you want. To me, it’s like asking why birds fly, because their parents could.
Click to expand...
That is not a tautology because their is an objective mechanism (DNA) for birds inheriting the characteristics of their parents. In the case of citizenship rights, there is no objective mechanism for that inheritance. It is simply the subjective and artificial decision of the people that it should be so. And those same people who decided children of citizens should be citizens also decided that children of foreigners born here should be citizens.
Since I can’t answer the question adequately for you, I’ll ask one myself. Why should children of non citizens get citizenship? Why should they not receive the same citizenship as their parents? Whatever that may be.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do not have good argument for birthright citizenship. If the people of this nation decide to restrict, or even eliminate it going forward, I would not be too upset. But I do think it would be unfair to strip such citizens already here. It should apply only to future “anchor babies” if that decision was made.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top