More children torn from arms of asylum seeking parents

[Ridgerunner]

I am basically saying that I view most Trump supporters as gullible and easily manipulated, not because of a character flaw, but because those in the working class especially were dissapointed by Obama and looking for a new hope.

Of course, there are ruthless, power grabbing folks among them as well, but not everyone is Mitch McConnell.

My previous presidential candidate was John Kasich - the last moral choice standing in the GOP primaries. After he was rejected and after watching the horror that was the GOP convention, I became an independent, because that is the only thing a Catholic can be in good conscience.

I still think it’s wrong to characterize trump supporters in that way. Trump wasn’t my first or second choice either. But I wasn’t about to support the abortion party or its candidate. Trump said he was going to do certain things, and ever made his list of S.C. justices public in advance. And so far, he has at least tried to live up to those objectives. I do not find a single one of his stated objectives (not “as spun” but as said) offensive or contrary to Catholic teaching.

The devil in all of this is in the practicalities. We could buy a BMW for everybody in the world if there were enough BMWs, enough money to buy them and enough ships and trucks to get them where they need to go. And that would be a benefit to the recipients. But there’s none of those things.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have never heard Trump say the lottery is anything but U.S.-run.

What’s wrong with it? It has no justifiable basis from a national interest standpoint.

 

[Luke6_37]

Why is “chain migration” nativist? And what does “nativist” mean anyway?

I think you know what Nativist means. The perjorative term “chain migration” was coined by the Trump administration to demonize an immigration policy that is favored by the USCCB.

Remember, you are arguing that a policy endorsed by Catholic Bishops is somehow unfair and discriminatory. That is essentially saying that the Bishops are deficient in their capacity to make a moral judgement and you know better.

I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t believe that the Bishops know better.

 

[dvdjs]

Obviously the Obama administration didn’t think that would be of any value. What do you think they missed?

I suppose a thread on immigration problems during the Obama era, who did what, and who said what would be interesting to many. You might to start a thread where such posts have relevance. I confess that I am mainly interested in the “horrible” situation that is going on now.

But is is useful to note that when people do talk of the detriment and deportations of that time, they are making a string case against the canard that Dems are for open borders.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Remember, you are arguing that a policy endorsed by Catholic Bishops is somehow unfair and discriminatory. That is essentially saying that the Bishops are deficient in their capacity to make a moral judgement and you know better.

I wouldn’t be Catholic if I didn’t believe that the Bishops know better.(Luke)

Okay. What is their plan, then? No generalities please, but a specific plan. Are they going to allow all relatives of all persons here lawfully to get ahead of others in the line? if not, how do they plan to avoid it?

Bishops don’t do that, you say? Well that’s true. They enunciate principles. But the four bishops who are typically quoted as being “the bishops” of the U.S. (which they are not) do not have authority to bind Catholics in conscience. That’s a narrow thing that has rules all its own. Those four bishops can say what they think about the principles, but laypeople have to decide what can be done and how to do it.

And yes sir. I do not think the current chain migration system is fair at all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But is is useful to note that when people do talk of the detriment and deportations of that time, they are making a string case against the canard that Dems are for open borders.

Clearly some are for open borders and some are not. But virtually all Dems voted for an 'open borders" candidate, just as they voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Maybe they did that without believing in either thing, but one doubts it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you know what Nativist means

What I cannot tell you is what you mean by it. Explain it.

 

[Luke6_37]

I still think it’s wrong to characterize trump supporters in that way. Trump wasn’t my first or second choice either. But I wasn’t about to support the abortion party or its candidate. Trump said he was going to do certain things, and ever made his list of S.C. justices public in advance. And so far, he has at least tried to live up to those objectives. I do not find a single one of his stated objectives (not “as spun” but as said) offensive or contrary to Catholic teaching.

I think it is a charitable view given my opinion of the character of man they elected to lead the GOP and then the nation.

As for the Supreme Court, I see it as a sign & warning to Catholics that the seat stolen by the GOP is not Pro-Life. Neil Gorsuch voted in favor of allowing a state to arbitrarily execute a prisoner, simply because the drugs used to kill him were about to expire.

"Justice Breyer [stated] that Mr. Lee’s case exemplified “how the arbitrary nature of the death penalty system, as presently administered, runs contrary to the very purpose of a ‘rule of law.’ ”

Opinion | Neil Gorsuch and the State’s Power to Kill (Published 2017)

The Supreme Court’s newest member just cast his first vote, to deny a stay of execution.

www.nytimes.com

Maybe Trump will pick a Catholic this time, for the seat he can legitimately fill, who will be uncompromisingly Pro-Life. We shall see.

Trump’s most popular stated objective during the primaries & campaign was to build a wall on the Southern border and make Mexico pay for it. When asked about it, Pope Francis said that building walls and not bridges was unchristian.

Trump didn’t like that, and as with all things, took it personally and shot back at the Pope.

How could you forget?

 

[Luke6_37]

Luke6_37:

I think you know what Nativist means

What I cannot tell you is what you mean by it. Explain it.

Definition of NATIVISM

a policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants; the revival or perpetuation of an Indigenous culture especially in opposition to acculturation… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[dvdjs]

Clearly some are for open borders and some are not. But virtually all Dems voted for an 'open borders" candidate, just as they voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Maybe they did that without believing in either thing, but one doubts it.

Perhaps you might define what it means to be “for open borders”, or “and open borders candidate”. Does you ise the phrases as loosely as you do “pro-abortion”? is this anything more than playground labelling?

 

[Imdaman]

Theo520:

You mean the Honduran couple who picked up some illegals and their coyote?

The people they picked up were family members. I would have done the same if my sister or cousin called me asking for help.

So you have no problem breaking the law! NOt only that but you put into jeopardy any chance for your family to join you. As well as your own application for asylum.

No doubt these criminals will be sent back home now. Stupid is as stupid does!

 

[Ridgerunner]

First of all, the death penalty is not prohibited by the Church. Various churchmen, including Pope JPII and Pope Francis have spoken against it. Because of the first, I have opposed the death penalty ever since out of my regard for JPII, but not because I believe it’s the teaching of the Church, because it isn’t.

And it certainly isn’t for a lot of other Christians.

And Trump is a protestant. Most protestants don’t agree with the popes in one way or another.
I do, however, think neither of them understood the other. They actually said essentially the same thing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Looking at the definition, I would hope this country favors its own citizenry over those of other countries who want to be immigrants (or don’t). That’s the duty of a government.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A “pro-abortion” candidate is one who, in her platform, openly supports “a woman’s right to choose”. An “open borders” candidate is one who says she is.

 

[dvdjs]

A “pro-abortion” candidate is one who, in her platform, openly supports “a woman’s right to choose”

That’s odd. HRC has publicly spoken for choice against the coerced abortion policy in China. Evidently, tpro-choice and pro-abortion really don’t mean the same thing.

An “open borders” candidate is one who says she is.

Who is this “she” who declared herself an “‘open borders’ candidate”?
No party and no candidate has ever, to my knowledge, proposed that we implement open borders.

 

[dvdjs]

Looking at the definition, I would hope this country favors its own citizenry over those of other countries who want to be immigrants …

Looking at the definition you would see that the frame was entirely different than your pivot:
not citizens vs would-be immigrants, but native inhabitants versus immigrants.

Do you think it is the duty of the government to favor native-born over naturalized citizens?

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s odd. HRC has publicly spoken, for chocie and against the coerced abortion policy in China. Evidently, there is more pro-choice and pro-abortion really don; mean the same thing.

Ridgerunner:

An “open borders” candidate is one who says she is.

You really are saying “pro choice” doesn’t mean supporting legal abortion? Are you?

And she said she favored open borders with Latin America. You know that. I never said she favored open borders with every country on earth. But you are familiar with it.

Looking at the definition you would see that the frame was entirely different than your pivot:
not citizens vs would-be immigrants, but native inhabitants versus immigrants.

Oh no. at present there’s no argument going on in the country about native-born citizens vs. immigrant citizens. You are mischaracterizing the real debate, which is preferring the interests citizens versus those of people who want to be immigrants. That’s what this thread is about, and that’s what the national debate is about.

 

[dvdjs]

You really are saying “pro choice” doesn’t mean supporting legal abortion? Are you?

I said what I said, edited while you were posting. Not the strawman that you conjured up.

And she said she favored open borders with Latin America.

Favored them when? Tomorrow? During her term? At such time that it was feasible without massive population and cultural disequilibrium?

Oh no. at present there’s no argument going on in the country about native-born citizens vs. immigrant citizens. You are mischaracterizing the real debate,

Please read my post. I did not characterize any debate, just the definition set before you, which you strayed from in you post. Moreover, I am not sure that there is no such argument. We have posters here who promote policies idea like these. And worse.

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Just in the last few months, as illegal immigration has become an ever more hot-button issue, it seems that there is a shift in the popular definition of “asylum seekers” --or, rather, widespread misconception on what qualifies a person to seek asylum in the US. Poverty or gang violence in one’s home country, terrible as that may be, does not in itself qualify one for asylum. To qualify, one must show that they are being persecuted by the state (not by private individuals) because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a specific social group, or political opinion.

This misunderstanding really muddles any attempt to hold discussion on the topic of illegal immigration, because the current popular implication is that that all or most people coming over our southern borders are asylum seekers. Certainly there are some, but I would guess that most are not, or rather that they do not have legitimate asylum claims under current law. (Likewise, you can’t cross the border illegally and then claim asylum. There are protocols for claiming asylum and this is not it.) Is anyone else seeing this concern?

 

[EnglishTeacher]

Not at all. I doubt there is one conservative in 100,000 who really opposes immigration or asylum. There would, however, be plenty who would want to discourage illegal immigration…

You don’t see conservatives opposing asylum per se. You do see conservatives complaining about those who falsely claim asylum only when caught entering illegally. That’s most of them, unfortunately.

Yes to all this.