Pres Trump’s brutal, anti life refugee polices

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

So no you can’t expound?

But I did… Do you truly believe that these policies reflect that we are doing all that is possible to welcome the foreigner in search of security? I have no doubt that we aren’t and my opinion is that these policies are unnecessarily cruel and are instead being used a deterrent . Unfortunately. this impacts some of the most vulnerable disproportionately

then why don’t you advocate that people just walk into another country besides the US.

So let’s just open the borders and let everyone in!

I think these two comments are a distortion… personally, I haven’t encountered anyone of these so called ‘open borders’ advocates… Most people are interested in sensible laws and efficient systems… not close the door and only allow people from 'non-expletive hole ’ countries… That seems like a problem to me.

You still haven’t expounded on what is cruel and anti life. Is it just simply that we only let so few in? Is it certain practices? Is it trumps mean words?

I’d challenge you to go check out other countries immigration laws (including Mexico’s) and still think the US is cruel and anti life.

But it’s easier to stay ignorant and scream racism these days.

Always have to be upset about something

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not happening in the USA: people who show up and demand entry have zero intention of leaving.

You don’t know the mind of these people.

 

[pnewton]

I mean, show me the ambiguity there. God’s words are unambiguous.

I can, a little. What you are quoting is from Mosaic Law. While the principles remain the same, he did have specialized laws set down for the Israelites that only apply to that nation, and at that time. Take for example the first part:

" The same law applies both to the native-born and to the foreigner residing among you.”

This is reflected in the Golden Rule. Yet immigration, by its very nature cannot be applied equally. Those who aren’t immigrants do not fall under immigration law. It is a self-contradictory idea. However, the Golden Rule still applies. We should want laws that treat all immigrants, including unskilled labors, as we would want to be treated as an unskilled laborer in the same situation. I know that I would want to do all I could for my family, so I am sympathetic to the plight of these immigrants. But also, I would not mind the government taxing me somewhat, or monitoring me even more than other citizens. I would find that understanable.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I think these two comments are a distortion… personally, I haven’t encountered anyone of these so called ‘open borders’ advocates… Most people are interested in sensible laws and efficient systems… not close the door and only allow people from 'non-expletive hole ’ countries

First of all, there are many open-border people out there. They make up much of the liberal progressive Democratic party.

Second of all, the open border people do want completely open borders, no restrictions, and anyone who comes here can get tax credits back from our government and partake in our social programs without putting into it, among other things.

Third of all, you just stated what people like me believe. Our nation is a nation of laws that should be obeyed, with God-given rights to have solidarity, to be a sovereign nation, to allow legal immigration. We current have laws that were voted for through constitutional means, because we are a sovereign nation able to protect our solidarity by allowing immigration legally.

We just don’t want OPEN BORDERS.

What you again insinuate is that these “expletive” countries denial of immigrants is because we are bigots. It is not. We are allowed during reasonable prudence to say that restrictions on particular countries for a temporary period of time is allowable if conditions exist which may be present. Meaning, temporarily stopping immigration from countries which are harboring terrorists because they want to do harm to our citizens, our economy and our nation.

 

[Jen95]

JoeFreedom:

You can insinuate and infer things that just are not there.

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

I am not saying your are bigoted. However, if you make statements like that, there may be reasons some call you that.

Let me change your statement as a demonstration. “It’s funny how people who think blacks are safe still lock their doors at night for fear of crime.”

Statistically, immigrants are not more dangerous and do not increase the crime rate. That is fear-mongering propaganda. This sort of demonization has been used by other leaders before this president to make other hated groups seem evil. It is a shame to see so many believe it.

You are missing the point here – the nation’s borders are like the doors of a house. The folks who are soft on illegal immigration still lock their doors at night because they don’t practice what they preach. It doesn’t mean that they think immigrants are going to personally break into their house. Just as most people don’t leave their house doors unlocked, nor should we leave our country’s doors unlocked.
Get it?

 

[JoeFreedom]

I dare to say we folks who are against open borders are now racist against Chinese people. Heck, let’s bring the Coronavirus here. Such racists we are.

Okay, I’d like those who disagree with me/us rectify this with how open borders will work especially if they agree it’s a good idea to stop travel/immigration temporarily with China???

 

[po18guy]

Temporarily halting inbound flights from China is, in my best Michael Savage impression, “Insennnnsitive.”

Why, it’s only fair that a few of us elderly and immune compromised take one for the progressive team, huh?

 

[vz71]

You said it, not me.

Said what, precisely?

 

[vz71]

…as defined by the twisted standards of the Trump administration.

Since we are going to label them in inflammatory ways, perhaps you could list them.

Perhaps you would care to tell everyone what exactly is or is not ‘twisted’.

 

[JSAD]

Can we then take in everyone? Do we need borders then anymore?

 

[K9Buck]

Joseph, Mary and Jesus fled from genocide and, like ALL who flee from it, are welcomed to the U.S. As far as I can tell, few coming to America today fled genocide.

 

[JSAD]

Why would you make a long journey here with your family if you didnt want to stay for a while? That too crossing many other countries?

 

[godisgood77]

But it’s easier to stay ignorant and scream racism these days.

Always have to be upset about something

That’s a nice thought. Thanks Sooner.

Separating families is one rather brutal element of these polices in action.

The extensive delays… 8 months seems to common is a rather unnecessary element of these policies in action.

Ultimately, this is a humanitarian crisis which America is responding to with a no room at the in message. We have plenty enough sources to assist these people, it is an affront to Catholic morality to ignore that.

You seemingly joked about President Trump’s rhetoric, but that is actually real problem - vulgar, mean-spirited and often inaccurate statements by the leader of the most powerful nation on earth should not be tolerated… tough situation when the Pres says things that would get a child expelled from school. We can’t really allow our kids to listen to him speak because of that fact… pretty sad.

 

[godisgood77]

Can we then take in everyone? Do we need borders then anymore?

No… no one is even suggesting that. No need to take everyone, no need to have open borders.

My question back… Can we take in no one? Should we only take in those who have no need?

 

[pnewton]

The folks who are soft on illegal immigration still lock their doors at night because they don’t practice what they preach.

I see. I did miss that. It is such a poor analogy I did not even see it. Perhaps not ever answering one door might be a little bit better, but not much.

For the record, I do not turn away those in need. I would say that no one can say another does not practice what they preach on such scant reasoning. If one is welcoming to the immigrants in one’s own community, then such a person does practice what they preach. Adding in such things like home security does nothing by muddy waters.

 

[Ender]

We have plenty enough sources to assist these people, it is an affront to Catholic morality to ignore that.

If you accept that “resources”, and the impact of immigrants on the receiving population are valid concerns, then the argument is not about whether everyone should be admitted but about where to draw the line. Nor is there any claim that “more” is more moral than “less.” The disagreement is over where to shut off immigration, not whether it should be shut off at all. You may assert that we have plenty of resources, but there is no moral advantage to your claim against those who believe otherwise. You or “they” will have made a more accurate assessment, but there is no sin in holding either position.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Separating families is one rather brutal element of these polices in action.

Families can get separated when people break the law. When dad robs a bank or sells drugs, and gets caught, should we not separate families and just let him stay out of prison? We have a law that says you need to come here legally, not sneak across the border.

Because, you know, that’s what us evil, rule-of-law, conservatives rejoice in! Man, I can’t wait for those immigrants to come here and separate their families. That’s why we do it!!!

 

[pnewton]

First of all, there are many open-border people out there. They make up much of the liberal progressive Democratic party.

Conservative here. The last major immigration reform was done by Ronald Reagan.

Second of all, the open border people do want completely open borders, no restrictions, and anyone who comes here can get tax credits back from our government and partake in our social programs without putting into it, among other things.

Also, untrue. I do not know where you get your information.

Third of all, you just stated what people like me believe. Our nation is a nation of laws that should be obeyed, with God-given rights to have solidarity, to be a sovereign nation, to allow legal immigration. We current have laws that were voted for through constitutional means, because we are a sovereign nation able to protect our solidarity by allowing immigration legally.

Absolutely true, which is why some of us want immigration reform, and why voting for people who are very prejudicial and cold-hearted toward immigrants, and all in need, is not something we want to do. I would be quite happy to remove the social injustice from the immigration laws, and make everyone come in at the border. I even believe they should pay a tax to help defray costs of immigration. But you can’t do this without letting them come over legally. There are good solutions that are in line with Catholic teaching, if not with Trump rhetoric.

 

[YourNameHere]

I sometimes wonder if those seeking asylum were folks from Germany, France, or England, if President Trump would be so adamant about not allowing them into the country.

 

[graciew]

This is quite unlike today’s “refugees” who get free medical care, food stamps, WIC and other government assistance. As a nation that is deeply in debt, we simply cannot afford to take in every person or family unit that wants to come here.

So… we have to pass the money test.
Let us see if once and for all we call it as it is: economic interest at entry for admission. The other side of the coin. Show me your wallet and I ll give you a pass.
Look,I don’t mind whatever is reasonable. And a reasonable filter but if “ refugees” between inverted commas because you put it that way, go for the “ freebies”( and my stomach turns)only then the door is open for thick wallets only
Want it extremes? There you are. Paint it nasty. Let us foster some dialogue this way . Let’s exchange shoes