Much to gain, lose for Gingrich, rivals in debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brownginger said:
Newt brought me around to his stance on the proper treatment of illegal aliens and not even members of the clergy have been able to do that. Newt is so intelligent, experienced, and thoughful that it makes up for his heavy baggage.
Click to expand...
All of it. đź‘Ť
 
I think the problem with Newt’s comments on illegal immigrants is, why 25 years? 20 years is a long time, why not 15, why not 10. I don’t agree with his position on illegal immigrants. I agree with Romney, that kind of policy is a magnet. It awards breaking the law.

Illegal immigrants residing in US should be able to apply to the visa/citizenship system like everybody else, but not given special treatment over anybody else applying.

I agree with what Romney said on Meet the Press in 2007 and still believes now:

** My own view is, consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country, the 12 million or so that are here illegally, should be able to sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to stay here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally, and that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.**
 
Isn’t the laws to blame partially for illegal immigration? The fact is that its law that if any person who is born in the US even if their parents are illegal immigrants that child becomes a US citizen. As Catholics is it a sin to push a law that separates a child from their parents?
 
JMJSHJ said:
Isn’t the laws to blame partially for illegal immigration? The fact is that its law that if any person who is born in the US even if their parents are illegal immigrants that child becomes a US citizen. As Catholics is it a sin to push a law that separates a child from their parents?
Click to expand...
Fr Thomas Berg commentating on the Arizona Immigration law, says:

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church structures a discussion of “immigration” by placing it in the section under the “right to work,” a fundamental human right affirmed by the Second Vatican Council in its Apostolic Constitution Gaudium et Spes. It notes that “in most cases…immigrants fill a labor need which would otherwise remain unfilled in sectors and territories where the local workforce is insufficient or unwilling to engage in the work in question.” It then calls for host countries to be vigilant to protect against the exploitation of laborers, to treat them with “equity and balance,” to strive to integrate them into society, to defend the right of immigrants to be reunited with their families, and to promote work opportunities for them.

To my knowledge, however, the Compendium does not suggest that the principle of rule of law should be subordinated somehow to the exigencies of the above mentioned rights. SB 1070 does no injustice to an illegal immigrant forced to forfeit his presence in the U.S. even when that means a temporary separation from family members already here. Such an eventuality is – for any illegal alien – a foreseeable potential consequence of breaking the law; responsibility for the attendant hardships brought about by such a breakup rests squarely on the shoulders of the illegal alien, not on the community where he resides and into which he has patently failed to integrate through the observance of the law.

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1231
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top