Torn on This Issue

[Ituyu]

Sure the fence is a good idea.

The USCCB and some others claim the fence will increase the dangers and risks to those attempting to enter the US illegally. That is true and that is one of the intentions and purposes of the fence. In their flawed and distorted perspective such people view this as a negative.

On the contrary, it is very positive. Increasing the difficulty, increasing the danger and increasing the risks of illegal immigration are a valid and reasonable ways to deter and discourage potential illegal immigrants.

Another example is that in addition to the laws banks have armed guards, vaults, alarms and other security systems to deter and discourage violations of the bank by making violations more difficult, more dangerous and far riskier. There is a real danger and risk of harm and even death to those who try. Such efforts work pretty well. Most of us do not try to rob banks.

As some percentage if potential illegal immigrants think twice about the situation and chose not to attempt to enter the US illegally the fence will do its job and be a worthwhile investment. I hope it will be a large percentage and I hope those people will successfully refocus their efforts to law-abiding and productive objectives.

Neither the US, nor any other country, has any legal or moral obligation to make it easy and safe for people to violate our laws and engage in unlawful behavior. Again on the contrary, it is just and appropriate for the US, and other countries, to take steps to deter and discourage unlawful behavior in the best interests of the common good.

For those who choose to proceed with unlawful behavior in spite of the new dangers and risks that is their personal choice. They choose to place themselves in peril. If they suffer harm or even death that is the result of their choices and they are solely responsible for the consequences. Their fate is not the fault of the fence, the US government or anything or anyone else.

This fence is nothing more than a canard for attacking a whole group of people that has nothing to do our National Security.

Tell what is the purpose that you have for reducing “illegal” immigration and how it will serve the “Common Good”. The fence is in “inferior” idea to a “Legalization” process that will allow for law-abiding harmless people to come out of the shadows and it will allow us to screen and weed out those we don’t want. A “Legalization” process will stop the flow of “illegal” immigration more effectively and humanely than a stupid fence that does not work. A “Legalization” process will be paid for by the applicants themselves and will cost nothing compared to the wasted resources on a fence. And, before you go off on yet another tangent please remember that the “Common Good” is not defined as only that which is perceived to be good of “us”. It includes them and us. To depict these people as “criminals” as a group when the vast majority under any measure previously used by our government would qualify them for “Legal” status is an INJUSTICE! Really it seems that you’re blaming the Church, our Popes, the Bishops, the poor, those that are different from us and, by extension, Jesus for what you perceive are the problems. Sorry, but I can’t help but feel that your posts are all against a “people” (you use a double standard to criminalize them) and will not solve our problems

buildingdemocracy.org/shellgames.pdf

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-border1oct01,1,6518275.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74

Mathew 25: 31-45

 

[Fremont]

This fence is nothing more than a canard for attacking a whole group of people that has nothing to do our National Security.

Tell what is the purpose that you have for reducing “illegal” immigration and how it will serve the “Common Good”. The fence is in “inferior” idea to a “Legalization” process that will allow for law-abiding harmless people to come out of the shadows and it will allow us to screen and weed out those we don’t want. A “Legalization” process will stop the flow of “illegal” immigration more effectively and humanely than a stupid fence that does not work. A “Legalization” process will be paid for by the applicants themselves and will cost nothing compared to the wasted resources on a fence. And, before you go off on yet another tangent please remember that the “Common Good” is not defined as only that which is perceived to be good of “us”. It includes them and us. To depict these people as “criminals” as a group when the vast majority under any measure previously used by our government would qualify them for “Legal” status is an INJUSTICE! Really it seems that you’re blaming the Church, our Popes, the Bishops, the poor, those that are different from us and, by extension, Jesus for what you perceive are the problems. Sorry, but I can’t help but feel that your posts are all against a “people” (you use a double standard to criminalize them) and will not solve our problems

buildingdemocracy.org/shellgames.pdf

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-border1oct01,1,6518275.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74

Mathew 25: 31-45

Oh contraire.

Establishment of deterrents to discourage those who intend to violate our laws is prudent, just and reasonable action for any government to take.

Violation of federal laws and unlawful behavior is not in the common good no matter what else the violators might plan to do. Any government has the right, even the obligation, to take action to discourage and strive to prevent unlawful behavior by anyone.

No one is blaming anyone for anything. Taking practical steps to develop a system of deterrents to discourage violation of laws is not a matter of blame; it is legitimate and just actions by our government.

Legalization is definitely contraindicated. That is the worst thing we could do. It would be a disaster for our nation – as was proved by the similar effort in the 1980’s. I hope the powers that be learned the lesson from that debacle.

It would also be a major injustice to the millions of legal immigrants living in the US and arriving every year.

 

[Ituyu]

Establishment of deterrents to discourage those who intend to violate our laws is prudent, just and reasonable action for any government to take.

When the laws are themselves prudent and serve the interests of its citizens that would be correct. But, the law is made to serve us, not the other way around

I ask you again for the nth time what is the purpose of the law? What do you think we accomplish through it?

Violation of federal laws and unlawful behavior is not in the common good no matter what else the violators might plan to do. Any government has the right, even the obligation, to take action to discourage and strive to prevent unlawful behavior by anyone.

When the laws make sense and serve a purpose. These laws have already been shown to have failed. We have 11 million of the “illegal” that are now our neighbors, an integral part of our social fabric. They are a part of us. When the law is arbitrary and unfair, it is nonsense to insist their enforcement because the law cannot be said to serve the public interests. In this case, we have people who fill much-needed jobs and who are in the vast majority law-abiding individuals whose presence serves to promote growth and economic well-being. And, also it enables us to have the necessary numbers to defend our military interests.

No one is blaming anyone for anything. Taking practical steps to develop a system of deterrents to discourage violation of laws is not a matter of blame; it is legitimate and just actions by our government.

Practical??? Blaming people as the cause of our social problems serves no practical purpose especially when it has been demonstrated that their presence is a net benefit to us. A fence that will ruin the environment and hurts our business and friendly relations with Mexico is not practical. To stop the flow of much needed labor is not practical. To harm our economy and weaken our infrastructure is not practical. To waste resources, billions and billions of dollars, on something that will not work and cost the lives of many of the desperate indigenous poor IS NOT PRACTICAL.

CONT’D

 

[Ituyu]

Legalization is definitely contraindicated. That is the worst thing we could do. It would be a disaster for our nation – as was proved by the similar effort in the 1980’s. I hope the powers that be learned the lesson from that debacle.

Contraindicated??? How so? The Legalization program of 1986 allowed millions of people to become vested in our community. It has fostered much economic growth and strengthened our infrastructure. These people are more upwardly mobile than our own citizens at the entry level. As they succeed they create still more jobs and add more revenues to the Treasury, the more they make, the more they spend and the more taxes they pay.

It would also be a major injustice to the millions of legal immigrants living in the US and arriving every year

This is a mantra that those that are bent on an anti-immigrant agenda love to use. But what does it mean? How is anyone harmed when an “Injustice” is corrected? The “illegal” had the door of “Legal” immigration shut on them arbitrarily. They should have been afforded the opportunity to come here “Legally” but because we miscalculated our labor needs, we said “no”. That was a true "Injustice. Fortunately, the “Illegal” fulfilled the intent of the law by providing us with the necessary labor force to fill our jobs at great expense and danger to themselves. That benefited every body, including recent “legal” arrivals. So, Fremont, “legal” arrivals in fact suffer no “injustice” or harm.

 

[Ituyu]

Legalization is definitely contraindicated. That is the worst thing we could do. It would be a disaster for our nation – as was proved by the similar effort in the 1980’s. I hope the powers that be learned the lesson from that debacle.

Contraindicated??? How so? The Legalization program of 1986 allowed millions of people to become vested in our community. It has fostered much economic growth and atrengthened our infrastructure. These people are upwardly mobile. As they succeed they create still more jobs and add more revenues to the Treasury, the more they make, the more they spend and the more they spend and the more tax revenues are generated.

It would also be a major injustice to the millions of legal immigrants living in the US and arriving every year

This is a mantra that those that are bent on an anti-immigrant agenda love to use. but what does it mean? How is anyone harmed when an “Injustice” is corrected? The “illegal” had the door of “Legal” immigration shut on them arbitrarily. The should have been afforded the opportunity to come here “Legally” but because we miscalculated our labor needs, we said “no”. That was a true “Injustice”. Fortunately, the “illegal” fulfilled the intent of the law by providing us with the necessary labor force to fill our jobs at great expense and danger to themselves. that benefited every body, including recent “legal” arrivals. So, Fremont, “legal” arrivals in fact suffer no “injustice” or harm.

 

[wabrams]

When the laws are themselves prudent and serve the interests of its citizens that would be correct. But, the law is made to serve us, not the other way around

If the law is made by the US for the interests of the US, then how is it “the other way around?”

 

[Fremont]

I ask you again for the nth time what is the purpose of the law? What do you think we accomplish through it?

And I ask you for the nth to provide a list of specific US immigration laws that Rome has condemned or ruled immoral, invalid or against Church teaching.

In lieu of such a list the Church teaches us that all law comes from God and is to be treated with respect unless expressly ruled otherwise by the Church.

It seems you have a great deal of admiration for yourself but I do not believe that gives you the authority to speak for the Church or to declare which US laws are immoral.

Provide the list from Rome and maybe we can have valuable dialog on how the laws on that list impact the fence and on other efforts of the government to discourage unlawful behavior.

 

[Ituyu]

wabrams:
If the law is made by the US for the interests of the US, then how is it “the other way around?”

When we make laws we make them for a purpose or goal in mind. When the law does not serve the function that was intended, it’s time to look for a different solution. Not only do our current immigration policies fail to work as intended but if we were successful in enforcing them, it would mean that we wouldn’t have the necessary labor force to keep our infrastructure and economy maintained and growing. So to insist that we enforce something that not only does not work but would harm us if it did makes no sense because it does not serve us. So by enforcing the law we are serving the law only, not our interests.

 

[Ituyu]

And I ask you for the nth to provide a list of specific US immigration laws that Rome has condemned or ruled immoral, invalid or against Church teaching.

In lieu of such a list the Church teaches us that all law comes from God and is to be treated with respect unless expressly ruled otherwise by the Church.

It seems you have a great deal of admiration for yourself but I do not believe that gives you the authority to speak for the Church or to declare which US laws are immoral.

Provide the list from Rome and maybe we can have valuable dialog on how the laws on that list impact the fence and on other efforts of the government to discourage unlawful behavior.

Fremont, why? You can’t even show how the “law” serves us much less how it complies with God’s law.

 

[Ituyu]

And I ask you for the nth to provide a list of specific US immigration laws that Rome has condemned or ruled immoral, invalid or against Church teaching.

In lieu of such a list the Church teaches us that all law comes from God and is to be treated with respect unless expressly ruled otherwise by the Church.

It seems you have a great deal of admiration for yourself but I do not believe that gives you the authority to speak for the Church or to declare which US laws are immoral.

Provide the list from Rome and maybe we can have valuable dialog on how the laws on that list impact the fence and on other efforts of the government to discourage unlawful behavior.

Fremont, why? You can’t even show how the law complies with our needs much less how they comply with God’s law.

 

[Fremont]

Fremont, why? You can’t even show how the law complies with our needs much less how they comply with God’s law.

Just as I suspected, your claims of immoral immigration laws is just blowing smoke. They’re as phony as the conclusions you try to draw from your own views and proclaim as truth. You appear to have a sincere attitude but your arguments are baseless.

It is not up to me to “show” anything about our immigration laws, nor is it up to you.

Certainly we can all have opinions about such laws but that is not fact nor doctrine.

I believe in our system of government – legislative branch to create laws, executive branch to enforce laws and judicial branch to interpret laws.

I cannot truthfully comment on the intentions of our immigration laws. I was not a party to the debate in congress when the various laws were passed – and I suspect that you were not either. Therefore we are not qualified to comment on what the intent of those laws was.

Ultimately interpretation of our laws is the role of the judiciary. I am not a member of our judiciary system and thus do not have the authority to interpret our immigration laws. Again I suspect that you are not authorized either.

If you really wish to learn how specific immigration laws “complies with our needs” write your congressional representative or senator for an explanation. If that does not provide you with answers satisfying your ego write to the Supreme Court for more interpretation.

I also am not authorized to speak for the Church on how our immigration laws “comply with God’s law.” And neither are you. If you want an answer to that question contact Rome and obtain the list of specific US immigration laws that have been condemned or ruled immoral, invalid or against Church teaching I originally suggested.

I believe US immigration laws are valid and just. We probably need more immigration laws too and thus I do not think congress should be shut down just yet. You an I both have the right to contact our congressional representatives and suggest what those laws should be.

I further believe the government has the right and duty to discourage violation of our laws and to discourage unlawful behavior.

I see the border fence is a great and positive step in that process.

 

[Ituyu]

QUOTE]

Just as I suspected, your claims of immoral immigration laws is just blowing smoke. They’re as phony as the conclusions you try to draw from your own views and proclaim as truth. You appear to have a sincere attitude but your arguments are baseless.

Baseless? Explain please.

It is not up to me to “show” anything about our immigration laws, nor is it up to you.

Okay. Don’t “show” us. Just explain what you hope will be accomplished by enforcement only and the fence?

Certainly we can all have opinions about such laws but that is not fact nor doctrine.

Wrong. There are plenty of factual arguments against the building of the fence and the impact on our economy, the environment and others by enforcement only policies.

I believe in our system of government – legislative branch to create laws, executive branch to enforce laws and judicial branch to interpret laws.

Yes this is correct but how does that mean that we can’t argue against the law based upon fairness and/or its consequences?
I cannot truthfully comment on the intentions of our immigration laws. I was not a party to the debate in congress when the various laws were passed – and I suspect that you were not either. Therefore we are not qualified to comment on what the intent of those laws was.

You contradict yourself way too much. If you can’t comment on what the law intends to do and/or its consequences, how can you have an opinion one way or the other?

Ultimately interpretation of our laws is the role of the judiciary. I am not a member of our judiciary system and thus do not have the authority to interpret our immigration laws. Again I suspect that you are not authorized either.

Well explain how it is you interpret the law sufficiently to decide that the “law” is a good thing and must be obeyed? This is another contradiction on your part.

If you really wish to learn how specific immigration laws “complies with our needs” write your congressional representative or senator for an explanation. If that does not provide you with answers satisfying your ego write to the Supreme Court for more interpretation

Every citizen has the duty to oppose laws that are unfair and would cause harm to us through their enforcement.

Cont’d

 

[Ituyu]

QUOTE]

I also am not authorized to speak for the Church on how our immigration laws “comply with God’s law.” And neither are you. If you want an answer to that question contact Rome and obtain the list of specific US immigration laws that have been condemned or ruled immoral, invalid or against Church teaching I originally suggested.

More contradictions Fremont! You have repeatedly stated how The Popes and our Bishops are wrong to side with the Poor, the indigenous, and the “illegal” in support of their Human Rights and the obligation to oppose arbitrary laws that deny them their Human Rights.

I believe US immigration laws are valid and just. We probably need more immigration laws too and thus I do not think congress should be shut down just yet. You an I both have the right to contact our congressional representatives and suggest what those laws should be

.

Again, this is another contradiction on your part. You have to have some interpretation of our Immigrating laws in order to come to that conclusion and you said earlier that you couldn’t interpret the law.

I further believe the government has the right and duty to discourage violation of our laws and to discourage unlawful behavior.

I would agree but the law should also be fair and just. And, it should serve our interests. Denying our economy of needed labor is not in our interests. Criminalizing the vast majority of law-abiding workers who have not violated any serious laws and who in general harmed no one is wrong.
I see the border fence is a great and positive step in that process.

Justify your conclusion by telling us what you hope to accomplish by building a fence with disregard to human life, the environment, our economy and our labor needs. And, explain how it will make us safe since all of the 9/11 terrorists gained access through “LEGAL” means.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Every country in the world has immigration laws.

Are posters here prepared to demand that every country in the world abolish their immigration laws?

Are posters here prepared to demand that every country in the world allow unlimited movement across their borders?

 

[Hastrman]

I appear to be a moderate on the immigration issue. I knew I was moderate on something!

Or maybe I shouldn’t be so proud, since everyone else seems to be either totally opposed to borders as such or else completely opposed to all immigration, not to mention immigrants, from Mexico, legal or otherwise.

So, yeah. Neener-neener.

I do think there needs to be border security, to keep drug-dealers, smugglers, and yes, terrorists from coming over. I also think new immigrants should learn English.

However, I don’t think learning English should mean they abandon their own language–my grandmother deeply regrets not raising her children to speak Czech. And I think coming here legally needs to be made simpler and cheaper (primarily cheaper).

I also think NAFTA, which has done more harm than good, needs to be abolished, and that the Mexican government needs to be overhauled (not to say purged). That mostly means the leftists, actually–below the executive level, the government is primarily run by the leftist party, and they’re mind-bogglingly corrupt. Not that the rightists are much better.

I think we might, however, have to repeal the fourteenth Amendment (or whichever one grants birthright citizenship). No sane country has such a thing. When you become a citizen just by being born, citizenship loses the meaning it should have. Ideally, though citizens should be the majority of a democracy, they should still feel a slight swagger of their status, as they did when Republics were new. And having a large number of citizens not eligible to vote plays into the hands of America’s detractors, most of whom equate citizenship with having registered, not with being born. To many foreigners it seems like an injustice that many of our citizens can’t vote, because to them citizen almost means a person who can–because they aren’t made citizens at birth.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I think we might, however, have to repeal the fourteenth Amendment (or whichever one grants birthright citizenship). No sane country has such a thing. When you become a citizen just by being born, citizenship loses the meaning it should have. Ideally, though citizens should be the majority of a democracy, they should still feel a slight swagger of their status, as they did when Republics were new. And having a large number of citizens not eligible to vote plays into the hands of America’s detractors, most of whom equate citizenship with having registered, not with being born. To many foreigners it seems like an injustice that many of our citizens can’t vote, because to them citizen almost means a person who can–because they aren’t made citizens at birth.

This whole issue of the 14th Amendment granting automatic citizenship is worthy of discussion.

For starters, folks should read the actual text of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside…

I provided the emphasis.

So, what are the implications of " … AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF…"

AND, “wherein they reside”.

Sometimes, folks may not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction even if they are born here. AND some folks may not be legal residents even if they live someplace.

Worth discussion.

 

[Fremont]

This fence is nothing more than a canard for attacking a whole group of people that has nothing to do our National Security.

Tell what is the purpose that you have for reducing “illegal” immigration and how it will serve the “Common Good”.

Certainly the fence is in the common good.

For example programs and efforts by the government to protect the public health are in the common good.

In formation about how illegal immigration threatens public health ca be found at the reference below.

Programs and efforts to discourage illegal immigration, even eliminate illegal immigration, including the fence, aid in the protection of public health and are in the common good.

Reference – Immigration forum; thread “Illegal immigrants are a threat to public health”

 

[Fremont]

Contraindicated??? How so? The Legalization program of 1986 allowed millions of people to become vested in our community. It has fostered much economic growth and atrengthened our infrastructure. These people are upwardly mobile. As they succeed they create still more jobs and add more revenues to the Treasury, the more they make, the more they spend and the more they spend and the more tax revenues are generated.

The amnesty program of 1986 may have helped a few illegal immigrants but it was a disaster for the country at large.

It stimulated a huge flow of illegal immigrants into the US by those who assume they will get legal status if they just wait. This produced all kinds of problems including public health problems.

To do anything like that again would be a horrible step for us.

 

[Fremont]

Baseless? Explain please.]

There is no basis in fact or in truth for the many claims you have made about our immigration laws, and some other laws pertinent to the common behavior of illegal immigrants, as unjust, immoral or otherwise contrary to Church teaching.

The Church has not made any objections to these laws and you have no basis to claim to speak for the Church or to try to put words into the mouth of the Church.

Just because you personally do not like some laws does not make them wrong. Just because you claim they are unjust or immoral does not make such claims true or doctrine.

Okay. Don’t “show” us. Just explain what you hope will be accomplished by enforcement only and the fence?]

There will be many positive accomplishments from the fence and hopefully more sfforts.

Not the least of which is to discourage illegal immigration to aid in the protection of public health. See the reference below.

Reference – Immigration forum; thread “Illegal immigrants are a threat to public health”

Well explain how it is you interpret the law sufficiently to decide that the “law” is a good thing and must be obeyed? This is another contradiction on your part.

I follow the guide of the Church when it says all laws come from God and we are to respect them unless the Church instructs us they are immoral, unjust or otherwise in conflict with the Church. The Church has not done that.

Every citizen has the duty to oppose laws that are unfair and would cause harm to us through their enforcement.

First of all the laws must be unfair or unjust.

There has been no ruling from our courts or from Rome that there is anything unfair in our immigration laws. I believe they are fair and just – even very generous.

Just because you have personal opinions that they are unjust does not make that the truth.

You have the right to object based on your views but you do not have the right to violate the laws or to encourage others to do so.

 

[amcalabrese]

I think the problem is that both sides are right. On the one hand, illegal immigration is a bad thing for just about everyone – it is bad for the illegals (who get treated like slave labor), bad for employers trying to comply with the law (who cannot compete), bad for native born workers. And we need to get better control of our borders, lest someone slips in with a dirty bomb.

But we cannot pretend that these folks are not here now. To deport however many are here illegally is impossible.

The solution I think is to do pretty much what both sides want:

1. Build a real border fence
2. Provide amnesty (with appropriate penalties so that we do not give a benefit to those broke the law, over those who came legally)
3. Establish an immigrant worker program that allows the federal government to track immigrants, keep out trouble makers, and ensure taxes etc are being paid by employers and workers.
4. Crack down on employers who violate the programs.
5. Provide incentives for immigrant workers to stay and become citizens.