blackforest
Well-known member
I’ve said this a few times. There is nothing illegal about going to a designated port of entry and seeking asylum.
USCCB Condemns Separating Immigrant Children from Families
- Thread starter blackforest
- Start date
- Status
P
Pup7
Guest
You must really have a problem with this country to be so negative about its governing bodies.
It’s almost as though the legal system is great when it agrees with you, and horrible when it doesn’t.
It’s not “unwillingness”. It’s the fact that they don’t meet the legal requirements for being granted asylum. Why does that seem to bother you so much? If one doesn’t deserve asylum, one doesn’t get it, and leaves room for someone who DOES deserve it.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I actually agree with you here. If this was going on and not being covered by the press while St. “Free Pass” Obama was president, then that’s infuriating. I think a lot of injustices are occurring that aren’t getting coverage because they aren’t flavor-of-the-month.
P
Pup7
Guest
It was TOTALLY going on. Do some research.
This has been happening for years. Why do you think so many of us have been saying that, over and over again?
This has been happening for years. Why do you think so many of us have been saying that, over and over again?
blackforest
Well-known member
I’ve acknowledged repeatedly that I’m against this happening regardless of who’s in office.
P
Pup7
Guest
I’m addressing this:
It has been around for years, and it is being manipulated by the press to cast the current administration in an even worse light.
It was. Many of us have said this, over and over again. It was swept under the carpet and given a 45 second blurb on the news. This is not a new policy. This is not something created by the current administration.
It has been around for years, and it is being manipulated by the press to cast the current administration in an even worse light.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I’m criticizing a government policy. So is Church hierarchy. What’s new or different or even wrong with that?
Right. They were policies deliberately enacted because the government was unwilling to take in as many asylees. Laws aren’t passive processes or natural consequences. For better or worse, they’re set by human beings with ideologies and agendas.
P
Pup7
Guest
I addressed this:
It’s not unwillingness. It’s an inability. That’s not a criticism, that’s a bending of the facts. A criticism would be “the government needs to change its parameters because not enough is being done” or something to that effect. “Unwillingness” implies the standards are just being ignored. The standards are followed - and not enough people meet them.
And most of them don’t remotely qualify as asylees. So it can hardly be reluctance if parameters for that status aren’t met by the applicant.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
People don’t qualify for asylum because a government unwilling to except them changed the law to make sure they wouldn’t be accepted. It’s quite simple, really.
Last edited:
P
Pup7
Guest
No, people don’t qualify for asylum because they don’t qualify for asylum.
That’s like saying I didn’t get accepted to Harvard with bad grades and a crappy SAT because they didn’t change their admissions rules to let me in with bad grades and a low SAT score, therefore Harvard is in the wrong.
That’s not how life works.
(Never applied to Harvard for the record. Also never had bad grades or poor SATs. LOL.)
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
Where do you think asylum laws came from? The moon?
The Trump administration RECENTLY changed the laws.
Simpsons creator Matt Groening got turned down from Harvard and spent much of his career getting back at the the school, lol!
P
Pup7
Guest
No, actually, I don’t. I’m a bit more educated than that.
People still don’t qualify because they don’t qualify. And did it ever occur to you that perhaps the laws changed because the vast influx of immigrants necessitated it? This stuff doesn’t happen in a vacuum.
I did fine myself. Duke treated me pretty well.
blackforest
Well-known member
No, it happens because an opportunistic self-avowed crotch-grabbing billionaire seized power and is pandering to his bigoted, xenophobic electorate.
But that’s fodder for another day, another thread.
O
o_mlly
Guest
In solidarity, we are all seeking to balance our obligation to the alien and to the citizen.
In subsidiarity, the matter of immigration is a federal one. We are broke. Is it virtuous to do good at the cost of others (future generations) or should we bear the burden ourselves? If the latter then what will our citizens give up now to finance the cost of increasing and accelerating immigration? I suspect that is the reason congress has not and will not address this issue with new reforms.
I also believe that the demand to migrate to the USA will, as far as we can see, exceed supply no matter how much we increase our capacity to accommodate the alien. Then as now, our bishops, as they should, will ask us to do more. And we will pray for guidance then as now remembering John 12:8.
T
Theo520
Guest
People genuinely fleeing el salvador are the responsibility of Mexico.
They travel a couple more thousand miles up to the US, because they are economic migrants.
They travel a couple more thousand miles up to the US, because they are economic migrants.
A
Augustinian
Guest
Actually a majority of Catholics voted for President Trump in 2016.
And no one had their crotch grabbed. On Access Hollywood, Trump was just observing to the Bush scion, that if you are a famous TV star there are any number of women who will throw themselves at you. Mr. Trump did use crude language- but the point is solid. The “Billy Graham” rule was established by the late evangelist to deal with this as a rumor of an affair could be deadly to his ministry(at least it could when he established the rule in the 1940’s)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
In this case, you have to release the families after minimal processing–and do not tell me there is no way to do any processing whatsoever. That is simply not true.
You can put ankle monitors on the adults, or what have you, but until there is a protocol that manages both verification and keeping children with their parents until the parents have been convicted of a crime, you cannot take children away from parents who have not been convicted of a crime and don’t even have an opportunity to arrange for alternative child care. You especially can’t take them away for an amount of time that has people arguing it is more cost effective to transport them to another state! You can’t take them away without keeping the parents informed concerning where the children are and who is taking care of them!
Honestly, who comes up with this stuff? If your brother was accused of murdering your sister-in-law, the authorities still try to find a way to place the children with family. They don’t ship them off to another state and refuse to tell anyone where they are!! I really cannot understand anyone who does not see that as interfering with custodial rights, either.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
Exactly, Trump was mocking ‘groupies’ in that recorded discussion,
The only thing he confessed to was ‘kissing without consent’, in that recording.
P
PetraG
Guest
OK, so when he said:
“Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful—I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the ------,"
you are actually arguing that in the beginning of the quote, because he was using the first person pronoun, he was referring to things he did himself, but at the end of the quote, he switched to talking about things other people did because he switched to the second person pronoun?
That is an unbelievable interpretation of what he said. Either say he was lying to Bush in order to show off or else conclude he was telling the truth and had actually done those things. Both are possible, since in the public record he has both bragged about things he has done and also bragged about doing things that he didn’t do. Do not try to say that he was not bragging about having done those things himself. That does not even make sense. (By the way, in the same conversation he also related a story about a time he made a failed attempt to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. He did not express regret. Instead, he criticized the woman for being less attractive now than she was then. Don’t even try to say he was not describing himself as an utter pig, then. If he tried that on the wife of one of his voters, they would NOT see it as harmless or just what guys do.)
When he apologized, he said he’d changed since making those comments. That didn’t stop him from telling the wife of the French President that she had a great body (?!?!) as if it were very flattering to hear that from him. Forgive me if I am skeptical, then.
Having said that, Mr. Trump did not “seize power.” Some voters voted for him in spite of all those gross things he said, because the alternative was packing the Supreme Court with Hillary Clinton appointees. Others voted for him because they actually approved of all the gross, rude things he says. When he does it, they call it “being honest.” As for the popular vote, unless it can be proven that he broke election rules in some covert way, he won according to the election rules, which is to say he carried the Electoral College, which is all that counts. Like him or not, he is the President. (Of course, to be President of the United States is to be criticized, and the President has some hand in setting the tone of criticism by how he criticizes his opponents. I’m not sure Mr. Trump has accepted that yet…)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
No, as I noted, he also related his ardent but failed attempt to seduce a married woman by taking her furniture shopping. He was not just talking about women throwing themselves at him, then. (Look up the transcript, if you don’t believe me; it is not appropriate to cite it here.)
Nowhere does he talk about women throwing themselves at him. In every instance during that conversation, he’s talking about actions he initiated. Some were successful, some not, but there is no mention at all of women who throw themselves at him. (If you watch the tapes, however, it is Bush who is totally clueless in what he tries and what he suggests, not Mr. Trump, which does argue in favor of Mr. Trump inexplicably showing off for Mr. Bush instead of actually describing what he intended to do.)
With respect to this conversation, however, what Mr. Trump says now gets done, at least until a court prevents him. He does not like that, but I cannot remember a President ever thanking the Supreme Court for telling him that his orders cannot be carried out.
Last edited:
- Status