Pres Trump’s brutal, anti life refugee polices

[RuthAnne]

It’s a noble thing to dig into your own pockets to take care of the needy. There’s nothing noble about forcing others to do the same (taxation).

 

[signit]

CatholicSooner:

Can you expound on what is anti life and brutal and which policies contribute to this?

Did you read the article? Were you not shocked?

Here is one obvious call out from the CCC…

2241: “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”

Agreed, but I think the thing we don’t agree on is the extent of the limiting language:

2241: “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.”

In other words, I might say that the U.S. doesn’t have the resources to let anybody and everybody into the country without raising taxes on Americans to an unacceptable level.

I don’t believe that a parent in my town shouldn’t be able to take their kids to the water park because Democrats want to take that money from them in taxes to help somebody else.

 

[Ender]

Wow, did actually just say that God was wrong when he commanded us to love the immigrants without exception…

Not at all. I said you were wrong for implying that those who disagree with your understanding of what is commanded of us do so because we just don’t love God as much as you. It is not God I’m disputing, it is you.

As for loving the immigrant without exception, a couple of things. If by “loving” them you mean that as a euphemism for giving them unlimited access to the US then no, we are not so commanded. If we were then the church would not teach that countries have a right to control their borders, “control” being a meaningless term if no one is actually turned away.

God doesn’t negotiate his commands. People do.

And people clearly misunderstand his commands as well.

 

[RuthAnne]

The wealthiest country in the history of the world

Having a fat credit card does not make one wealthy.

 

[pnewton]

Right. Funny how the open borders crowd locks their doors shut each night for fear of crime.

Open borders they shout!

Wow! You think crime is caused by immigration? I live in an immigrant rich environment. Not one home invasion here has been by immigrants, legal or illegal. How is this statement not rooted in bigotry?

People lock doors means they are afraid of immigrants? Think for a moment how such an assumption is possible without believing that immigrants are the cause of dangerous crime. I can’t fathom the statement can mean anything else.

 

[Ender]

I’m always amazed at how some Catholics completely ignore the Catechism of the Catholic Church and believe that their own interpretation of scripture is correct. That’s a very Protestant thing to do.

Why don’t you cite the sections in the catechism that compel governments to allow unlimited immigration. The question here is not whether to allow any immigration, but where to draw the line. Are you for completely unlimited immigration? Would you draw a line anywhere and say “This many but no more?” 1M/yr? 10M/yr 100M/yr?

 

[billsherman]

So the conditions and caveats stated by the USCCB are saying that God was wrong?

The USCCB, as I am reminded every single time I quote it on this forum, is only exercising prudential judgement.

God’s commands are absolute, and not open to negotiation.

The Hebrew word for stranger that you cited is ger meaning “resident alien”.

That is, unfortunately, not correct in the way you think it is. Immigration law, and designations such as “resident alien,” “permanent resident,” etc. are all modern legal inventions. The Hebrew word “ger” means, alien resident in your country, or immigrant. It connotes merely an immigrant living in your country. It says nothing about how that person got there.

Again, God’s commands are clear. His commands don’t leave room for conditions, it is people who add conditions.

 

[billsherman]

I said you were wrong for implying that those who disagree with your understanding of what is commanded of us do so because we just don’t love God as much as you.

That’s not fair.

It is not God I’m disputing, it is you.

But, I’m simply quoting God’s repeated command to love the immigrant without exception. You are the one adding exceptions.

As for loving the immigrant without exception, a couple of things.

^See you are adding exceptions.

If by “loving” them you mean that as a euphemism for giving them unlimited access to the US then no, we are not so commanded.

Yes we are: “You shall have one standard for stranger and citizen alike: for I the LORD am your God” (Leviticus 24:22).

If we were then the church would not teach that countries have a right to control their borders, “control” being a meaningless term if no one is actually turned away.

Since people in this thread causally dismiss the Church’s directive that we care for and treat immigrants with love, care, and respect, it seems a little odd to then appeal to that authority only when it suits your decision to side with worldy convenience rather than God’s commands, doesn’t it? Pick one, either the Church is morally correct in its judgements, or it isn’t.

 

[pnewton]

The USCCB, as I am reminded every single time I quote it on this forum, is only exercising prudential judgement.

Prudential judgement is being made about a moral issue. Making this about economics only is to approach a moral issue, a Scriptural imperative, amorally.

 

[signit]

Elizabeth3:

So the conditions and caveats stated by the USCCB are saying that God was wrong?

The USCCB, as I am reminded every single time I quote it on this forum, is only exercising prudential judgement.

God’s commands are absolute, and not open to negotiation.

The Hebrew word for stranger that you cited is ger meaning “resident alien”.

That is, unfortunately, not correct in the way you think it is. Immigration law, and designations such as “resident alien,” “permanent resident,” etc. are all modern legal inventions. The Hebrew word “ger” means, alien resident in your country, or immigrant. It connotes merely an immigrant living in your country. It says nothing about how that person got there.

Again, God’s commands are clear. His commands don’t leave room for conditions, it is people who add conditions.

Okay, but it seems to me that’s picking and choosing what’s doctrine and what isn’t.

The Bible also tells us not to wear clothing woven of two types of material. Our Catholic leaders, interpreting the Bible, tell us that that doesn’t apply to Christians. But can I say, “But the Bible says . . . therefore, that takes preference over what our leaders say”?

 

[Welshrabbit]

Uh…I’m for controls and regulations on immigration, as the CCC clearly allows for. I was referring to the people who are claiming that God commands us to have none. My position on the matter is quite similar to yours.

 

[po18guy]

Ah! You define yourself as a progressive via:

1. Employing ad hominem - a tactic used, in the main, by those who possess no substantive argument.
2. Seemingly ignoring the content of that which was presented for your consideration.
3. Failing to realize that your thread is 100% political and would naturally generate opposition.

Other than that, it is fine.

I would appreciate a logical, reasoned point-by-point response to my claims and opinions.

 

[billsherman]

Okay, but it seems to me that’s picking and choosing what’s doctrine and what isn’t.

True, but I’m talking about moral commands. Perhaps there’s a difference, I’m not sure. Wearing improper clothing doesn’t leave a person to suffer, though, so I’m less concerned about it.

According to God, however, taking care of immigrants is clearly one of his biggest (if not his biggest) priorities, based on how frequently the command is repeated. Far, far, far, more often than murder.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

I said you were wrong for implying that those who disagree with your understanding of what is commanded of us do so because we just don’t love God as much as you.

Really? What else could this mean: “We either care for them like our own, or we defy God.” (Post 52)

But, I’m simply quoting God’s repeated command to love the immigrant without exception. You are the one adding exceptions.

You are citing God, and then interpreting what you think the citation means, and given that it is the Church that has added exceptions ("to the extent they are able") it would seem your interpretation is inaccurate.

Since people in this thread causally dismiss the Church’s directive that we care for and treat immigrants with love, care, and respect, it seems a little odd to then appeal to that authority only when it suits your decision to side with worldly convenience rather than God’s commands, doesn’t it? Pick one, either the Church is morally correct in its judgements, or it isn’t.

To say countries may control their borders, but must also let everyone in are contradictory claims. They cannot both be true, but this is what your interpretation requires: accepting what cannot be. The church is correct in her doctrines. You are incorrect in how you understand them.

 

[Ender]

Uh…I’m for controls and regulations on immigration, as the CCC clearly allows for. I was referring to the people who are claiming that God commands us to have none. My position on the matter is quite similar to yours.

My apology. I’ll try to read more carefully next time.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Not at all. I realize it was a bit unclear as to who I was referring to.

Big Bill Watterson fan BTW!

 

[po18guy]

President Trump will be re-elected, and almost certainly by a wide margin - just like the effectively anti-Catholic Presidents Clinton and Obama.

The center-right sucked it up and kept on living and working. The progressive left has been crying out in pain since 2016 from the chafing caused by bunched up undergarments.

There are times when it is advantageous to “go commando.”

 

[billsherman]

To say countries may control their borders, but must also let everyone in are contradictory claims.

No they aren’t at all. Controlling borders does not need to apply to immigrants, we just choose to make it apply to immigrants. Immigration control is a purely modern invention of law. Codifying our nativism, and occasionally our racism, is what immigration law is for. Controlling our borders could simply mean to maintain territorial sovereignty vis-a-vis neighboring nations.

We have made the conscious decision to ignore God’s command to love and care for immigrants without exception, and then, to make ourselves feel better about it, we just keep repeating “God didn’t really mean what he said!”

 

[vz71]

God’s commands to care for the immigrant have no regard for American immigration law.

God’s Church recognizes the need to control who does or does not enter.
Is it your position that God’s Church is in error?

 

[vz71]

No, I’m not certain all of them qualify for asylum.

So you assume wrongdoing?
That seems rather uncharitable.
The only evidence you lay claim to is a numbers game. Perhaps you can examine these other 99% more closely and point out where exactly the wrongdoing is. At least then you won’t be assuming the worst of our border patrol.

Until then, you are being very uncharitable to assume sinfulness like that.