Trump’s Immigration Plan

  • Thread starter Thread starter godisgood77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is an unfortunate stance to take regarding the earnest need to end abortion. Disrespecting others that know the depth of evil that abortion spreads like cancer, hurts. Because of those who bravely confront the voices, that mislead women to suffer their souls through abortion; the loud salacious noise must be beaten down. Like the embers of a wildfire they must be put out. Use a cudgel if you have one!
Barge in when there is an opening!
 
sallybutler said:
Abortion is injected into just about every conversation in the World News forum. I haven’t figured out if it is a way of getting out of discussing other thorny issues or a way of excusing other bad behaviors.
Click to expand...
Please try to follow the conversation…

EUGENICS was being discussed and someone was calling others ugly names per the eugenics argument.

It was pointed out that eugenics is foundational with planned parenthood, At that, then there was railing at bringing abortion into the thread.

So, if one votes for a few Republicans and for the Democrat party as a whole, you are voting for eugenics. It is an ugly accusation to make at someone that they are involved in eugenics. This thread previously had a different title. See the first posts.

It’s amazing that we couldn’t get a straight answer on whether one has ever done actions to support Planned Parenthood so involved in eugenics. Barak Obama, others have been big supporters of Planned Parenthood. Plenty of references are out there that show PP is into Eugenics and this term “eugenics” was being thrown out there again and again and again last night and it’s not too flattering.

Still, haven’t heard whether Obama, Clinton and so on were supported.

@sallybutler

If someone is using a very ugly argument that others are for eugenics, I darn well think they should be able to account for their position on the issue.

In this case, they couldn’t.

In this case, accusing someone else of wanting to make the conversation about abortion, “False”, has to be a cop out. Sounds like that question couldn’t be answered.

If one is accusing others of eugenics, using left wing sources to back up their opinions, then, by golly, they made the conversation about that topic. It was even in the headline last night. That is the cudgel people had to put up with.
 
Last edited:
This current immigration plan became implement at some time, “mid-60s?”???

Anyway, if a plan was designed one way, perhaps it should in turn be designed a different way eventually.

Catholic teaching may rely on compassion to help immigrants but I’ve certainly never seen the government have stipulations that it put the poor to the forefront of the immigration issue. As it is, I do believe, the government has very active measures to help the less fortunate.

But if that is the aim of immigration, which laughably, it is not, make the law the way you want it.
 
Last edited:
Victoria33 said:
EUGENICS was being discussed and someone was calling others ugly names per the eugenics argument.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there was name calling… simply an argument with multiple sources. You voiced disquite at leanings of those sources, but did not comment on the substance.
Victoria33 said:
It’s amazing that we couldn’t get a straight answer on whether one has ever done actions to support Planned Parenthood so involved in eugenics
Click to expand...
Is this comment directed at me? If so, I plainly stated that I’m staunchly pro-life on the abortion topic.

It’s amazing that you won’t answer on whether or not you support the Church’s teaching on the preferential option for the poor.
Victoria33 said:
If someone is using a very ugly argument that others are for eugenics, I darn well think they should be able to account for their position on the issue.

In this case, they couldn’t.
Click to expand...
I think the case was made plainly…
 
Guinness said:
So when the Church draws a line that separates itself from pedophile priests, Jesus stands on the side of the pedophiles?
Click to expand...
Of course he is with pedophiles. If you think God’s love has limits or conditions, you have missed the most important part of Christianity.

Loving your neighbor is not easy. If loving your neighbor requires no special effort, and doesn’t sometimes make you wonder why you’re doing it, you are doing it wrong.

To paraphrase a wise woman, you can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when he supports all the same political positions you do.
 
FirstFiveEighth said:
The fact that all people are equal before god and can move to other countries does not mean they have the right to enter any country they choose to with that country having no say in the matter. I am sure you also read the part of the catechism that says nations have a right to control their own borders and immigration policy.

Your interpretation of this would suggest that nations and borders cannot exist because that is against God’s will. Which is incorrect.
Click to expand...
I will answer you by repeating myself:
billsherman said:
Yup. The Trump Administration advocates immigration policies that include neither justice nor mercy. How is it merciful to deny entrance to someone based on their earning potential? That is merely idolatry of money.

How is it just to send someone away when they are fleeing persecution or violence? That is callousness.

Yet another example of how we like to make excuses when the commands of Jesus, God, and the Church are too hard or politically inconvenient.
Click to expand...
 
qui_est_ce said:
Don’t forget the left likes to redefine terms, like “reproductive rights.”
Click to expand...
To be fair, the right does the same thing, like ‘open borders’. It’s a silly game aimed at distorting the issue by misrepresenting the position of the other side.
 
We are using immigration law from the 1960s, that’s almost 50 years old. Also, part of the equation are refugees.

Somewhere, I missed the bill that says our immigration law is focused on helping the poor of this world.

That’s fine if that is what one wants. But to say it is part of the scenario now and be accusative towards others would not seem to be true.

50 years ago, that immigration bill. Things do change over time. I’d really have to look in depth and compare.

Sure, some folks won’t be happy with changes. Anytime, one is dealing with immigration, it would seem one could be said to be dealing with eugenics if that is the way one looks at it.

Sure, we should make immigration reform work. All said, I was probably for that gang of 8 bill a few years ago. It seemed workable.

Trump wasn’t on the scene so much as to that debate. Now, what do we hear???
 
billsherman said:
Of course he is with pedophiles. If you think God’s love has limits or conditions, you have missed the most important part of Christianity.
Click to expand...
So, when Jesus said, “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.”, it meant that he “loves” pedophiles priests and wants us to accept them? You must admit, that is an odd turn of phrase…
 
Last edited:
Guinness said:
So, when Jesus said, “But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be thrown into the sea.”, it meant that he “loves” pedophiles priests and wants us to accept them? You must admit, that is an odd turn of phrase…
Click to expand...
Without getting too deep into the matter, you make a couple of faulty assumptions here. I said that Jesus loves everyone without condition, including pedophiles. You decided to claim that I added:
Guinness said:
wants us to accept them?
Click to expand...
I never said that, and certainly did not imply that either.

You also incorrectly assume that Jesus’ phrase means he doesn’t love those who are cast away. His phrase never says that. All four Gospels are packed full of examples of his unconditional love, so it would be very much in error to take this one phrase and use it to claim that there is a condition on his love.

So I stand by what I wrote above: Yes. Jesus is with pedophiles. Whenever you draw a line that separates other people from you, Jesus is always on the other side of the line. Always. No matter how unfair you think that is. That is why Christianity is really hard. If it’s easy for you, you’re doing it wrong.
 
Last edited:
That means when Trump said there were fine people on both sides in Charlottesville, he was demonstrating a faithful Christian witness. Thanks for your enlightening perspective…
 
sallybutler said:
Abortion may be a way to support eugenics, but it is not eugenics.
Click to expand...
Abortion is a component of any eugenics program. Eugenics is the “science” of creating improved human beings through selective breeding of people with desirable traits and preventing those with undesirable traits from breeding. The latter would include forced sterilization and abortion.
 
sallybutler said:
Abortion may be a way to support eugenics, but it is not eugenics.
Click to expand...
Planned Parenthood has a history in eugenics, that’s clear to all. Their placing 80%-90% in minority neighborhoods may well reflect this history in eugenics. Margaret Sanger, the founder, was clearly interested in eugenics.
 
Repeat yourself as much as you want, it doesn’t make your accusations true. The Church calls for preferential treatment for the poor. There are many policy options that can achieve this. The Church says nations have a right and duty to control its borders. There are many policy options to do this. Just because you would do something else doesn’t make it against church teaching. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t make it cruel. Tell me, what would you consider reasonable immigration enforcement? What, if any, limits would you place in immigration?
 
You all are missing my point. Yes, Planned Parenthood and abortion may have something to do with eugenics. However, the subject of this thread is Trump’s Immigration Plan, not Planned Parenthood or abortion.
 
Well we have presidential candidates running around saying that ICE should be abolished and that all existing border barriers should be torn down. When asked what border control should look like, we get empty gasps of air and claims of racism. Not one single democrat has offered any position on immigration enforcement other than to call people racists and fascists. Maybe if they could define their position, we could refine “open borders”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top