C
- Status
T
tafan2
Guest
This is a common claim among people who are vocal on this subject, but the evidence shows that it is now always a truthful claim. Perhaps it is with you, so I will not claim the following applies to you directly. But consider President Trump’s and Senator Cottons plan of 2017 for immigration reform. Cotton, Perdue Unveil the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act . It had the stated goal of reducing legal immigration by 50% over the first 10 years. It was lauded and praised by those one the right. Or consider Trumps executive order from yesterday, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...on-citizens-not-abuse-nations-public-benefit/ . Also aimed at restricting legal immigration of the poor. I do not see it being opposed by the right.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
You’re talking about two different things.CatholicSooner:
This is a common claim among people who are vocal on this subject, but the evidence shows that it is now always a truthful claim. Perhaps it is with you, so I will not claim the following applies to you directly. But consider President Trump’s and Senator Cottons plan of 2017 for immigration reform. Cotton, Perdue Unveil the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act . It had the stated goal of reducing legal immigration by 50% over the first 10 years. It was lauded and praised by those one the right. Or consider Trumps executive order from yesterday, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...on-citizens-not-abuse-nations-public-benefit/ . Also aimed at restricting legal immigration of the poor. I do not see it being opposed by the right.
- CatholicSooner says he (or she) is opposed to illegal immigration. He (or she) said nothing about the number of legal immigrants allowed.
- Government policy statements that do talk about restricting the number of legal immigrants, and changing the basis of allowing legal immigration. That’s not what CatholicSooner is talking about.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
First of all, I was clear that what I posted may not have pertained to CatholicSooner directly. But I was stating that, the record of people who oppose illegal immigration also shows they oppose legal immigration to a significant extent. That record is clear from almost all of the outspoken polititions on immigration issues.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
No, it shows that there are many different ideas about the optimum number of legal immigrants to allow in, right?
I suspect that some politicians want to lowball the amount of legal immigrants allowed because we have so many immigrants who are here illegally.
Last edited:
P
PJH_74
Guest
Sorry, if I misrepresented your comment and thoughts.
I think the one thing here that still bothers me is calling people “illegals”, as if they are defined by one action. Many people use this to throw every Spanish speaking person coming up from the south into a single, ominous bin. Also, it totally ignores the fact that Americans both employ and take advantage of the cheap (often hard-working) labor provided by those not seeking asylum. We give them opportunities to find employment. Why aren’t we going after those who illegally employ them? Because that is politically incorrect and too honest, yet they are also breaking Federal Law. Calling them “people illegally employed” would be more honest.
We live this lie of history that white (illegal) immigrants were heroic pioneers of an open land. We even have a name for it, “Manifest Destiny”, as in God sent us to tame this land; never mind that there were already other people there. We first “bought” or kicked out foreign powers who “claimed” right to it with no regard to the people already there. We then dealt with these people using “treaties”, that we broke again and again or used military might to remove them. We always took the most desirable land and we actively made sure those who did were white and often immigrants from Europe. Black, Hispanic, Chinese, and Native Americans need not apply. I just see a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty here, especially because many of those coming up from the south often have some sort of blood from the people that were here before Europeans. Not to mention the earlier imposition of our more recent wars and economic interests on the people we now demonize and that I previously mentioned.
Immigration of whom and when? Can you promote the prosecution of those who employ illegal immigrants? They are not coming here to seek the protection of “asylum” cities, which in part are trying to avoid having resources co-opted into something the Federal Government needs to supply resources for. It also is a protest, a very American right and obligation, against ham-fisted tactics that rip families apart (often with American citizen children) and put those arrested into sub-human interment and minimal regard to due process (which they have a right to). It also points to the fact it is nearly impossible to remove around 4% of the residents in this country who are already tightly integrated into our society.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
In other words, changing their status from legal to illegal should they come. Nations can do that. They don’t have an obligation to take all the world’s poor. They have an obligation to help the world’s poor.
T
tafan2
Guest
Thankyou. After a quick preview, I find the following.
- you conveniently end you analysis in 2016, when grants for primarily refugee assistance peaked at $95M. It takes little effort to see that the number in 2017 and 2018 was $72M and $48M respectively. So you cherry pick your data to make your point. Lets be clear about that.
- The money received was primarily for refugee programs, not broad immigration. Which means that if the government was to adopt more accommodating policies illegal immigrants, it would have little to do with the amount of money received by the Bishops for refugee settlement and assistance. Yet, you claim that the Bishop’s statements with regards illegal immigrants are motivated financially. That is dangerously close to calumny against the Bishops and the facts you have presented do not in the least justify your claim.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Which they are free to do. Catholic teaching doesn’t prohibit nations restricting migration.
T
tafan2
Guest
@MiserereMeiDei
Yes they are free to do. But they should not claim they are only opposed to illegal immigration, when they are actually opposed to much or our legal immigration also. I believe they should be honest about their position.
Look at CatholicSooner’s claims against the Bishops’ finances and their motives. She obviously convolutes the situation with legal refugees and illegal immigration. To him/her it seems one and the same. At least that is what seems to be the case to me. Yet she “supports legal immigration”, but lets criticize the Knights and the Bishops for their aid to refugees.
Yes they are free to do. But they should not claim they are only opposed to illegal immigration, when they are actually opposed to much or our legal immigration also. I believe they should be honest about their position.
Look at CatholicSooner’s claims against the Bishops’ finances and their motives. She obviously convolutes the situation with legal refugees and illegal immigration. To him/her it seems one and the same. At least that is what seems to be the case to me. Yet she “supports legal immigration”, but lets criticize the Knights and the Bishops for their aid to refugees.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Who are they? For a thing to be illegal a law is required prohibiting it. Was there such a law?
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
But they aren’t saying that those who are currently legal should be treated as illegal immigrants, they are saying that further restrictions are necessary. Those are not the same things at all. One is a policy decision the other enforcement of the law. The only similarities being they wish to have the laws enforced and those laws regard immigration.
CatholicSooner said that helping legal immigrants was fine but that aiding illegal immigrants was not.
The comments about the Bishops seems to be that as the Bishops receive money for x they advocate an increase x to receive more money. This is not uncommon. I personally wish the government would stop handing out money to non-profits of any kind. Taxes are for running government, aside from the fact that government money comes with strings.
T
tafan2
Guest
I am not claiming they are saying that I am only saying that the rhetoric that they support legal immigration is not usually accurate. They support programs explicitly stated to reduce legal immigration. If one is doing that, one does not support legal immigration to the extent that they imply, which is “my position is only against illegal immigration”. Almost without fail, politicians who rally against illegal immigration also support policies wanting to reduce legal immigration.
And I explicitly stated that CatholicSooner may not fall in this category. I don’t deny the possibility.
No it does not “seem to be that”. @CatholicSooner said “follow the money” and then followed up with numbers of their grants, cherry picked to look as bad as possible, and said it was no surprise that they have left leaning rhetoric concerning illegal immigrants. The implication could not be more clear: the Bishops’ statements concerning illegal immigration are financially motivated. One cannot reasonable read the post any other way.
P
PJH_74
Guest
I’m just going to say this about a solution to illegal immigrants in the US. It is a failing of US citizens to demand a better solution given that all of us are the ones who have benefited in some way from their presence, whether it be cheap labor, tax money they will never benefit from, and the like. We need to make up our minds, are we going to create an immigration policy that reflects reality? Are we going to go after those who employ them? With illegal immigrants being about 4% of our population, we lost the ability to remove them from our society long ago, we need to find a different solution. Outright amnesty with citizenship is not fair to those who have followed the process, but providing a green card, likely with a longer waiting period before being able to apply for citizenship, is probably the best answer. It must be remembered that the point of a visa is to make sure a person is either just visiting and will eventually leave or to make sure they can support themselves financially, something many of those illegally here are already doing.
Last edited:
T
tafan2
Guest
Sensible statements regarding our immigration problems are few and far between. Thankyou.
P
PJH_74
Guest
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Again? There are guards as the police force, just like your town but far better trained.
The border is 1 kajabillion percent open. It is so open that if one is not paying attention to the line on the sidewalk, you do not realize you have crossed it. I have been there.
Ancient walls exist all over Rome, Italy, Europe.
P
PJH_74
Guest
Thanks! While the Republicans are mainly (and I believe rightly) taking the heat right now, this is a Bipartisan failing of “kicking the can down the road” for more than 30 years.
T
tafan2
Guest
Oh, beyond a it is a failure of both the GOP and Dems. Obama ran in 2008 on a platform that promised comprehensive immigration reform. One could make the case that this issue was one of the keys to him winning that election, as the Hispanic vote came out heavily in support of him. In 2009/2010 he had a large majority in the house and a majority in the senate which varied from 59 to 60 votes. Well more than enough to get a bill passed, as there were at that time several sensible GOP senators with regards to this issue. Yet once in office, he decided not to pursue the legislation, and he did so for one reason only. He did not want the issue to go away, as it was a winning issue for democrats among Hispanics, a group which could very likely dessert the democrats in 2010 and 2012 due to social issues. It was one of his more despicable acts, IMO. He failed to solve this issue, when it could have easily been solved politically, solely because he wanted to help ensure he and the democrats remained in power.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Please, this thread is about the Knights’ works of mercy, there are a thousand places to rant about past elections.
- Status