U.S. Bishops Praise DREAM Act Progress in House

[AdvanceAlways]

If you think that it’s progressive, why are you against it?

In this country, progressive means far left/socialist.

 

[AdvanceAlways]

So you’re going to punish a child whose parents broke the law? That doesn’t sound like justice to me. Many of these kids don’t know anything outside of the USA. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to return them to a country they’ve never really known.

I don’t think anyone is saying there should be open borders. But as has been pointed out many times on this board and in many news articles, our nation’s immigration laws make little sense. Our student and worker visa system is absurd. A comprehensive overhall is needed, and this bill was one proposal towards that overarching goal.

If these kids “don’t know anything other” then they can go back to the country that they are citizens of and get in line if they love America so much. Most of them don’t love America, they still insist on flying the Mexican or Salvadorian flag.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

No, the child is being “punished,” ie suffering the consequences, because of his parents’ illegal actions.

So if we discover that your great great grandparents came here illegally we can deport you to their country of origin?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

If these kids “don’t know anything other” then they can go back to the country that they are citizens of and get in line if they love America so much.

Once again, that seems unjust towards the innocent child who has broken no laws.

Most of them don’t love America, they still insist on flying the Mexican or Salvadorian flag.

Seriously? Give me a break. Here in New England I find Ireland’s flag on every corner. In other neighborhoods I find Italy’s flag all over the place. I guess that means we should run the Irish and Italians out of town.

 

[mlund]

Reality check: Is it Europe or is it the USA where infant mortality rates are higher than in many impoverished Third World countries?

Yeah, about that reality check …

In the United States they report any delivery with signs of life as a live birth regardless or age or weight and try to save the child. In Europe and Communist regimes like Cuba and China they write off many more children that would be viable with intervention under “fetal death” due to weight or failing to breath on their own at birth, thus allowing them to erase thousands upon thousands of live births to doctor their infant mortality statistics. Adjust for birth weight and the like and the U.S. has about the same infant mortality scores as Norway.

The U.S. dedicates massive resources to saving premature babies compared to National Health Services across the world that write off such children as liabilities.

Is it Europe or the USA where the #1 cause of bankruptcy is the inability to pay for medical bills?

You should really take a gander at what chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy entails. You’d be surprised at what the exemptions cover.

• Marty Lund

 

[Petergee]

Yes there are. Quite frankly I’m pretty disgusted that an Australian is trying to lecture the United States about what it should be doing.

I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that what the US bishops are saying is exactly what the Australian bishops are saying about immigrants, because they are both based on Catholic doctrine. I’m defending the US bishops against the false charge that they are doing this out of some sort of non-religious political agenda.

If you don’t like how America tries to spread its influence and business, then stay out of ours.

I never said I don’t like how America tries to spread its influence and business. Actually I do like that.

The fact that you cited the DailyKos, a leftist blog run by a hateful atheist, is even more laughable.

The fact that you claim that I cited the DailyKos, even after I pointed out that I had never heard of it, is extremely laughable.

Jesus did not preach government intervention.

Jesus did not preach going to baseball games. Does that mean it’s immoral or anti-Christian or anti-human dignity?

As for the DREAM Act, it is amnesty for illegals. Yes, people can be illegal. They crossed into our border illegally, hence their being in my country is illegal and they need to be deported regardless of age, or any other factor. They are ruining our economy and commit heinous acts of violence and then demand amnesty.

What, every single man woman and child who has entered your country illegally has committed heinous acts of violence? Your rant is reminiscent of Nazi anti-semitic propaganda.

They want their flag raised at the expense of ours, and thankfully our Senate rejected this criminal measure.

“Criminal”? To raise a flag? You’ve lost it, or else you want your country to be a totalitarian state.

 

[Petergee]

Yeah, about that reality check …

In the United States they report any delivery with signs of life as a live birth regardless or age or weight and try to save the child. In Europe and Communist regimes like Cuba and China they write off many more children that would be viable with intervention under “fetal death” due to weight or failing to breath on their own at birth, thus allowing them to erase thousands upon thousands of live births to doctor their infant mortality statistics. Adjust for birth weight and the like and the U.S. has about the same infant mortality scores as Norway.

The U.S. dedicates massive resources to saving premature babies compared to National Health Services across the world that write off such children as liabilities.

And of course you have facts and statistics to back up these self-comforting myths…

You should really take a gander at what chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy entails. You’d be surprised at what the exemptions cover.

• Marty Lund

Doesn’t change the fact that the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the USA is inability to pay medical costs.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

That is a non-sequitur. And “protected” from what?

Uh duh!

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

That is a non-sequitur. And “protected” from what?

I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that what the US bishops are saying is exactly what the Australian bishops are saying about immigrants, because they are both based on Catholic doctrine. I’m defending the US bishops against the false charge that they are doing this out of some sort of non-religious political agenda.

Oh gee, then the Bishops in Australia have also fallen to progressive liberalism, sad, but not surprising.

I never said I don’t like how America tries to spread its influence and business. Actually I do like that.
The fact that you claim that I cited the DailyKos, even after I pointed out that I had never heard of it, is extremely laughable. A sense of superiority have you?
Jesus did not preach going to baseball games. Does that mean it’s immoral or anti-Christian or anti-human dignity?
What, every single man woman and child who has entered your country illegally has committed heinous acts of violence? Your rant is reminiscent of Nazi anti-semitic propaganda. And your words are facetious.
“Criminal”? To raise a flag? You’ve lost it, or else you want your country to be a totalitarian state.

My flag is “Old Glory” the flag of the United States of America. What’s yours?

Perhaps at a UN meeting all flags are equal, but here in the US, the only one I pledge allegience to is the stars and stripes of the USA. Not the Mexican, not the British, not the Australian etc. etc. etc. Only ONE representing an indivisable nation, US.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Oh gee, then the Bishops in Australia have also fallen to progressive liberalism, sad, but not surprising.

Did Pope John Paul II also fall to progressive liberalism:

“I was a stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35). It is the Church’s task not only to present constantly the Lord’s teaching of faith but also to indicate its appropriate application to the various situations which the changing times continue to create. Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that “stranger” in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.

Message of Pope John Paul II for World Migration Day, 1996

 

[Tigg]

In this country, progressive means far left/socialist.

Thank you. The Democratic Socialists keep changing their name and I now think they prefer to be called Progressives. If I’m not mistaken, as did the old-line Communists, at one time in history.

As far as “welcoming the stranger” this is an old, tired and deceptive argument that is often used to try to place guilt upon the shoulders of those who prefer to comfort and give charitably to the oppressed without being forced by government to do so.

Just like the cliche of accusing us of punishing innocent children. Just who would have been punished had the Dream Act passed, and those foreign children would have been given preferential treatment and special tuition rates not afforded American students? Jeff Sessions reported that one part of the bill would have allowed illegal aliens federal student assistance that would have severely hampered legal kids their chance at college. One version of this bill offered amnesty to those even up to the age of 35!

The social justice principle of the common good keeps going round and round in my head and appears non-existent in this current leftist political environment.

 

[Petergee]

Thank you. The Democratic Socialists keep changing their name and I now think they prefer to be called Progressives. If I’m not mistaken, as did the old-line Communists, at one time in history.

Various heretical groups call themselves “the Church of Christ”, “The Christian Church” (implying there is no other), even "The “Real) Catholic Church”. That does not mean we have to reject the use of these terms in their proper meaning. Similarly we don’t have to reject the proper dictionary definition use of “progressive” just because some people wrongly use it to mean something else.

As far as “welcoming the stranger” this is an old, tired and deceptive argument that is often used to try to place guilt upon the shoulders of those who prefer to comfort and give charitably to the oppressed without being forced by government to do so.

If the charitable acts of individuals were meeting all the needs of these people, there would be no need for the government to step in and help them. So if this is your excuse, you’ve got a lot of work to do to meet all their needs so that the government can stay out of it.

Jeff Sessions reported that one part of the bill would have allowed illegal aliens federal student assistance that would have severely hampered legal kids their chance at college.

There are no “legal kids” or “illegal kids”.

The social justice principle of the common good keeps going round and round in my head and appears non-existent in this current leftist political environment.

 

[Petergee]

My flag is “Old Glory” the flag of the United States of America. What’s yours?

Perhaps at a UN meeting all flags are equal, but here in the US, the only one I pledge allegience to is the stars and stripes of the USA. Not the Mexican, not the British, not the Australian etc. etc. etc. Only ONE representing an indivisable nation, US.

No problem with that. My objection was to your wanting to make it a criminal offence for somebody to put up a little piece of cloth symbolising his place of origin.

And I assure you none of my words here are facetious, except those to which I attach a

I don’t think I’m superior, but at least I try to read what other posters said and respond to that, instead of laughably accusing them of saying the exact opposite.

 

[1234]

Archbishop Jose H. Gomez has praised the passage of the DREAM Act in the House of Representatives, and called on the U.S. Senate to also pass the immigration reform measure.

More…

Is there a chance for it?! I thought that it had been defeated somewhere.

I cannot comprehend how anyone would oppose this, especially a Catholic. College-trained young people, irrespective of their origins or status, are a bonanza to this country.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Definitely dead for 2010. Senate filibuster. The new Congress will be more oppositional to any measures in 2011 which do not address several aspects of immigration, including borders, including biometric ID cards, including federal penalties against employers, including examining the bureuacracy of legal immigration, including looking at deportation (rather than American incarceration) of convicted illegally residing criminals, possibly also including violations of federal law in “sanctuary cities” – and in all that context, then reviewing, as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the assimilation of long-standing residents of illegal status into legal status.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Did Pope John Paul II also fall to progressive liberalism:

I notice he didn’t say “Okay chums, break the international immigration laws of the US, or any other country and we will welcome you with open arms.” Our immigration laws were made to protect the US from the mess we now find ourselves in, but they were ignored. I am not worried about the pressure the US economy now faces from the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants, but if I understand it correctly, although the Bishops have not come out and said it, one has the impression one can break any law of any country with impunity. I am concerned about law and justice being upheld, US law. I live in the US, not Mexico, although the border between the two countries is fast disappearing.

US citizens cannot go across the US/Mexican border in safety for fear of drug lords. There are signs within the borders of the US warning the folks in AZ not to go into these unsafe areas for fear they will be killed.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Did Pope John Paul II also fall to progressive liberalism:

Is there a chance for it?! I thought that it had been defeated somewhere.

I cannot comprehend how anyone would oppose this, especially a Catholic. College-trained young people, irrespective of their origins or status, are a bonanza to this country.

I do oppose this and I consider myself a Catholic. What guarantee do we have these young folks, brought here illegally by their parents, will stay here in the US or they will even finish school. My understandin is the only have to finish two years of upper education. What proof of loyalty to the US do we have of these young folks? All I have seen is their raising their Mexican flag on a pole above a US flag that is turned upside down. If this is an example of the upcoming generation that I am supposed to support through my tax dollars, forget it.

Instead of trying to pass this law why didn’t they make another that said any child brought to the US illegally before the age of??? has the right to go through the process of gaining US citizenship so they can work their way through college the way many of the children of US legal citizens have to do to accomplish a higher education? We have already gvien them health care and education through High School which is a lot more than we ordinary US citizens are given. I consider myself charitble, but I’m not stupid.

There were a lot of bylaws in the so called DREAM act that didn’t make it much of a dream for honest US citizens. I don’t think ANY of us understand the implications of such a law without further study and it is being crammed down our throats in the guise of charity.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

No problem with that. My objection was to your wanting to make it a criminal offence for somebody to put up a little piece of cloth symbolising his place of origin.

And I assure you none of my words here are facetious, except those to which I attach a What you consider facetious and I consider facetious are two different things. I don’t think I’m superior, but at least I try to read what other posters said and respond to that, instead of laughably accusing them of saying the exact opposite.

If you think it would not be a criminal offence in any other country such as Mexico, to take an American flag into that country and flaunt it, you live in la la land. It is not the wish of someone wanting to put up a flag of their country of origin, but the intent behind it and the disrespect of the country they live in, either legally, or ilegally that does not have my support. Do I support Cinco de Mayo, you bet. Wave all the flags you want to wave in a logical, reasonable celebration, but everyone has the duty and responsibilty of upholding the flag of the country and the citizens who are supporting them.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

No problem with that. My objection was to your wanting to make it a criminal offence for somebody to put up a little piece of cloth symbolising his place of origin.

And I assure you none of my words here are facetious, except those to which I attach a

I don’t think I’m superior, but at least I try to read what other posters said and respond to that, instead of laughably accusing them of saying the exact opposite.

I do oppose this and I consider myself a Catholic. What guarantee do we have these young folks, brought here illegally by their parents, will stay here in the US or they will even finish school? My understanding is they only have to finish two years of upper education. What proof of loyalty to the US do we have of these young folks? All I have seen is their raising their Mexican flag on a pole above a US flag that is turned upside down. If this is an example of the upcoming generation that I am supposed to support through my tax dollars, forget it.

Instead of trying to pass this law why didn’t they make another that said any child brought to the US illegally before the age of??? has the right to go through the process of gaining US citizenship so they can work their way through college the way many of the children of US legal citizens have to do to accomplish a higher education? We have already gvien them health care and education through High School which is a lot more than we ordinary US citizens are given. I consider myself charitble, but I’m not stupid.

There were a lot of bylaws in the so called DREAM act that didn’t make it much of a dream for honest US citizens. I don’t think ANY of us understand the implications of such a law without further study and it is being crammed down our throats in the guise of charity.

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

Thank you. The Democratic Socialists keep changing their name and I now think they prefer to be called Progressives. If I’m not mistaken, as did the old-line Communists, at one time in history.

As far as “welcoming the stranger” this is an old, tired and deceptive argument that is often used to try to place guilt upon the shoulders of those who prefer to comfort and give charitably to the oppressed without being forced by government to do so.

Just like the cliche of accusing us of punishing innocent children. Just who would have been punished had the Dream Act passed, and those foreign children would have been given preferential treatment and special tuition rates not afforded American students? Jeff Sessions reported that one part of the bill would have allowed illegal aliens federal student assistance that would have severely hampered legal kids their chance at college. One version of this bill offered amnesty to those even up to the age of 35!

The social justice principle of the common good keeps going round and round in my head and appears non-existent in this current leftist political environment.

Social Justice is alive and well, but being misused by many to promote a socialist agenda. There are progressives in the clergy as well, you know.