U.S. Catholic bishops are considering punishing Catholics who enforce Trump's immigration policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter anikins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CatholicSooner said:
Do you realize there are quite a few places south of the border that families can go to to request asylum?
Click to expand...
Mexico is not legally a “safe third country” for asylum purposes. Same gangs operate with impunity there and it’s easy to find anyone they want. The Mexican asylum system is overloaded right now, not to mention, the US has a moral debt to Central America after 150 yrs of military, economic, & political interference.
CatholicSooner said:
When Americans commit a crime and go to jail, their kids don’t stay with them.
Click to expand...
This conduct has never been prosecuted en masse as a criminal offense in US history. Our carceral state imprisons everyone as the unisized solution to everything from drug addiction to homicide. That’s not a good thing. In case you didn’t know. There are alternatives to detention for immigrants in deportation proceedings, and they were working just fine before this.
 
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant they could go to one of the 9 us consolates and request asylum in the US
 
Are you suggesting that people who are escaping violence, come to the border, and are seeking asylum should return to the violence they’re escaping to go to an embassy?

Also, how is someone from one of these violent starts to know they must go to the consulate or embassy to start their asylum claim? It’s easy to say such from your ivory tower, but these people are FLEEING. It’s not as if they have a lot of time or education on these processes.

People have one year from entering a country to establish an asylum claim, every policy that’s been engaged by this administration is just bereft of humanity or the spirit of Christ.
 
CatholicSooner said:
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I meant they could go to one of the 9 us consolates and request asylum in the US
Click to expand...
I thought this too, but it’s wrong. To request asylum in the US, one must come to a legal entry point, not an embassy or consulate.
anikins said:
Are you suggesting that people who are escaping violence
Click to expand...
Aren’t they coming to even worse violence in the US? The white supremacist President and his supporters are sticking them in concentration camps (queue theme from “Schindler’s List”) and ripping their children from their very breasts. How can it be any worse than that? I can’t understand how any Catholic can, in good conscience, countenance any non-white person coming to the US under the Trumpen Fuhrer.
 
Last edited:
So they somehow know how to get to the border but not to a consulate? Cmon. It’s the age of technology. It’s a simple google search. If they don’t have a phone, there are other ways

Do it legally. They live closer to a consulate than the border
 
CatholicSooner said:
It’s the age of technology. It’s a simple google search.
Click to expand...
Ah. I see. You have no idea whatsoever what conditions these people are trying to survive in.

Very ivory tower of you indeed to assume they have access to the internet, much less computers.
 
I did indeed read your whole post and the selection that I quoted was all I needed to confirm that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Well that is no way to have a discussion. Cherry picking statements.

I specifically said that IF they don’t have a cell phone…

So to say what you said is incredibly manipulative and insulting.

If you want to have a real discussion I am all for it. If you want to continue misrepresenting my words, see ya
 
They do mean well though. The Bishops simply wish for just systems in addition to charity, that intention does seem noble.
 
pnewton said:
There are a myriad ways of implementing a preferential option for the poor.
Click to expand...
There are only three ways to be personally preferential for the poor.
  1. Be for the poor. (But who isn’t?)
  2. Be with the poor.
  3. Become poor.
All that I have read in this thread relates to category number 1 options. Recommending any lawful governmental option is to recommend an institutional option. The result would be the same: the children will be institutionalized.

Try number 2. The option to open up your own home to the illegal families.

Try number 3. The option to give generously (that is, until it hurts) to Catholic Charities or other charities who help the immigrant and earmark your gift to provide relief for illegal immigrants.
 
Well no, Trump can’t change the law. The executive branch has no authority to change the law. That is the domain of Congress. Trump issued an executive order to the employees of the executive branch to keep children with parents now, since everyone was so upset about it, but this is actually against the law and if anyone decides to challenge it the executive order will be struck down. What needs to happen, if anyone really cares, is for Congress to amend the law. Then Trump could enforce a different law. Maybe everyone should be harassing their Congrssman or Senator to stop such apparently horrible and traumatic family separations.

But really this whole episode is a fairly transparent attempt to paint Trump and by association Republicans as immigrant hating, family destroying monsters and to force the administration to not enforce immigration law. Those acting so concerned don’t actually care about addressing the issue. They just want to score political points for upcoming elections. If they did care they would propose and pass a bipartisan law that gave the president more options than, “separate children from parents while the parents are held for hearing” and “release anyone with a child into the US”. If I was particularly cynical I would say that they are fine with promoting human trafficking of young children and the separation of families hundreds of miles from the border where parents hand their children off to smugglers in order to fuel cheap labor and win votes. If I was cynical.
 
Last edited:
Luke6_37 said:
Trump is not Pro-Life. Sorry, but you were conned.
Click to expand...
Some think he’s pro-life. From the Washington Post …

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e2c7e7491e94

to the National Review …

www.nationalreview.com

Trump’s Choice on Life | National Review

His unlikely alliance with the pro-life movement is proof of its growing strength.
www.nationalreview.com www.nationalreview.com

and with an election on the line, here’s how he differed with Hillary Clinton
At the October 19 debate in Las Vegas, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Clinton to explain her vote as a U.S. senator against a ban on partial-birth abortions, to which Clinton replied that such late-term procedures must remain legal to protect the life and health of mothers.
Click to expand...
Asked for his view, Trump threw down the gauntlet: “Well, I think it’s terrible,” he said, cutting off the end of Wallace’s follow-up question in his haste.

“If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby.” He enunciated each word with his signature tone of disgust.

“Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay. But it’s not okay with me, because based on what she’s saying, and based on where she’s going, and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month, on the final day. And that is not acceptable.”
In one electric moment, nearly 72 million viewers heard straight from the Republican nominee’s mouth the reality of late-term abortion procedures and watched the Democratic nominee twice defend it. As polls consistently illustrate, it was Trump and not Clinton who sided with the majority of Americans in his view of that gruesome reality.
Click to expand...
 
o_mlly said:
Try number 2. The option to open up your own home to the illegal families.
Click to expand...
Unless it’s a genocide situation or a natural disaster emergency, which it isn’t, I am not comfortable bringing total strangers to stay at my house, especially when they are breaking US law. I think most people have the common sense to see the problems inherent in such an approach.
 
o_mlly said:
Be for the poor. (But who isn’t?)
Click to expand...
Donald Trump.
The Republican party.
Half the people who have posted here.

The current system of immigration tiers favors the wealthy immigrant and makes little path for the poorest, even those that have worked hard their whole life. This preferential option for wealth has been defended by the majority of people here, though it is in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine.
 
CaptFun said:
Some think he’s pro-life.
Click to expand...
Trump is not Pro-Life. It’s all a con.

Trump is anti-abortion, because he wants to punish poor pregnant women by forcing them to remain pregnant, knowing that it will cause tremendous social problems for them. His selective use of Pro-Life rhetoric is like Satan quoting scripture to defend his greater evil purpose.

It’s all clear as day to those with eyes to see.
 
pnewton said:
The current system of immigration tiers favors the wealthy immigrant and makes little path for the poorest, even those that have worked hard their whole life. This preferential option for wealth has been defended by the majority of people here, though it is in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...
You are fighting the good fight my friend (2 Tim 4:7).

Trump wants to take credit for the booming economy, but apparently you can never be too rich. Unemployment is way down. There is plenty of work available. People who have the where with all to leave home & family to seek a better life are exactly the kind of migrants we want. In the past, those are the kind of people who truly made America great.

I wonder when Trump supporters will wake up to the fact that if ever there was a time to welcome the stranger, it is now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top