LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[LeafByNiggle]

I was responding accurately to what you said, what you implied. I have no idea what the Archbishop thinks since he isn’t posting here to concur with your comments.

Neither am I proposing open borders. Still a straw man argument.

 

[exnihilo]

American companies did that for their own selfish reasons. That does not absolve us from our Christian duty to welcome the stranger - to be compassionate as Jesus is compassionate with us, as unworthy as we may be…

1. Archbishop Gomez is not calling for open borders. That is a straw man argument.
2. What makes the people who are actually born here morally superior to those who are not born here? What makes them and only them morally entitled to live here in a land that God gave us? It is not anything the people here earned through their own merit. Remember, God will call us to account for our stewardship of His gifts. Stewardship - not ownership.

We should welcome the stranger. We should not welcome the intruder. Illegals are intruders and not strangers. That is they are intruders unless you start with a doctrine of open borders. That is the necessary foundation for any claim we need to welcome them. Such a doctrine undermines or even invalidates private property.

If the Archnishop is calling for us to welcome and allow to permanently to settle those who violated our borders then he is calling for open borders. If you don’t recognize the law that creates a closed border then you necessarily believe in an open border.

What makes those born here entitled to live here is basic private property rights and respect for the family. It is the same thing that entitles a child to live in his parents home. Living in his parents home we might say is an accident in that it is not of necessity that a particular child is born to a particular parent. Some are born to rich parents who live in a nice home. Some are born to poor parents who live in a shabby home. But all are entitled to live in that home which excludes others by accident of birth.

 

[Adonia]

American companies did that for their own selfish reasons. That does not absolve us from our Christian duty to welcome the stranger - to be compassionate as Jesus is compassionate with us, as unworthy as we may be.

Luke 18:11-12:
The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’
The Pharisee thought he did his part too.

That is no excuse. The Good Samaritan could not control everything that goes down on the road to Jericho. But that did not stop him from helping one of the victims.

1. Archbishop Gomez is not calling for open borders. That is a straw man argument.
2. What makes the people who are actually born here morally superior to those who are not born here? What makes them and only them morally entitled to live here in a land that God gave us? It is not anything the people here earned through their own merit. Remember, God will call us to account for our stewardship of His gifts. Stewardship - not ownership.

You might not be calling for open borders, but you seem to disdain us having our own national borders and a secular government operating under the Constitution. Our conscience as a nation is clear - we have helped more people around the world than any other and it’s time we start looking after our own citizenry. Allowing in tens of millions of people who have violated our laws and doing little about it makes a mockery of our own citizenship.

We are morally entitled to live here because we are a nation with set principles, laws, and a history of doing things OUR way - and yes we had the luck of the draw to be born here. It’s our home, not the uninvited persons from south of the border. If I showed up at your house tomorrow uninvited would you let me live there and promise to feed me, get me healthcare and give me a monetary stipend?

God Himself accepted the nation state as a basis where humans can live and prosper, with each of us in our own place where we exist according to how we develop. You seem to like the idea of “world citizenship” - I don’t. At least not until it is under the auspices of Jesus Christ after his Second Coming.

 

[J_Peterson]

I used to live near the border of two states. In one, the police enforced speed limits very strictly. They gave tickets for going one or two miles over the speed limit. They used non-police cars so they could catch speeders.

In the other state, the police didn’t ticket people unless they were going 10 miles over the speed limit. They only ticketed from marked state patrol cars.

The general speed on the highway that crossed that border was marked. You could tell which state you were in by how fast the general traffic was going.

Sanctuary cities, arguments about enforcement, amnesties, all these give people outside the country the idea that we are not serious about enforcement. if we are not serious about our laws, why should they be?

I don’t understand why conservatives are so opposed to sanctuary cities. It is not the job of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law. In my mind it is federal overreach that will only hurt the communities that play along willingly or give in to threats of losing federal funds.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t understand why conservatives are so opposed to sanctuary cities. It is not the job of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law. In my mind it is federal overreach that will only hurt the communities that play along willingly or give in to threats of losing federal funds.

I agree that it isn’t the job of states to enforce federal law. But the reality is this goes on all the time. The Feds do it by taxing the citizens and then giving some back to states only if they enforce federal law. So we have statewide drinking ages of 21 because the Feds will withhold money if the state doesn’t set the age at 21. I think this is wrong, but since it is done everywhere else I’d at least like this to be applied to the one area that would do good and the one issue that is actually a federal power. Setting the drinking age is an overreach. Deporting illegals isn’t.

 

[St_Francis]

I don’t understand why conservatives are so opposed to sanctuary cities. It is not the job of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law. In my mind it is federal overreach that will only hurt the communities that play along willingly or give in to threats of losing federal funds.

I don’t have a problem with their not actively looking for illegal immigrants, but when some who is here illegally commits a serious crime, then they should call ICE.

 

[gracepoole]

There is some difference between being sent to the likelihood of a reduced standard of living and being sent to a gas chamber.
There are also differing perspectives on what might be the best way to lend a helping hand. (changing laws, promoting economic development in sending countries, cracking down on those who hire undocumented workers and exploit their situation, creating various alternative pathways to citizenship being a few examples).

If you read up on the situation of the St. Louis in 1939, you find pretty quickly that the assumptions made above are false. And note this was before the beginning of WWII, gas chambers weren’t yet in use, and no one (not even the Nazis) knew they would be on such a grand scale.

 

[gracepoole]

Our conscience as a nation is clear

I doubt this is how we’ll be judged before God. Individual consciences? Yes. “National conscience”? Unlikely.

We are morally entitled to live here because we are a nation with set principles, laws, and a history of doing things OUR way - and yes we had the luck of the draw to be born here. It’s our home, not the uninvited persons from south of the border. If I showed up at your house tomorrow uninvited would you let me live there and promise to feed me, get me healthcare and give me a monetary stipend?

What situation are you in when you arrive at my home? From what have you fled? To what am I sending you back?

It always amazes me that people are generally focused solely on Mexican illegal immigrants, when in fact there are those here illegally who are fleeing from a place like the Democratic Republic of Congo. Anyone who would willingly force a woman back into the DRC cannot comfortably call himself moral.

 

[jediliz]

What about our homeless citizens? The ones overlooked for housing while refugees (many whom yes, are actual refugees) get housing automatically?

We have a lot of homeless here…especially our Veterans. Why can’t they get some love? Why can’t they be given priority for health care and housing?

And we can’t have open borders - it causes way too many problems.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We should welcome the stranger. We should not welcome the intruder. Illegals are intruders and not strangers.

You are just playing with semantics. By calling them “intruders” you are overlaying a value judgement that may not be justified in all cases.

That is they are intruders unless you start with a doctrine of open borders. That is the necessary foundation for any claim we need to welcome them. Such a doctrine undermines or even invalidates private property.

This has nothing to do with private property. No one is being thrown out of their home to make a home for an immigrant. What is being suggested is that they be given the same chance of paying their own way as current citizens.

If the Archnishop is calling for us to welcome and allow to permanently to settle those who violated our borders then he is calling for open borders.

I disagree with your exaggerated characterization.

What makes those born here entitled to live here is basic private property rights and respect for the family.

Counterexample: If you grew up in Michigan and decide to move to Arizona and buy a home there, your parents’ home in Michigan is irrelevant to your right to do that. As I said, this has nothing to do with private property rights.

 

[St_Francis]

I doubt this is how we’ll be judged before God. Individual consciences? Yes. “National conscience”? Unlikely.

What situation are you in when you arrive at my home? From what have you fled? To what am I sending you back?

It always amazes me that people are generally focused solely on Mexican illegal immigrants, when in fact there are those here illegally who are fleeing from a place like the Democratic Republic of Congo. Anyone who would willingly force a woman back into the DRC cannot comfortably call himself moral.

We should then change the laws. Ten years ago, well over half the illegal immigrants were from Mexico, “looking for a better life,” and that was judged sufficient by many to leave the border open.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We should then change the laws. Ten years ago, well over half the illegal immigrants were from Mexico, “looking for a better life,” and that was judged sufficient by many to leave the border open.

To be fair, it was not decided to “leave the border open”. The border may have been left a little to easy to cross, but it was not because of the decision to grant amnesty to some that were here.

 

[J_Peterson]

I don’t have a problem with their not actively looking for illegal immigrants, but when some who is here illegally commits a serious crime, then they should call ICE.

I agree with you on that but only if it’s a serious crime (the city/state would have to define that though).

 

[St_Francis]

To be fair, it was not decided to “leave the border open”. The border may have been left a little to easy to cross, but it was not because of the decision to grant amnesty to some that were here.

I’m confused by your comment: there was no decision to grant amnesty at that time?

And ok, fairly open, not entirely open.

 

[St_Francis]

I agree with you on that but only if it’s a serious crime (the city/state would have to define that though).

Yes, I was thinking serious crime myself.

 

[Ender]

You are just playing with semantics. By calling them “intruders” you are overlaying a value judgement that may not be justified in all cases.

A lot of this debate is a semantic issue: what should people who sneak across our borders illegally be called? You qualified your objection by saying calling them intruders may not be justified in all cases, which may well be accurate, but exnihilo’s assertion is like saying men are taller than women: while it isn’t always the case it is in the main true. Calling them “intruders” is no more a semantic game than the archbishop’s insistence on referring to them as “undocumented”. They are “undocumented” because they are here illegally. That point cannot be overlooked. Well, I guess it can be because the archbishop has done so, but it shouldn’t be.

What is being suggested is that they be given the same chance of paying their own way as current citizens.

It’s really not that benign. The poor citizen is forced to compete for low wage jobs with people who have no just claim to them, and all of us subsidize those at the low end of the economic ladder, which, at least initially, includes most of those who come here illegally.

The church allows nations to control their borders for a reason. There are limits to the number of immigrants a country can absorb. Open borders - or the deliberate failure to enforce the laws that control access to the country - is a failure of government. Trump is not yet even officially elected and already the bishops are trying to influence his policies. I am not really interested in the political pronouncements of the clergy.

Ender

 

[vz71]

I asked my mother that same question. No satisfactory answer.

It’s like the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust. We all like to think that we would have lent a helping hand, but our attitude toward similarly afflicted peoples today disproves that notion.

Untrue.
No one will dispute a legitimate asylum request when their life is in danger.
But so few make that claim…
Makes me wonder how legitimate the claim is that they are in danger.

 

[Theo520]

I asked my mother that same question. No satisfactory answer.

It’s like the plight of the Jews during the Holocaust. We all like to think that we would have lent a helping hand, but our attitude toward similarly afflicted peoples today disproves that notion.

I don’t see truth in your claim. There isn’t a modern equivalent and where there is strife we do provide provide food, care and protection in the refugee camps.

Where we fail is in causing real change in local leadership, but some of that is on the people to take action themselves. Mexicans have to take political action to improve their own governance.

 

[exnihilo]

You are just playing with semantics. By calling them “intruders” you are overlaying a value judgement that may not be justified in all cases.

If someone breaks into your house what do you call them? If someone is on your land illegally what do you call them? I’d call them an intruder. You are right this is semantics but in knowing how to deal with these people we first need to identify them. Since they are illegal trespassers I’ll call them intruders. You aren’t wrong that they are strangers too. But so is someone trespassing on your land. That is no reason to allow them to continue to violate the law and your property.

This has nothing to do with private property. No one is being thrown out of their home to make a home for an immigrant. What is being suggested is that they be given the same chance of paying their own way as current citizens.

It has everything to do with private property. Our nation is the private property of its citizens. We have the right to control who is in our country. Those who come here illegally are violating our private property. It certainly isn’t their property and they have no right to be on it.

I disagree with your exaggerated characterization.

There is nothing exaggerated about it. If you don’t support the enforcement of our immigration laws then you are in effect calling for the consequences of it not being enforced. In that case it is allowing illegals who came and or come to stay. That is open borders.

Counterexample: If you grew up in Michigan and decide to move to Arizona and buy a home there, your parents’ home in Michigan is irrelevant to your right to do that. As I said, this has nothing to do with private property rights.

I don’t think this is a counterexample. The parents home has nothing to do with it. The fact that the child is an American citizen allows them to freely engage in all the activities a citizen can do. My mention of private property had nothing to do with grounding rights. It had to do with the fact that this nation is the private property of its current inhabitants who can make the laws concerning access.

 

[Jig_Saw]

I think the chance for Archbishop Gomez to be deeply concerned ended on November 8th. Everyone knew what Trump stood for and the Catholic Church supported his candidacy. If he was deeply concerned, he should have addressed it before the election in a meaningful way.