New Sanctuary Movement

[Verisimilitude]

1. American standards are not necessarily the standards in other parts of the world, and our government is hated in many countries. We cannot affect change if our help is unwanted, and we certainly don’t need to get into any more wars under the guise of “helping to change” a country.

I was not advocating war, and if our way of life is so hated why are they coming?

Regarding unfair laws, our country has plenty. How about this one: the visa waiver program. If ever there were an unfair and ridiculous law, that would surely be it… It’s absurd and biased.

Not all countries participate in the VWP, and not all travelers from VWP countries are eligible to use the program. VWP travelers are screened prior to admission into the United States, and they are enrolled in the Department of Homeland Security’s US-VISIT program.

Nothing unfair. Trusting people and nations are a good thing aren’t they? Japanese do it all the time in Hawaii, for both business and vacations.

1. To those who think the current reform proposal is “amnesty,” it appears to me that the only thing you would find acceptable is to deport all illegals. Why is the $5000 fine not acceptable as punishment for being here without documentation? Why is America unwilling to forgive these people?

I am not out to punish poor people with a fine; that is like kicking a person when they are down.

Have you all forgotten that 40% of undocumented immigrants came here on visas? This means that according to our own government, they were found to be acceptable and eligible to visit, work in, or reside in our country; some for up to six years at a time.

When the visa expires they are supposed to reapply with success, or go home. Have you forgotten that?

So a $5000 fine isn’t acceptable for someone like this? Why not? The minute a person breaks a law they are unacceptable forever?

Never said banned for life, or even charged with a crime. I want them to go home voluntarily within 3 years, and if they have a desire to return they can reapply legally provided there is a need. A bus ticket home is cheaper, but the ideas they take home could be a valuable treasure if nurtured.

No, no, no. That’s not justice and it’s not Christian.

Peace,
Meeshy

I can respect your devotion to the cause but it is misguided even with respect to the Bishops. Justice is fair. Nothing about being fined $5k and a 10+ year waiting list to be a US citizen is fair.

Let them spend that $ on required travel and lodging back to their country of origin by birth or legal Naturalization; I don’t want it. I want them to phisically leave US soil and jurisdiction. They can turn around and immediately apply for re-enrty, but can now declare who they are, and what their intent is; to become a US citizen or just want to work. If they have a job, or are they looking for one.

If they have a reputable job already we can ensure they are getting a fair wage when/if they can return to it. If they don’t have a job, they can read the want ads from Mexico…or business.unions would form. Then the courts could decide if such a labor pool, or the return of illegal foreign nationals as working only legal forein nationals, or those long established in the community and wanting to become a US citizen. Since not all do, it is up to them to declare when they try to re-enter legally.

Dispell the shadows, and do it in the light.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Several points:

1. For those who talk so much about “helping change” the corrupt countries whose citizens come here to make a living: The U.S. is not always successful in her efforts to bring about change in other countries.

Whoa! When did we get the responsibility to change their countries?

The only successful change will come when they change their own countries – but we syphon off the energetic and hard-working people they need to make that change.

 

[meeshy]

**Matt 18:23-35 ** Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants.

When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt.

But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due.

So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done.

Then his lord called him in, and said to him, **‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ **

His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him.

So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds.

 

[meeshy]

"Whoa! When did we get the responsibility to change their countries?"

I didn’t say we have that responsibility. I was rebutting those who think that instead of helping the afflicted by allowing them to come here, we should “help” them by “helping them to change their own countries,” or by telling them to go home and change their own countries. Both options are non-options; I thought my reply was clear.

**“Trusting people and nations are a good thing aren’t they?” **

Hmm. Very interesting words from a person who wants all illegals to leave U.S. soil.

How about let’s just trust those who are already here to pay their fine and become good U.S. citizens, or to pay their fine and come and go freely between their countries and ours, on the Z Visa. How about that? Sounds pretty fair to me.

The original point about the Visa Waiver Program was that it was an unjust law. While it only applies to visitors, it is unfair because it selects 27 countries who are “better” than the rest of the world and “more eligible” to come here. It’s playing favoritism.

Not only that, it is no more efficient at weeding out potential terrorists or at determining who might overstay their welcome here than the normal visa application process.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

"Whoa! When did we get the responsibility to change their countries?"

I didn’t say we have that responsibility. I was rebutting those who think that instead of helping the afflicted by allowing them to come here, we should “help” them by “helping them to change their own countries,” or by telling them to go home and change their own countries.

“Rebutting it,” how? Where’s the rebuttal?

Both options are non-options; I thought my reply was clear.

“Non-options,” how? Are you saying people living south of the Rio Grande are inferior and unable to adequately manage their own countries?

If not, then we must accept that they can adequately manage their own countries, and encourage them to get to it – and not syphon off the most energetic – who ought to be leading the reform movement.

**“Trusting people and nations are a good thing aren’t they?” **

Hmm. Very interesting words from a person who wants all illegals to leave U.S. soil.

How so?

How about let’s just trust those who are already here to pay their fine and become good U.S. citizens, or to pay their fine and come and go freely between their countries and ours, on the Z Visa. How about that? Sounds pretty fair to me.

And what will we do tomorrow?

Will we syphon off another wave of the most energetic, and keep draining the pool of people who might make their countries better for all?

The original point about the Visa Waiver Program was that it was an unjust law. While it only applies to visitors, it is unfair because it selects 27 countries who are “better” than the rest of the world and “more eligible” to come here. It’s playing favoritism.

So having treaties is unfair? Having allies is unfair? We have to treat all countries the same?

Since we bombed Germany, we should bomb Iceland?

Not only that, it is no more efficient at weeding out potential terrorists or at determining who might overstay their welcome here than the normal visa application process.

And you know this to be true, how?

 

[meeshy]

I don’t have the time nor inclination to explain my rebuttals. If you didn’t get that it was a rebuttal, read the post several times until you understand it.

Saying that people can suddenly “change their country” is ridiculous. Change brought about by internal struggles sometimes takes decades, and many lives can be lost in the process.

We in the U.S. are trying to change the immigration problem. Is it easy? Is it fast? We have a democracy here, and supposedly a government which is relatively free of corruption. If it’s difficult for us to change things in our government, how much more difficult do you think it might be for those who live in non-democracies, whose governments are very corrupt and who care nothing about their people?

I say it’s a non-option to tell someone to go home and change their country.

It’s also a non-option for the U.S. to insist that other countries change, by whatever means we normally use: occupation, war, economic sanctions, etc.

Fear is what keeps America from opening her doors to whomever wishes to come here. Fear and a sense of entitlement, nothing else.

I think we should do away with all the borders from the north of Canada to the south of Argentina. What a beautiful, rich, diversified nation that would be.

I don’t intend to debate that opinion further.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Verisimilitude]

I don’t have the time nor inclination to explain my rebuttals. If you didn’t get that it was a rebuttal, read the post several times until you understand it.

If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Saying that people can suddenly “change their country” is ridiculous. Change brought about by internal struggles sometimes takes decades, and many lives can be lost in the process.

Some things are worth the risk, and the longest jorney begins with the first step. Sidestepping the issue won’t solve anything.

We in the U.S. are trying to change the immigration problem. Is it easy? Is it fast? We have a democracy here, and supposedly a government which is relatively free of corruption. If it’s difficult for us to change things in our government, how much more difficult do you think it might be for those who live in non-democracies, whose governments are very corrupt and who care nothing about their people?

Use the democratic process, not subvert it, as is going on with this current bill. And it isn;t an immigration problem- it is human migration for ecconomic and political corruption reasons.

I say it’s a non-option to tell someone to go home and change their country.

I say you do not think very highly of these immigrants.

It’s also a non-option for the U.S. to insist that other countries change, by whatever means we normally use: occupation, war, economic sanctions, etc.

Silence to injustice is not good or moral.

Fear is what keeps America from opening her doors to whomever wishes to come here. Fear and a sense of entitlement, nothing else.

You have such a sad view of America.

I think we should do away with all the borders from the north of Canada to the south of Argentina. What a beautiful, rich, diversified nation that would be.

Great, send the US Consatitution to each nation in the Western hemisphere, and when they adopt each and every law the US has, has become a US State- then we can.

One World Order?

I don’t intend to debate that opinion further.

Peace,
Meeshy

It is hard to defend the illogical.

 

[meeshy]

Okay, I’ll go over it again, r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w-l-y…

If a person comes to the U.S. to get away from poverty and a corrupt government in his native country, it is not a viable option to tell that person: “Go home and fix your government and find a job.”

If a government asks for our help to fix the situation in their country, of course we should help.

If a government does not want our help, we should not force them to accept our help.

I think that’s fairly plain.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t have the time nor inclination to explain my rebuttals. If you didn’t get that it was a rebuttal, read the post several times until you understand it.

When you resort to this kind of nasty, arrogant behavior, you forfeit the discussion.

 

[YinYangMom]

If a person comes to the U.S. to get away from poverty and a corrupt government in his native country, it is not a viable option to tell that person: “Go home and fix your government and find a job.”

It most certainly is a **viable **option. Not in your opinion, of course, but your opinion does not make it viable or not.

It’s a ‘tough love’ approach, and I realize that is always a very difficult position to take, but it is one the Church adheres to in several circumstances.

If a couple comes to the church seeking permission to use ABC because of her health or their economic situation the church will take the tough love position, offering her alternative ways to live with their situation while supporting her in prayers, including directing them to St. Vincent de Paul society or other organizations to assist in their meeting their physical needs (for the short term).

If the church were to grant the couple permission they would appear to be helping them In the short run, but in the long run they would be hurting that couple and the family of that couple.

With this New Sanctuary approach we help the individual undocumented worker and his/her family in the short run, but in the long run we enable the corruption/poverty to continue not only in their home country but here as well (not going after the employers who feed the demand for undocumented workers), hurting many more people than those we are helping.

I liken it to the very, very difficult situation of a young woman (under the age of 18) pregnant. The parents of the mother can make a nursery in their home, pay for the diapers, food, medical expenses, care for the child when the girl is not home, etc., allowing the daughter to continue going to school and living the ‘normal’ life of a teenager (dating and such). Certainly that can be argued to be the charitable Christian thing to do.

Others will argue the parents do the young woman a disservice by making the transition from young teen to teen mother too easy, thus leaving the young woman ill prepared to be a successful mother to the child when she strikes out on her own. There are parents who are able to force the young woman to face reality early on - having her choose between getting a job to pay for child care to raise this child or putting it up for adoption, whichever is best for the child.

I do not intend to hi-jack this thread with this example, but I am just noting that being a charitable Christian can sometimes force us to make some very difficult decisions, some of which may appear unjust and harsh in the short run.

This New Sanctuary Movement is a noble first step in addressing the immigration issue but it is incomplete since it only focuses on half of the problem. To embrace and sanction it as is does a disservice to the millions of people left in their home countries, as well as to the millions who immigrated into this country legally.

Perhaps you will be able to show us how endorsing the New Sanctuary Movement is taking the tough love approach. Right now I don’t see it, but that’s not to say it isn’t there. My mind is open to the possibility.

 

[mary_bobo]

Whoa! When did we get the responsibility to change their countries?

Probably at the same time we were “given” the responsibility to allow anyone and everyone into the country and go on the dole.

The only successful change will come when they change their own countries – but we syphon off the energetic and hard-working people they need to make that change.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by vern humphrey
Whoa! When did we get the responsibility to change their countries?

Probably at the same time we were “given” the responsibility to allow anyone and everyone into the country and go on the dole.

By people who are remarkably generous with other people’s money, and blind to the evils brought by the labor Black Market.

 

[meeshy]

The New Sanctuary Movement is not sanctioned by the USCCB as a whole. As I have stated before, there are only a few parishes who are participating in this.

If you disagree, provide evidence.

Stating that an option is viable is opinion. Stating that an option is not viable is also opinion. This forum is made up of many opinions. That’s what a forum is–the chance to express one’s opinion.

Before calling someone’s post arrogant or nasty, one should look at one’s own posts first.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

The New Sanctuary Movement is not sanctioned by the USCCB as a whole. As I have stated before, there are only a few parishes who are participating in this.

If you disagree, provide evidence.

Stating that an option is viable is opinion. Stating that an option is not viable is also opinion. This forum is made up of many opinions. That’s what a forum is–the chance to express one’s opinion.

Before calling someone’s post arrogant or nasty, one should look at one’s own posts first.

Peace,
Meeshy

This was an arrogant and nasty post – all who read it can see:

I don’t have the time nor inclination to explain my rebuttals. If you didn’t get that it was a rebuttal, read the post several times until you understand it.

 

[meeshy]

And I felt that your post questioning how my response was a rebuttal was also nasty. However, I did not comment as such.

Please stick to the issues and do away with the personal comments.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

And I felt that your post questioning how my response was a rebuttal was also nasty. However, I did not comment as such.

Ah, the old, “I feel you did it first” ploy.

Please stick to the issues and do away with the personal comments.

Peace,
Meeshy

Very good advice. You should follow it.

 

[meeshy]

If you would like to reprimand my behavior, you may report my post to the administrators, or you may send me a private message. Doing it in the forum only takes away from the discussion and is not productive.

Please see my posts #56 and #62. These are the posts in question.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you would like to reprimand my behavior, you may report my post to the administrators, or you may send me a private message. Doing it in the forum only takes away from the discussion and is not productive.

Please see my posts #56 and #62. These are the posts in question.

Peace,
Meeshy

They don’t constitute a rebuttal. And do not justify your response.

When people act in this manner, they have forfieted the argument.

 

[meeshy]

People rebutt the way they want to rebutt.

Please stick to the issues.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[vern_humphrey]

People rebutt the way they want to rebutt.

Please stick to the issues.

Peace,
Meeshy

Ah, the old, “When I use a word, it means what I want it to mean, regardless of the dictionary” ploy.