Tancredo to pope: Stop promoting amnesty

  • Thread starter Thread starter pprimeau1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pprimeau1976

Guest
I think I can talk about Tom Tancredo now that he is not a candidate. Here is an article that described what he had to say about the pope’s views on immigration:

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61980

Some of the things that he said just made me cringe:
“I suspect the pope’s immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church,” he said. “This isn’t preaching, it is faith-based marketing.”
Click to expand...
Doesn’t he know that most of these immigrants are already Catholic? I thought the pope’s comments were well in line with the Christian message of loving thy neighbor (yes, even if they are an immigrant.)
 
While Tancredo is an idiot, amnesty is definitely the wrong way to go. If you want to immigrate, do it legally.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
I think I can talk about Tom Tancredo now that he is not a candidate. Here is an article that described what he had to say about the pope’s views on immigration:

wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61980

Some of the things that he said just made me cringe:

Doesn’t he know that most of these immigrants are already Catholic? I thought the pope’s comments were well in line with the Christian message of loving thy neighbor (yes, even if they are an immigrant.)
Click to expand...
*One of my children (when very young) would always say to other children when they were name calling or not being nice *"what you say is what you are :)." **
Evangelical Tom Tancredo’s "This isn’t preaching, it is faith-based marketing.
*"What you ***say is what you are :)"!
.
 
Dragoro said:
While Tancredo is an idiot, amnesty is definitely the wrong way to go. If you want to immigrate, do it legally.
Click to expand...
Here’s a pretty good article on the long wait for green cards.

I don’t blame them for immigrating illegally. If I were in their situation, I would immigrate illegally. Sure, I would be breaking the law, but people break laws all the time when the laws make no sense. i.e. going 70 mph when the sign says 65.

In reality, there should be a much more open process, like Ellis Island. Then people wouldn’t be tempted to illegally immigrate.
 
i am sure the Pontiff was holding his breath waiting for tancredo’s views on the matter, especially given that tancredo has decided to separate himself from the Church.🤷

it always seems like his issues have less to do with immigration and more to do with an axe to grind, given he tends to fall back on Catholic attacks as part of his “policy” promotion.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
Here’s a pretty good article on the long wait for green cards.

I don’t blame them for immigrating illegally. If I were in their situation, I would immigrate illegally. Sure, I would be breaking the law, but people break laws all the time when the laws make no sense. i.e. going 70 mph when the sign says 65.
Click to expand...
HeHe! That’s a great one. I gotta remember the speed limit challenge next time I debate with a Limbaugh/Hannity type on immigration.

Actually amnesty isn’t the best idea though. There should instead be a system where people who are currently here illegally can plead guilty, receive probation (and automatic pardon after a certain time frame) and a small fine and get on the track to citizenship. Such an approach would restore their dignity better than amensty. Here’s the way to do it
  1. Set the legal immigration quota for unskilled people from Mexico or South America at about 80% of today’s best estimate of the illegal immigration rate.
  2. Build the fence and fund the Border Patrol to stop futher illegal crossings.
  3. Fund the agencies adequately to process all the extra people in a timely manner.
  4. Establish a legal process to normalize those already here illegally, but that requires acknowledgement of the illegal entry and minor restitution.
  5. Vigorously enforce laws and deport violators who ignore #5 above.
The above would fairly allow sustainable immigration, preserve national security, restore respect for the law, and keep open the steady supply of immigrants vital to our economy.

Any catholic who hews to the knee jerk anti-immigration group ideas needs to google “Know-Nothing Party” to learn of their own hypocrasy.
 
Socio_Momma said:
i am sure the Pontiff was** holding his breath waiting for tancredo’s views on the matter**, especially given that tancredo has decided to separate himself from the Church.🤷

it always seems like his issues have less to do with immigration and more to do with an axe to grind, given he tends to fall back on Catholic attacks as part of his “policy” promotion.
Click to expand...
Based on his success in the primaries, even a majority of Republicans aren’t interested in hearing from Tancredo. Apparently, he didn’t get the memo.😛

I was personally in favor of the plan that President Bush backed, which was a comprehensive solution to the immigration issue. Sadly, no matter who is elected this go around, I don’t think compromise will be found.
 
I too supported the bill proposed last summer. I remember driving from Houston to San Diego, going through El Paso, I could clearly see the disparity on either side of the Rio Grande. I knew that if I was in Juarez and saw the wealth available in the US, I would definitely go for it, illegally if I had to.

The Pope is concerned with human dignity of all people. Rep. Tancredo is concerned about national security, preserving American identity and culture, and respect for the law. We as a nation must seek to protect Tancredo’s concerns without violating the Pope’s.

As for Tancredo saying the Pope should stop talking about amnesty, I suspect His Holiness would tell Mr. Tancredo that he needs to be more concerned with human dignity, even that of illegal immigrants.
 
Tancredo IS a Catholic.
Socio_Momma said:
i am sure the Pontiff was holding his breath waiting for tancredo’s views on the matter, especially given that tancredo has decided to separate himself from the Church.🤷

it always seems like his issues have less to do with immigration and more to do with an axe to grind, given he tends to fall back on Catholic attacks as part of his “policy” promotion.
Click to expand...
 
“I suspect the pope’s immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church,” he said. “This isn’t preaching, it is faith-based marketing.”

Since when is the Church’s commission to spread the gospel an activity distinct from the Church’s commission to bring people into the fold?
 
It seems to me that people see immigration issues as black and white: keep them out or be overrun with new citizens who need to be assimilated.

To me, the middle ground deserves some serious consideration: why not allow people permission to come and work with review or renewal of that permission at intervals of say, five years? If they’re not gainfully employed and staying out of trouble on review, repatriate them. Since people are attracted by the prospect of work, it seems logical to let them come as legal residents with permission to work and the obligation to pay taxes, maintain health insurance etc?

The achievement of citizenship can be deferred and we can continue to argue about how many, over what period etc…we’d simply be rid of the immediate problem of people working illegally and they’d have a chance to earn a living. To me it seems so simple, maybe I just don’t understand the complexities.
 
Semper_Fi said:
Tancredo IS a Catholic.
Click to expand...
he is Catholic by baptism & was raised Catholic, but he has choosen to separate himself from the Mother Church and no longer is a practicing Catholic. he is an Evangelical Presbyterian, he left the Church about 20 years ago. catholic.org/politics/bio.php?candidate=17

tancredo also has ties to some folks that are pretty anti-Catholic like Dr. John Tanton.

although i do pray he comes back home:crossrc:
 
I heard Michael Savage whining about this the other night as well. However, in the clip he played the pope didn’t say anything about illegal aliens - he just used the word immigrants. Being welcoming to immigrants should not be controversial. It’s only promoting illegal immigration, or a change in law to allow amnesty, that should be considered outside interference on the part of the pope or others.

Has anyone heard the pope say anything specifically promoting illegal immigration or amnesty?
 
Digitonomy said:
I heard Michael Savage whining about this the other night as well. However, in the clip he played the pope didn’t say anything about illegal aliens - he just used the word immigrants. Being welcoming to immigrants should not be controversial. It’s only promoting illegal immigration, or a change in law to allow amnesty, that should be considered outside interference on the part of the pope or others.

Has anyone heard the pope say anything specifically promoting illegal immigration or amnesty?
Click to expand...
Michael Savage whining?!?! Whatever do you mean ?!?!😛

You are right that the pope never mentioned illegal or legal immigration. The pope’s message regarding immigrants was essentially to be kind to them. Tancredo and Savage must think that all immigration is shameful and/or illegal. It’s amazing since Savage’s ancestors were immigrants.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
**Michael Savage whining?!?! Whatever do you mean ?!?!😛 **

You are right that the pope never mentioned illegal or legal immigration. The pope’s message regarding immigrants was essentially to be kind to them. Tancredo and Savage must think that all immigration is shameful and/or illegal. It’s amazing since Savage’s ancestors were immigrants.
Click to expand...
That’s what I was thinking…that never happens. :rolleyes: Did he also encourage people to “have more white babies?” He has in the past; it’s rather offensive. There are issues where I agree with Savage, but when it comes to these issues, he is not in line with Catholic teaching at all…not even close.
 
I have no comment to make about Tancredo or Savage. It really doesn’t matter what either say on the subject. I suspect both of them have good ideas and some not so good ideas.

What does interest me about the subject of immigration is based upon the difference between a Catholic Empire and a Secular State. Both the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were made up of people of all ethnic backgrounds. There were no secular nation states as we know them today and as long as their was a sense of loyalty to the Catholic faith there was little internal trouble, The image of Christendom is a glorious one and I pray that someday it will return, though it seems extremely unlikely now.

The secular nation state is a whole other ballgame. It calls for loyalty not to something eternal but to a set of ideals which have no basis in philosophy or theology. If wars are to be fought they are fought not for justice or truth but for whatever group can convince enough people that they are right. Thankfully the US has had some kind of appreciation for some general sense of religion. As they breaks down we see that Power is really the only firm foundation.

So, how does a secular nation state create and sustain borders? Since the nation is not based upon any eternal principles I dont see how it can. Why should it? Or why should it not? I have no idea. Illegal immigration is an unsolvable problem created by a secular nation state. I doubt that it will ever solve this problem.

CDL
 
seekerz said:
To me, the middle ground deserves some serious consideration: why not allow people permission to come and work with review or renewal of that permission at intervals of say, five years? If they’re not gainfully employed and staying out of trouble on review, repatriate them. Since people are attracted by the prospect of work, it seems logical to let them come as legal residents with permission to work and the obligation to pay taxes, maintain health insurance etc?

The achievement of citizenship can be deferred and we can continue to argue about how many, over what period etc…we’d simply be rid of the immediate problem of people working illegally and they’d have a chance to earn a living. To me it seems so simple, maybe I just don’t understand the complexities.
Click to expand...
I considered this and rejected it as the WORST of the three options. The long term effects would, IMO, result in the perpetuation of a virtual slave-class who has no hope for advancement and no hope for the next generation (still trapped in third world poverty).

The greatest trait of America is that in spite of the systematic exploitation of initial immigrants, their children always seem to move up and out of poverty. This is because the immigrants see the OPPORTUNITY of America in ways that we who were born here take for granted and usually overlook.

We’d be fools to shut down that massive engine of entrepenurial genius with a permanent guest worker program.
 
This is the American church and the Pope supporting again not 'rendering unto cesar". This will drive more catholics out of the US church. Like it has lost more members than any other church according to the Pew study.

being politically coorect. You wonder why the Pope allowed pro-aborts to receive communion? Think about it. he could have stopped it.

But, IMO it is the money from US catholics that is imprtant. Even Arroyo on Today in The World over admitted the scandal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top