Trump’s New Wall to Keep Out the Disabled

  • Thread starter Thread starter John24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The USCCB has not expressed an opinion on allowing illegal immigration. Some of its members have, but the USCCB itself has not. No opinion expressed by individual members of the USCCB is binding on Catholics unless it is voted on by the whole membership and approved by the Vatican. Neither thing has happened.
 
True. If refugees were required to claim asylum in the first country they arrive at then the refugees in Europe would all be in Italy.
 
Where does the Church teach that a country should not discourage people from dragging children 2000 miles and getting molested on the way? Where does the church approve child molestation? Where does it approve child sexual slavery, which is what some of these “minor/adult” pairs are?

The Church teaches nothing of the sort. That’s an American liberal policy, not a Church policy.
 
Ridgerunner said:
The USCCB has not expressed an opinion on allowing illegal immigration. Some of its members have, but the USCCB itself has not. No opinion expressed by individual members of the USCCB is binding on Catholics unless it is voted on by the whole membership and approved by the Vatican. Neither thing has happened.
Click to expand...
Absolutely false. Here:
The Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for the respect of the human dignity of all especially those who find themselves in desperate circumstances. From “Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity, A Statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops” – http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...travelers/quotes-rights-migrants-refugees.cfm
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Where does the Church teach that a country should not discourage people from dragging children 2000 miles and getting molested on the way? Where does the church approve child molestation? Where does it approve child sexual slavery, which is what some of these “minor/adult” pairs are?

The Church teaches nothing of the sort. That’s an American liberal policy, not a Church policy.
Click to expand...
Obviously you couldn’t care less what the Church teaches and it is clear that you invent “alternative facts” to try and support your political positions. It’s no wonder that you so much endorse a guy like Trump, and it’s no wonder I find it virtually impossible to have a serious discussion with you on this and some other matters.

Needless to say, I’d rather have such discussions with others.
 
Seems like the Pope should be taking his Central American bishops to task for not providing pastoral care to their flock.

The Church teaches ‘subsidiarity’ and the flock in central america is primarily the responsibility of their Bishops. Our response in the North should be to lend aid to those CA Bishops as they carry out their responsibility.
 
Theo520 said:
Seems like the Pope should be taking his Central American bishops to task for not providing pastoral care to their flock.

The Church teaches ‘subsidiarity’ and the flock in central america is primarily the responsibility of their Bishops. Our response in the North should be to lend aid to those CA Bishops as they carry out their responsibility.
Click to expand...
And your assuming the Latin American bishops are not? Based on what?

And the bishops in the Church do try to work together on such international issues, so you are mischaracterizing how the bishops actually do operate.
 
Show us where a) the whole body of bishops voted on this proposition and b) where it was approved by the Vatican as binding on Catholics.

Otherwise, it’s the statement of one or two bishops. It might be noted, however, that in your quote it says “…the Church supports…and offers…” It does not say nations have the obligation to have open borders.

The Catechism does not promote open borders:
"“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.”
 
Metis1 said:
why would they ignore the positions stipulated by both the Pope and the USCCB on this issue?
Click to expand...
I think you confuse discounting opinions with ignoring them. I’ve read what they have to say and do not accept their opinions. That is different from ignoring them.

Also, opinions are not the same as doctrine or dogma.
 
Metis1 said:
And your assuming the Latin American bishops are not? Based on what?

And the bishops in the Church do try to work together on such international issues, so you are mischaracterizing how the bishops actually do operate.
Click to expand...
Well then we shouldn’t need to circumvent their efforts by enabling illegal immigration.

I urge all to study the Church teachings on ‘subsidiarity’
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
Was it true when the Obama administration did the same thing?
Click to expand...
The Obama administration did not institute a zero-tolerance policy with the intention of taking children from their parents. Please make sure you are being accurate.
 
Theo520 said:
I urge all to study the Church teachings on ‘subsidiarity’
Click to expand...
As do I. “Subsidiarity” doesn’t mean “anything government does is bad,” or “liberal = wrong.”

I see the word tossed around here all the time as if it were some unanswerable refutation of anything a liberal says.

Seriously, I urge you too to study up on subsidiarity. And, while you’re at it, the preferential option for the poor.
 
Inisfallen said:
As do I. “Subsidiarity” doesn’t mean “anything government does is bad,” or “liberal = wrong.”

I see the word tossed around here all the time as if it were some unanswerable refutation of anything a liberal says.

Seriously, I urge you too to study up on subsidiarity. And, while you’re at it, the preferential option for the poor.
Click to expand...
Stop making strawmen, I never suggested “anything government does is bad”

I don’t think you do understand the term. Subsidiarity teaches that the Mexican Bishops and the Mexican Govt are responsible for their citizens. The US has an obligation to support them in their task where they need or ask for help, but the teaching is to support them NOT to replace them. Enabling illegal immigration is is not within the teachings of subsidiarity.
 
Last edited:
The wall WOULD IMPROVE the environment!

Yes, it would!!

BECAUSE …

https://www.azbordertrash.gov

The collection and disposal of waste in remote areas along Arizona’s 370-mile border with Mexico poses difficult challenges. An estimated more than 2,000 tons of trash is discarded annually in Arizona’s borderlands. A variety of federal and state government entities, Native American tribes and private landowners are affected by the problem, and addressing it requires extensive coordination.

The environmental impact caused by illegal immigration, and the trash left behind, is increasingly being found in areas that are more fragile and remote.

https://www.azbordertrash.gov/about.html


click here google youtube border trash Web site helping to curb border trash - YouTube
 
Last edited:
John24 said:
The Obama administration did not institute a zero-tolerance policy with the intention of taking children from their parents. Please make sure you are being accurate.
Click to expand...
I don’t think my speculating as to the subjective intention of the various members of the Obama administration would add anything to the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Then limit yourself to objective reality: the Obama did not institute a zero-tolerance policy. Their decision not to implement a zero-tolerance policy kept many children with their families.
 
One of the issues is requiring Mexico to pay for the wall!

Well, we are giving Mexico $10 billion, so we could keep $5 billion back.!

Done deal!!

click here google youtube wall
“Like a majority of Americans we elected President Donald J Trump to Make America Great Again. President Trump’s main campaign promise was to BUILD THE WALL. And as he’s followed through on just about every promise so far, this wall project needs to be completed still.

As a veteran who has given so much, 3 limbs, I feel deeply invested to this nation to ensure future generations have everything we have today. Too many Americans have been murdered by illegal aliens and too many illegals are taking advantage of the United States taxpayers with no means of ever contributing to our society.

I have grandparents who immigrated to America legally, they did it the correct way and it’s time we uphold our laws, and get this wall BUILT!It’s up to Americans to help out and pitch in to get this project rolling.

“If the 63 million people who voted for Trump each pledge $80, we can build the wall.” That equates to roughly 5Billion Dollars, even if we get half, that’s half the wall. We can do this.

This won’t be easy, but it’s our duty as citizens. This needs to be shared every single day by each of you on social media. We can do it, and we can help President Trump make America safe again!
Click to expand...

Half a million dollars has been raised in two days.​

You can view the GoFundMe campaign and donate by clicking here!

VOTE NOW: Should Trump seize El Chapo’s $14.8 billion to help fund the border wall?​


click here google youtube wall
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top