Mexico Deploys A Formidable Deportation Force Near Its Own Southern Border

[Pup7]

That’s not how Church teaching works, otherwise CCC 2241 is rendered meaningless in stating that nations have an obligation, since no nation other than Vatican City is governed by the Church.

Is Canada a Catholic?

Is Saudi Arabia?

For that matter, is the US?

The nation as a being, not the citizens. The nation itself.

 

[RyanBlack]

Is Canada a Catholic?

Is Saudi Arabia?

No, but they are nations, and the Catholic Church teaches a number of obligations nations have. Although the Church cannot enforce them, the obligations still exist.

Similarly, the Church has no power to force people to follow person moral obligations, but they still exist.

 

[Pup7]

No, but they are nations, and the Catholic Church teaches a number of obligations nations have. Although the Church cannot enforce them, the obligations still exist.

I rest my case.

They are not Catholic. They are required to follow their treaties and their own laws and their own true moral compass.

Is a Baptist required to follow the doctrine of the CCC as a Baptist?

Similarly, the Church has no power to force people to follow person moral obligations, but they still exist.

Yes, but as Catholics, are we not subject to the doctrine of the CCC? I believe so.

I’m muting this thread because I can’t keep repeating myself or talking in circles about hypotheticals and things I never said. I said it a few posts back, but I’m sticking to it now: this thread has been derailed enough.

 

[RyanBlack]

I rest my case.

They are not Catholic. They are required to follow their treaties and their own laws

Is the Church competent to teach what is moral? If yes (and as Catholics we believe she is), then all nations and peoples are obligated follow what is moral. The CCC clearly says that prosperous nations are obligated. It doesn’t limit that to Catholic nations.

 

[RyanBlack]

Yes, but as Catholics , are we not subject to the doctrine of the CCC? I believe so.

All people are obligated to do what is moral.

 

[blackforest]

You frequently make assumptions that things in posts are all about you when they just aren’t. I don’t always remember to put “not you personally” in my posts but it should be assumed unless stated otherwise. Take a deep breath.

 

[blackforest]

I find this as misrepresenting what people are saying, you are moralizing in bad faith.

I’ll say this one more time. The subject at hand is a hypothetical scenario - i.e. desperate U.S. citizens storming Canada’s border and whether or not Canada has an obligation to take them in - not a misrepresentation.

Second, we are very supportive of the UN Agreement on Refugees, which is in line with church doctrine. We provide food, medical care, shelter, etc near the region of conflict and we work to stabilize their homes so they can return. The US is by far the largest donor of money and resources to the UNHCR

It’s funny you should mention that because UNHCR has decried the Trump Administration for its refugee ban. US refugee ban: Trump decried for 'stomping on' American values | US immigration | The Guardian

 

[Theo520]

It’s funny you should mention that because UNHCR has decried the Trump Administration for its refugee ban. US refugee ban: Trump decried for 'stomping on' American values | US immigration | The Guardian

You still haven’t answered me.
Have you read up on the signed agreement?
Your link was about the temp ban, which was deemed legal in principle if not whole.

Trump’s EO did not put the brakes on the global resettlement program, only a few origin countries were impacted.

 

[Theo520]

I’ll say this one more time. The subject at hand is a hypothetical scenario - i.e. desperate U.S. citizens storming Canada’s border and whether or not Canada has an obligation to take them in - not a misrepresentation.

kinda a silly question, which shows you aren’t familiar with the international agreement on refugees.

Canada has an obligation to support legit refugees seeking asylum if they are the first port of call.
They don’t have an obligation to accept economic migrants or progressives suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

 

[blackforest]

I’m familiar with the agreement, but I’m sure you’ll understand why I won’t spend my morning sipping coffee and reading it in its 56-page entirety. The bottom line is that it is not a legally binding document, and the U.S. has been repeatedly decried for violating its spirit and principle.

 

[blackforest]

kinda a silly question, which shows you aren’t familiar with the international agreement on refugees.

It is kinda “silly,” isn’t it? That’s how hypothetical situations work; they posit a normally unthinkable situation in order to test out a principle. I might suggest addressing this “silliness” with Pup7, who devised the scenario in the first place.

Canada has an obligation to support legit refugees seeking asylum if they are the first port of call.
They don’t have an obligation to accept economic migrants or progressives suffering from Trump derangement syndrome.

You mentioned upthread your skepticism that the Central American refugees were legitimate asylees. Can you provide evidence that they were “economic migrants” (a term to take with a grain of salt in many contexts), fabricating political persecution?

 

[Theo520]

That you asked the question about Canada clearly indicated you did not understand the treaty. Hypothetical is irrelevant.

I was clear it was my opinion on the asylum seekers from central america.
Viscous drug gangs don’t issue written death threat notes to school kids, telling them to leave or be killed…

In all fairness, kids from Chicago have equal chances of gaining refugee status in Canada, very violent neighborhoods they live in.

 

[blackforest]

That you asked the question about Canada clearly indicated you did not understand the treaty. Hypothetical is irrelevant.

Pup7 brought up a hypothetical scenario, and I responded in kind. It has nothing to do with the treaty.

You were clear in your opinion, but have no supporting case for it. It does no good to speculate on the motives of these Central Americans, especially considering the context. Regardless of your personal feelings on the topic, this is not a case of “economic migration.”
Stoking Racist Frenzy Over “Caravan” Trump Ends Temporary Protected Status for Hondurans

Migrants [sic] moving to the United States from Central America’s troubled “Northern Triangle” countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have been set upon continually by criminal gangs, sometimes abetted by corrupt police and officials. Thousands have been killed and often buried in unmarked graves. In many cases, migrants have been kidnapped and held for ransom; others have perished after getting lost in the desert regions along the U.S.-Mexico border.

 

[Theo520]

Answer this form me.

Do single moms from the bad parts of Chicago qualify for refugee status in Canada.

In a similar fashion they come from a very dangerous area were the local govt has persistently failed to ensure their safety, provide sound basic education, or generally care for their needs

I’m not disputing the triangle is a very bad spot, just that it is sufficient to justify refugee status. People can move to another part of the country and the local Govt is starting to control the situation, with the murder rate dropping 26% recently. By all means the US should help support the local Govt in their efforts to reduce crime in this area.

 

[blackforest]

You came in on the middle of a conversation about a hypothetical scenario. I will need to know the relevance of this question before I address it.

 

[blackforest]

I’m not disputing the triangle is a very bad spot, just that it is sufficient to justify refugee status.

We’re discussing asylee status, not refugee status. Asylum | USCIS

People can move to another part of the country and the local Govt is starting to control the situation, with the murder rate dropping 26% recently.

What a lovely idea. I’m sure that the narcoterrorists stalking their families with death threats won’t follow them to another part of the country. Perhaps the victims could purchase real estate in that upper-middle class part of Honduras with the McMansions and high-ranking public schools. They can hang out there while they wait for Donald Trump to “help reduce crime in this area.”

I wonder if ending that pesky War on Drugs will help . . . .

 

[Theo520]

The requirements for Asylee are virtually identical for Refugee. Refugee status is actually more difficult to obtain. Why to you keep mentioning the two as though the difference is highly relevant to a generic discussion?

The Narcoterrorist aren’t stalking mid to lower income families, they’ve got other things to do that actually earn them money. If they target any families, it’s the rich for kidnapping and ransom.

So, do you think a Chicago family qualifies for either Asylum or Refugee status in Canada? You pick which classification you feel is easier to obtain.

Just heard a stat from a reliable source (Thomas Sowell).
In Latin America, 80% of the murders occur on 2% of the streets. The risks are very real, but also very localized. Chicago has the same problem.

 

[blackforest]

The Narcoterrorist aren’t stalking mid to lower income families, they’ve got other things to do that actually earn them money. If they target any families, it’s the rich for kidnapping and ransom.

I think you need a better idea of the situation in Central America. The gang violence there has created a state of anarchic madness. Rich and poor are both victims. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/03/...central-american-refugee-and-migrant-children

Just heard a stat from a reliable source (Thomas Sowell).
In Latin America, 80% of the murders occur on 2% of the streets. The risks are very real, but also very localized. Chicago has the same problem.

Thomas Sowell is a Right-wing pundit/commentator. A reliable source would be an objective one. Where did he get his data? Remember, we’re not talking about something as sweeping as “Latin America” - encompassing Nogales, Santo Domingo, Rio de Janeiro, Montevideo, Macchu Pichu, and Torres del Paine. We’re discussing quite specifically the Northern Triangle of Central America.

So, do you think a Chicago family qualifies for either Asylum or Refugee status in Canada? You pick which classification you feel is easier to obtain.

As I stated quite clearly above, I will first need to know what relevance this question has to our discussion. You already saw what a mess the first hypothetical scenario got this thread into, so I’d like a rationale before indulging a second one. It sounds like you think you have a really winner with whatever point you’re trying to make. But without any clarification, at this point it’s coming across as nonsensical and non-sequitorial.

 

[Theo520]

First, you very clearly said drug gangs are stalking poor families, completely ludicrous.
Hyperbole on your part.

Second, if you are going to deflect from a straight forward question that parallels your claim of people fleeing Central America, I’ll no longer dance with the deception you offer. The violence is highly focues in a few areas, just like Chicago violence is highly focused in a few neighborhoods.

 

[Theo520]

I think you need a better idea of the situation in Central America. The gang violence there has created a state of anarchic madness. Rich and poor are both victims. https://www.hrw.org/report/2016/03/...central-american-refugee-and-migrant-children

The same comments have been written about children in Chicago living in the wrong neighborhoods. Based on what is said, they should be given refugee status in Mexico. As I noted previously, this is in accordance with international treaty and would also force Mexico to be a responsible neighbor and stop ignoring the problem. The role of the US is to help governance in all the affected countries better deal with the situation.

Theo520:

Thomas Sowell is a Right-wing pundit/commentator. A reliable source would be an objective one. Where did he get his data? Remember, we’re not talking about something as sweeping as “Latin America” - encompassing Nogales, Santo Domingo, Rio de Janeiro, Montevideo, Macchu Pichu, and Torres del Paine. We’re discussing quite specifically the Northern Triangle of Central America.

That Sowell is conservative hardly makes him unreliable, unless you are progressive (ROFL, then anyone who disagrees with you is unreliable). You probably think Krugman walks on water, while I just read his arguments with a critical eye. I don’t call him a liar as my first response, an ad hominem.

Identifying that the problem is highly localized to 2% of the neighborhoods/streets isn’t claiming the problem doesn’t exist, but it can guide proper response.

I’m disappointing but not surprised that you keep deflecting on my question. I fully expected you to qualify your response, that is appropriate and not evading.

So, do you think a Chicago family qualifies for either Asylum or Refugee status in Canada? You pick which classification you feel is easier to obtain.