Thousands protest immigration proposal

  • Thread starter Thread starter bones_IV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
rlg94086:
But, you are on a small island…I thought your stance was that there is not enough room for more immigrants. How do suppose the Home Office prevent illegal immigration? With harsh words - “Illegal Immigration - JUST DON’T DO IT!” 😉

btw…I have empathy for your political situation. I live in a very liberal part of California. Letters to my congresswoman (Anna Eshoo) or senators (Boxer, Feinstein) are probably crumpled up, burned, have acid poured on them , and then vacuumed.
Click to expand...
Thus my comment:

(of course this is to a sensible degree)

You see - I plan for every enventuality 😛

I too can envisage my MP (Graham Brady) jumping up and down on my letter whilst his secretary prepares the paper shredder… If only George Galloway my hero were my MP… not 😛 😃
 
40.png
estesbob:
By legal immigration I mean legal immigration. The majority of Americans are descended from legal immigrants. If that bothers you so be it.
Click to expand...
You can say it again, but that still doesn’t give it meaning. “Legal” immigration prior to the institution of quotas is essentially a meaningless term. California had the, “Anti-Coolie Act” but immigration policy was essentially a wide open door until the 1920’s when they banned Asians, lunatics, anarchists, or people carrying an infectious disease.

People didn’t immigrate here “legally,” they just came here; they just immigrated. There wasn’t even a process until the late 1800’/early 1900’s. Most of us are not the decendents of “legal” immigrants but the decendents of the “wretched refuse” coined on the Statue of Liberty. Did my great-grandparents immigrate here “legally?” I don’t even know what that means. My great-grandfather and his brothers could only get/afford one “passport” so they just kept sending it back to the old country for someone else to use. One guy essentially immigrated here four times. Is that “legal” immigration?
 
40.png
Dimmers:
Wow. So… Push them all down to the South… RIGHT. The brown skin people?

What about Irish, German, Italian, Russian, Greek, Polish, Hasidic Jews?

What about people from the continent of Africa, Dominicans, Cubans, Haitians, Chinese, Korean?
Click to expand...
It’s amazing. The amount of blatent “All the illegal immigrants should leave!” views.

Again, I will refer to the report on Irish news about several thousand Irish immigrants whose visas are about to expire, even though they’ve made a new life there. With friends, a good job etc… But no, this will kick them out. Treating them the same as criminals, those who snook into America, those who leech off America. And I’m surprised at the amount of ignorant Irish Americans who support deporting their Irish cousins, who, like their past generations, would like to stay and create a new life in America.

This bill is to get rid of those who are a burdon on American society, these people - How do these people, with an honest job, good friends etc… Put a burdon on American society?

Now, there was one case of an Irishman who has been living there for over fifteen years after his visa expired - The reason? He has absolutely nothing back here, again, friends, a job, children and so on in America.

Dimmer’s post, and the entire thing, reminds me of America rejecting Jewish immigrants during the 1930s and 40s, albeit, many countries did, including Ireland (The Jewish population in Ireland was at its height in 1945, with only just over 5,000 - It now stands at fewer than 2,000)
They whine about the quality of living in their country, yet do nothing to change it. They are responsible for their own fate, not us.
Click to expand...
Wow, lovely. I’d actually love to see what’d happen to you if you said that to one of them yourself. It shows that you know nothing the polititical, economic and militaristic situation in certain countries. Yes, why not tell… I don’t know, the Christian Sudanese to rise up against their government (Muslim)! So they can see a massive bloodbath… Yes. Great. Politically? Yes, how about a dictatorship! Let’s tell the whites of Zimbabwe to politically gain equality! Oh, wait. The opposition would only be massacred. Yes, that does tend to happen in dictatorships. Economically? Yes, that’s self evident, this is the primary reason for emigration, especially into America - Let’s tell the starving Irish of 1800s to turn around, back to a land with no food, no job, no political or religious freedom, with harsh anti-Irish martial law! (Wow, all examples in one, why didn’t I use that first? Ah, I’ll know for next itme.) - And, of course, this wasn’t gone into in any detail.

I’m not here to openly contest this bill in its entirety - Only to confront certain ignorance on behalf some of those who support it (Ie, “ignorance” is not used as an insult, it is used to describe those who support it, without knowing the full facts, or just putting everyone into one group - the “Big, bad, evil, poor, law breaking illegal immigrants, who shouldn’t come here, they should simply make life better for themselves!” (Yea, if life were only that simple…)
 
Everyone please note that Thekla supports returning all laws to the way it was in the 1920s…or the late 1800s. 😉

How is your argument relevant to today’s issues? This isn’t 1920. Controlled immigration is important to any economy. It wasn’t as important in the earlier years of the US.
40.png
Thekla:
You can say it again, but that still doesn’t give it meaning. “Legal” immigration prior to the institution of quotas is essentially a meaningless term. California had the, “Anti-Coolie Act” but immigration policy was essentially a wide open door until the 1920’s when they banned Asians, lunatics, anarchists, or people carrying an infectious disease.

People didn’t immigrate here “legally,” they just came here; they just immigrated. There wasn’t even a process until the late 1800’/early 1900’s. Most of us are not the decendents of “legal” immigrants but the decendents of the “wretched refuse” coined on the Statue of Liberty. Did my great-grandparents immigrate here “legally?” I don’t even know what that means. My great-grandfather and his brothers could only get/afford one “passport” so they just kept sending it back to the old country for someone else to use. One guy essentially immigrated here four times. Is that “legal” immigration?
Click to expand...
 
I’m not clear on what you are saying. Do think we should loosen up the immigration laws for people here legally on work visas? If so, that has absolutely nothing to do with the current bills in the House and Senate dealing with illegal immigration.
40.png
Zerith:
It’s amazing. The amount of blatent “All the illegal immigrants should leave!” views.

Again, I will refer to the report on Irish news about several thousand Irish immigrants whose visas are about to expire, even though they’ve made a new life there. With friends, a good job etc… But no, this will kick them out. Treating them the same as criminals, those who snook into America, those who leech off America. And I’m surprised at the amount of ignorant Irish Americans who support deporting their Irish cousins, who, like their past generations, would like to stay and create a new life in America.

This bill is to get rid of those who are a burdon on American society, these people - How do these people, with an honest job, good friends etc… Put a burdon on American society?

Now, there was one case of an Irishman who has been living there for over fifteen years after his visa expired - The reason? He has absolutely nothing back here, again, friends, a job, children and so on in America.

Dimmer’s post, and the entire thing, reminds me of America rejecting Jewish immigrants during the 1930s and 40s, albeit, many countries did, including Ireland (The Jewish population in Ireland was at its height in 1945, with only just over 5,000 - It now stands at fewer than 2,000)

Wow, lovely. I’d actually love to see what’d happen to you if you said that to one of them yourself. It shows that you know nothing the polititical, economic and militaristic situation in certain countries. Yes, why not tell… I don’t know, the Christian Sudanese to rise up against their government (Muslim)! So they can see a massive bloodbath… Yes. Great. Politically? Yes, how about a dictatorship! Let’s tell the whites of Zimbabwe to politically gain equality! Oh, wait. The opposition would only be massacred. Yes, that does tend to happen in dictatorships. Economically? Yes, that’s self evident, this is the primary reason for emigration, especially into America - Let’s tell the starving Irish of 1800s to turn around, back to a land with no food, no job, no political or religious freedom, with harsh anti-Irish martial law! (Wow, all examples in one, why didn’t I use that first? Ah, I’ll know for next itme.) - And, of course, this wasn’t gone into in any detail.

I’m not here to openly contest this bill in its entirety - Only to confront certain ignorance on behalf some of those who support it (Ie, “ignorance” is not used as an insult, it is used to describe those who support it, without knowing the full facts, or just putting everyone into one group - the “Big, bad, evil, poor, law breaking illegal immigrants, who shouldn’t come here, they should simply make life better for themselves!” (Yea, if life were only that simple…)
Click to expand...
 
I have not read all the posts, but I wanted to share if it has not already been done that several bishops have come together to oppose the proposed immigration bill. In fact, they have instructed catholics charity workers to defy the law should it be implemented and continue to provide assistant to illegal immigrants.

I was so proud to be catholic. :).

And just a few days ago the L.A. cardinal published an op-ed piece in the New York Times defending the church’s position to continue to provide assistance to illegal immigrants.

nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19swarns.html?ex=1300424400&en=731b4545d14fe859&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Kendy
 
Your link goes to a logon page, and the issue has been discussed on a separate thread.

Here’s an excerpt from an Archbishop’s (who should be a cardinal) article (from December) on immigration:
Immigration reform can be as complex as it is urgent. Good people can legitimately disagree and take very different approaches to the issue. Throwing open our borders and ignoring national security concerns is not the answer. No one can reasonably dispute that. We need to respect and obey the law. But we also need laws that are sensible, humane and just.
Click to expand...
archden.org/dcr/news.php?e=346&s=2&a=7252
Archbishop Chaput talks gives an invdividual’s case and discusses the need for keeping the needs of people in mind, but he also recognizes we are a country with laws.
40.png
Kendy:
Here’s the cardinal’s op-ed piece. I am so proud. I could cry :).

Kendy

nytimes.com/2006/03/22/opinion/22mahony.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Kendy:
I have not read all the posts, but I wanted to share if it has not already been done that several bishops have come together to oppose the proposed immigration bill. In fact, they have instructed catholics charity workers to defy the law should it be implemented and continue to provide assistant to illegal immigrants.

I was so proud to be catholic. :).

And just a few days ago the L.A. cardinal published an op-ed piece in the New York Times defending the church’s position to continue to provide assistance to illegal immigrants.

nytimes.com/2006/03/19/weekinreview/19swarns.html?ex=1300424400&en=731b4545d14fe859&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Kendy
Click to expand...
As is abundantly clear by anyone closely following the issue none of the laws suggested would penalize a church (or anyone else) for providing social services to illegal immigrants. The laws proposed are aimed at employers and those who profit in bringing illegals over the borders. And the only real change from current laws are to make the offense criminal rather than civil. Of course to understand this one would have actually read the current law and the proposed law rather than depending on Hillary Clinton and ill-informed bishop to tell you what the law says.

Too bad Mahony couldn’t been as outspoken about abortion and homosexual marriage in the last few elections. He is very selective in what political issues he wants to get involved .
 
40.png
estesbob:
Thankfully the Pope wisely decided not to make Mahoney a Cardinal. I’ll save my tears of pride for when the New York Time allows a Cardinal to write about abortion on their editorial page.
Click to expand...
Our faith is comprised of more than opposing gay marriage and abortion (although that’s very important). What makes me proud is that the church is neither beholden to the democratic or republican party’s platform. This is an important matter of justice, and justice and charity demands that we reject xenophobia.

Kendy
 
40.png
Thekla:
You can say it again, but that still doesn’t give it meaning. “Legal” immigration prior to the institution of quotas is essentially a meaningless term. California had the, “Anti-Coolie Act” but immigration policy was essentially a wide open door until the 1920’s when they banned Asians, lunatics, anarchists, or people carrying an infectious disease.

People didn’t immigrate here “legally,” they just came here; they just immigrated. There wasn’t even a process until the late 1800’/early 1900’s. Most of us are not the decendents of “legal” immigrants but the decendents of the “wretched refuse” coined on the Statue of Liberty.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
40.png
estesbob:
As is abundantly clear by anyone closely following the issue none of the laws suggested would penalize a church (or anyone else) for providing social services to illegal immigrants. The laws proposed are aimed at employers and those who profit in bringing illegals over the borders. And the only real change from current laws are to make the offense criminal rather than civil. Of course to understand this one would have actually read the current law and the proposed law rather than depending on Hillary Clinton and ill-informed bishop to tell you what the law says.

Too bad Mahony couldn’t been as outspoken about abortion and homosexual marriage in the last few elections. He is very selective in what political issues he wants to get involved .
Click to expand...
I usually read the ill-informed New York Times. 😉

Kendy

P.S. It doesn’t seem to be that conservatives are any less selective than liberals. You would think that Jesus came to Earth solely to end gay marriage and abortion.
 
You and others assume that those of us who are against illegal immigration are xenophobic. Besides being rude, it is also uncharitable. The key word is illegal, but apparently that word means nothing to some people.
40.png
Kendy:
Our faith is comprised of more than opposing gay marriage and abortion (although that’s very important). What makes me proud is that the church is neither beholden to the democratic or republican party’s platform. This is an important matter of justice, and justice and charity demands that we reject xenophobia.

Kendy
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Geldain:
Evidence?
Click to expand...
The first law governning naturalization in the United States was in 1795, and it granted citizenship to any white person who lived in the United States for five or more years.

In 1862, California passed the Anti-Coolie Act which restricted Asian immigration. This was followed by the national 1882 Chinese exclusion Act.

So, for most of America’s history, anyone who was white could from here and participate in taking lands from Native Americans.

Kendy
 
40.png
Kendy:
I usually read the ill-informed New York Times. 😉

Kendy

P.S. It doesn’t seem to be that conservatives are any less selective than liberals. You would think that Jesus came to Earth solely to end gay marriage and abortion.
Click to expand...
Can you point to me the applicable paragraphs of the catechism of the Catholic Church that states that a country should have open borders? Can you give me example where any social agency has be been punished for assisting an illegal alien even though it is illegal under current law ?
 
40.png
rlg94086:
You and others assume that those of us who are against illegal immigration are xenophobic. Besides being rude, it is also uncharitable. The key word is illegal, but apparently that word means nothing to some people.
Click to expand...
Of course, illegal means something. It means that a group having agreed on a particular set of laws. It may or may not be just. Many laws are just. Some are not, like Roe vs. Wade. So, the fact that there is a law in books does not mean the issue of justice is closed.

I cannot in good conscience say someone fleeing persecution or hunger that it is more important to obey the law. I especially have a hard time doing this considering the history of migration in this country.

Kendy
 
I believe we should follow the Catechism of the Catholic Church, not the Catechism of Kendy’s good conscience. We are supposed to obey man’s laws and **surpass **them according to 2240. This means that despite Row v Wade (which is not a law by the way…it’s a ruling of the courts), we are not to have abortions.

2241 spells out the rights of political authorities to make immigration subject to conditions, and it mentions the immigrant’s duties.

God bless,

Robert
**2240 **Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it. The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, “that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way.”

**2241 **The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the *foreigner *in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Click to expand...
40.png
Kendy:
Of course, illegal means something. It means that a group having agreed on a particular set of laws. It may or may not be just. Many laws are just. Some are not, like Roe vs. Wade. So, the fact that there is a law in books does not mean the issue of justice is closed.

I cannot in good conscience say someone fleeing persecution or hunger that it is more important to obey the law. I especially have a hard time doing this considering the history of migration in this country.

Kendy
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top