D
dvdjs
Guest
You do see the Attorney General of the United States changing the “credible fear” standard to reduce the number of people even getting a hearing on their asylum cases.
- Status
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
He did not change the standard for asylum. He clarified what has always been the law regarding asylum, which is that persecution by parties other than the government (e.g., gang violence) does not qualify for asylum.
Basically what changed (if I understand correctly) is that under Obama, people could come over the border and claim a “credible fear” of persecution, etc. They would then be given a court date for a hearing and released. Most of them never showed up for a court or filed an asylum claim thereafter but just remained in the U.S. illegally.
Basically what changed (if I understand correctly) is that under Obama, people could come over the border and claim a “credible fear” of persecution, etc. They would then be given a court date for a hearing and released. Most of them never showed up for a court or filed an asylum claim thereafter but just remained in the U.S. illegally.
Last edited:
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
I wouldn’t be offended if everyone here ignored you.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Far from avoiding it, the Bishops want to see it enhanced and have a very specific idea of how to do that. That’s the whole point of “increasing the number of family visas available and reducing family reunification waiting times.” The question isn’t how to avoid family members from immigrating, but how much more to increase their numbers. I’d need to see some expert testimony to have an opinion on that.
Now, I see this…
and this…
…as nothing more than excuses right-wing Catholics incessantly repeat so they can ignore the teaching authority (i.e. magisterium) of the Bishops who have spoken loudly and clearly about immigration and the death penalty as they pertain to the United States in particular.
Regarding the use of the death penalty in the United States, Pope Francis has made it clear that it is contrary to the Gospel. Just because the books haven’t been updated yet, doesn’t mean that this isn’t church doctrine. The universal consensus of the Bishops around the world (find me one who disagrees with Pope Francis regarding the death penalty) says Catholics must oppose it.
“Choosing against the death penalty is choosing in favor of life. We need to end the death penalty, and we need to do it soon.” - Archbishop Chaput
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
That’s fine with me. No point in wasting my time or yours. Too bad you didn’t take that stand BEFORE bothering me with your response. Anyway, its great to get the last word. Hasta la vista amigo!
Last edited:
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Thanks, I would have responded, but then I read your response and thought, “Brilliant!”Ridgerunner:
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?
I’m being ignored by at least two people on the forum. It’s quite liberating. No more need to feel like I’m beating my head against a brick wall.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I did not say that he did. We still, AFAIK, have the two stage process of credible fear determination, followed by asylum hearing. Sessions changed the credible fear criteria.
Can you show data on that? There were some programs put in place that has appearance rates of over 99%.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Another straw man bites the dust with that last part.
You know what Clinton said in her speech to the bankers. She advocated open borders with Latin America. Agree with her or disagree with her as you choose, but don’t tell us she didn’t say it.
You know what Clinton said in her speech to the bankers. She advocated open borders with Latin America. Agree with her or disagree with her as you choose, but don’t tell us she didn’t say it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I think more people realize these things than will admit it, and exactly because they see political gain in not admitting it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The Church teaches what it teaches about capital punishment. It does not teach what it does not teach. One doesn’t have to be 'right wing" or have to excuse anything in order to understand that. You say Pope Francis wants to make it part of Catholic teaching to outlaw the death penalty, but “hasn’t gotten around to it yet”. That is unbelievably lame. If he felt all Catholics should be bound in conscience everywhere to accept that as a political position, he could have said it, and, I think, would have.
But he didn’t.
As I mentioned before, I oppose the death penalty because Pope JPII did. Knowing as I do what often happens in prisons and what is often directed from prisons, I swallowed hard, but accepted it, believing that JPII surely also meant that prisons in countries that could afford it, had to be reformed as well. And I still think that.
And you cite the opinions of four bishops concerning immigration as if they’re “all the bishops”. They’re not. Nothing the USCCB or its spokespersons say is binding on Catholics unless adopted by a meeting of all of them, and approved by the Vatican.
But he didn’t.
As I mentioned before, I oppose the death penalty because Pope JPII did. Knowing as I do what often happens in prisons and what is often directed from prisons, I swallowed hard, but accepted it, believing that JPII surely also meant that prisons in countries that could afford it, had to be reformed as well. And I still think that.
And you cite the opinions of four bishops concerning immigration as if they’re “all the bishops”. They’re not. Nothing the USCCB or its spokespersons say is binding on Catholics unless adopted by a meeting of all of them, and approved by the Vatican.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Nor did JPII put the anathema in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis or issue it as an encyclical. Instead, he chose to write an Apostolic Letter, which carries a lower weight of authority. Few would dispute that SO reflects current Church teaching, but many would say that if JPII intended it to be immutable infallibly defined dogma, he would have issued it in a way to make that clear to everyone. But he didn’t.
This just goes to show that anyone can challenge a clear teaching of church by claiming it does not have sufficient authority behind it. The Bishops have unanimously spoken on the death penalty and there is no room for a conscience argument that a Catholic could use to dissent from their clear teaching that would even come close to being valid. I’m sorry, but not everything has to be written down and debated in order to be a doctrine of the church. The living voice of the magisterium speaking in unison is sufficient to settle the matter. Should the magisterium decided to issue a definitive statement on the death penalty, then that would only be a reflection of already established doctrine. Just as was the case with the Bodily Assumption of Mary.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This is just wrong. Writings of the USCCB are the opinions of the writers. If the U.S. bishops had unanimously condemned the death penalty, the Vatican would have taken notice of it and likely approved it, at least for the U.S. That has not happened.
It is not binding.
What in the world is that? Something written by a bishop on USCCB letterhead?
You need better evidence for your proposition.
D
dvdjs
Guest
She “advocated” . Same questions. When? Under what pre-condittions? If you assume Now and None. You are making stuff up.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think that some people have in putting things in others mouths, then shouting Gotcha.
None of this advances rational discussion.
None of this advances democracy.
None of this adds to the greatness of America.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
Where the Church stands on the death penalty falls under the broader doctrine of the inviolability of human life from conception to natural death. Once a person is in the custody of the state and no longer a threat to society, no legitimate argument can be made to kill him. That is what the Church teaches.
http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/20...echism-to-show-death-penalty-is-inadmissible/
T
Theo520
Guest
Both HRC and Bernie advocated for open borders in their Univision debate. If you make it inside the US and aren’t a violent felon, you get to stay. It doesn’t get much more open than that.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Quote?
Even that is not open.
What on earth is wrong with the actual truth?
A
Annie
Guest
How would you define open borders?
D
dvdjs
Guest
“An open border is a border that enables free movement of people between different jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement, that is to say lacking substantive border control”.
en.wikipedia.org
Open border - Wikipedia
A
Annie
Guest
What is the difference between what you describe here and what you objected to above?
- Status