B
- Status
I
Ituyu
Guest
So you don’t believe in the advocacy of the Church?
Ah, but isn’t that what the Bishops promote. That they be “allowed” to pay like everybody else that came legally. After all, the decision to close the “legal” door to them went against the natural laws of Supply and Demand. It was strictly an arbitrary decision that made no sense. Opening the “legal” door is the only option that is doable and makes sense. It requires us to correct our policies and them to fulfill the obligations that they would have only been too happy to perform given the opportunity. That way nobody steals and everybody wins. So there, both sides make it right and everybody is happy, right?
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
LEGAL immigration…there is a difference you know. I am sure the Pope isn’t advocating* breaking the laws of a nation*. NO ONE has the right to enter a country unwelcomed and in violation of their laws.
:heart:Blyss
G
geezerbob
Guest
Some would have us believe that all of those crossing the border illegally are on the verge of starvation and that sneaking into the US is the only way they can survive. I would like to see some proof of this because in all the pictures I’ve seen of arrests, they look pretty well-fed.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Actually the Church has a very balanced approach. It’s says that we are to respect the dignity of all people and to be welcoming to our neighbors. We do not respect humanity by arbitrarily denying them the oppotunity to work here when we need the manpower especially when after all is said and done they’ve brought us a “NET” gain. There is simply no good reason for that. That is why the Bishops have supported a plan that answers the needs of those on both sides of the issue. It requires a legalization process that is fair and balanced. The Church says that people have an obligation and a right to survive and that laws should not “arbitrarily” violate that right. So why did we close those “legal” doors? Because we didn’t want or need them? There is a reason why 12 million people were able to find honest work even though we closed the legal door without a good reason.
B
BlyssfulDreamer
Guest
I am welcoming to my neighbors…as long as they come here legally and are invited. It is no different than if my neighbor…liking what I have…my nice TV…car…things i have worked hard and long for decides he wants some too and decides to move in with me in my house and proceed to make it his own. You do not come in to a country uninvited…unwanted and in violation of the laws…bringing crime and disease with you. I have a right to say who does or does not come in to my house and this country is the same way. We do NOT have to let anyone in this country who does not come in through proper channels. What did we do before all the millions of lawbreaking illegals came here? LOL…We got along just fine and would again…
:heart:Blyss
I
Ituyu
Guest
But, they were invited, though the “legal” door was closed. That is why they were able to find jobs and become part of our communities. Most haven’t stolen anything and work for what they have. IRCA of 1986 showed us how millions of people who were considered “illegal” met all the qualifications required of a legal resident. The fact that they came here “illegally” was a qualifying factor and the use of borrowed or fabricated SS#'s in most cases were not held against them.
There is no reason to believe that the vast majority of those currently here “illegally” could not meet the very same requirements and I am only too certain that they would be willing to accept their responsibilities and obligations under such a process.
The fact is we didn’t get along just fine without them. That’s why they were already here.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Who “invited” them…did they RSVP?
I can see arguing whether they were “unwanted” or not, but invited? That’s just silly. Sure there are employers in some areas that will hire illegal aliens, but there are also a lot of day laborers standing outside of Home Depot…did Home Depot invite them?
That’s funny…they met all the requirements of a legal resident…except their illegal entry into the country.
I’m glad that a lot of the people who broke the law to enter the country, used falsified documents, etc. don’t break other laws, but let’s not gloss over the fact that they did break immigration laws. Someone (legal or illegal resident) who evades taxes also may not break any other laws, but we would still arrest them for evading taxes.
True…hopefully the president’s plan will have a better chance of passing with the new congress…but, I don’t think so. I think partisan bickering will prevent it from happening.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Here’s the issue. I don’t begrudge a system that is designed to function in our bests interests. For those that were able to gain “legal” entry it worked just fine. However, our current “illegal” population “could” have used that same system to come here “legally” but we chose to take that option away. The legal option would have been their safest and most economic method of entering and it would have given us the opportunity to weed out the undersirables. Since the legal option was not available, they did what they had to do to provide for their families, which is why I can “gloss” over the fact that they broke a law (As someone else indicated), a law that did not serve our best interests. We should have had confidence in our system to give us what we desired. I don’t see a difference between those we allowed in and those we shut the door in. Most would have qualified as did the others. We had basically open borders with Mexico for almost two hundred years and the flow was always tied to the availability of jobs. When there were jobs they came and when there weren’t they stopped coming and many returned. Instead we lined the pockets of the “coyotes” and ended up with some that we could have prevented from coming. It was an ill advised and myopic decision on our part especially since we knew beforehand that with NAFTA that it would mean an increase in Mexican immigration just as it meant an increase in Canadian immigration. It was a natural consequence of the “integration” of our economies. It couldn’t have worked any other way. So there you have it. Some will choose to demonize the evil “illegals” when we pulled the strings and caused this whole problem. I would simply put them through the legalization process that they should have been allowed to participate in. In the balance it’s a win/win proposition. The losers will be those who despite the fact that they are already here and are an integral part of our growing economy simply don’t want “them” here.
I
Ituyu
Guest
In post # 29, “shut the door in” should read “shut the door on”.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Yeah, I see so many people speaking Illini in my area. If the English speaking folks who settled in the Illini and Miami Native American areas didn’t bother to learn the native’s language, why on earth should other migrants bother to learn English, other than self interest. Which is what I see. Migrants learn it out of economic self-interest. The same motivator that is supposed to work that invisible hand magic. The first generation doesn’t learn English, they’re too busy working, raising their kids, buying their homes etc. Their older kids when they come also don’t speak much English, again, they’re preparing for marriage, learning a skill etc. It’s the kids born here who learn English, mainly through the public school system. Sure they don’t speak it as well as an umpteenth generation Yank, but they do speak, read and write it. Their kids typically speak English as well as anyone else. It simply takes time and the perception is that the community doesn’t learn English because it’s such a renewing community (migrants keep coming) and such a young community here in Chicago that there just aren’t that many 3rd gen Latinos compared to 1rst and 2nd gen. In the meantime, people still need to buy groceries, get morgtages, arrange travel, do banking, get financial services, etc. so a huge Spanish language community has sprung up here. Which probably doesn’t freak Chicagoans out much because we also have Polish, Chinese and Indian language (Kanada, Tamil, Hindi) among others areas.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Bishops can be and are wrong quite alot… same with cardinals. The Church does not say to steal.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Working for a living at an honest job is not stealing by most standards. We went against the laws of nature when we decided to shut the legal door on them for no good reason. But, we can do no wrong so we don’t have to even try to rectify the problems we cause, right?
J
Jeffrey
Guest
It is stealing when ppl come over illegally. We have casued no problems. Just need to fix our border and start enfocing the border laws and deport the illegals.
I
Ituyu
Guest
WHAT? We made laws that defied common sense designed to go against the natural laws of a free market in order to keep them out for NO VALID REASON! We had the jobs and we knew they would fill them just like they always have. That’s not causing a problem? WE created an “illegal” class without it being necessary. We pulled the strings. We made the rules and we looked the other way because there was no good reason for these laws in the first place. To enforce them would have meant to work against the economic gains and growth they brought us. But those gains were not possible without them. We couldn’t have one without the other. We can’t have our cake and eat it too! But, that’s exactly what it seems you want!
P
pnewton
Guest
Then it is better to fight to change the law than to violate it. We still live in a democracy where we have a voice, as long as it is a large enough voice.
If we cease to be a people of law, then the law becomes meaningless, only to be obeyed to the extent it is agreed with. If you believe the income tax to be oppressive, then dodge it. If you believe immigration to be excessive, take up defense of the border yourself. The same arguement use to justify coming over illegally can be used to justify vigilantism to stop people from coming over illegally. Then where will we be?
I
Ituyu
Guest
But laws that violate the laws of nature are not possible to observe and violating such laws does not make us or them a lawless people especially when time is of the essence. We can’t say that we have honest jobs that we need and want you to do here that will allow you to provide for your family but you can only have them by crossing a line “illegally” and not expect them to take them because they really have no other choice. It’s like saying it’s illegal for them to breathe. Would we expect them to obey the law or to breathe even though it was “illegal”? In both these cases there is only one real choice. Thus, the law in present circumstances goes against the moral order, IMHO, as described in “2242” of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is also what I believe Cardinal Mahoney invokes in his proclamation that he would be willing to break Immigration laws and provide sanctuary to “illegal” immigrants.
In the case of “vigilantes” they’re there to stop a person from coming here to work to provide for their families, by enforcing a law that is already enforced by civil authorities. The best choice is for them not to be there at all as they are likely to needlessly endanger themselves and others when inaction would in all probability cause no serious harm. So, I fail to see the parallel between the vigilante and the person doing what he is morally compelled to do.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
the problem lies with the demand. we can’t blame mexicans who by in large take jobs white people don’t want to do. but, that doesn’t excuse them for not paying taxes or following the legal route of citizenship.
the blame should rest on the employers of illegals who are too greedy to pay a honest salary and benefits to natives. if the demand is still here for cheap labor, no wall can stop it.
it’s like the war on drugs–a loosing battle that wastes untold billions of tax dollars. you have to fight the demand.
as long as mexicans are catholic and come here legally to work to provide for themselves and family a better life, we should welcome them open arms. but if they are protestant or agnostic/atheist, we should send them back where they came from.
the blame should rest on the employers of illegals who are too greedy to pay a honest salary and benefits to natives. if the demand is still here for cheap labor, no wall can stop it.
it’s like the war on drugs–a loosing battle that wastes untold billions of tax dollars. you have to fight the demand.
as long as mexicans are catholic and come here legally to work to provide for themselves and family a better life, we should welcome them open arms. but if they are protestant or agnostic/atheist, we should send them back where they came from.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Thing is… they just take jobs for WAGES that Americans wouldn’t work for.
So long as immigrants come over legal… whether they are Protestant… Catholic or whatever… they should be allowed to come over.
There is plenty of blame to go around… and a whole lot of it really does rest on thier home countries governments.
So long as immigrants come over legal… whether they are Protestant… Catholic or whatever… they should be allowed to come over.
There is plenty of blame to go around… and a whole lot of it really does rest on thier home countries governments.
- Status