The importance of immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
scarring them for life
Click to expand...
They are well taken care of.
If they were scarred for life, it was because their parents ripped them away from their home and extended family to work a loophole, and become economic migrants. It’s a hard road for them while their parents are moving from job to job as well.
 
Again, am I really on a Catholic website? I thought it pretty much a slam dunk that parents were accepted as better to raise children than the state. This whole “ripping them from their home” is blindly applying an American idea of “home” to situations in which we have no understanding. People do not take such journeys casually. These are not Guatemalan suburbanites that are abusing their kids to get more money.

No, they are Jesus, as he taught us. Those that dismiss these as deserving of their fate will answer for that as a sheep or a goat.
 
Technical question. How do I post an image from my computer into a thread post?
Naively I thought copy and paste would work but it doesn’t.
 
When you reply, there are several icons at the top of the box: the 3 for type (italoc, bold, underline) then some more. One looks like a rectangle with a circle in the upper left corner and a couple of triangles superimposed on each other, which is supposed to represent a picture. Try clicking on that and there ought to be an option to upload a picture from your computer.
 
About what? I have given a variety of possible avenues on a variety of immigration issues. I have answered the one about children three times already.
 
rfpapcun said:
Jesus was not partial to immigrants. Recall his curing of the ten lepers. Only the Samaritan came back to thank Him. And what did Jesus say, “Were not ten cured, but only this foreigner came back to give thanks.”

The Samaritans had been in Israel for hundreds of years, yet Jesus called the fellow a “foreigner.” Not exactly immigrant friendly.
Click to expand...
This is a ridiculous argument. Jesus referred the Samaritan as “foreigner” to draw attention to the shortcomings of the Israelites. It was not to denigrate the foreigners. It was to show the natives their need for conversion of hearts by showing that they fell short compared to people they felt superior to. If anything, in both the story of the ten lepers and the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus was saying that the foreigners were actually better than the native Israelites.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
pnewton:
scarring them for life
Click to expand...
They are well taken care of.
If they were scarred for life, it was because their parents ripped them away from their home and extended family to work a loophole, and become economic migrants. It’s a hard road for them while their parents are moving from job to job as well.
Click to expand...
I challenge you to authoritatively support the supposition that taking young children from their parents, even parents who have been forced to flee for their lives, is causing those children no additional psychological harm. There are authoritative sources that say it does harm them.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I challenge you to authoritatively support the supposition that taking young children from their parents, even parents who have been forced to flee for their lives, is causing those children no additional psychological harm. There are authoritative sources that say it does harm them.
Click to expand...
Our whole foster cares system operates under that premise,

Please refute our foster care system.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I challenge you to authoritatively support the supposition that taking young children from their parents, even parents who have been forced to flee for their lives, is causing those children no additional psychological harm. There are authoritative sources that say it does harm them.
Click to expand...
Our whole foster cares system operates under that premise,

Please refute our foster care system.
Click to expand...
The foster care system does not operate under that premise. The foster care system is the best substitute we can find when the parents are no longer providing the children the loving care they need. That is why we do not take children away from loving parents with no problems. It is only after the family bond has been broken by things like drug addiction and such that we fall back on the next best thing - the foster care system.

Your example does not do what I challenged you to do which was to prove authoritatively that taking young children from their parents (who are not drug addicts or anything of the sort and which still have a strong and working family bond of love and care) does the children no harm.

How about a statement from a child therapist? Or pediatrician? Or anyone qualified to assess the psychological health of children? Anything other than your ideological guess?
 
Now you are really playing with straw men.

CPS takes children away from their parents for a very wide range of reasons, most of which don’t indicate they are not loved by their parents.

Dragging your kid along on your crime is not a “get out of jail” free card.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Now you are really playing with straw men.

CPS takes children away from their parents for a very wide range of reasons, most of which don’t indicate they are not loved by their parents.
Click to expand...
Now that is a straw man, because I did not say that we should never take children away from parents who love them. I said we don’t take children away from parents who are no longer providing the children the loving care they need, or are loving parents with no problems. I was very careful to qualify my claim, and you are recasting it without those careful qualifications, therefore a straw man.
Dragging your kid along on your crime is not a “get out of jail” free card.
Click to expand...
And baby snatching is not the usual punishment for misdemeanors.
 
Theo520 said:
They are well taken care of.
Click to expand...
It is abandonment for a small child.
A synonym of being unloved.
I have extraordinary foster families around. And I say this in admiration,and in no way mean to put those families into question
This is pretty common knowledge. A child needs his/her parents and siblings first and foremost. And to see them,and keep in touch with their family.
And reuniting them whenever possible is what is looked for.
And no,Theo,not everything is a" loophole" for nothing.
. I know a few cases here were parents left everything behind in complicated crime and gang abundant environments,and came miles apart to a rural area to start again.
It would surprise you the normalcy with which some children tell how a father,or a brother or somebody in the neighbourhood has been killed.
In all fairness too,they have come.to areas with a chance of affordable housing and a job…here,in rural areas where I also move about. And they look for work,and keep their teens busy ,studying,working,and doing sports close by. Simple family life.

I do not have the source here right now,but I read that families from Honduras and Guatemala are also moving to Panama and ( if I am not mistaken,Costa Rica).
Not everyone is trying to work a loophole,but to survive and give their kids a decent life. Most are excluded. And children pay a very high , and unfair price.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
And baby snatching is not the usual punishment for misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
So you’re suggesting that housing children in holding facilities with parents is the solution?

How?

I don’t care that it’s a misdemeanor. Pointless argument (mostly because it’s still a Federal crime). When Sally Sue is arrested on a misdemeanor charge of possession, or a vehicular crime, and is incarcerated because she’s not released on her own recognizance or because she has poor representation, who cares for her kids?
 
Pup7 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
And baby snatching is not the usual punishment for misdemeanors.
Click to expand...
So you’re suggesting that housing children in holding facilities with parents is the solution?

How?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. That’s the President’s proposal. Let’s see how he handles it.
I don’t care that it’s a misdemeanor. Pointless argument (mostly because it’s still a Federal crime). When Sally Sue is arrested on a misdemeanor charge of possession, or a vehicular crime, and is incarcerated because she’s not released on her own recognizance or because she has poor representation, who cares for her kids?
Click to expand...
Probably relatives. And then only for a short time. Some of these parents have not seen their children for months, and some have already been deported without their children.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I said we don’t take children away from parents who are no longer providing the children the loving care they need, or are loving parents with no problems.
Click to expand...
Read this again, it makes no sense. I’m not clear on what you are now saying.

Personally, take the woman and child in the Time photo, I don’t think she was a loving parent for abandoning most of her kids with her husband, but at least they were safe and secure at home. Then she dragged one child across mexico and illegally over the border. A very dangerous and high risk journey. If they hadn’t been caught, she would have struggled further as she hunted around the US for illegal work, child in tow. That child seems far better off with HHS/CPS. Be honest, she used one child as her “get out of jail free” ticket - definitely not a loving parent. She never even told her husband she was leaving.
 
Theo520 said:
Personally, take the woman and child in the Time photo, I don’t think she was a loving parent for abandoning most of her kids with her husband, but at least they were safe and secure at home. Then she dragged one child across mexico and illegally over the border. A very dangerous and high risk journey. If they hadn’t been caught, she would have struggled further as she hunted around the US for illegal work, child in tow. That child seems far better off with HHS/CPS. Be honest, she used one child as her “get out of jail free” ticket - definitely not a loving parent. She never even told her husband she was leaving.
Click to expand...
Yeah that would never fly in the US if she lived on Maple Street…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top