Vatican criticizes fence?

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1711175:

I stand by my post.

I believe the Church teaches that no one has the right to violate the rights

You avoided the previous question. How can you espouse that it is okay to violate their Human Rights recognized by the Church? They have both the right to emmigrate and to immigrate. You simply violate this right.

of others or to cause harm to others by their actions, and certainly not in their efforts to pursue increased material wealth.

Doesn’t apply as these Rights cannot be taken away or surrendered.

I reject your claims that the Church teaches the opposite as misinterpretation of Church teachings.

You don’t reject my claims you reject Church Teaching.

Most illegal immigrants are reasonably healthy, except of course those who bring horrible infectious diseases with them. Most illegal immigrants are not starving, are not suffering from malnutrition, and are not suffering from famine related diseases.

Sorry this is very warped. There are NO conditions under which these Rights can be arbitrarily violated.

This would seem to mean that most illegal immigrants have been earning sufficient wages to feed themselves and their families to a reasonable level of health

Again this requires one to ignore Church Teaching as there is no such test.

I am not aware of any declarations of starvation or famine by millions of Mexican nationals by the Church, by the Mexican Government, or by any UN organizations. I am not aware of any calls to the world community for life-saving aid in the form of food for millions impoverished Mexican nationals by the Church, by the Mexican Government, or by any UN organizations.

Well there actually have been reports of famine but one more time there is no such test required in Church Teaching. Under you interpretation any person who is still alive could have their rights violated and that is simply wrong. Obviously you simply want to ignore the fact that these rights are “INVIOLABLE”.

This also would seem to mean that most illegal immigrants have been earning sufficient wages to feed themselves and their families to a reasonable level of health.

Wrong again! That is simply not a test or precondition to their Rights. Their Rights are God given.

Just about everyone would like to increase his or her income and gain more material wealth, more goods and a better quality of life.

AND according to Church Teaching every person has that right but the fact remains that it is the poorest in Mexico who come to fill the jobs we need filled. The rich are not barred from coming here.

While there is nothing wrong with such goals I believe the Church teaches that no one has the right to violate the rights of or to cause harm to others in his or her pursuit of those goals

Redundant deflection. Not even a good try.

If millions of Mexican nationals are indeed in need of the basics for survival, the US and the whole international community should be made aware of the situation by suitable authorities and be given the opportunity to provide aid to the sufferers. Such opportunities should be well before the US, or any other country, should be asked to tolerate illegal immigration with the harm to its citizens that illegals impose.

This is utter lunacy as it is not an economically viable solution. If you’re serious about helping them, and you’re not, the cheapest and most effective way would be to change their status to “Legal”. That would be a win/win solution.

 

[Fremont]

You avoided the previous question. How can you espouse that it is okay to violate their Human Rights recognized by the Church? They have both the right to emmigrate and to immigrate. You simply violate this right.

You don’t reject my claims you reject Church Teaching.

I can only repeat that I stand by my post.

Certainly everyone has rights.

My position is that everyone must be careful when exercising those rights that they do not violate the rights of others or cause harm to others.

I believe the Church teaches that no one has the right to violate the rights of others or to cause harm to others by their actions.

I do not believe there are any rights of illegal immigrants that supersede the rights of US citizens. I do not believe the Church teaches that illegal immigrants can exercise their rights by violating the rights of US citizens.

I am sorry that I cannot recognize you as the official interpreter of Church teaching or as the official spokesperson of Church doctrine. I do not accept your accusation that if I do not agree with your narrow interpretations that I reject teachings of the Church.

 

[Ituyu]

I can only repeat that I stand by my post.

Certainly everyone has rights.

My position is that everyone must be careful when exercising those rights that they do not violate the rights of others or cause harm to others.

 

[rpp]

Hmm…

The charity level on this thread does not seem to be improving.



I think I will unsubscribe. I do not like to watch someone beat up somebody else. Nor do I like to see a “holier than thou” person. When they are combined in the same person, it is just too much to take.

 

[Fremont]

There are no conflicting Rights on this issue. We’ve been over it a number of times and you’re just unwilling to accept the truth.

But that’s EXACTLY what we’ve done in relation to their Rights. Following there Natural God given Rights does not infringe on anyone else’s rights. They crossed a border and the Church says that they have the right to do so. They obtained jobs and the Church says that they not only have a right but an obligation to do so. And, the have contributed to our economic growth and added to badly needed population growth which translates to a booming growth market here at home.

You rely on “costs” as harm but those costs are outweighed by their labor and future growth.

Their rights don’t supercede ours and they also have not violated ours. The problem is your highly biased perspective that you use as a rationalization to ignore Church Teaching. Of course, if you’re going to follow the ramblings and beliefs of extremist radical entities such as The John Birch Society, WND, FAIR, CIS and the Minutemen, you will have trouble seeing through all their teachings to see how their views conflict with Church Teachings. Why? Because simply those are not Catholic oriented groups. Try this little exercise. Apply Catholic Teaching first, then apply what you’ve learned from those others and maybe you’ll get a clue as to what is expected of us and how those others lead you astray.

Once again, I’ve offered you word for word quotes. I think someone else also offered a very good instruction from Pope John Paul the Great. It’s not complicated or difficult to understand. In fact, the mental exercise required in order for you distort and contort Catholic precepts are much more difficult than taking the Popes at their word. After all is said and done you’re still unable to reconcile their words with your beliefs.

Obviously we view Church teaching on this topic differently.

There have been plenty of illustrations on how illegal immigrants violate the rights of US citizens and cause harm to them. For the most part the affected are the working poor in the US.

I believe the Church teaches that no one has the right to violate the rights of others or to cause harm to others by their actions – and that includes violations by illegal immigrants.

Again I am sorry that I cannot recognize you as the official interpreter of Church teaching or as the official spokesperson of Church doctrine – nor do I recognize those qualities in the cardinal who is the topic of this thread.

It would seem there is little point in continuing any dialog.

 

[Ituyu]

Obviously we view Church teaching on this topic differently.

Judging by how others view our discussion, I think I’ve made my point. There is no need to continue these points beyond this point, unless of course, you insist.

There have been plenty of illustrations on how illegal immigrants violate the rights of US citizens and cause harm to them. For the most part the affected are the working poor in the US.

 

[Lance]

Thank you Fremont and rpp for very well thought out and reasonable posts. I have found that if I ignore the posters who refuse to see anything wrong with illegal imigration my level of charity goes up. They believe you are a raceist if you don’t see things exactly as they do. They twist church teaching to suit their beliefs and try to convience others that they are right. They are not going to change and neither am I, so I just add them to my ignore list.

By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.

 

[Kendy]

Thank you Fremont and rpp for very well thought out and reasonable posts. I have found that if I ignore the posters who refuse to see anything wrong with illegal imigration my level of charity goes up. They believe you are a raceist if you don’t see things exactly as they do. They twist church teaching to suit their beliefs and try to convience others that they are right. They are not going to change and neither am I, so I just add them to my ignore list.

I don’t think anyone who thinks there’s nothing wrong with illegal immigration. There are people who don’t think that the solution to illegal immigration is to take punitive actions against migrant workers as opposed to passing laws to faciliate safe and legal immigration. Safe and illegal immigration that would meet our economy’s demand for workers.

By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.

 

[Kendy]

Thank you Fremont and rpp for very well thought out and reasonable posts. I have found that if I ignore the posters who refuse to see anything wrong with illegal imigration my level of charity goes up. They believe you are a raceist if you don’t see things exactly as they do. They twist church teaching to suit their beliefs and try to convience others that they are right. They are not going to change and neither am I, so I just add them to my ignore list.

By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.

I am not claiming to be an expert on church teaching, but there’s something about this debate that baffles me. And if you could take me off your ignore list for just a second, I would like you to address some of the points that I have been mentioning. You are right that we have no Ex Cathedra statements on this issue, especially not on the fence. But let’s look at what we do have. As I mentioned before, there are a plethora of statements by bishops, cardinals, the USCCB on this issue. Furthermore, there’s the work of “Justice for Immigrant,” a catholic organization, and “Priests for Justice.” On the other hand, I challenge anyone to find me anything written by any church official that supports punitive and restrictive actions on this issue?

When I first started reflecting on this issue, I was a new catholic and I decided to look into what the church says before I formed by opinion. I talked to several priest, and a monsegnieur (sp). I search for letters, studies, and documents by members of the church, particularly high ranking ones, and I was just amazed by how many church prelates are not in favor of taking harsh punitive actions. In fact, from what I can tell there is no larger pro-immigrant advocacy group in this country than the catholic church. This is is of course not to say, they were in favor of open borders but neither am I. Very few pro-immigration people thinks open borders are wise.

I suppose you believe that none of this matter because the pope has not made a definitive statement. But this is what I find baffling.

1. If the only thing we need is for the pope to speak, why don’t we send the rest of these people home? Do the bishops and cardinals have nothing to say to us? If that is the case, then why are they here?
2. Second, given the large number of pro-immigrant activity throughout the church, if these people are acting against church teaching, why doesn’t the pope say something. Just recently, the vatican secretary to the UN made a very pro-immigrant statement at a UN assembly. Don’t you think he at least talks to the pope about what he’s going to say at ther UN before saying it?
3. Does it not bother you a little bit that there are so many pro-immigrant church officials, both here and in Rome? (It is a mischaracterization to refer to a few renegages here.) Does this not make you question your position a little bit?

Kendy

 

[Fremont]

Once again, I’ve offered you word for word quotes. I think someone else also offered a very good instruction from Pope John Paul the Great. It’s not complicated or difficult to understand. In fact, the mental exercise required in order for you distort and contort Catholic precepts are much more difficult than taking the Popes at their word. After all is said and done you’re still unable to reconcile their words with your beliefs.

Maybe one last attempt.

From the vast teachings of the Church you select a few quotes you like and claim they apply to illegal immigration. Then you concoct in your mind interpretations of those quotes and develop concepts of how they should be applied to illegal immigrants and how they should be applied to US immigration rules and laws. From your personal interpretations you then extrapolate to claims that the Church teaches this and the Church teaches that as well as concepts of how many so called inviolable rights of illegal immigrants can be defined based on your conclusions. Then you go on to claim that anyone who does not agree with your interpretations and conclusions is against the Church.

I do not agree with your interpretations, I do not agree with your conclusions about Church teachings. There are other Church teachings that should be considered and there are other interpretations of the quotes you have selected.

Included in basic human rights are the right to food and shelter. As we get into winter the need for shelter becomes more acute because the nights get very cold in most areas.

In many cities Catholic Charities has facilities to provide food and shelter to the homeless, the destitute and the needy.

But there are rules governing access to these services.

Recent media sources illustrated the rules used by Catholic Charities in Las Vegas, NV.

Prior to admittance each person is subject to inspection to assure they do not possess forbidden items such as drugs, alcohol or weapons. Also prior to admission each person must take a breath test to assure they are free from alcohol. The arbitrary limit is blood alcohol must be less than 0.01 percent (the DUI limit is 0.08 percent in many states).

The local bishop interprets Church teaching to be that it is both fair and just for Catholic Charities to deny food and shelter to the homeless, the destitute and the needy who are unwilling to or unable to obey the rules or who fail the test – even though there is ample accommodations available that will go unused and even though there is inclement weather. Denial of food and shelter even if the person is an illegal immigrant.

Further, the homeless, the destitute and the needy have no right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests in their quest for food and shelter – even though there is ample accommodations available that will go unused and even though there is inclement weather. No right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests even if the person is an illegal immigrant.

From his perspective and knowledge of Church teaching the bishop clearly shows that even basic human rights are not absolute and they can be denied. Denied not because of the lack of ability to fulfill those rights but rather denied because the person violates the rules and/or fails to meet certain standards.

You claim your interpretation of Church teaching is that basic rights are absolute and cannot be denied no matter what the rules are.

It would seem that both you and the bishop cannot be right.

 

[Fremont]

Thank you Fremont and rpp for very well thought out and reasonable posts. I have found that if I ignore the posters who refuse to see anything wrong with illegal imigration my level of charity goes up. They believe you are a raceist if you don’t see things exactly as they do. They twist church teaching to suit their beliefs and try to convience others that they are right. They are not going to change and neither am I, so I just add them to my ignore list.

By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.

Thanks for your kind comments.

I do not plan to go away, at least not yet. I am just tired of seeing the same distorted and contrived claims over and over from the same poster.

I am sad that rpp says he is pulling out. He, or she, seemed very reasonable and sincere with good posts.

I also agree that the title of this thread is misleading for just the reasons you listed.

 

[Fremont]

I am not claiming to be an expert on church teaching, but there’s something about this debate that baffles me. And if you could take me off your ignore list for just a second, I would like you to address some of the points that I have been mentioning. You are right that we have no Ex Cathedra statements on this issue, especially not on the fence. But let’s look at what we do have. As I mentioned before, there are a plethora of statements by bishops, cardinals, the USCCB on this issue. Furthermore, there’s the work of “Justice for Immigrant,” a catholic organization, and “Priests for Justice.” On the other hand, I challenge anyone to find me anything written by any church official that supports punitive and restrictive actions on this issue?

When I first started reflecting on this issue, I was a new catholic and I decided to look into what the church says before I formed by opinion. I talked to several priest, and a monsegnieur (sp). I search for letters, studies, and documents by members of the church, particularly high ranking ones, and I was just amazed by how many church prelates are not in favor of taking harsh punitive actions. In fact, from what I can tell there is no larger pro-immigrant advocacy group in this country than the catholic church. This is is of course not to say, they were in favor of open borders but neither am I. Very few pro-immigration people thinks open borders are wise.

I suppose you believe that none of this matter because the pope has not made a definitive statement. But this is what I find baffling.

1. If the only thing we need is for the pope to speak, why don’t we send the rest of these people home? Do the bishops and cardinals have nothing to say to us? If that is the case, then why are they here?
2. Second, given the large number of pro-immigrant activity throughout the church, if these people are acting against church teaching, why doesn’t the pope say something. Just recently, the vatican secretary to the UN made a very pro-immigrant statement at a UN assembly. Don’t you think he at least talks to the pope about what he’s going to say at ther UN before saying it?
3. Does it not bother you a little bit that there are so many pro-immigrant church officials, both here and in Rome? (It is a mischaracterization to refer to a few renegages here.) Does this not make you question your position a little bit?

Kendy

Good questions.

My basic ideas are that we should do all we can to discourage foreign nationals from trying to enter the US illegally. I hope the fence is the first step in such discouragement. Maybe it will get would-be illegal immigrants to think twice and decide it is too difficult or too dangerous to try and just go home.

I also believe that we should do all we can to encourage illegals already here to leave and return to their country of origin. They are several ways to do that and more rigorous enforcement of our laws against hiring illegals on employers that do is one.

It is sad to me that so many of our clergy seem to support illegal immigrants and the unlawful behaviors they do. To me this reduces respect for the law and for those who enforce the law. I believe this is wrong. I believe those clergy are not serving the community very well.

 

[rpp]

I am not claiming to be an expert on church teaching, but there’s something about this debate that baffles me. And if you could take me off your ignore list for just a second, I would like you to address some of the points that I have been mentioning. You are right that we have no Ex Cathedra statements on this issue, especially not on the fence. But let’s look at what we do have. As I mentioned before, there are a plethora of statements by bishops, cardinals, the USCCB on this issue. Furthermore, there’s the work of “Justice for Immigrant,” a catholic organization, and “Priests for Justice.” On the other hand, I challenge anyone to find me anything written by any church official that supports punitive and restrictive actions on this issue?

When I first started reflecting on this issue, I was a new catholic and I decided to look into what the church says before I formed by opinion. I talked to several priest, and a monsegnieur (sp). I search for letters, studies, and documents by members of the church, particularly high ranking ones, and I was just amazed by how many church prelates are not in favor of taking harsh punitive actions. In fact, from what I can tell there is no larger pro-immigrant advocacy group in this country than the catholic church. This is is of course not to say, they were in favor of open borders but neither am I. Very few pro-immigration people thinks open borders are wise.

I suppose you believe that none of this matter because the pope has not made a definitive statement. But this is what I find baffling.

1. If the only thing we need is for the pope to speak, why don’t we send the rest of these people home? Do the bishops and cardinals have nothing to say to us? If that is the case, then why are they here?
2. Second, given the large number of pro-immigrant activity throughout the church, if these people are acting against church teaching, why doesn’t the pope say something. Just recently, the vatican secretary to the UN made a very pro-immigrant statement at a UN assembly. Don’t you think he at least talks to the pope about what he’s going to say at ther UN before saying it?
3. Does it not bother you a little bit that there are so many pro-immigrant church officials, both here and in Rome? (It is a mischaracterization to refer to a few renegages here.) Does this not make you question your position a little bit?

Kendy

I do not think that having reasonable and just immigrations laws equates to harsh punitive measures against immigrants.

As the grandchild of immigrants, I am very in favor of immigration. However, it must be done in an orderly way. That means that at some point someone will be told, “not now”, while others may be told, “not ever.”

Should we allow a convicted sex offender who has served his time to immigrate? What about a convicted drug trafficer? Or murderer. Assumming all these people have served their time in prison and have “repaid their debt to society” in their home country, should we let them start over here? I think most people would say no.

What should we do with immigrants who come here legally and commit very serious or violent crimes?

Clearly some restrictions on immigration are reasonable.

While America is rich, its store of wealth is not bottomless.

I would never support a halt or freeze to immigration. However, reasonable restictions, as I mentioned earlier, that protect the dignity an safety of people, protect those already here and are inherently just. (An example of an unjust immigration law is one where families are broken up because a parent is deported for something other than a serious or violent crime. That is just wrong.)

On the other hand, this is a country of laws. Law enforcement cannot turn a blind-eye to illegal immigration. Who knows who those people really are?

 

[rpp]

I am not claiming to be an expert on church teaching, but there’s something about this debate that baffles me. And if you could take me off your ignore list for just a second, I would like you to address some of the points that I have been mentioning. You are right that we have no Ex Cathedra statements on this issue, especially not on the fence. But let’s look at what we do have. As I mentioned before, there are a plethora of statements by bishops, cardinals, the USCCB on this issue. Furthermore, there’s the work of “Justice for Immigrant,” a catholic organization, and “Priests for Justice.” On the other hand, I challenge anyone to find me anything written by any church official that supports punitive and restrictive actions on this issue?

When I first started reflecting on this issue, I was a new catholic and I decided to look into what the church says before I formed by opinion. I talked to several priest, and a monsegnieur (sp). I search for letters, studies, and documents by members of the church, particularly high ranking ones, and I was just amazed by how many church prelates are not in favor of taking harsh punitive actions. In fact, from what I can tell there is no larger pro-immigrant advocacy group in this country than the catholic church. This is is of course not to say, they were in favor of open borders but neither am I. Very few pro-immigration people thinks open borders are wise.

I suppose you believe that none of this matter because the pope has not made a definitive statement. But this is what I find baffling.

1. If the only thing we need is for the pope to speak, why don’t we send the rest of these people home? Do the bishops and cardinals have nothing to say to us? If that is the case, then why are they here?
2. Second, given the large number of pro-immigrant activity throughout the church, if these people are acting against church teaching, why doesn’t the pope say something. Just recently, the vatican secretary to the UN made a very pro-immigrant statement at a UN assembly. Don’t you think he at least talks to the pope about what he’s going to say at ther UN before saying it?
3. Does it not bother you a little bit that there are so many pro-immigrant church officials, both here and in Rome? (It is a mischaracterization to refer to a few renegages here.) Does this not make you question your position a little bit?

Kendy

I do not think that having reasonable and just immigrations laws equates to harsh punitive measures against immigrants.

As the grandchild of immigrants, I am very in favor of immigration. However, it must be done in an orderly way. That means that at some point someone will be told, “not now”, while others may be told, “not ever.”

Should we allow a convicted sex offender who has served his time to immigrate? What about a convicted drug trafficer? Or murderer. Assumming all these people have served their time in prison and have “repaid their debt to society” in their home country, should we let them start over here? I think most people would say no.

What should we do with immigrants who come here legally and commit very serious or violent crimes?

Clearly some restrictions on immigration are reasonable.

While America is rich, its store of wealth is not bottomless.

I would never support a halt or freeze to immigration. However, reasonable restictions, as I mentioned earlier, that protect the dignity an safety of people, protect those already here and are inherently just. (An example of an unjust immigration law is one where families are broken up because a parent is deported for something other than a serious or violent crime. That is just wrong.)

On the other hand, this is a country of laws. Law enforcement cannot turn a blind-eye to illegal immigration. Who knows who those people really are?

 

[Kendy]

By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.

It occured to me while at work today (clearly, I am not busy enough that this analogy doesn’t quite capture the facts. The cardinal is the president of the Justice an d Peace department of the Roman curia. In other words, he’s a member of the pope’s inner circle. So, it’s actually more like someone saying, “The white house says” as a result of something Condi Rice said.

 

[Kendy]

Good questions.

My basic ideas are that we should do all we can to discourage foreign nationals from trying to enter the US illegally. I hope the fence is the first step in such discouragement. Maybe it will get would-be illegal immigrants to think twice and decide it is too difficult or too dangerous to try and just go home.

I also believe that we should do all we can to encourage illegals already here to leave and return to their country of origin. They are several ways to do that and more rigorous enforcement of our laws against hiring illegals on employers that do is one.

It is sad to me that so many of our clergy seem to support illegal immigrants and the unlawful behaviors they do. To me this reduces respect for the law and for those who enforce the law. I believe this is wrong. I believe those clergy are not serving the community very well.

I honestly I am not trying to be disrespectful. I know I get very upset about this issue, but I am really working on it this time so bear with. I don’t think you addressed my question. Saying it saddens you doesn’t answer my questions. Perhaps, you would rather not at this time, but I do hope you will at least reflect on him.

Secondly, could it be that there are so many in our clergy who support illegal immigratants despite their having broken the law because they believe that the law is more problematic than the crime? Could it be that these cardinals and bishops think that as a wealthy nation we have a responsibility to assist those who are less fortunate no matter how they came to that misfortune?

Kendy

P.S. On sending illegal immigrant back home, if what this would do immigrant families does not effect you, consider the fact that it would simply damage our economy. You cannot suddenly move 11 million workers out of the economy without causing serious havoc. In fact, no one is seriously considering, even people who are for the fence, because they realize that.

P.S. 2 Please, take the time to read the JPII speech and articles on the USCCB website.

 

[Cossack1]

“Most Americans are not opposed to the idea of offering those already here a meaningful avenue to citizenship.”

Most Americans want the law of this land upheld. Most Americans do not want blanket immunity. My grandfather came here legally through Ellis Island and it is totally appropriate to expect the same from the illegal ailiens.

“Alan Greenspan, for one, recognizes that our economy has a decreasing supply of unemployed workers.”

Are you saying that Mr. Greenspan is in favor of 12 million illegal aliens scooting over the border? I doubt it.

CIS and other organizations have shown through empirical evidence that illegal aliens use up social services like medical care etc. Just because you deem them “conservative,” or “right wing,” does not change the facts they reveal.

“to build fences that we know will result in the deaths of additional poor non-white’s, to deprive them of ALL inviolable rights is not the kind of LOVE that Christ taught.”

You are engaging in sensationalist knee-jerk rhetoric that is meaningless. The US and ALL other countries have a right and a duty to its citizens to protect its borders. We do allow LEGAL immigration, but we must regulate it and know who is here. You are suggesting having open borders which will allow anarchy to prevail. I don’t know what your real motivation is, but I assure you that the citizens of this country will never allow people like you to get their way. The American people have a common sense that transcends the lunatic fringe.

From reading your other comments I can see that you are unsuccessfully twisting Church teaching to suit your own anti-American agenda. The US is indeed the greatest country in the world and we have helped millions of people over time. We are the first to arrive in countries in times of natural disasters. All of Europe would be speaking German had the US not intervened in WWII. Later, the whole world would be speaking Russian had the US not stood up to the former Soviet Union. I know that the world and certainly the good citizens of this country do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden aid by hamstringing our own country. People like you who want to see this country fall so you can use the resources for your own means are legion, but most citizens are wise to you.

You are surrounded by posters who are refuting your comments. These people are the good common sense Americans who will always stand up to people that would betray and terrorize this country. Europe and other countries are fast becoming more secular and turning their backs on God. I understand why people like you covet our great country, but know that you will never succeed in bringing it down as long as people like me and the others on this board stand firm. And so we shall.

 

[Cossack1]

“You can’t lift 12 million people out of the economy and expect it to function seemlessly. Everyonne with half a brain realizes that these people are now part of the economy, and they came here because there was a demand for their labor. Without these immigrants, the cost of all these tasks would increase due to a worker shortage, making these goods and services unafforable for many more people. I am sorry I am being snide, but this is basic economics, and it upsets me that people use their lack of economic literacy to promote policies that are not only uncharitable but economically unsound. I am always estounded by how much this driven by nationalistic zeal as opposed to real economic data.”

Kendy, I assure you that to have taken my share of basic econ classes. Unless you are using Star Trek technology it would indeed be impossible to “lift 12 million people.” I am saying that the first step to solving our illegal alien problem is to stop them at the border with a fence and/or the National Guard. Again, I fail to see how we have got to the point where ANYONE can be against ANY country protecting its own borders from illegal intrusion. Doesn’t your house have doors? Do those doors have locks? I bet they do. This is really all just common sense. To be against this notion one must either be ignorant, have an anti-American agenda like the terrorist do, or just plain brainwashed by the liberals to simply parrot back what ever the hate America crowd says.

 

[rpp]

…The US is indeed the greatest country in the world and we have helped millions of people over time. We are the first to arrive in countries in times of natural disasters. All of Europe would be speaking German had the US not intervened in WWII.

Except for the ones who would be speaking Japanese!

Later, the whole world would be speaking Russian had the US not stood up to the former Soviet Union.

So many languages were spoken in the former Soviet Union. They probably would have chosen French!

I know that the world and certainly the good citizens of this country do not want to kill the goose that laid the golden aid by hamstringing our own country. People like you who want to see this country fall so you can use the resources for your own means are legion, but most citizens are wise to you.

Well… :tsktsk:

You are surrounded by posters who are refuting your comments. These people are the good common sense Americans who will always stand up to people that would betray and terrorize this country.

And some of us are pretty orthodox and/or traditional Catholics. You know, the ones like me who say, “The Pope said it so that’s it!”

Europe and other countries are fast becoming more secular and turning their backs on God. I understand why people like you covet our great country, but know that you will never succeed in bringing it down as long as people like me and the others on this board stand firm. And so we shall.

Strong words, but, like most people who fall into the same thinking of the autohor you were responding to, well here is the effect: :banghead:

This is the era of the “me” society (it is not a “me” generation, it is now well established as the “me” American society. One of it’s fundamental principals is this:
[sign]“Justice” means getting what I want.[/sign]
Hard to argue with that. Hard to even sense it in ourselves!

 

[Cossack1]

“By the way, the title of this thread is very misleading. Saying that the Vatican criticizes the fence is like saying the US wants to pull out of Iraq just because Ted Kennedy says we should. One cardinal gave his private view of the fence, I have not seen an ‘Ex Cathedra’ statement or any statement from the pope on the fence.”

That would be my fault, and I agree that you are right. However, I would like to hear an extended comment from the Pope on this issue.