"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[abucs]

Sarcasm aside I can see you will never believe ever that anything from the left can be good and anything I introduce from the left to patch the extremes of the right will just be greeted with skepticism at lest.

Again you are being illogical and putting words in my mouth. This really is a problem in not being able to deal with objective truth and again you are being illogical.

We are talking about the Leftist ideology being evil. That does not preclude that nothing good can come from it. Hitler’s National Socialism was one of the first governments to implement a national health system. That was generally good although Hitler’s government control of this sector to first kill the disabled and then the Jews was clearly evil. Still I am sure that a lot of sick Germans were looked after.

That is good. But Hitler’s National Socialst ideology was evil.

That is clear.

And Blackforest there is no irony there.

 

[Anrakyr]

This is a big part of why the Leftist ideology leaves millions of corpses.

So does that right which is my point. Neither side is perfect, they are just schools of thought, nothing more.

People who go to war are from all political perspectives. I don’t think you are making a point here???

That is my point, you are warring on an ideology cause you can, not should.

Saying that all these must be perfect

No, I’m saying what you point to the left can be pointed right back. Pointing to the wrongs of an idea doesn’t make it evil and that goes both ways. The left isn’t any eviler than the right and It may shock you but they are just two sides of the same coin.

Again you are being illogical and putting words in my mouth.

Your point is the left is evil. What does that give me to work with?

That does not preclude that nothing good can come from it.

Up till now you implied otherwise.

Either way, I’m done. You see immigration a tool of the LEFT to undo the RIGHT instead of seeing maybe people think their system helps people.

To you this is a fight of Good vs Evil instead of should we take the rowboat back and save who we can from the Titanic at the risk of drowning ourselves.

THAT is the problem here.

 

[abucs]

So does that right which is my point. Neither side is perfect, they are just schools of thought, nothing more.

Nobody is saying anyone is perfect. Please stop introducing concepts that no one is talking about. The Leftist governments have killed millions of people as an outcome of their own ideology.

When ‘schools of thought’ lead to millions of unjust and horrific deaths you cannot sensibly describe these as ‘schools of thought and nothing more’. No. No No No and no again…

Now when you talk of the ‘right’ there is no clear ‘right’. There are people who oppose the Left and they do so for different reasons.

When you talk about rightist ideologies directly killing lots of people that case has to be made. Capitalism for example has lifted untold millions of people out of poverty and saved millions of lives. Capitalist success in things such as medical care, pharmaceuticals and sterilization processes have also saved millions of lives. Coca cola has not killed millions of people not repressed people with their own police force. When we talk about the ‘right’ and its ideologies then we have to be intelligent in what we are saying.

The Leftist evil of promoting an oppressed/oppressor class and using government to rectify this injustice by taking things from the oppressor class is clearly an evil ideology that has killed millions.

That is my point, you are warring on an ideology cause you can, not should.

I am warring against this ideology because it is evil and you should war against evil.

 

[Anrakyr]

I am warring against this ideology because it is evil and you should war against evil.

No, it’s not.

 

[abucs]

No, I’m saying what you point to the left can be pointed right back. Pointing to the wrongs of an idea doesn’t make it evil and that goes both ways. The left isn’t any eviler than the right and It may shock you but they are just two sides of the same coin.

Things are evil because of what they do. Pointing to that evil isn’t making it evil. It is evil in what is does. No the Leftist ideology is clearly evil. Again the idea of a false equality as fair is an incorrect view that comes from the politically correct religion. They are not two sides of the same coin. As I said. The Left is a clear ideology with historic context, continuation from the French Revolution to Marx to Stalin to political correctness with the state controlling morality and dividing one group from another.

The right are not such a historic or well defined group.

Also the Left have an ideology where the state implements everything from law, justice, morals, economics and culture.

There is no overarching and historic group from the right. There are different groups emphasising different things, Some economic, some social, some cultural, some regarding liberty etc etc. They are not two sides of the same coin in either kind nor historic outcome.

 

[abucs]

Up till now you implied otherwise.

No.

Twice now I have given the example of Hitler’s National Socialist doing good things but being evil. If you read what I said then you cannot credibly say that I don’t think good things can come from evil. Again this is a failure in dealing with objective truth of what is said.

 

[Anrakyr]

Twice now I have given the example of Hitler’s National Socialist doing good things but being evil. If you read what I said then you cannot credibly say that I don’t think good things can come from evil. Again this is a failure in dealing with objective truth of what is said.

You keep attacking the left in every post derailing it farther and farthing making immigration about the evil left vs you.

Its about helping people at the risk or hurting ourselves. Its not about the left, or soros or whatever else you conjure up.

The left isn’t evil, move on or make your own thread.

 

[Ender]

But . . . that’s not my argument. It never has been. I’m for border controls, proper vetting, and welcoming more immigrants.

Then I assume you have no moral objection to building a wall on the border. True?

Have you been to the border? I’ve actually lived in a border town. There is a physical barrier. It’s been there for decades. Trump and his followers have failed to put up a decent case for showering more money on it.

No one disputes that there are some walls and barriers along the border. The argument has always been whether or not there need to be more. Now I don’t care which side of that argument you take; what I care about is making it clear that there is no moral distinction between these two positions.

 

[Ender]

I heard today that Trump is considering sending all the illegals that they can’t keep in holding facilities to sanctuary cities. I don’t know that that will ever happen, but it seems like the best approach to a situation that has no good solutions.

 

[Bre6785]

Ignorance is bliss…

 

[Bre6785]

I know this is a catholic forum and all but that only applies in a world where God is real.

Even so because something on premise maybe wrong does mean everything that comes out of it is. Even God in your religion draws good from evil right?

I guess I thought I was speaking with a Catholic, or at least someone who called themselves Christian.
I’m out…

 

[Theo520]

No one disputes that there are some walls and barriers along the border. The argument has always been whether or not there need to be more.

I don’t think it’s even disputed that there needs to be more and some areas need replacement.

If people where honest and practical, they would go with the limited recommendations of the Border Patrol. Instead we have the Dem party using the issue for political football.

 

[abucs]

You keep attacking the left in every post derailing it farther and farthing making immigration about the evil left vs you.

Its about helping people at the risk or hurting ourselves. Its not about the left, or soros or whatever else you conjure up.

The left isn’t evil, move on or make your own thread.

I made the point and you decided to take issue with the point. If you are giving up on that now without much more than incoherent sophistry on your part then that is up to you.

It is about the Lefts policy, Wishing it is not doesn’t change the fact.

If you want to engage with people who are not in favour of immigration then you have to deal with them on their objections not be tone deaf to the objections and pretend they don’t exist so you can keep repeating your own silly dogmas without introspection.

I certainly won’t move on to your narrow minded approach to the issue.

 

[blackforest]

Then I assume you have no moral objection to building a wall on the border. True?

LOL! Nice try. There is both a practical and moral case against la muralla.

I have watched this drama play out since the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to thousands of undocumented immigrants in exchange for more border security. Then the 90s came along, and the border hawks demanded a fence behind the fence. (I distinctly remember it going up in San Ysidro). Alas, nothing will make the border hawks happy.

Then you have the logistics. I don’t think you’ve though through this well.

First, Native tribes whose people span both sides of the border have successfully blocked federal efforts to build on their land.

Second, Republicans who used to howl about confiscation of private property by eminent domain - inevitable if this wall gets built - seem now to be giving the feds a free pass. Lawsuits against said confiscations will drag out for many years.

Federal lands are governed by land management laws that could drastically delay construction.

Then you have border cities rightfully protesting and challenging this incursion. Arizona mayor wants ‘lethal’ border wall wire removed — the U.S. military recently installed it - MarketWatch

Then you have the Rio Grande, whose water rights are protected by a treaty disallowing any claim to its flood plain. Rio Grande/Rio Bravo - International Waters Governance If you build a wall here, floods and damming are a natural result.

Apart from natural disasters, we’d have to worry about diplomatic ones. Mexico is one of the top recipients of U.S. exports; do you really think it would be smart to tick them off?

Once the wall is up, how do you propose stopping the tunnels? Have you considered the funds required to maintain the wall from natural wear and tear? Texas has violent storms, and these fences get pelted by salt water and salty air on the coast.

Above all, the wall won’t stop the 58% of undocumented immigrants who are visa overstays.

Given the utter lack of moral outrage over this last fact, compared to all of the panic in this thread and elsewhere over the poor, dark people at the border fence, the motivation for a wall is racist and therefore immoral. Our Pope has already condemned it as un-Christian, and I whole-heartedly side with him in this matter.

 

[jeannetherese]

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.

ILLEGAL | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

illegal
noun

uk/ɪˈliː.ɡəl/ us/ɪˈliː.ɡəl/ informal
someone who lives or works in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this:

He said ID cards would make it easier to deport illegals.

Synonym

illegal immigrant

 

[Seeksadvice]

Because the liberal agenda has infected the church?

 

[Ender]

There is both a practical and moral case against la muralla.

You presented what you believe is a practical case against the wall; at the moment I don’t care about whether it is a good or a bad idea, only with whether building it is moral or immoral.

…the motivation for a wall is racist and therefore immoral.

This reinforces my belief that calling immigration a moral issue is no more than claiming the right to ignore the prohibition against rash judgment as well as the obligation of simple charity. This is not a judgment about building the wall itself, it is merely condemnation of those who support that proposal.

Your practical objections may or may not have merit, but the characterization of those who disagree with you as racist and immoral is itself a moral failure. The catechism lists it in the section Offenses Against Truth:

2477 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

There is no foundation for your charge beyond your own prejudice.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

If you actually did this, while you would still disagree with the reasonableness of building a wall, at least you wouldn’t view your opponents as immoral bigots. And you would understand that immigration proposals are neither moral nor immoral, just effective or ineffective.

 

[blackforest]

ILLEGAL | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
illegal
noun

It’s slang. Merriam Webster won’t even recognize it. Illegal | Definition of Illegal by Merriam-Webster

Human beings can’t be perpetually “illegal.” It’s not a state of being.

You presented what you believe is a practical case against the wall; at the moment I don’t care about whether it is a good or a bad idea, only with whether building it is moral or immoral.

Is it moral to confiscate others’ private property for an impractical project? Is it moral to seize Native lands for it? It is moral to snatch away tax money from hard-working Americans to build a monstrosity that will stick taxpayers on the hook for endless maintenance and lawsuits?

Your practical objections may or may not have merit, but the characterization of those who disagree with you as racist and immoral is itself a moral failure.

But I’m not just speculating. There’s hard evidence of racism - including the language in popular dialogue dehumanizing migrants as “swarms,” “illegals,” and animals" - as well as the preferential moral outrage toward poor-dark border-crossers over the affluent who’ve overstayed their visas. Racism is a sin.

 

[Ender]

Is it moral to confiscate others’ private property for an impractical project? Is it moral to seize Native lands for it? It is moral to snatch away tax money from hard-working Americans to build a monstrosity that will stick taxpayers on the hook for endless maintenance and lawsuits?

If the project is seen as both practical and necessary, then eminent domain in fact gives the government the right to take possession of private property - with compensation. That is a well established practice. It is not immoral. Nor is there a moral consideration involved in doing something perceived to be good that later turns out catastrophically bad. Think Urban Renewal. Again, you base your “moral” opposition on your belief that the wall is a bad idea, but if it in fact is a bad idea then building it would be a mistake, not a sin.

There’s hard evidence of racism - including the language in popular dialogue dehumanizing migrants as “swarms,” “illegals,” and animals" - as well as the preferential moral outrage toward poor-dark border-crossers over the affluent who’ve overstayed their visas. Racism is a sin.

You find what you look for. Calling the term “illegals” racist is a perfect example. Even if there was “hard evidence of racism” (which exists only in your own mind) this still doesn’t mean that building the wall is a racist proposal, it only means that some people support it for the wrong reasons.

There is in fact nothing racist or in any way immoral about building the wall. Whether it is a good or a bad idea is an entirely different - and an entirely practical - question. Judge proposals, not people.

 

[o_mlly]

Is it moral to confiscate others’ private property for an impractical project?

Yes. “Confiscate” is pejorative verb for the neutral verb “tax” and “impractical” is an adjective projecting a personal judgement. To impose taxes to fund lawful projects is moral.

Is it moral to seize Native lands for it

Yes. The eminent domain power of the United States allows.

It is moral to snatch away tax money from hard-working Americans to build a monstrosity that will stick taxpayers on the hook for endless maintenance and lawsuits?

Yes. Restated without the pejoratives: It is lawful to tax residents in order to fund lawful projects.

Racism is a sin.

Objectively, yes. But only immigration policy that blocked migrants of certain races is racist. We do not.

The wall is but an instrument toward an end. To build a wall is not evil in itself. Examine the ends in view for that wall in order to evaluate the morality of its construction. I see protection of citizens and protection of our welfare system from bankruptcy as two good effects. Realizing that we are broke as a country, and monies to care for indigent migrants must be borrowed (from the Chinese?), protecting our children from an unbearable debt burden could be a third.