"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Sarcelle:
You could say the same thing about every country on this earth.

If we go by this, then every law ever given on earth is invalid because at some point in time, someone took land away from someone.
Click to expand...
When refugees enter the land of God, they too have to obey the law, so there should not be anarchy.
Click to expand...
ummm…by illegally coming into the country, they are not obeying the law
 
Mi_Rose said:
The Vatican City walls were built in the ninth century. Maybe the Church has learned since then they do not work. They were built to keep pirates out. They didn’t work then.
Click to expand...
They they still have guards and do not allow access to certain parts of the vatican
 
I don’t think one is ever going to produce an overarching moral argument for or against border walls. As this discussion about the walls around the Vatican indicate, it is more about circumstance, and historically walls have been used either for defensive purposes, or mercantile purposes (channeling goods so tariffs could be applied). Generally, in times of war, large geographical walls are of limited utility. Hadrian’s Wall and the Great Wall didn’t stop incursions, and just as often were more of a pyschological weapon (as in “We’re such a powerful empire that we can build this really really big wall!”). For walls to work, like Offa’s Dyke or Hadrian’s Wall, they need a large force manning them, enough to delay an invader long enough so that reinforcements can be gathered. When Rome withdrew from Britain, the walls did little to prevent the Germanic tribes from overwhelming Roman Britain, because the successor Romano-British warlords simply didn’t have the forces to make the wall useful.

I guess my point of view is that the US certainly has a moral and legal right to wall up the border, though I am very sympathetic to the concerns over wildlife. If there’s a moral argument against such a wall, it comes down to the vast expenditure of funds, the historical limitations of such walls to accomplish what the supporters imagine it will do, versus spending that money elsewhere, or, say, paying down the debt. I think there’s a strong moral and economic argument against what really is a pretty questionable expenditure. And let’s remember, walls don’t stay built. They require constant maintenance, and that maintenance, along with the vast sums of money to support the military and supporting infrastructure to maintain the borders played no small part in a number of economic crises in Rome.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
And don’t forget, most Americans are probably the descendants of Europeans; who took the land from the Native Americans.
Click to expand...
That is what is bothering me. There is a commandment: Thou shalt not steal. Should American Catholics just forget about this commandment when it comes to living on land stolen from the Native Americans? If you possess any stolen item, whether it be a car, a watch, a diamond ring or a piece of land that you know has been stolen from someone at the point of a gun, is it OK for a Catholic to refuse to return this stolen item to the rightful owner or to his heirs?
 
Last edited:
joyfulandactive said:
It’s common in many parts of Europe, including where we lived in central-west Germany. These homes are often hundreds of years old. I think it stems from time periods of frequent wars and invasions. Both Italy and Germany only became nation states about 150 years ago. Before that they were made up of numerous city-states, principalities and the like.

As you were.
Click to expand...
The old testament is full of examples of israel defending their borders.
 
TheLittleLady said:
There are walls, this is an ancient city with walls everywhere.

Have you BEEN to the Vatican? Have you BEEN to Rome? There are line to get in to tours all over the place.

You can post lines to get into the Coliseum, it is very near Vatican City.

However, anyone can enter the country, they simply walk across the street and they are in the City State of the Vatican. No check in gate, no passport required, one just walks in. One can then walk up to the offices and schedule an appointment to meet with State Officials.

There are private homes in the Vatican, as you might put a privacy fence around your home, those exist.

There are priceless works of art and very fragile ancient frescoes, mosaics, etc. Yes, there are limits to the number of people each day who can view these.

The ancient walls were to protect from conquering armies. They are now of historic value, they would not protect from a modern army should it wish to invade.

It is sort of silly to compare the Vatican to any other nation on earth.
Click to expand...
Actually, public parts of the vatican are off limits are certain times of the day. You can’t always just walk into the Vatican.

Also, why should residents have fences? Aren’t they suppose to love their aliens as themselves? So If I jumped over their fence, they should be cool with it right?
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
CatholicSooner:
ummm…by illegally coming into the country, they are not obeying the law
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the Europeans that came into America, and took the land from the native Indians?
Click to expand...
Another deflection.

I’m actually talking about how certain natives took land and murdered other natives…

seriously though, you yourself said the immigrants need to obey the law of the land…
 
niceatheist said:
I guess my point of view is that the US certainly has a moral and legal right to wall up the border…
Click to expand...
Then we are agreed. This is all I was arguing for.
If there’s a moral argument against such a wall, it comes down to the vast expenditure of funds…
Click to expand...
That is not a moral argument either. It is a practical one, and there is no sin involved in reaching opposite conclusions. My position in all of this is simply that making these decisions does not involve moral choices, and hence this is not a moral issue.
 
This argument is ridiculous when you realize that it applies to virtually all modern day people on earth. Almost all land belonged different groups of people at some point in history than who it belongs to today due to ancestors of the modern people conquering the area in some way. It’s far from just an American issue.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Our experiences do not change the facts: access to every part of Vatican City except St. Peter’s square is strictly controlled, and the entirety of the city - again with exception of the square - is walled.
Click to expand...
Because the rest of the Vatican is administrative offices and residences for the Pope and Vatican officials, which are of course, private. Additionally, there’s the museum, which there is almost always a line to get into because it’s so crowded (having been there, I know). As @TheLittleLady said, the main public part of the Vatican is St. Peter’s square, which is essentially open borders with a line on the ground.

Whatever one’s position is on immigration, comparing the Vatican to the US/Mexican border situation is a major false equivalency.
 
If those funds are taken from places that could better help people, and there is suffering that could have been avoided, then yes, I’d say there’s a moral argument against the wall.
 
That’s totally inaccurate. The Native Americans didn’t have Immigration policy.
 
CTBcin said:
Because the rest of the Vatican is administrative offices and residences for the Pope and Vatican officials, which are of course, private. Additionally, there’s the museum, which there is almost always a line to get into because it’s so crowded (having been there, I know). As @TheLittleLady said, the main public part of the Vatican is St. Peter’s square, which is essentially open borders with a line on the ground.

Whatever one’s position is on immigration, comparing the Vatican to the US/Mexican border situation is a major false equivalency.
Click to expand...
If by “the main part of the Vatican” you mean the largest part then your claim is inaccurate. But again, this is irrelevant. Vatican City, regardless of its size, is a sovereign state that controls access to its territory by, among other things, physical barriers, namely a 30 foot wall on three of its borders. It is not size that determines the morality of that structure.

The only issue here is the morality of a state using a wall to control access to its territory…as the Vatican clearly does.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Ender said:
If by “ the main part of the Vatican ” you mean the largest part then your claim is inaccurate.
Click to expand...
I did not. I said the main public part, which means the part open to the public- i.e. Vatican Square.

I do not deny a country’s sovereignty in controlling access to it, but I do maintain that trying to compare the US and the Vatican is rather silly.
 
Obviously you forgot taking children, pets and swimming pools into account.
But it is off topic anyway.
 
Far more of the Vatican is open to the public than just St Peter’s Square.

For those who keep insisting on the Vatican/US comparison, can I assume you are okay welcoming the strangers in 20 states and keeping 30 behind a wall? What about half of every state welcomes strangers and half is walled off, then we can decide which half of the state we want to live in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top