Knights Helping Refugees at the Border

[tafan2]

Sorry about that. In my defense, it was inevitable that this thread would turn into an immigration thread, and that started by those who opposed the Knights’s actions. I will not take the blame for all of it. But I will admit I drifted too far off base.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Thanks.

 

[PJH_74]

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

I’m not here to debate politics, but I would point out that seeking out the Hispanic vote was not remotely on the mind of the last Presidential campaign for the Republicans. Considering their candidate for President announced his candidacy saying:

"They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

And that was just the beginning of a visibly nationalistic campaign that had little positive to say about minorities. Again, no political debating, but facts are facts and if that appealed to someone fine. But I think I can fairly and truthfully say if those types of comments were made about something a voter identified with it would severely curtail their likelihood of voting for those who expressed such thoughts.

 

[F_Marturana]

Yes. The Knights of Columbus is an International Catholic organization.

They help people all over the world.

I don’t understand objecting this assistance at all.

Babies need diapers and soap and a change of clothes, and food. How is that at all objectionable?

 

[pnewton]

What is a citizen’s legal obligation?

Read your own post. That applies to making an arrest, and a demand made upon a person. Citizens are not obligated to report on neighbors or strangers. We do not yet live in a police state, though as I have observed more and more decrying basic human dignity in this immigration battle, I am convinced we are capable of such a transition.

I refused to become a Knight when asked for reasons like this, and if this is what they are then I am glad to report that I have heard many say the organization will age out soon and go away.

The same thing has been said about the Catholic Church. I understand why some people are called to charity in other ways. I can see no moral reason for denouncing charity that others are doing, simply because it is not your calling.

To invoke the Golden Rule, how would you feel if someone said that they would be glad when you age out and go away? Has charity sunk so low here at CAF that even the Knights of Columbus are subject to such statements? What’s next, denouncing women for serving dinners a funerals if the deceased is not considered acceptable?

 

[pnewton]

Actually, helping illegal immigrants is against the law of the land.

And the US does not have unjust laws

I will have to ask for a citation on that. I only know of one state that tried to go that far. As far as the US not having unjust laws, that is a matter of another thread, but there was slavery, you know. And lest this become a re-occurring straw man, of course a nation has the right to limit immigration, but there is also an obligation to allow immigration. But the issue here, is simpler. “For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.”

You can walk right into the Vatican from Rome. One side of the street is Rome, the other side is the Vatican.

If anyone still believes the Vatican wall meme, it is time to expand the scope of one’s sources. That myth started on some questionable social media, and has been spread ever since.

God bless the Knights!!!

I am glad you interjected. I get that the organization is not for everyone, but I never thought I would see the day they were treated so ruthlessly just because their charity work extended to the politically unpopular.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If the Knights are focusing on helping legal refugees I’m all for it. My fear though is that they are drifting more along the same line as the USCCB. Sometimes you have to follow the money.

Every year since 1975, the government has funneled tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to the USCCB for migrant and refugee services. Yearly totals exploded under Obama and are now a huge share of the USCCB’s annual budget:

• In 2013, the bishops received $73,715,703 from the government — nearly 32% of the USCCB’s total budget.
• In 2014, the figure leapt to $79,590,512 — nearly 33% of the USCCB budget.
• In 2015, the total climbed to $80,733,062 — nearly 38% of the USCCB budget.
• In 2016, American prelates pocketed $95,256,272 — nearly 39% of the USCCB budget.

It is no surprise that every day it seems the USCCB is coming out with more left leaning rhetoric concerning illegal immigrants.

The implication is the bishops of the Catholic Church have been corrupted by donations from the US government. Is that really what you mean by “you have to follow the money?”

But an accusation is not enough. You have to show evidence of that corruption. So far the only “evidence” you have presented is that many of the statements to the faithful have been, in your estimation, “left leaning.” Well, that is not evidence of corruption. To me it is evidence of your counting “left” as equivalent to “evil.” That is your subjective opinion that seems to be driven more by political ideology than by objective moral standards or theology.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

If anyone still believes the Vatican wall meme, it is time to expand the scope of one’s sources. That myth started on some questionable social media, and has been spread ever since

I’m curious what’s to debunk about it? It exists and it was placed there for a reason. What was that reason? I suspect when we have the answer to that we may just understand why people mention it.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because there are some areas inside the Vatican that have ancient walls (in Rome, there are walls around every garden or fountain, private home, just random walls) people try to use that to call the Church “hypocritical”. That meme is nothing but political fodder.

 

[babochka]

If you had a suspended driver’s license and no other option (phones down, 911 unavailable, no other drivers, etc.), would you drive a loved one to the hospital to save a life? I would. How fast would you go if you thought you could do so safely? Would you exceed the speed limit?

This speaks to the great and universally acknowledged need for immigration reform. The system is broken and nobody seems inclined to fix it.

Nothing prevents the Knights of Columbus or any other organization of private citizens from rendering aid to people in need, regardless of their immigration status.

What makes you think they don’t? I don’t know if they do or not because I don’t frequently read news sources from Mexico and Central America. I don’t know if the statements of their bishops would be reported in the news as they are here. If they don’t, perhaps it is because they don’t enjoy the same level of freedom of speech that our bishops in the United States enjoy. But I suspect they speak out against the circumstances in their countries with some frequency.

 

[tafan2]

The refugees who are being helped by the Knights are not breaking the law. They are arriving at our border and applying for assylum. That is legal, as far as I know.

There are families being separated where they have not come here illegally. There is no law passed by Congress that say they must be separated. That is how the bureaucrats in ICE have decided to enforce various laws. Your understanding is limited.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

They’re pretty big walls and I don’t think anyone is debating their antiquity. They don’t look like they put them there to demarcate property lines or edge a garden. They look like they put them there for the same reason other castles in Europe had walls, that China built a Great wall, that Israel built it’s wall, etc. I’m open to the idea that they’re decorative, but I gotta say it doesn’t seem likely.

 

[tafan2]

No, they were not built for decorative purposes, they were built as a military defense. That still makes the Vatican wall comparison an absurd proposition.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Not decorative, they did a good job when Genghis Khan was tweeting about invading. Not many marauders these days.

 

[tafan2]

Followed by

Which is it? You are an expert on immigration law and enforcement, or you are not?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

I think people make that comparison because they see the Vatican as pushing open borders, whether that is accurate or not. Cardinal Sarah seems to think they are.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

But, in Europe, many, many Saracens, some of whom have murdered hundreds in Europe. I prefer our migrants from the south, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be more controlled in their access.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Differences:

1. Being in the US without having entered through legal channels is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor.
2. We recognize the need to remove people from society who have committed a felony because the act they committed is intrinsically harmful to society. The same cannot be said of someone who came here 25 years ago illegally, and has lived peacefully as a productive member of society ever since. That is a good candidate for amnesty on a case-by-case basis.

I believe someone should be deported who can check all these boxes:

• Has not been in the US for more than a year.
• Does not have any close family living legally in the US.
• Does not have a legitimate case for seeking asylum.

If a person cannot check all these boxes, I might still recommend decoration based on additional factors.

I think our lax enforcement of immigration laws in the past, allowing someone to put down roots, means some of the culpability for their being here illegally is ours, and that justifies a consideration (not a certainty) of amnesty.

I think much of the problem at the border is due to our unwillingness to hire sufficient immigration judges so that cases can be decided in days instead of years. But Trump aside “we don’t need any more immigration judges.”

 

[tafan2]

I think our lax enforcement of immigration laws in the past, allowing someone to put down roots, means some of the culpability for their being here illegally is ours, and that justifies a consideration (not a certainty) of amnesty.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I will take exception to the implication that any plan which allows for a undocumented alien to stay in this country implies an amnesty. IIRC, the crime of entering this country illegally or overstaying a Visa is a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $500 (I could have that number wrong). Go ahead and let them stay, and fine them for their crime. That’s not amnesty, despite how the anti-immigration claim. And I hate using their definition.

 

[pnewton]

It does not encircle the Vatican. In places it is a line on the ground. It is historic, not for prevention of ingress. We might use the same reasoning to dismiss any border wall because we already have gated communities with walls.