The anchor baby is not a ward of the state, it should be raised by it’s parents in whatever country they reside. Nothing is dysfunctional about this expectation.
We have a legal seasonal ag visa program that should be expanded. It will mean better wages and protection for these workers, unless you are against that?
You might feel differently if you were the one being deported and deprived of the opportunities you now enjoy.
Your criterion for moving on to dealing humanely with those who are already here is just vague and unachievable enough that you can always say “not yet”. It is effectively the same thing as saying “never”. In the meantime, there are real people who need to be dealt with humanely now. There is an old saying - justice delayed is justice denied.
Doesn’t that also assume we would violate the law?
Nope, I meant it when I said children should be raised by their parents. They can choose to emigrate when they are adults, and not a burden on the state.
Most people are upset when they have to suffer the consequences of their or their parents’ illegal actions and be deprived on opportunities which they had been enjoying illegally. Kinda like when a drug dealer is put in prison and loses all his ill-gotten gains and his wife and children no longer enjoy that good income.
Foreign workers have to submit paperwork that they wish to do seasonal work in the US…employers have to submit paperwork showing that there are not enough US citizens who are willing…able or qualified to do the work required…I doubt if the workers who are employed in those type of jobs have the education or the language skills to understand or to go through all of that bureaucracy… ( I’m not saying that to offend those hard working people) employees would probably not waste their time going through all that bureaucracy either…foreign workers from more affluent and educated countries would not want to work for the poor wages that are offered in the Ag industry here in the US…G W Bush had no luck trying to convince conservative Republicans to accept any of his proposals…now there are even more right wing conservatives…how do you convince them to expand any guest worker program and at the same time deporting all illegal aliens most of whom are probably illiterate and very limited in english…and telling them to re-apply through the proper channels…it’ll never work…meanwhile who would do that work…only way it would work is to force unemployed US citizens to accept that work…they won’t do that work now because it is back breaking work and very low paying work…personally I thought G W’s proposal at the time was a fair one…who knows what DT will do as he has changed his mind on so many issues…he may surprise many people by proposing something along similar lines as G W…and he just might be the person to get it done despite any opposition from his own party…
New laws need to be passed and we have already seen from the Reagan example what the pro illegals supporters would do. We put it in the law - if A, B, and C are done then we can work on D. Sorry, but those who are here illegally are no position to make demands. If they don’t like the way things are proceeding, they are free to return to their home countries. As for the Bishop, he is doing what he does from a religious perspective, but here in America we live under a secular authority and the rule of law.
How is this similar? You are arguing that Natural Born US Citizens, children who are citizens of this country be deported and denied rights that are there’s through our Constitution.
And you honestly, right now, would not mind being forced to leave the US and live there?
No, what he is arguing is that the natural born American baby can stay with it’s parents - in Mexico, since the parents have no right to be here. The babies are not being deported or denied any rights. The baby can stay here if the parents choose that option and this could be done by placing the child with relatives who have a legal right to be here. Otherwise, the baby goes to Mexico and when he/she reaches a certain age can return to the land of it’s birth. It’s up to the parents - get deported and take their baby or get deported and leave their baby. Why must we bend to letting everyone stay just because the baby is an American?
It’s not a matter of someone minding about being forced to leave. If one is an illegal then the law is the law. As it stands now, the American citizen can stay and the illegal has no right to stay.
This does not address my point, which was that mercy towards those who are here should not be contingent upon vague unachievable goals in securing the border.
They aren’t. The Archbishop is calling upon us to be welcoming.
Wow! I’ve heard exactly the same argument from pro-abortion supporters. But the fact is law in America should be formed from the morals of the people, and everyone gets to weigh in on what those morals are. If Christians want to see their vision of morality expressed in law, they have every right - in fact a duty - to attempt to do so. The Archbishop is just reminding us what that morality is.
My problem is with the argument. For reasons other than this, I believe we should have an amnesty-like program which would allow many or most of the people here illegally to stay,esp. if they have been here a long time and have been raising children here.
Read the posting I was responding to. You will see that was exactly the issue we were discussing.
Yes, and if the law were changed, it would be otherwise. We are not arguing about what the law** is**. We are arguing about what the law should be. Therefore we should look at your last statement in the light of Christian morals rather than in the light of current law. And it that light your statement is problematic.
In what way is the American baby not being deported or denied his rights from your post.?
Quote