What is logical about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants so that they can ‘touch their soil’ and then be granted a legal entry and return? Do you realize what an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that would be? Just to let them back in?I feel disappointed that you are being snarky. I told you it was a grammar mistake. English is not my native language. You said it was a freudian slip, heart and soul of the trump campaign.
Daryl has not been able to give a logical refutation on that quote about being afraid to use one’s weapon.
The quote says nothing about using the weapon preemptively or as retaliation. So how is it automatically wrong?There’s a difference between the use of the nuclear weapons in a retaliatory function, which every president since Truman has pretty much committed to, and treating them as just another weapon (e.g. the triad comment, Cruz’s comment about seeing if “sand glows in the dark”, etc.)
What’s logical about switching the topic to something totally unrelated?What is logical about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants so that they can ‘touch their soil’ and then be granted a legal entry and return? Do you realize what an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that would be? Just to let them back in?
You just said that logic was a fatal flaw; therefore, I have concluded that providing you with a logical refutation would be a waste of time and energy.Daryl has not been able to give a logical refutation on that quote about being afraid to use one’s weapon.
It is an example of how Trump lacks logic. That is what I am talking about. I have not switched themes here.What’s logical about switching the topic to something totally unrelated?
There you go again. You are unable to say the quote is logically wrong and therefore you will cling to my grammar mistake and run away.You just said that logic was a fatal flaw; therefore, giving you a logical refutation would be a waste of time and energy.
If we stick to logic, we’ll tackle each issue separately, which I’m completely ready to do. But neither you or Daryl has been able to address the nuclear weapon quote.It is an example of how Trump lacks logic. That is what I am talking about. I have not switched themes here.
I am only reading my posts and your replies - I can’t even bring myself to think about Donald Trump and nuclear weapons.If we stick to logic, we’ll tackle each issue separately, which I’m completely ready to do. But neither you or Daryl has been able to address the nuclear weapon quote.
What is logical about deporting 11 million illegal immigrants so that they can ‘touch their soil’ and then be granted a legal entry and return? Do you realize what an expensive bureaucratic nightmare that would be? Just to let them back in?
I only have your word about how it was a mistake, a sentiment that contrasts with the general contra-logic tenor of your previous responses to my posts. Therefore, I choose to interpret your initial post about how “logic is a fatal flaw” as your true feelings in the matter, and dismiss your explanation of grammatical error as an insufficient ex post facto rationalization.There you go again. You are unable to say the quote is logically wrong and therefore you will cling to my grammar mistake and run away.
Are you familiar with the position of the Catholic Church on this topic of immigration - the Bishops? The Pope?You are surely for deporting those who have broken our laws (criminals), I hope. Well if you want to deport them for breaking our laws, the you are surely for deporting those who, err, broke our (immigration) laws.
- Many would not come back
- As soon as the process started, many would self deport. This happened when Eisenhower planned to deport 3 million, a much higher percentage
- It is a matter of fairness. Many have waited years to come in legally. Many were denied.
I don’t see where anyone has ruled out the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, the whole premise behind MAD is to use them.There’s a difference between the use of the nuclear weapons in a retaliatory function, which every president since Truman has pretty much committed to, and treating them as just another weapon (e.g. the triad comment, Cruz’s comment about seeing if “sand glows in the dark”, etc.)
No. I am not. Can you let us know what it is? Are Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to follow a prudential political decision of a bishop or a Pope?Are you familiar with the position of the Catholic Church on this topic of immigration - the Bishops? The Pope?
You refuse to debate a quote you yourself brought to the discussion because you can’t prove it’s logically wrong.I only have your word about how it was a mistake, a sentiment that contrasts with the general contra-logic tenor of your previous responses to my posts. Therefore, I choose to interpret your initial post about how “logic is a fatal flaw” as your true feelings in the matter, and dismiss your explanation of grammatical error as an insufficient ex post facto rationalization.
I think you’re right. It’s likely to be a very ugly several months.I’m no lover of Trump but if Hillary is the nominee and Trump is, any kind of mud she slings at him he will sling back.
This is my impression of his supporters. And unfortunately, even if they can identify a specific stance on a particular issue, there’s no reason to think it won’t change again in short order.I bet you could ask the majority of his supporters what his stance on a particular issue is, and they could not tell you.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfmNo. I am not. Can you let us know what it is? Are Catholics are bound under pain of mortal sin to follow a prudential political decision of a bishop or a Pope?
Generic reference to prudential judgement in 3, 2, 1…usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm
USCCB Position
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:
**Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.
**
Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.
Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.
Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.
Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.
Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.
I don’t see where it would be a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to have a reasonable, prudential disagreement with some of the political positions expressed here?usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm
USCCB Position
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:
**Earned Legalization: An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.
**
Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.
Family‐based Immigration Reform: It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.
Restoration of Due Process Rights: Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.
Addressing Root Causes: Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.
Enforcement: The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.
I agree. But great weight and consideration are to be given to the views of the Church - they are a guideline.I don’t see where it would be a mortal sin for a Roman Catholic to have a reasonable, prudential disagreement with some of the political positions expressed here?