Protect And Help Immigrants, Pope Tells

[This_person]

But when they break the law getting here they are not following the laws. Do conservatives like criminals joining our society?

The Pope is quoted as speaking of immigrants and refugees, not illegal aliens.

 

[This_person]

Yes, it sometimes goes ignored and many that are pro-illegal immigration try to mix the terms as if they are the same.....the Vatcian just did this. The context of the article mentioned the "immigration" debate in the US. The "immigration" debate in the US is about the illegal immigration here, so the Vatican must have been including illegal immigrants in their statement calling for the United States to better accept them.

Based upon the expectations of the immigrants to "obey laws", I have to disagree. I think this had more to do with Paris than Houston.

By the way, I am a leftist and my mother was an immigrant as well. As a matter of fact, probably 99% of my father's family came from immigrants too if one wants to count the 1860s immigrants in the family.

By the way, whether you believe in evolution or creation, we're all descended from immigrants to North America. Neither theory believes anything originated here.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

and the Catholic Stance on Abortion ? how do you feel about that ?

I very much like the Catholic stand against abortion.

Many accuse the Vatican of being silent over the Jewish holocaust,

but now the Vatican is on the right side and outspoken against the murder of babies by our gov.

There are many reasons not to like the Catholics, but their fight against abortion is praise worthy.

 

[Novus Collectus]

The Pope is quoted as speaking of immigrants and refugees, not illegal aliens.

Context!!

The context I am talking about was immigration into the US

The Pope issued his message as rich countries around the world, from the United States to Europe, are engaged in heated debates about immigration and its effect on everything ranging from national culture, to education, to crime.

As I said before, the ONLY debate about crime by immigranst in the US, education and really about immigration whatsoever is about illegal immigration. There is almost no debate about legtal immigration in the US because legal immigransts rarely commit crime (they are screened) and they are not a drain on our education system (they pay taxes and are less likely to drain other public services).
The ommission of the "illegal immigrants" does not hide their obvious inclusion by the context of the address.
To deny out of hand this is true is revealing you are acting out of partisanship. You either admit it is a possibility or you will mostly agree. Anything less will be telling about your motivations.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Based upon the expectations of the immigrants to "obey laws", I have to disagree. I think this had more to do with Paris than Houston.

The point was most likely to address Rome and Paris situtations, but by the inclusion of the United States at least part the motivation and intent became transparent. This was an intent to preach acceptance of illegal immigration in the US as well as the other reasons for the address.

By the way, whether you believe in evolution or creation, we're all descended from immigrants to North America. Neither theory believes anything originated here.[/

That can be said about any part of the world, but the first to arrive and settle are the ones who have the claim of being indigenous.

 

[Novus Collectus]

The Pope is quoted as speaking of immigrants and refugees, not illegal aliens.

By addressing immigrants in toto is not excluding illegal immigrants, it is including illegal immigrants.

 

[This_person]

Context!!

The context I am talking about was immigration into the US As I said before, the ONLY debate about crime by immigranst in the US, education and really about immigration whatsoever is about illegal immigration. There is almost no debate about legtal immigration in the US because legal immigransts rarely commit crime (they are screened) and they are not a drain on our education system (they pay taxes and are less likely to drain other public services).
The ommission of the "illegal immigrants" does not hide their obvious inclusion by the context of the address.
To deny out of hand this is true is revealing you are acting out of partisanship. You either admit it is a possibility or you will mostly agree. Anything less will be telling about your motivations.

Of course it is a possibility, but I disagree with your assessment as to what the immigration debate is about. People say these illegal aliens act illegally because our immigration policies are broken - meaning it takes to long to do it right, and it's easy to do it wrong, so these morally challenged people take the easy road instead of following the rules. And, thanks to the Kennedy's of the world, there is a huge disparity in who has an easier time in getting visas and who doesn't. So, we end up with a process that let's some people in with virtually no checks on them whatsoever, and some people just come in when they're supposed to follow an uneven process.

However, my point about crime of illegal aliens was their entry into the country (thus the "illegal" of illegal alien). I spoke also of the crimes they commit once here, but that's only a percentage. 100% commit a crime by becoming an illegal alien. Thus, 100% do not obey the laws.

 

[This_person]

By addressing immigrants in toto is not excluding illegal immigrants, it is including illegal immigrants.

Illegal aliens aren't immigrant, nor refugees, though. They're not immigrants unless legally recognized as such.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Of course it is a possibility, but I disagree with your assessment as to what the immigration debate is about. People say these illegal aliens act illegally because our immigration policies are broken - meaning it takes to long to do it right, and it's easy to do it wrong, so these morally challenged people take the easy road instead of following the rules. And, thanks to the Kennedy's of the world, there is a huge disparity in who has an easier time in getting visas and who doesn't. So, we end up with a process that let's some people in with virtually no checks on them whatsoever, and some people just come in when they're supposed to follow an uneven process.

I want immigration and I endorse immigration into this country and this is another reason why I am so adamant against illegal immigration.
For every illegal immigrant from a country from Mexico we have here, the harder it is to accept a legal Mexican immigrant. I want to see the law abiding Mexican immigrants come here and I welcome them with open arms, but the criminals sidestepping the law at whim are ruining it for the millions of Mexican immigrants we know we want and which were trying to come here legally but couldn't because of ten million criminals thought they had more of a right than law abiders.

I have no problem with letting more Mexicans in through proper channels and I want it to increase, but the illegal aliens are destroying this possibility by their criminal acts.

However, my point about crime of illegal aliens was their entry into the country (thus the "illegal" of illegal alien). I spoke also of the crimes they commit once here, but that's only a percentage. 100% commit a crime by becoming an illegal alien. Thus, 100% do not obey the laws.

Also 100% break the law by being here too. It is illegal for them to be here without a proper visa.
It may not be a punishable offence to be in America illegally, it is still a crime. The crossing the border by avoiding border guards is a misdemeanor and that is a punishable crime, but it is still illegal to stay here without permission.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Illegal aliens aren't immigrant, nor refugees, though. They're not immigrants unless legally recognized as such.

The legal definition of "immigrant" changes from country to country depending on the circumstance. The Vatican was pbviously speaking in all inclusive generalities and that means ALL immigrants legal or not. When they addressed the United States "debate" on "immigration", they were obviously referring to the "illegal immigration" debate because there is no other major debate about any other aspect of immigration to the US.

im·mi·grant (m-grnt)
n.
1. A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another.

immigrant - definition of immigrant by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

im·mi·grate (m-grt)
v. im·mi·grat·ed, im·mi·grat·ing, im·mi·grates
v.intr.
To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native

immigration - definition of immigration by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

mi·grant (mgrnt)
n.
1. One that moves from one region to another by chance, instinct, or plan

migrant - definition of migrant by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[This_person]

I want immigration and I endorse immigration into this country and this is another reason why I am so adamant against illegal immigration.
For every illegal immigrant from a country from Mexico we have here, the harder it is to accept a legal Mexican immigrant. I want to see the law abiding Mexican immigrants come here and I welcome them with open arms, but the criminals sidestepping the law at whim are ruining it for the millions of Mexican immigrants we know we want and which were trying to come here legally but couldn't because of ten million criminals thought they had more of a right than law abiders.

I have no problem with letting more Mexicans in through proper channels and I want it to increase, but the illegal aliens are destroying this possibility by their criminal acts.

Also 100% break the law by being here too. It is illegal for them to be here without a proper visa.
It may not be a punishable offence to be in America illegally, it is still a crime. The crossing the border by avoiding border guards is a misdemeanor and that is a punishable crime, but it is still illegal to stay here without permission.

I agree with everything you said here!

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

I agree with everything you said here!

Since this is the Religion forum,

then it must be said that what you are cheering is not the Christian thing to do.

In fact that bigotry toward migrants would make being a "good Samaritan" into a crime.

I say that any true Christian must assist the migrants even when Caesar (our gov) calls those people illegal.

 

[This_person]

In fact that bigotry toward migrants would make being a "good Samaritan" into a crime.

Thank you for your input. It was received with all of the value it holds.

 

[Plan B]

Here's where I've got to stop you - I don't think this is true. One aspect of being a deserving person of the faith and help from a Christian is an honest attempt at being an honest person. An illegal immigrant is already demonstrated a dishonest person for knowingly violating the law. A good Samaritan will help people who need and deserve it, but the best way to help such a dishonest person it to send them back where they belong.

No, it was security of our borders that was the main cry against illegal aliens (not to mention the reprehensible acitons of a significant number, and the costs to our society for that)Not partisan is why you brought it up as a GOP/evangelical divide? Puh-lease.

The victim that the Good Samaritan found deserved nothing but God's grace.
As a non-partisan independent, I most certainly can criticize the GOP, or the DNC, whenever.
And the illegal issue is all the GOP has left to make issue of. Choice is clearly favored by most voters, the Evangelicals have figured out the fraud of 'smaller govt', and it's a smokescreen for failures in Iraq, the economy, and idiocy like the Schiavo debacle. But it is an issue due to bigotry (or union support re liberals).
The Dems are not saviors and there polling shows that, but it is little wonder GOP senate and house members are retiring in droves...
The Pope obviously refers to migrants of any status in the USA.

 

[This_person]

The victim that the Good Samaritan found deserved nothing but God's grace.

And, God's grace for an illegal alien is to send them home, where they belong.

As a non-partisan independent,

:

I most certainly can criticize the GOP, or the DNC, whenever.

And, when you do, you make it a partisan comment......

And the illegal issue is all the GOP has left to make issue of. Choice is clearly favored by most voters,

Source?

the Evangelicals have figured out the fraud of 'smaller govt',

Fraud? Evangelicals and smaller government? What are you talking about?

and it's a smokescreen for failures in Iraq,

That's almost as good as you being an independant!

the economy,

You mean the BOOMING economy, low unemployment, super high stock market, that economy?

and idiocy like the Schiavo debacle.

Right to life is idiocy? What was different from starving and dehydrating her to death, or shooting her in the head? Murder is murder!

But it is an issue due to bigotry (or union support re liberals).

It's a security issue, not bigotry. Read above, where the importance of ALL immigrants is constantly praised. It's the "illegal" part I, and most conservative, are against. Border security is paramount to being a sovereign nation, and we don't have it. The fact that most illegal aliens we hear about are Mexican (or from further south) is just the nature of the beast as to who is coming in, not who people against illegal aliens don't like. We don't like people acting illegally, risking our security and ignoring our sovereignty.

The Dems are not saviors and there polling shows that, but it is little wonder GOP senate and house members are retiring in droves...

Ok....

The Pope obviously refers to migrants of any status in the USA.

And, then says they should act legally. By coming in illegally, he refers to them as doing wrong (not acting in the way says "for their part" they should act). How do you rectify their illegal action? Go back home.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

A Christian follows the Word of God.
God makes it clear in both the Person of the Father and the Son thru scripture, that the sojourner is to be treated as your own. Not cast out. Not denied food and shelter.
So, it is another aspect of conservative policy where a beleiver must consider WWJD vice WWCheneyD.
The Pope in his wisdom knows that being poor and an immigrant trumps illegality.
Broadly, true Christians have always desired social justice, with prohibition and the civil rights movements as examples. Tho Bush is a beleiver, he has compromised his beliefs many times, but remains a child of God. Re immigration, he saw the best chance in a lifetime to justly and practically solve the migrant issue for the most benefit. His party and fringe elements and powers beyond his control pulled the rug from under him, because unlike the war and wealthy tax breaks, it wasn't in their interest.
Nothing new. And the Dems do it from time to time. This ain't a partison viewpoint, just my interpretation of facts.

Please define "social justice".

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

Please define "social justice".

Like you do not know what social justice is,

must be a Bush supporting Republican question indeed.

Bet this one can not define "Human Rights" either, or "Geneva Convention" and can not define "torture".

We could call this the know-nothing Bush and company psycosis.

 

[This_person]

Like you do not know what social justice is,... We could call this the know-nothing Bush and company psycosis.

What purpose does this personal attack serve? I suspect cwo_ghwebb had a point to make with Plan_B, but you choose to simply add nothing to the conversation but personal attacks.

If you have nothing useful to add, please do not add anything.

Thank you.

 

[JPC sr]

The truth will set us all free.

What purpose does this personal attack serve? I suspect cwo_ghwebb had a point to make with Plan_B, but you choose to simply add nothing to the conversation but personal attacks.

If you have nothing useful to add, please do not add anything.

Thank you.

You are quite right.

Got me that time.

I posted out of anger.

My apologies here.

 

[2ndAmendment]

A Christian follows the Word of God.
God makes it clear in both the Person of the Father and the Son thru scripture, that the sojourner is to be treated as your own. Not cast out. Not denied food and shelter.
So, it is another aspect of conservative policy where a beleiver must consider WWJD vice WWCheneyD.
The Pope in his wisdom knows that being poor and an immigrant trumps illegality.
Broadly, true Christians have always desired social justice, with prohibition and the civil rights movements as examples. Tho Bush is a beleiver, he has compromised his beliefs many times, but remains a child of God. Re immigration, he saw the best chance in a lifetime to justly and practically solve the migrant issue for the most benefit. His party and fringe elements and powers beyond his control pulled the rug from under him, because unlike the war and wealthy tax breaks, it wasn't in their interest.
Nothing new. And the Dems do it from time to time. This ain't a partison viewpoint, just my interpretation of facts.

A sojourner is not an immigrant but a temporary resident.

The Pope said nothing about illegals. There is a marked difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. The illegal immigrant has already done what the Pope said immigrants must not do; they have broken the law.

That is not a hard concept to understand.