What will it take for bishops to condemn illegal immigration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter foolishmortal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JReducation,

I understand. As we have agreed, we should default to the best understanding we have of what the Church teaches rather than our own interpretation.

Would it be at all useful to examine the original Latin used in both Evangelium Vitae and Gaudium et Spes (I assume they are the same) for deeper understanding of what the Church is teaching there?
I believe that it would be very useful. For anyone who understands Latin, both documents are available on www.vatican.va.

I’ve read both of them. Thanks to the good Christian Brothers, I am very fluent in Latin. The English translation that they give you in www.vatican.va is not as good as the one that is put out by the USCCB. When I read the English on the Vatican site I often wonder if they don’t use computerized translators. Often the grammar is “clunky” to use my favorite word. The best English language edition that I have seen on this document is put out by St. Joseph Communications and you can order it by calling 800-526-2151. Fr. George Rutler did a very good commentary on it.

Our novices use the study guide put out by the American LIfe League at 540-6594171. The study guide is very good. You can get the official Vatican translation from the Vatican itself by calling (39-6) 3938-7471. That’s the one that we use to teach in our theology classes. It is annotated in the margins.

If you read Spanish, Spain puts out the best modern language translation of the Vatican II documents. Documentos Vaticano II by Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos and Salvador Muñoz Iglesias. You can find them at www.amazon.com . The Spaniards were very meticulous in their translation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Perhaps that poster was implying that by remaining within the United States, and (theoretically) accepting remuneration for work without the right to work, illegal immigrants were ‘stealing’? Or by using resources that were intended for those legally residing in the US?
Both situations are not the stealing, so I am curious what the claim will be. It was an odd association. I found the idea that a boycott of Arizona was immoral even a stranger claim. Like I said earlier, the bishops have a better grasp on moral theology. That is why the teach and we learn.
 
Perhaps that poster was implying that by remaining within the United States, and (theoretically) accepting remuneration for work without the right to work, illegal immigrants were ‘stealing’? Or by using resources that were intended for those legally residing in the US?
That’s a possibility. But we have to be careful not to apply the scriptures the same way that the Protestants do. We don’t just pull a verse out of the bible and slap it onto some situation then claim that it’s the objective truth.

Private reading of scripture is meant for our personal spiritual growth, not for teaching. When we teach others, we must give them the interpretations and applications that the Church gives as the Church gives them.

It is one thing to do Lectio Divina to see what God is telling me about my life and another to do Lectio to proclaim to the world. For an objective proclamation of scriptures, we must always use the writings of the Church and theologians authorized by the Church to teach in her name. I call this the dynamic tension between the objective and the subjective.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Perhaps that poster was implying that by remaining within the United States, and (theoretically) accepting remuneration for work without the right to work, illegal immigrants were ‘stealing’? Or by using resources that were intended for those legally residing in the US?
Would “remuneration for work” be exactly opposite of stealing? What resource was used? …maybe the poster should simply answer
 
We can tell them, “You may not deport, because you don’t know the difference between a terrorist and a father trying to find a better life for his kids. Morally it is wrong to equate the two. Either you come up with a deportation law that does not violate human dignity or you do not deport. End of story.”
Could you clarify what you mean? This seems to contradict your earlier posts in the thread in which you interpreted deportation to be absolutely impermissible. 🤷
 
Could you clarify what you mean? This seems to contradict your earlier posts in the thread in which you interpreted deportation to be absolutely impermissible. 🤷
deportation is absolutely impermissible when it subjects a morally innocent deportee to death, torture, or other extreme punishment. One of the biggest problems in these issues is it is easy to classify another as a criminal yet what crime has been commited and is death, torture, or extreme punishment approprate?

*Another ‘deportee’ killed in switzerland - update *-noborder.org/archive_item.php?id=48

An Ottawa man who’s to be deported to his native Somalia because of his criminality says the punishment amounts to a death sentence. – Read more: ottawacitizen.com/life/will+probably+killed+deportee+says/3415293/story.html#ixzz0xKrBqUwl

*FIVE years after he was deported from Australia, Akram al-Masri’s brutal death in the Gaza Strip, which his family deemed inevitable, came at the hands of a rival clan, not the political chaos from which he sought protection. The 32-year-old Gazan was slain by a rival clan member on Friday, with another court case pending against the Howard government, which refused him asylum in 2003. Mr al-Masri, an out-of-work policeman from the central Gaza city of Khan Younis, was shot in the head as he left a courthouse.*URL=“NoCookies | The Australian”]NoCookies | The Australian
 
deportation is absolutely impermissible when it subjects a morally innocent deportee to death, torture, or other extreme punishment.
If it’s absolutely impermissible then there is no “when.” Hence the request for clarification.
 
For all the finger pointing at the legal system, few want to let it work over the fear that some, undisclosed innocent victim is being traumatized by the act of deportation. There is a big difference between finding a person here illegally (mind you, when they COULD be here legally by following some simple rules and filling out an application) and returning them to their native land and flying them off to parts unknown for torture or execution. Does Mexico torture people we return? Do they execute them?

No one is arguing families ought to be split up just because. Earlier in this thread it was posed that DUI offenders should be arrested, and that is often the cause of economic disaster to the rest of the immediate family. They lose their source of income, some lose their homes as a result, yet no problem there. They must, logically, have some kind of lesser dignity than an illegal alien.

What no one wants to discuss is that the reason some of those caught here illegally won’t or don’t try to do it the legal way is because it would not work for them, being that they already have a criminal record and are, by their own law AND U.S. law, banned from emigrating/immigrating. So they break the law and take their chances.

QUESTION: Is it just to hold this person accountable? If it is, then does that include returning him or her back to their family at point of origin? If that is not the case, please explain in detail how putting the person in a US jail is a step up in recognizing the dignity of the person? I don’t think it is.

Not all deportation is unjust, and I would challenge anyone saying so to produce the evidence, not simply cite a document that talks about it. All too often these kind of documents contain words where, if you read them plainly, it won’t mean what they appear to mean. You have to have the secret theological decoder ring or you simply can’t understand them on the level others claim to do. Thus simply pointing to them doesn’t get the job done.

Not long ago a Houston police officer was killed by a person here illegally A SECOND TIME. It begs the question that, if dignity is ultimate and that means everyone’s dignity, not just the criminal’s dignity, then why is there such resistance to allowing the means to be put in place that would prevent this? Means such as adequate screening at authorized checkpoints and physical barriers/patrolled areas where no crossings are allowed? You want to decry the legal system, and at the same time speak in way that tends to dismantle or dis-empower it based on extreme cases and not the norm.

Everyone seems to want to point to some unnamed fellow who’s desperate and trying to only put a little bread on his family’s table. I don’t know anyone who begrudges such a person and certainly US law doesn’t. It provides a legal way for that to happen, so the best case you could make for such a person being here illegally is that it’s only long enough to get legalized, certainly not to remain in illegal status forever. If such a person can flaunt the law and you are okay with it, you lose the right to criticize the repeat drunk driver who is treating the law in the exact same way - that is, totally ignoring it.

While we are so worrying about this one, unnamed fellow losing dignity, we don’t seem to give any concern about the dignity lost when citizens, minding their own business, are attacked, raped, killed, and stolen from. When anyone speaks about those crimes, and that lowering of dignity, they are cast as selfish people who don’t want to share their bounty with others less fortunate. That’s true to some extent… if a person came to my door and was hungry, I would feed them. If they came to my door with a gun demanding food, probably they’d get a different result. Does that mean my morality changes, or does it mean I have a morality and apply it with a logical and sensible way, treating the criminal as a criminal and the needy as someone whom I can help? Or does it mean I have a flawed view of dignity and should give everyone anything whether they ask for at my door or kick my door in and terrorize me to obtain it?
 
Hi, Texas Roofer,

Thanks for the links.

The Ottawa man presents and interesting example. I honestly do not know the immigration laws of Canada - and, it would appear that he had not completed whatever requirements there are to be a citizen, or he wanted to remain a Somalia citizen … just don’t know enough from the story. What we do know, however is that this young man is quite dangerous. In the US, beating someone (especially a legally blind woman) to the point where she needed brain surgery would be considered at least attempted manslaughter with aggrevating conditions (the woman was blind and could hardly defend herself). Here is a quote from the link:

Last year, the immigration department declared Ali a threat to Canadians because of five adult criminal convictions, two of them for violent assaults. …A Federal Court judge recently upheld that assessment of Ali. … The federal government moved to deport Ali after he pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in the July 2007 beating of a legally blind woman in Centretown. The victim was kicked and punched so badly that she had to undergo brain surgery.

This individual is pleading for mercy in not being sent back to his homeland - I wonder how he was able to ignore the cries for mercy from this blind woman he was beating nearly to death. Now, had Canada determines jail time for offenses seems strange to me - he claims that although he has ‘made mistakes’ he has never spent two years behind bars for any of his violent acts. Personally, I see this guy as a danger to anyone who he disagrees with - especially Canadians. As one Texan to another … just what do you think would have happened to this guy in a Texas court of law?

The Australian deportation is curious indeed. I guess the FIVE YEARS post deportation that Akram al-Masri lived in Palestine don’t count for anything. He managed to avoid a violent death for five years in an area where infants and children do not get to live that long because of violence. Honestly, at what point do we say, “Hey, welcome home and best wishes!” This man did not conform to Australian law - and was sent back home… and five years later, the endemic violence of ths area claimed his life. All death is sad, but, I really do not see this being the fault of his Australian deportation. He could have been killed while in Australia - would the family have claimed he would still be alive had he not been in Australia?

I don’t know all of the details… but, in my opinion, neither of these stories present the case of someone who was deported out of immoral disrepect for their human rights. It looks to me like the governments of the two countries involved were trying to make the area safe for their own citizens - they had a moral respect for the human rights of others.

God bless

Read more: ottawacitizen.com/life/will+probably+killed+deportee+says/3415293/story.html#ixzz0xL4sVuNj
deportation is absolutely impermissible when it subjects a morally innocent deportee to death, torture, or other extreme punishment. One of the biggest problems in these issues is it is easy to classify another as a criminal yet what crime has been commited and is death, torture, or extreme punishment approprate?

*Another ‘deportee’ killed in switzerland - update *-noborder.org/archive_item.php?id=48

An Ottawa man who’s to be deported to his native Somalia because of his criminality says the punishment amounts to a death sentence. – Read more: ottawacitizen.com/life/will+probably+killed+deportee+says/3415293/story.html#ixzz0xKrBqUwl

*FIVE years after he was deported from Australia, Akram al-Masri’s brutal death in the Gaza Strip, which his family deemed inevitable, came at the hands of a rival clan, not the political chaos from which he sought protection. The 32-year-old Gazan was slain by a rival clan member on Friday, with another court case pending against the Howard government, which refused him asylum in 2003. Mr al-Masri, an out-of-work policeman from the central Gaza city of Khan Younis, was shot in the head as he left a courthouse.*URL=“http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-by-clan-rivalry/story-e6frg6nf-1111117099068”]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-by-clan-rivalry/story-e6frg6nf-1111117099068
 
Unless someone is escaping political oppression, illegal entry into a country is a sin against the 7th Commandment: Though shall not steal.
Or covet they neighbors goods.
A country has what it has due to the hard work, taxes, etc. of its citizens. Be they roads, health care, military defense, emergency response, social support systems, etc.

If a person walked into your house uninvited and started eating your food, using your electricity, and sleeping on your bed…would that be theft? Would you have the right to throw that person out?

Folks that want open borders (which is what no deportation means) are trying to mandate involuntary charity from other people. That in itself is not charity, it is theft, pure and simple. Charity and love can only come from within your own heart, not the heart of others.
 
No one is arguing families ought to be split up just because.
Ironically, the current situation leads to the breakup of families, human trafficking, and the exploitation of those here illegally by private employers as well as the government.

It is very difficult to emigrate to the United States of America legally. The penalties for not following proper procedure are harsh. Many of those legally in the country are subject to exploitation by their employers because of their immigration status. Conversely, it is very easy to emigrate to the United States of America illegally. The government penalties for doing so are negligible.

Comprehensive reform is necessary, but the majority of Americans seem unwilling to address the issue.
 
Ironically, the current situation leads to the breakup of families, human trafficking, and the exploitation of those here illegally by private employers as well as the government.
Respectfully, unless you can prove all of these, they are just rhetoric. There is enough of that blocking the throat of this problem already, making it very confusing for people to grasp what is/is not good/chritable/dignity/etc.

I find it very disingenuous if not outright ludicrous that people can take the example of a person leaving country A, going to country B at ANY cost, violating ANY rules, respecting little or no rights of others (such as property), and when that person is distinguished from the person who did it the harder but legal and proper way, the shadow of injustice is cast upon he who does the distinguishing. Why is it there is always a gloss-over of the same cited documents wherein it talks about respecting the laws of nations?

Here is what that kind of thinking breeds. A nation has a law put in place legally and lawfully, another person breaks it, and suddenly the nation is the villain for making it? Well, okay, why stop with illegal immigration? Taxes cause burdens, people lose their homes and families are split when the IRS confiscates property, so why aren’t we crying for taxes to be rescinded also, being they can be shown to cause separation of family, hardship, and certainly anything to do with the IRS equates to loss of human dignity?
It is very difficult to emigrate to the United States of America legally.
Really? Tell me how it is so difficult? The members of my family who have didn’t find it that hard. Let’s hear your evidence of the great difficulty.
The penalties for not following proper procedure are harsh.
Maybe. What legal immigration assumes is that you WILL follow the proper procedures, not avoid them.
Many of those legally in the country are subject to exploitation by their employers because of their immigration status.
What does this mean? Are you saying that a person snuck across the border illegally, and is now upset that another is exploiting his illegal status to make him work for lower wages in horrible conditions? Isn’t that a good argument for doing it the legal way, and removing the ability of an unscrupulous person to have a lever over another person? Also, such an act is not in accordance with the laws of the nation, any more than sneaking in is. How do you imagine such activity ought to be policed when by its very nature it is secretive and out of sight of any authorities?

Consider the case of someone who engages in a very clearly illegal activity; let’s say selling drugs on the street. They get robbed by some other criminal. Are we to say then that “the nation” or its laws are faulty because they fail to protect the person from harm who secretly goes about breaking laws themselves? This twists the whole concept of justice on its head.
Conversely, it is very easy to emigrate to the United States of America illegally. The government penalties for doing so are negligible.
What else does this say other than our society places a high value on being a citizen of a land where people have worked hard and sacrificed a lot to have the something good we have? All too often this is painted as “because we have, we don’t want anyone else to.” That’s false - we do want others to have, but we have a process we expect people to follow, a process no less demanding of proper procedures than joining the Catholic Church. Always there is the pointing to the poor fellow trying only to help his family. There are 7 MILLION people a year sneaking across our border - are you so bold as to claim they are all all hungry and starving and have nothing? None of them are felons with records, not interested in a better life but only wealthier targets?
Comprehensive reform is necessary, but the majority of Americans seem unwilling to address the issue.
I respectfully disagree. I think most Americans WANT this to be addressed but there is too much political baggage in the way resulting in no politicians wanting to touch it. Americans do want a system that is fair and just and dignified, lifting up the poor and the needy while at the same time restricting the ability of evildoers to capitalize on charity and create chaos. Our entire history is that of people immigrating, often suffering great hardships and prejudice to do so. Not that we want those bad things for others, but it serves as a living illustration that refutes the notion that the world will fall apart and no one can have any dignity unless there are no controls on the border.
 
Hi, Texas Roofer,

Thanks for the links.

The Australian deportation is curious indeed. I guess the FIVE YEARS post deportation that Akram al-Masri lived in Palestine don’t count for anything. He managed to avoid a violent death for five years in an area where infants and children do not get to live that long because of violence. Honestly, at what point do we say, “Hey, welcome home and best wishes!” This man did not conform to Australian law - and was sent back home… and five years later, the endemic violence of ths area claimed his life. All death is sad, but, I really do not see this being the fault of his Australian deportation. He could have been killed while in Australia - would the family have claimed he would still be alive had he not been in Australia?

It almost sounds as though your glad this innocent man is dead, and for what? What did he do? He tried to leave a violent place because he did not want to participate in violence. Boy did Australian’s teach a lesson here.
The Ottawa man presents and interesting example. I honestly do not know the immigration laws of Canada - and, it would appear that he had not completed whatever requirements there are to be a citizen, or he wanted to remain a Somalia citizen … just don’t know enough from the story. What we do know, however is that this young man is quite dangerous. In the US, beating someone (especially a legally blind woman) to the point where she needed brain surgery would be considered at least attempted manslaughter with aggrevating conditions (the woman was blind and could hardly defend herself). Here is a quote from the link:
by the way the point of the post was to show people can and do die as a direct result of deportation. But maybe that is why the switzerland case was dropped. Yet since one guy was killed leaving a courthouse…
 
For all the finger pointing at the legal system, few want to let it work over the fear that some, undisclosed innocent victim is being traumatized by the act of deportation. There is a big difference between finding a person here illegally (mind you, when they COULD be here legally by following some simple rules and filling out an application)…
It does not work that way I know families who have been doing it the “legal” way and after 20years thay have not been able to immigrate.
…What no one wants to discuss is that the reason some of those caught here illegally won’t or don’t try to do it the legal way is because it would not work for them, being that they already have a criminal record and are, by their own law AND U.S. law, banned from emigrating/immigrating…
Again that is simply not the case. Many people with no criminal record are waiting years or decades for a reply or simply receive rejection letters. It is not a simple matter of filling out a form.
QUESTION: Is it just to hold this person accountable? If it is, then does that include returning him or her back to their family at point of origin? If that is not the case, please explain in detail how putting the person in a US jail is a step up in recognizing the dignity of the person? I don’t think it is.
Not all deportation is unjust, and I would challenge anyone saying so to produce the evidence, not simply cite a document that talks about it. All too often these kind of documents contain words where, if you read them plainly, it won’t mean what they appear to mean. You have to have the secret theological decoder ring or you simply can’t understand them on the level others claim to do. Thus simply pointing to them doesn’t get the job done.
This has already been explained at some length. It is not unjust to deport people when imminent danger is not an issue
Not long ago a Houston police officer was killed by a person here illegally A SECOND TIME. It begs the question that, if dignity is ultimate and that means everyone’s dignity, not just the criminal’s dignity, then why is there such resistance to allowing the means to be put in place that would prevent this? Means such as adequate screening at authorized checkpoints and physical barriers/patrolled areas where no crossings are allowed? You want to decry the legal system, and at the same time speak in way that tends to dismantle or dis-empower it based on extreme cases and not the norm.
Everyone seems to want to point to some unnamed fellow who’s desperate and trying to only put a little bread on his family’s table. I don’t know anyone who begrudges such a person and certainly US law doesn’t. It provides a legal way for that to happen, so the best case you could make for such a person being here illegally is that it’s only long enough to get legalized, certainly not to remain in illegal status forever. If such a person can flaunt the law and you are okay with it, you lose the right to criticize the repeat drunk driver who is treating the law in the exact same way - that is, totally ignoring it.
While we are so worrying about this one, unnamed fellow losing dignity, we don’t seem to give any concern about the dignity lost when citizens, minding their own business, are attacked, raped, killed, and stolen from. When anyone speaks about those crimes, and that lowering of dignity, they are cast as selfish people who don’t want to share their bounty with others less fortunate. That’s true to some extent… if a person came to my door and was hungry, I would feed them. If they came to my door with a gun demanding food, probably they’d get a different result. Does that mean my morality changes, or does it mean I have a morality and apply it with a logical and sensible way, treating the criminal as a criminal and the needy as someone whom I can help? Or does it mean I have a flawed view of dignity and should give everyone anything whether they ask for at my door or kick my door in and terrorize me to obtain it?
I think part of understanding dignity involves not assuming all people from south of the US are rapists, or kick in doors. Why would one assume that…oh wait… thier you go.
 
Respectfully, unless you can prove all of these, they are just rhetoric. There is enough of that blocking the throat of this problem already, making it very confusing for people to grasp what is/is not good/chritable/dignity/etc.
I wrote:
Ironically, the current situation leads to the breakup of families, human trafficking, and the exploitation of those here illegally by private employers as well as the government.
Illegal immigrants aren’t typically coming here as whole families. One person comes to the U.S.A. and then is forced to continually lie about their status (fake SSN etc.) in order to obtain employment etc…

The government collects taxes from the illegal’s paycheck from which they can never claim benefits.

Their employer can exploit them (sweatshop labor etc.) because they know they will not complain for fear of deportation or imprisonment.

Typically a portion of their income is sent back to their family outside of the U.S.A… They are unable to freely travel and visit their family outside the country.
 
The Church does not deny any country the right to make laws and protect its residents. However, it is the duty of the Church to dictate to nations the moral laws that they must follow in making laws. The Church remains the only moral authority in the world.

We must be very careful not to turn this into a conflict between our perceptions of a problem vs moral law. Moral law is never up for compromise or negotiation. Because the Church governs without the consent of the governed, she does not need it, she has the authority to point out moral flaws in the law itself or in the manner that it is executed.

There are times when a law is not the problem, but the execution is of real concern. There are other times when there are parts of a law that are morally problematic, not the entire law or the principle that drives the law. And there are laws that are completely immoral.

As Catholics, we have a moral duty to the Church first and then to the State. If the Church tells us that the State has to fix something, then we have to make that demand on the State. Often, we turn the table on the Church and slam her for setting moral parameters. However, that’s her job.

On another subject, how easy or difficult it is to immigrate to the USA . . . immigration laws are very inconsistent and often serve those who have money, not the poor. When you approach a Consulate General for a visa you are asked to prove that you have a certain amount of money. This was not the case during the late 1800s to the mid 1950s. I’m not sure when this became a rule. I grew up with this rule. My father was a career diplomat and I grew up in consulates.

Long after I left home and was no longer in this world, I have heard that the financial requirements have become more stringent. We have a case right now of a group of friars who are being denied entrance to the USA because they do not have enough money. I’m using the universal “we”, not my community. The Order of Poor Friars is trying to do mission in the USA. They are struggling to get the visas. These men do not have a cent to their name. They are literally beggers.

There was a time when missionaries did not need financial documents. All you needed was a letter from your superior who authorized you to migrate. You presented the letter to the consulate general and you got your visa. When and why this changed is beyond me. This is a good example of the changes in immigration law that create hurdles and may stimulate the illegal immigration of the poor, even though that is not the intent of the law. The Church has the moral authority to tell any nation that they have to take a second look at this.

I was a missionary in Ecuador during a “revolution”. It was a peaceful one. No one fired a shot. The President of that country had stollen millions from the national treasury. He left the country, taking the money, and entered the USA. Later, he was hired as a professor of Government at Harvard University. He was able to secure a visa, because he had the money to do so.

These kinds of details are what the Church points to when she tells citizens to moderate their laws and law makers. She is not saying that the nations of the world cannot have laws. She is saying that they must be moral and at least minimize the possibility of immorality. Eliminating all immorality would be better, but we can begin with minimizing the number of immoral events.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hi, Texas Roofer,

I rejoice in the death of no one. But maybe some clarification is in order.
It almost sounds as though your glad this innocent man is dead, and for what? What did he do? He tried to leave a violent place because he did not want to participate in violence.

Five years later - surely there has be some kind of cause and effect for you to make this connection. People die violent deaths in Canada, too - yes, he was not one of those fatalities - but, the fact is he died in his own homeland many years later. It is truly amazing…but, motality is something we all must face. He had his chance - and, for whatever reason, was deported back to his home.

Boy did Australian’s teach a lesson here. How about a good jail sentence? Are the Canadians being fair to the Somalians here? This boy left Somali at age 5, was he an independent genius traveling by skill and wit? The boy has been in Canada since about age 7, legally free in Canada since age 9. Why is this a Somali problem?

He is a Somali citizens - so, let’s not lose sight of that. I was surprised you were able to hold back not only sentiments but even a comment - for the blind woman this guy almost killed. Really, Texas Roofer, I can understand you not wanting to get all ‘mushy’ over this old woman - but, I really think your sympthies are misspent on this thug.

by the way the point of the post was to show people can and do die as a direct result of deportation. But maybe that is why the switzerland case was dropped. Yet since one guy was killed leaving a courthouse…
People can die as a direct result of a lot of things - but, being sent back home does not have to be one of them! Really, you know this country was made the way it is today by people deciding they were going to make it better. They stayed and made a difference - and this enabled change to take place. All these folks leaving their own countries is not helping their homeland to immprove. Consider encouraging people to stay and not flee. Now, that may help to make a differences instead of all this hand-wringing!

God bless
 
Respectfully, unless you can prove all of these, they are just rhetoric. There is enough of that blocking the throat of this problem already, making it very confusing for people to grasp what is/is not good/chritable/dignity/etc.

Really? Tell me how it is so difficult? The members of my family who have didn’t find it that hard.
Yes, but I would say the same thing about anecdotal evidence. That too is not true evidence, but rhetoric and we have enough of that already. Yes, we know the immigration system works for some. Yes, we know that some illegal immigrants are very bad and commit violent crime. However, these are anecdotes, not data.
 
Or covet they neighbors goods.
A country has what it has due to the hard work, taxes, etc. of its citizens. Be they roads, health care, military defense, emergency response, social support systems, etc.

If a person walked into your house uninvited and started eating your food, using your electricity, and sleeping on your bed…would that be theft? Would you have the right to throw that person out?

Folks that want open borders (which is what no deportation means) are trying to mandate involuntary charity from other people. That in itself is not charity, it is theft, pure and simple. Charity and love can only come from within your own heart, not the heart of others.
I think the left is ignoring my questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top