The importance of immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
We’ll give them food, liquids, and shelter while they are waiting to be deported back to their middle class existence in Mexico.

You should really study up on the UN requirements for refugee status, these are the people Mathew was referring to.
Click to expand...
First, it was Jesus, not Matthew, who spoke those words. Second, there is zero connection between what Jesus said and refugees, or the UN. The word Jesus used was “stranger.” Third, food and water was only the first two of five responses of charity.
 
Here is an interview on FOX and friends where the President says he will not sign a moderate compromise immigration bill, while earlier in the interview he blamed the Democrats and said they could change the law any day they wanted. (He had promised a few months ago he would sign any reform bill, btw) Surely his associatess have explained how the government works enough so he would know that these two things are contradictory. He cannot blame the Democrats for not changing immigration while at the same time saying he won’t sign the bill. Also, hasn’t anyone pointed out that the Congress right now is Republican, or that he is the president? He can decline to enforce sanctions on Russian, but feels he must enforce sanctions on children?


May the Holy Innocents pray for our calloused country and its leader.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
First, it was Jesus , not Matthew, who spoke those words. Second, there is zero connection between what Jesus said and refugees, or the UN. The word Jesus used was “stranger.” Third, food and water was only the first two of five responses of charity.
Click to expand...
What point were you making?
We provide both food and shelter to all flavors of ‘stranger’, both refugee and illegal immigrants
 
(sigh) Have you ever read Matthew 25? It does not say, “I was a stranger and you fed me.” I do not know how to explain it clear than Jesus, and it is His point, not mine.
 
pnewton said:
(sigh) Have you ever read Matthew 25? It does not say, “I was a stranger and you fed me.” I do not know how to explain it clear than Jesus, and it is His point, not mine.
Click to expand...
Right, we feed all strangers, why do you imply otherwise.
 
You asked why advocates for ??? Immigration are painted as wanting open borders. I found a response by a person who agrees with you that explained why others think that and pointed it out to you. This says nothing about what I think; I was just trying to answer your question.
 
Last edited:
Not my question, but I get your point. Except that without defining what is meant by “open borders” it is hard to say you are right. I don think anyone advocates for open borders. Welcoming illegal immigrants, say by letting them be legal, is not the same as an open border. It is quite the opposite.
 
pnewton said:
Welcoming illegal immigrants, say by letting them be legal, is not the same as an open border. It is quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Its certainly different, I don’t know about “opposite”. Welcoming Illegal Aliens puts a value on people’s ability to overstay their tourist or student visas or their ability to sneak across the frontier. An Open Border would put coyotes out of business, as people would just stroll across the border.
 
pnewton said:
Not my question, but I get your point. Except that without defining what is meant by “open borders” it is hard to say you are right. I don think anyone advocates for open borders. Welcoming illegal immigrants, say by letting them be legal, is not the same as an open border. It is quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
When I use the expression “open borders” for what the other side supports, I mean that they in effect support open borders because they don’t support enforcement of our immigration laws.

If you’re just going to look the other way and say “we won’t enforce the laws,” that means in effect that the border is open because we won’t try to stop you.
 
signit said:
When I use the expression “open borders” for what the other side supports, I mean that they in effect support open borders because they don’t support enforcement of our immigration laws.

If you’re just going to look the other way and say “we won’t enforce the laws,” that means in effect that the border is open because we won’t try to stop you.
Click to expand...
In such a definition, I would support open borders, in the same sense I support open driving on the road, meaning, it is a meaningless definition. More accurately, it is a definition that shows a lack of understanding of what law enforcement is, and how laws work.

But then, I never heard your definition before.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t say anything about a closed border. I do not think that has been suggested.
 
The only change from previous policy put forth by George W. Bush and Barack Obama is the new Trump policy that allows parents and children of those illegally immigrating to be separated at the border. This is what has caused the stir. Trump put this policy in place and Trump can take the policy away by merely make a phone call to Jeff Sessions.
 
You aren’t making sense.

They were always “allowed to be separated”
In fact the 9th District court made it mandatory when you were detaining the parent. That was back in 97.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top