Tancredo to pope: Stop promoting amnesty

[Lurch104]

How many immigrants does the Vaticn state allow each year? I would love to live there, I guess I should just show up and expect to be allowed to live there with dignity without permission. I don’t speak Italian, but It would be unjust for them to not serve me in my native language. I wonder what the health and welfare benefits are like?

Does this sound silly? Please explain the difference than what some people want from the U.S. I do think all people should be treated with dignity. The bible warns us to remember that we were once immigrants. However, it also warns that guest should obey the rules of their host.

 

[Gertabelle]

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.

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.

Interesting that another poster referred to “rendering unto Caesar” – like the early apostles were all martyred for following the laws of their time.

I agree that borders are man’s creation. As the world gets smaller and more interconnected, the actions of every government affects people all over the globe. It might make us feel better about our wealth if we could just pretend that what’s going on with our brothers and sisters in Christ outside of the US is their business, not ours. But that just ain’t the case.

I also agree that a solution to the border issues that is not founded on Christian repsect for the dignity of each person will just never work. All those who say the law should be held higher than a man’s need to support his family is putting human law ahead of God’s law. These people are not in our county illegally because they want more cable channels. It is a matter of feeding and clothing their families.

Personally, if I’m going to err, it will be on the side of compassion, mercy, and love in action.

Just my two cents.

Gertie

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i like tancredo. but he and people like savage misinterpret what B16 said. he just said

I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today…

he doesn’t say undocumented/illegal immigrants. not that illegals aren’t included, but he’s making a distinction.

jp2, ecclesia in america; In its history, America has experienced many immigrations, as waves of men and women came to its various regions in the hope of a better future. The phenomenon continues even today, especially with many people and families from Latin American countries who have moved to the northern parts of the continent, to the point where in some cases they constitute a substantial part of the population.

“the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non-legal immigration”. …

again, the distinction is made between illegal and legal.

pacem in terris blessed john xxiii: Now, among the rights of a human person there must be included that by which a man may enter a political community where he hopes he can more fittingly provide a future for himself and his dependents. Wherefore, as far as the common good rightly understood permits, it is the duty of that State to accept such immigrants and to help to integrate them into itself as new members.

the pope is clear that immigration is dependent not only on the good for the person, but also the common good. so the state may limit or regulate immigration when the common good permits. obviously, many americans feel that illegal immigration is not benefiting the common good.

B16 said to a reporter on his trip to the u.s. “The separation of families “is truly dangerous for the social, moral and human fabric” of Latin and Central American families, the pope told reporters aboard his plane. “The fundamental solution is that there should no longer be a need to emigrate, that there are enough jobs in the homeland, a sufficient social fabric,” he said. Short of that, families should be protected, not destroyed, he said. “As much as it can be done it should be done,” the pontiff said.”

B16 indicates here that corruption in mexico is to blame and ideally, mexicans should stay in mexico. but we should try to keep families of illegal immigrants together when enforcing the law.

my point here is no where does the church say that state doesn’t have the right to control and limit immigration for just reasons, as many a poster on these forums seems to think.

 

[rlg94086]

again, the distinction is made between illegal and legal.

It’s kind of funny for you to use this quote as your example of a distinction being made:

jp2, ecclesia in america; In its history, America has experienced many immigrations, as waves of men and women came to its various regions in the hope of a better future. The phenomenon continues even today, especially with many people and families from Latin American countries who have moved to the northern parts of the continent, to the point where in some cases they constitute a substantial part of the population.

“the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another.** Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of** non-legal immigration”. …

I extended the bolding to point out that the Holy Father was discussing the importance of the rights of migrants and respect for their human dignity. Since he said “even in cases of non-legal immigration,” he was challenging people such as yourself who want to cut off all assistance to illegal immigrants.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Since he said “even in cases of non-legal immigration,” he was challenging people such as yourself who want to cut off all assistance to illegal immigrants.

i’m opposed to illegal immigration that comes across the border to pop out babies with intent on having the u.s. government float the entire bill. that is wrong–they should pay their fair part.

i support emergency care for all people.

 

[rlg94086]

i’m opposed to illegal immigration that comes across the border to pop out babies with intent on having the u.s. government float the entire bill. that is wrong–they should pay their fair part.

i support emergency care for all people.

Great! How about education, a path to legalization, etc.?

 

[consumedconvert]

How many immigrants does the Vaticn state allow each year? I would love to live there, I guess I should just show up and expect to be allowed to live there with dignity without permission. I don’t speak Italian, but It would be unjust for them to not serve me in my native language. I wonder what the health and welfare benefits are like?

Does this sound silly? ** Please explain the difference than what some people want from the U.S. ** I do think all people should be treated with dignity. The bible warns us to remember that we were once immigrants. However, it also warns that guest should obey the rules of their host.

Are you serious? The difference? Try, 9,826,600 km2, give or take a few? Really, where would the immigrants live, in the Papal bathroom?

As for what the Vatican can do, it can have open borders to allow whoever wants to come there to view its ancient treasures to enter in droves. The place would be massively crowded.

Oh wait, it does that…

 

[consumedconvert]

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.

:clapping:

An observation:

1. You’ll never convince me that “deport them all” is actually even a viable option–not because of the massive money, manpower, and violence it would cause, but because I don’t think the average American is going to tolerate watching his neighbors being “rounded up” on buses by the hundreds, seperated from their children, to be send south. Try picturing the scene–I pray to God we won’t see it one night on FoxNews.
2. I, for one, would love my homeland to be inundated with Mexicans if they promised to bring the faith of their Fathers with them. The Church in the US is increasingly hispanic. Have we historically Catholic Americans, the children of Irish, Bavarian, Polish, and Lithuanian imigrants, abandoned the faith? Then I would welcome our brothers in Mexico to fill in the gap.

 

[consumedconvert]

Are you serious? The difference? Try, 9,826,600 km2, give or take a few? Really, where would the immigrants live, in the Papal bathroom?

As for what the Vatican can do, it can have open borders to allow whoever wants to come there to view its ancient treasures to enter in droves. The place would be massively crowded.

Oh wait, it does that…

Oh yeah, it can also allow the Missionaries of Charity to set up a mission for the homeless within the Vatican’s walls. Oh wait, it does that too…

 

[Woodleigh]

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

Tom Tancredo’s religious beliefs have no baring on his defense of U.S. law. He didn’t write the law; he rightly insists we enforce it, and many other Americans want that, also. Regarding finances alone, our governments (federal and state) have no legal right to use U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care, education, incarceration of criminal aliens, etc. for those who infiltrate our country illegally.

For those who are willing to welcome all illegal aliens into the U.S.,a fairer solution would be for them to work for a change in, for example, the Mexican government. Another idea would be for them to set up a large charity among themselves which will pay all expenses incurred by illegal aliens in our country.

FAIR estimates the annual fiscal burden on Iowa taxpayers from illegal immigration is at least $241 million. And that’s just one state.

 

[Socio_Momma]

Tom Tancredo’s religious beliefs have no baring on his defense of U.S. law. He didn’t write the law; he rightly insists we enforce it, and many other Americans want that, also. Regarding finances alone, our governments (federal and state) have no legal right to use U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care, education, incarceration of criminal aliens, etc. for those who infiltrate our country illegally.

For those who are willing to welcome all illegal aliens into the U.S.,a fairer solution would be for them to work for a change in, for example, the Mexican government. Another idea would be for them to set up a large charity among themselves which will pay all expenses incurred by illegal aliens in our country.

FAIR estimates the annual fiscal burden on Iowa taxpayers from illegal immigration is at least $241 million. And that’s just one state.

The underlying religious bigotry does matter given the nature of the OP which was Tancredo’s insistance that the Catholic Church is only supportive of all immigrants human dignity (not violation of the law–btw) in order to raise the numbers of parishioners. It smacks of the old time anti-Catholicism raising its head IMO.

FAIR is also one of Dr. Tanton’s organizations.

 

[fpawlak]

“I’m not taking issue with the pope’s moral authority,” Tancredo said. “I respect his views on the threats of Islam and the sanctity of human life, but I don’t think it’s in his job description to engage in American political activity.”

Right on target!!!

Do we need more immigrants? For what and not in the numbers and for reasons that we are getting them. Most are illegal.

The definition of illegal means a criminal act either minor or major. Thus by illegal immigrants is meant someone that ought to be put in jail or sent back from whence they came.

Viva more and stranger measures to stop this unwanted tide. We need to secure out borders for a number of reasons. Mostly national security. An that illegals can be viewed as threats to national security. To whit, there violence, criminal activity, and drugs. Not to mention lack of means to get medical care at levels that I as a citizen can not get.

 

[seekerz]

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.

How could people remain poor if they are allowed access to gainful employment (i.e. to get the same wages and benefits as citizens)?

I know many people who are legal residents (not citizens) who are not only well off but supporting relatives back in their home countries.

Not all illegal immigrants are unskilled workers and some would actually qualify for better jobs than they now hold. Some work two or three jobs to get their kids through college, others avail themselves of education and training opportunities.

The only thing shackling these people to permanent servitude is lack of a piece of paper - why not grant it? The citizenship question can be settled later…

 

[Swan]

Interesting that another poster referred to “rendering unto Caesar” – like the early apostles were all martyred for following the laws of their time.

I agree that borders are man’s creation. As the world gets smaller and more interconnected, the actions of every government affects people all over the globe. It might make us feel better about our wealth if we could just pretend that what’s going on with our brothers and sisters in Christ outside of the US is their business, not ours. But that just ain’t the case.

I also agree that a solution to the border issues that is not founded on Christian repsect for the dignity of each person will just never work. All those who say the law should be held higher than a man’s need to support his family is putting human law ahead of God’s law. These people are not in our county illegally because they want more cable channels. It is a matter of feeding and clothing their families.

Personally, if I’m going to err, it will be on the side of compassion, mercy, and love in action.

Just my two cents.

Gertie

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Socio_Momma;3594660:

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

FAIR estimates the annual fiscal burden on Iowa taxpayers from illegal immigration is at least $241 million. And that’s just one state.

Wow. Socio_Momma was just speaking of Tanton then you go and reference FAIR, one of 13 Anti-Immigrant organisations founded by Eugenicist, Zero Population Growth, John Tanton that has has long been marked by anti-Latino and anti-Catholic attitudes?

Tom Tancredo’s religious beliefs have no baring on his defense of U.S. law. He didn’t write the law; he rightly insists we enforce it, and many other Americans want that, also. Regarding finances alone, our governments (federal and state) have no legal right to use U.S. taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care, education, incarceration of criminal aliens, etc. for those who infiltrate our country illegally.:

On the one hand you say it’s right to enforce the law then turn right around and show either disrespect or ignorance for the government & laws by saying “our governments have no legal right to US taxpayer dollars to provide healthcare, education, and incarceration…”?

Ever heard of the legislative branch of government?

 

[AdvanceAlways]

I have a deep amount of respect for Tom Tancredo however this comment was not really necessary. Tancredo is however not Catholic and is entitled to his opinions. I personally do have some issues with some church positions on immigration because Jesus said to follow the law and I feel that some in the church (NOT the Pope!) are discouraging law breaking.

With that said, Rep. Tancredo really needs to think about who he chooses to call out in his speeches. My respect for the Pope is obviously 1,000,000 X greater than Tom Tancredo.

 

[rien]

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.)

You want to know something, the radically conervative New Oxford Review defends the illegal immigration line. And is proof of what Tancredo is saying.

In its latest issue (May 2008) the NOR confirms what you certainly should suspect. Catholic support for illegal immigration in the US is all about salvaging a collapsing church. Among other things. I think open borders/new world order is a factor also.

In an article lamenting the collapse of Catholicsm in the US based on results from the Pew report NOR quotes the precipitous decline in native born American Catholics is “pciked” up by the huge immigration of largely Hispanics to the US.

Confirming Tancredo - and is this all a game. The NOR, liberal
Catholics all pushing sort of a one -world and open borders. Paving the way for an anti-Christ?! Pray on that.

But back to the point. NOR says this and I quote:

“This ought to give pause for thought to those who would restrict the immigration of Catholic Latin Americans”.

Say what? So illegal immigration is good as long as most of the immigrants are catholic? What would the NOR say if most were Muslim. The NOR basically affirms the suspicions of Tancredo.

I found their pro-illegal immigration article - damning those of us who have problems with the gangs and the destruction of lower class entry jobs by this immigration - outrageous.

I have never before canceled a magazine subscription over one editorial/artile. I have canceled NOR over this.

Tancredo is right. The Pope and the church and even supposed orhtodox Catholics like the NOR and Pacwa - he defends illegal immigration - its a sham.

They and the church seems more about building a new world secular order. Cause let’s be honest, the illegal immigrants are not making America any more Christian/religious. Look at the single mother statitics, abortions, crime and such.

My high fives to Tancredo. He gets what is going on here. Confirmed in the giving of communion to those who strongly support abortion at the Pope’s Mass. That issue is not a priorotiy of the bishops or the Pope it seems. I think folks don’t realize the scandal this has caused. To non-catholics it surely is a sign they don’t really beleive in the real presence or the words of Paul. No other way you can dice it. Though up till this week EWTN and other supposedly orthodox sources tried to minimize this. Thank God for Novak a convert, to ask the obvious.

I’ve said before, IMO they really don’t believe. If they did they would be in fear for their souls given the Pope’s communion scandal. They aren’t.

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve said before, IMO** they really don’t believe**. If they did they would be in fear for their souls given the Pope’s communion scandal. They aren’t.

Can you clarify the bolded section above? Who are “they” and what don’t they believe?

 

[rien]

Can you clarify the bolded section above? Who are “they” and what don’t they believe?

Many bishops, most priests. In the US. That certainly is what I get reading the catholic news in the US. Perhaps the Pope himself. He could have stopped communion to obviously public officials who were receiving “unto damnation” per Paul. He didn’t he? Doesn’t that put his soul in jeopardy? More importantly the souls of many catholics who see an affirmation of the general practice in the US of open communion.

Sadly, there is not even unity in faith/practice in a Papl Mass. I don’t think some realize what a scandal this is. EWTN had to cobble together a special yesterday after Novak challenged the bishops, Pope and church on what went on.

Like I said to someone else - the supposed unity under the Peter’s succesors is simply not there. That is my opinion.

 

[rlg94086]

Many bishops, most priests. In the US. That certainly is what I get reading the catholic news in the US. Perhaps the Pope himself. He could have stopped communion to obviously public officials who were receiving “unto damnation” per Paul. He didn’t he? Doesn’t that put his soul in jeopardy? More importantly the souls of many catholics who see an affirmation of the general practice in the US of open communion.

Sadly, there is not even unity in faith/practice in a Papl Mass. I don’t think some realize what a scandal this is. EWTN had to cobble together a special yesterday after Novak challenged the bishops, Pope and church on what went on.

Like I said to someone else - the supposed unity under the Peter’s succesors is simply not there. That is my opinion.

Well, your opinion is rather uncharitable. It is one thing to say someone is in error, but to say that many bishops in priests don’t believe (you didn’t say in what, so I will assume) in God and the teachings of Jesus Christ is flat out wrong (and against forum rules).