LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[TheAmazingGrace]

Consider that some of these “children” are in their late teens, have never known any country other than the US, and do not even speak the languages of Mexico et.al. What justice is there in sending them to a country that is foreign to them? If they are well-adjusted members of society here, what harm is there in letting them stay here, compared to the certain harm to them in sending them back?

Completely agree. Rick Santorum told a young mechanical engineer in an open forum that he would be willing to end DACA and send her back to Mexico, despite the fact that she has been in America since she was seven and has an established career here. He went on and on about how much she has benefitted from America, never acknowledging how much America has benefitted from her work and the work of other “dreamers.”

He wants to basically send her and other brilliant young minds into exile, not thinking that this might turn them against America and allow our enemies to utilize their talents.

 

[Adonia]

In what way is the American baby not being deported or denied his rights from your post.?

The baby has citizenship rights, the non-citizen parents do not. The American born baby is not being forced out of the country by anyone, the decision is up to the parents. The baby’s rights have nothing to do with the non American rights of it’s parents because even though the parents must leave, the baby can stay. The government will not try to keep the baby here if the parents must go - they can take their child with them. And guess what? Said baby can return when it is all grown up and now sponsor it’s parents. So there is no denial of anyone’s rights, the baby is not being deported, the family is not being broken up and everyone’s human rights are being respected. Millions upon millions of people live safe and productive lives in Mexico and the little family we are discussing here can do the same.

 

[jtav]

The problem isn’t the immigrants. It’s the people exploiting them for cheap labor that are depressing blue collar wages. If a person is otherwise law-abiding, let them come and stay and get their paperwork aboveboard. Use that enforcement energy on businesses.

 

[Theo520]

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…

You don’t know your topic. The farmers know precisely how much labor they require and there are corresponding official US recruiting offices in Mexico to source workers and assist with the visa applications. The legal process already in place is quite functional, it just doesn’t compete well with illegal labor.

Yes, DT will see great push-back from the DC establishment on immigration reform, they like the status quo of readily available cheap illegal labor.

 

[Adonia]

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 the “light of Christian morals” we should have no immigration laws. We should simply let everyone who wants to come here in and give them all healthcare and a monetary stipend, should we not? We have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Archbishop Gomez steps into the debate on immigrants, refugees underlying the importance of finding merciful solutions and a way forward. “Our system has been broken for so long, our politicians have failed to act for so long, that the people we are now punishing have become our neighbors,” Gomez writes.

cruxnow.com/church-in-the-usa/2016/12/09/la-prelate-deeply-concerned-trump-immigration/

If you actually read his comments, I don’t see them as ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration as many would have us believe. From the article:

Many of our neighbors today rightly feel vulnerable and unprotected - they are worried about jobs, wages, the decline of their communities, the threat of terrorism, the security of our borders. We cannot simply dismiss their concerns or label them as nativists or racists, as some have. What our neighbors are worried about is real and we need to take their concerns seriously.

But undocumented workers are not the problem. The real problem is globalization and deindustrialization and what that is doing to our economy, to our family structures and neighborhoods.

This is not a “white working class” issue only, as the media reports. Whites, Latinos, Asians, blacks and others are all suffering from the breakdown of the family and the vanishing of good-paying jobs that make it possible to support a family.

Right now, we need to stop allowing politicians and media figures to make immigration a “wedge issue” that divides us. We need to come together to study these issues and find solutions.

The truth is there actually is broad public consensus on a way forward.

There is broad agreement that our nation has the obligation to secure its borders and determine who enters the country and how long they stay. There is also broad agreement that we need to update our immigration system to enable us to welcome newcomers who have the character and skills our country needs to grow.

There is even broad consensus on how to deal with the undocumented persons living among us.

Virtually every poll has found overwhelming support for granting them a generous path to citizenship, provided they meet certain requirements, such as learning English, paying some fines and holding a job that pays taxes.

These basic points should form the basis for immigration reform that is just and merciful.

We have a consensus in public opinion. What we are waiting for is politicians and media figures who have the will and the courage to tell the truth and to lead.

Sounds like Marco Rubio - and/or, God forbid, Donald Trump, who is perhaps just that politician we need to me. I agree with everything said here by Gomez, so does Trump. Trump is not going after undocumented workers. All Trump is talking about doing is deporting violent felons and effectively controlling illegal immigration, ideas that have been in circulation in mainstream American politics for over thirty years. The left is arguing with a phantom. Why I don’t know. Strange road to consensus and compassion. No lo entiendo.

 

[Adonia]

The problem isn’t the immigrants. It’s the people exploiting them for cheap labor that are depressing blue collar wages. If a person is otherwise law-abiding, let them come and stay and get their paperwork aboveboard. Use that enforcement energy on businesses.

Again, how many immigrants can we take in? 1 million? 10 million? Hundreds of millions? Just about everyone would come here if they could and we cannot take in everyone. We have to keep in mind that most of these people from south of the border have little or no skills and in a society that is doing more jobs with less human workers, an unlimited amount of people will severely tax the health and welfare systems.

 

[Sarcelle]

You don’t know your topic. The farmers know precisely how much labor they require and there are corresponding official US recruiting offices in Mexico to source workers and assist with the visa applications. The legal process already in place is quite functional, it just doesn’t compete well with illegal labor.

Yes, DT will see great push-back from the DC establishment on immigration reform, they like the status quo of readily available cheap illegal labor.

Cheap illegal agricultural workers to victims of human trafficking brought here from overseas. Both are exploited and abuses against them are rarely reported. What I don’t get is the thinking that tolerating illegal immigration is more compassionate.

The common image of the illegal immigrant is that of someone who walks in, works hard at menial jobs and generally stays low key. There are those but I think illegal immigration is becoming more and more organized with people at the top orchestrating the mass movement of people to and from job sites, agricultural areas, or brothels. In other words human trafficking. A form of modern slavery.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In the “light of Christian morals” we should have no immigration laws.

Do you mean that seriously? Or are you just being sarcastic? I can’t really comment until I know what you really mean to say, so please speak plainly.

We have to draw the line somewhere.

Exactly. But that still leaves open the question of where to draw that line. I think the Archbishop is saying that the line is currently drawn too severely on those in trouble.

 

[Millie123]

The baby has citizenship rights, the non-citizen parents do not. The American born baby is not being forced out of the country by anyone, the decision is up to the parents. The baby’s rights have nothing to do with the non American rights of it’s parents because even though the parents must leave, the baby can stay. The government will not try to keep the baby here if the parents must go - they can take their child with them and the baby can return when it is all grown up. So there is no denial of anyone’s rights and the baby is not being deported.

twist these posts anyway that you like the crux of peoples arguments is to deny these children the rights that are legally given to them by their country the USA. The post that I initially responded to was this…

“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.”

This is an argument in which, it is literally being argued… that these young US children are wrongfully enjoying their legal rights as US citizens (which is erroneous)…that somehow their legal rights as US citizens are wrongly theirs, and that their rights dont deserve protection…that they themselves now have to suffer with losing their rights due to the actions of their parents. It is this attitude that reject. In fact I will argue more strongly to preserve the rights of the young in this country as well as the disabled and infirmed. They literrally have so much to loose, and there are those who are making arguments against them that are putting their rights at risk…

 

[FollowChrist34]

Cheap illegal agricultural workers to victims of human trafficking brought here from overseas. Both are exploited and abuses against them are rarely reported. What I don’t get is the thinking that tolerating illegal immigration is more compassionate.

The common image of the illegal immigrant is that of someone who walks in, works hard at menial jobs and generally stays low key. There are those but I think illegal immigration is becoming more and more organized with people at the top orchestrating the mass movement of people to and from job sites, agricultural areas, or brothels. In other words human trafficking. A form of modern slavery.

I agree with this. Also I personally wonder why those concerned with immigration (inside or outside the Church) don’t speak up more about the institutionalized cronyism and corruption in the countries where these activities and emigration are taking place. Go the heart of the problem so to speak. But of course the real culprit at that point defaults to ‘evil capitalism / USA.’ This denies the dignity and human potential of Latin America. Once a dive, always a dive. Why no hope?

 

[777rak]

Again, how many immigrants can we take in? 1 million? 10 million? Hundreds of millions? Just about everyone would come here if they could and we cannot take in everyone. We have to keep in mind that most of these people from south of the border have little or no skills and in a society that is doing more jobs with less human workers, an unlimited amount of people will severely tax the health and welfare systems.

True you bring up a very good/valid point.

I am going to go on a limb and say the following. Yes I know it is extreme.

If all the rich countries (U.S., Canada, U.K. etc…) could collectively help the poor nation in terms of economics, politics, health etc…, maybe those citizens would not want to leave their home country. Yes this would be a expensive undertaking.

 

[St_Francis]

twist these posts anyway that you like the crux of peoples arguments is to deny these children the rights that are legally given to them by their country the USA. The post that I initially responded to was this…

“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.”

This is an argument in which, it is literally being argued… that these young US children are wrongfully enjoying their legal rights as US citizens (which is erroneous)…that somehow their legal rights as US citizens are wrongly theirs, and that their rights dont deserve protection…that they themselves now have to suffer with losing their rights due to the actions of their parents. It is this attitude that reject. In fact I will argue more strongly to preserve the rights of the young in this country as well as the disabled and infirmed. They literrally have so much to loose, and there are those who are making arguments against them that are putting their rights at risk…

You know you can quote two posts by hitting the button next to the quote button, then doing the same to the other post you want to quote, and then hitting the quote button?

Anyway, I wrote the second comment you quoted, and the US-born child is not being deprived of rights by the government. The child can stay. However, we do not *force *the child to stay. If the parents decide to take the child with them, then the child is experiencing a decision made by the parents consequent to their having come or stayed in the US illegally. Hence my comment.

However, my problem is not with the idea of letting the parents of the child stay. I think that many or most people here illegally should be allowed to stay, with some parameters, like length of time here, other illegal activity, etc. I just object to this as an argument, because we cannot run our nation and our legal system on emotion or emotional appeals.

 

[St_Francis]

True you bring up a very good/valid point.

I am going to go on a limb and say the following. Yes I know it is extreme.

If all the rich countries (U.S., Canada, U.K. etc…) could collectively help the poor nation in terms of economics, politics, health etc…, maybe those citizens would not want to leave their home country. Yes this would be a expensive undertaking.

I think this would be an excellent undertaking, but unfortunately it would violate international law.

 

[Theo520]

True you bring up a very good/valid point.

I am going to go on a limb and say the following. Yes I know it is extreme.

If all the rich countries (U.S., Canada, U.K. etc…) could collectively help the poor nation in terms of economics, politics, health etc…, maybe those citizens would not want to leave their home country. Yes this would be a expensive undertaking.

How do you propose that we fix these poorer countries?

I would argue that they are fundamentally lacking in rule of law and a responsive political system. We’ve shown no acumen in transplanting these ideals from the outside, from my experience.

 

[Millie123]

You know you can quote two posts by hitting the button next to the quote button, then doing the same to the other post you want to quote, and then hitting the quote button?
…
However, my problem is not with the idea of letting the parents of the child stay. I think that many or most people here illegally should be allowed to stay, with some parameters, like length of time here, other illegal activity, etc.

1). Yes. I know that we can post more than one quotes in our thread. My issue is 99% of the time I post on my phone and for some reason when I post mulitiple quotes on my phone it never works out well for me, while on my little phone screen, and my post and responses to the quotes becomes eschewed.

2). To your point that I quoted above regarding this topic. I am 100% in agreement… I consider what you quoted as good and am in agreement.

 

[vz71]

Then the law should have been enforced by successive administrations…so now we blame the illegal workers and their offspring for our own incompetence…

They chose to break the law.
They chose to continue in violation of the law.

Incompetence of the government in enforcing the border did not cause their violation of the law. They did.

 

[Adonia]

Do you mean that seriously? Or are you just being sarcastic? I can’t really comment until I know what you really mean to say, so please speak plainly.

Exactly. But that still leaves open the question of where to draw that line. I think the Archbishop is saying that the line is currently drawn too severely on those in trouble.

You brought up the phrase “Christian morals” so I attempted to bring you out on the use of Christian morals and immigration laws that by there nature keep some people from coming here.

The Archbishop has his viewpoint and I respectfully disagree with it. I did however say that we could look at these people who are here at the proper time after we have done the first steps I pointed out. Yes, we need to deal with this problem once and for all and after decisions are made and new laws are passed we hold to them.

 

[Adonia]

True you bring up a very good/valid point.

I am going to go on a limb and say the following. Yes I know it is extreme.

If all the rich countries (U.S., Canada, U.K. etc…) could collectively help the poor nation in terms of economics, politics, health etc…, maybe those citizens would not want to leave their home country. Yes this would be a expensive undertaking.

Who has helped these nations, especially Mexico more than us? Hundreds of American companies have opened factories south of the border and I dare say that we send millions of dollars in foreign aid too. We have done our part, but we cannot control everything that goes on down there especially the corruption that exists among elected officials and the drugs cartels that cause so much mayhem.

In the end we have to have control over our own borders and who comes across them or our nation no longer exists and is able to continue provide for us the best lifestyle possible, i.e. the people who were actually who born here.

 

[St_Francis]

They chose to break the law.
They chose to continue in violation of the law.

Incompetence of the government in enforcing the border did not cause their violation of the law. They did.

The problem is that it was not incompetence but lack of will and respect for our own laws. There were forces within the US who *wanted *border enforcement to be lax, and they got what they wanted.

Is it fair to deport people for breaking a law we ourselves were not taking seriously?