B
bones_IV
Guest
They call to pledge for work for comprehensive immigration bill but don’t even bother to enforce canon law 915. So what they are doing is an act of hypocrisy.
U.S. Bishops Call for Prayers, Pledge to Work for Comprehensive Immigration Bill
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
So, in your world, the Bishops should not call on us to pray for anything, unless they enforce Canon 915. Is that correct?
I just don’t see where one has to do with the other. I also have a problem with the non-enforcement of Canon 915, but it doesn’t stop me from supporting our Bishops in other completely unrelated efforts.
B
bones_IV
Guest
They aren’t being straightforward about the Gospel is all I’m saying.
B
Beantown
Guest
onenewsnow.com/2007/05/immigration_bill_benefits_ille.php
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) says the so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill in the Senate should be based on the needs of the United States, not on the needs of people who want to come into the country. He says he will not vote for the Senate immigration bill because it “undermines the rule of law.”
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) says the so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill in the Senate should be based on the needs of the United States, not on the needs of people who want to come into the country. He says he will not vote for the Senate immigration bill because it “undermines the rule of law.”
R
rlg94086
Guest
Then he dooms us to the *status quo. *Great.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/immigration_bill_benefits_ille.php
U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) says the so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill in the Senate should be based on the needs of the United States, not on the needs of people who want to come into the country. He says he will not vote for the Senate immigration bill because it “undermines the rule of law.”
The legislation is “based on the needs of the United States,” so his point is moot.
M
meeshy
Guest
Regarding Canon 915:
Just how do you people suppose a priest would recognize a Catholic politician who supports abortion? Should they memorize a list of mugshots? Should they study the voting records of each and every Catholic politician? Should they hire private investigators to find out in which churches these politicians go to Mass?
How ridiculous to criticize our Bishops in this way. In the end it’s the celebrant of the Mass (usually a parish priest, of course) who refuses a communicant, at the moment he/she approaches to comulgate.
You can’t excommunicate Ted Kennedy and not the rest of them.
I don’t believe in criticizing our Bishops, especially as a whole organization. It just degrades the Faith and we are not to degrade our Faith but to lift it up at every chance we get.
Peace,
Meeshy
Just how do you people suppose a priest would recognize a Catholic politician who supports abortion? Should they memorize a list of mugshots? Should they study the voting records of each and every Catholic politician? Should they hire private investigators to find out in which churches these politicians go to Mass?
How ridiculous to criticize our Bishops in this way. In the end it’s the celebrant of the Mass (usually a parish priest, of course) who refuses a communicant, at the moment he/she approaches to comulgate.
You can’t excommunicate Ted Kennedy and not the rest of them.
I don’t believe in criticizing our Bishops, especially as a whole organization. It just degrades the Faith and we are not to degrade our Faith but to lift it up at every chance we get.
Peace,
Meeshy
R
rlg94086
Guest
From the Bishop’s standpoint, all they need to do is instruct the priests that they should withhold communion from a politician whose pro-choice stances are known. If the priest doesn’t know the person presenting themselves for communion, of course they wouldn’t withhold it.
It’s actually even more complicated than that. How are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in a larger parish supposed to handle things? Do you really want them making that call? It would have to be targeted directly to that politician in their home parish, and all the Extraordinary Ministers would need to be informed. Very messy.
All that said though, Bishops are supposed to follow Canon Law. So all of our “what ifs” are beside the point.
It’s actually even more complicated than that. How are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in a larger parish supposed to handle things? Do you really want them making that call? It would have to be targeted directly to that politician in their home parish, and all the Extraordinary Ministers would need to be informed. Very messy.
All that said though, Bishops are supposed to follow Canon Law. So all of our “what ifs” are beside the point.
G
Godi
Guest
Wait, Robert your not justifying the exploitation of Criminal Immigration are you? If the Church is supporting criminal behavior then is it ok for the rest of us to begin to be disobedient to our Nations laws? Do we really need to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s? Documented, legal immigration has its purpose. It protects those entering from being exploited, protects the physical safety of lawful citizens from violence & decease being brought into the country, drasticly reduces further crimes of identity theft (ie. SSN’s), driving without a license etc. NO ONE is saying NO to Immigration but they are saying NO to Criminal Immigration.
K
kellicouch77
Guest
I am against illegal** immigration. I have a problem with people sneaking into our nation- some come here for work, and others come here to hurt our citizens.
I find it difficult to believe that our government cannot find the 12 million illegals. As a previous poster noted on mad cow disease, the government can find a sick cow out of over 12 million cows, so I cannot fathom the concept of 12 million people “in the shadows”. Those who have broken the laws to enter our nation need to be rounded up, deported, and barred from entry.
Many who come here illegally have no desire to become Americans. They wish to hold onto their language and cullture without assimilating into our nation. The common term here is reconquista where Mexicans wish to retake the American Southwest.
I strongly oppose this immigration bill. I have contacted almost 70 senators and asked them to oppose it. I have contacted nearly 35 congressman and urged them to oppose this bill. Build the fence, shut down the border, deport the illegals, and preserve our Nation.
I get a little aggravated at the amount of people in our country who do not speak English, and are given a free pass. When an illegal is in a car accident, they are allowed to leave without penalty- afterall, they don’t have car insurance, valid driver’s license, or even an address that can be traced. My insurance rates go up to cover uninsured motorists- not just the usual deadbeat Americans who lack proper coverage, but the illegals who have absolutely no coverage, and no intentions of getting coverage. I am not opposed to anyone speaking another language, such as the one from their homeland,however they should speak English as well.
I think the Church is supportive of the illegal immigration because of the humanistic aspect, which is a liberal way of thinking. Instead of trying to illicit change in the countries where the illegals originate, the Bishops are supportive of change in America, against the overwhelming opposition of most (over 80 percent) of Americans. The problems lie south of our border,where corruption and poverty are the norm. The church needs to concentrate it’s efforts for change there instead of here.
I find it difficult to believe that our government cannot find the 12 million illegals. As a previous poster noted on mad cow disease, the government can find a sick cow out of over 12 million cows, so I cannot fathom the concept of 12 million people “in the shadows”. Those who have broken the laws to enter our nation need to be rounded up, deported, and barred from entry.
Many who come here illegally have no desire to become Americans. They wish to hold onto their language and cullture without assimilating into our nation. The common term here is reconquista where Mexicans wish to retake the American Southwest.
I strongly oppose this immigration bill. I have contacted almost 70 senators and asked them to oppose it. I have contacted nearly 35 congressman and urged them to oppose this bill. Build the fence, shut down the border, deport the illegals, and preserve our Nation.
I get a little aggravated at the amount of people in our country who do not speak English, and are given a free pass. When an illegal is in a car accident, they are allowed to leave without penalty- afterall, they don’t have car insurance, valid driver’s license, or even an address that can be traced. My insurance rates go up to cover uninsured motorists- not just the usual deadbeat Americans who lack proper coverage, but the illegals who have absolutely no coverage, and no intentions of getting coverage. I am not opposed to anyone speaking another language, such as the one from their homeland,however they should speak English as well.
I think the Church is supportive of the illegal immigration because of the humanistic aspect, which is a liberal way of thinking. Instead of trying to illicit change in the countries where the illegals originate, the Bishops are supportive of change in America, against the overwhelming opposition of most (over 80 percent) of Americans. The problems lie south of our border,where corruption and poverty are the norm. The church needs to concentrate it’s efforts for change there instead of here.
M
meeshy
Guest
This is absolutely not true. In my state it is illegal to drive without a license issued in this state. If an illegal has an accident, he/she is arrested.
How do I know this? Because I have many friends and acquaintances who are illegals. I have been to court several times as a translator, in matters of traffic violations and other civil infractions. The court ALWAYS fines these people, and ALWAYS tells them that they must not drive without a license issued in this state.
Where do you get your information? Let’s not generalize or put forth suppositions.
Especially don’t say that 80% of Americans are opposed to changing the current immigration laws. Possibly you don’t understand how polls are conducted. 100% of America never responds to any given poll; rather the results are based on polls of 1000-5000 people. Do a little research, please.
Peace,
Meeshy
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Bishop’s support for illegal immigrants has always perplexed me.
In essence they’re saying, that you should allow the person who breaks into your home to remain and live off of you. They should also be allowed to have their families move in with you, and if a baby is born in your house, well the baby becomes an owner.
Essentially, this is what illegal immigration is.
Jim
In essence they’re saying, that you should allow the person who breaks into your home to remain and live off of you. They should also be allowed to have their families move in with you, and if a baby is born in your house, well the baby becomes an owner.
Essentially, this is what illegal immigration is.
Jim
K
kellicouch77
Guest
Many cities (Seattle, San Francisco, Houston to name a few) are called sanctuary cities. When an illegal is stopped by the police for driving without a license, or without insurance, he is free to go. Illegals can open checking accounts without social security numbers or proper identification. (Bank of America does this). The sanctuary cities do not cooperate with immigration in any way.
If you want evidence of illegals being released without punishment, do a google search, and you will find a plethera of examples of citizens who were in car accident with illegals.
As for the poll, it is obvious that 100 percent of Americans cannot be polled, so selective samples are taken.A gallup poll taken March 27 showed that 80 percent of Americans want tougher immigration laws, and an IQ research poll from March 10 showed that 92 percent of Americans want tougher border security.
If you want evidence of illegals being released without punishment, do a google search, and you will find a plethera of examples of citizens who were in car accident with illegals.
As for the poll, it is obvious that 100 percent of Americans cannot be polled, so selective samples are taken.A gallup poll taken March 27 showed that 80 percent of Americans want tougher immigration laws, and an IQ research poll from March 10 showed that 92 percent of Americans want tougher border security.
M
meeshy
Guest
I completely disagree with the “breaking and entering into my home” analogy. Lots of people use this analogy when referring to illegal immigration and it just does not fit.
Borders are not like homes. Borders change over the years, depending on political situations, who has the biggest army, etc. Borders always have been, and always will be, temporary.
Never forget that Europeans “broke into the homes” of Native Americans when we forced them to leave their lands and move onto reservations, as recently as the late 1800’s.
Peace,
Meeshy
Borders are not like homes. Borders change over the years, depending on political situations, who has the biggest army, etc. Borders always have been, and always will be, temporary.
Never forget that Europeans “broke into the homes” of Native Americans when we forced them to leave their lands and move onto reservations, as recently as the late 1800’s.
Peace,
Meeshy
M
meeshy
Guest
No, it shows that 80% and 92% of **those polled **(1000-5000 people, as I said earlier) want tougher laws or more border security.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Correct and with illegal immigration, its happening again, only this time to the current American Citizens.
Jim
K
kellicouch77
Guest
It is impossible to poll everyone- that is why a demographic sample is taken. I don’t know how to further explain that to you. These polls are scientific!
Please don’t try and use the “look what we did to Native Americans” argument. That isn’t relevant to this debate.
Borders do change, I agree with that statement. I make this note: we need to enforce our border that we currently have with Mexico. Build a fence, and put more guards there to catch those attempting to sneak accross.
I don’t know how to further explain that to you. These polls are scientific!Please don’t try and use the “look what we did to Native Americans” argument. That isn’t relevant to this debate.
Borders do change, I agree with that statement. I make this note: we need to enforce our border that we currently have with Mexico. Build a fence, and put more guards there to catch those attempting to sneak accross.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Where have I said that?
The new legislation fines those who broke the immigration laws, gives them a special work visa and puts them at the back of the line for any chance of getting a green card.
It also requires a national, tamper-proof ID and requires the employer to verify the ID of the employer (something that is not required today).
The purpose is to clean up the current situation and create a workable system that can be enforced.
The new legislation fines those who broke the immigration laws, gives them a special work visa and puts them at the back of the line for any chance of getting a green card.
It also requires a national, tamper-proof ID and requires the employer to verify the ID of the employer (something that is not required today).
The purpose is to clean up the current situation and create a workable system that can be enforced.
Wait, Robert your not justifying the exploitation of Criminal Immigration are you? If the Church is supporting criminal behavior then is it ok for the rest of us to begin to be disobedient to our Nations laws? Do we really need to render to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s? Documented, legal immigration has its purpose. It protects those entering from being exploited, protects the physical safety of lawful citizens from violence & decease being brought into the country, drasticly reduces further crimes of identity theft (ie. SSN’s), driving without a license etc. NO ONE is saying NO to Immigration but they are saying NO to Criminal Immigration.
M
meeshy
Guest
The definition of sanctuary city does not mean that illegals are allowed to break the law in those cities. It simply means that local law enforcement officers do not involve themselves in immigration matters.
The sanctuary cities you mentioned, along with others such as New York City (8.2 million people) are very large cities. Does that not indicate to you that maybe your poll results are somewhat skewed? Maybe 80% or 92% of Americans DO NOT support tougher immigration laws or border security.
Peace,
Meeshy
R
rlg94086
Guest
Great! Luckily, the new legislation has tougher laws and more border security. In fact, no “Z Visas” will be issued until evidence of the improved border security and tamper-proof ID system are demonstrated.
M
meeshy
Guest
People cannot complain about the current situation without making reparation for the past situation.
It’s not okay to say one situation should be forgotten because it occurred 100 years ago and the other situation is occurring now.
Just as some people are fond of saying “my grandparents came here legally etc. etc.”, there are native peoples in our country now with grandparents who were devastated by the moves to the reservations.
Peace,
Meeshy
- Status