Bishop Gomez On Supreme Court Review Of Arizona Imm. Law

[Ed Normile]

Anomaly you wrote, "[b]Which brings us back to the immigration issue. Shouldn't the Church be more interested in getting the US to help Mexico develop their society where it's citizens can prosper? Mexico has plenty of resources, plenty of hard working people. It's their society and government that is corrupt that cripples their development forcing people to come to the US to work illegally[/b]. "

The latest numbers on immigration has shown a decrease in incoming peoples compared to those, especially Mexican and South Americans returning home. The reason being is now their economies are better than ours here in the States. This has been very troublesome to the liberal machine as they are already losing many youth voters who have come to see the truth of Obamas " Hope & Change " policies and the effects of his economic policies and lack of job creation during his regime, thus they are concerned about losing the "undocumented illegals" vote too.

ed

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336136923' post='2426981']
Which brings us back to the immigration issue. Shouldn't the Church be more interested in getting the US to help Mexico develop their society where it's citizens can prosper? Mexico has plenty of resources, plenty of hard working people. It's their society and government that is corrupt that cripples their development forcing people to come to the US to work illegally.
[/quote]

I don't think the Mexican government listens much to the Church these days either...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1336411414' post='2428126']
The latest numbers on immigration has shown a decrease in incoming peoples compared to those, especially Mexican and South Americans returning home. The reason being is now their economies are better than ours here in the States. This has been very troublesome to the liberal machine as they are already losing many youth voters who have come to see the truth of Obamas " Hope & Change " policies and the effects of his economic policies and lack of job creation during his regime, thus they are concerned about losing the "undocumented illegals" vote too.

ed
[/quote]I'm not aware of any economic news that shows their economies are doing better than the US, but I hadn't searched for that. However, you do make a very valid point. When economies are doing well, that improves employment, people then are able to better feed, house, educate, and care for themselves. The 'Occupy' movement is partially accurate that wealth and power should not be concentrated in a few hands. However, believing the Government should have the power to wrest it away from the wealthy does nothing to grow an economy. The Mexican economy is an example of Government few, colluding with the wealthy few, corruptly keeping all the wealth for the few. The US is in a much better situation, the average 'poor' citizen here enjoys a tremendously better quality of living (health, education, housing).

Winchester is also correct in pointing out the Government can be tyranical in the use of thier power to enrich themselves with wealth and power. I think he's innaccurate or unclear in his idea of anarcho-capitalisim being a solution to Government over-reaching it's role. Economies, like Government, should be a balance between the individuals and groups as represented in businesses, fraternal groups, businesses, localt, state, and federal governments.

In human society, you can have tyrany of the few, such as a non-local Central Government dictating everything, or you can have tyrany of the many, where the Majority ignores the smaller voice of the few (children, unborn, elderly, wealthy, extreme poor). The only 'truth' is that it's always a dynamic relationship that constantly changes. Humans have to constantly monitor what's going on and re-evaluate which groups and/or individuals have too much power.

Referencing Bishop Gomes' article, he ignores fundamental causes and wants to treat the wrong symptom. To improve people's standard of living, other Nations and States need to cooperatively work together in a free and fair economy. Different groups have different abilities and talents. Country folk don't need to tell city folk how to build televisions or mass transit systems, and city folk don't needto tell country folk how to farm and raise animals. However, people should be free to chose if they want to trade a TV for a pig or a chicken, nor whether to trade a cow for a TV, radio, or iPad.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336394430' post='2428021']
Making things illegal (substances or behaviors) has never, nor will ever eliminate the substance or behavior. It does limit the use of substances and behaviors. [/quote]

Look, I wasn't interested in an actual debate, but do you have any proof for this other than it's intuitive? I mean that criminalizing substances curbs usage and demand at all? It sure seems like that [i]would[/i] be the case, but the research I've read (including the summit held in Brazil last year I think) indicate the opposite.

[quote]Let me ask you a serious question, do you think legalizing marijuana would increase or decrease it's usage by the general population and specifically, teens?[/quote]

Initially it may increase. Just as if the drinking age were abolished there would most likely be an initial spike in usage. Overall, I'm not sure there'd be a significant long-term change. I'm not dragging out the numbers but it might be worthwhile into looking the usage rates of countries with more relaxed drug policies. http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf

[quote]Regardless of whether the US enforces border security for illegal immigrants or illegal drugs, it is the right of the community (Nation) to do so, and it is not immoral. What [b]is[/b] immoral is not protecting the security and rights of the citizens.[/quote]

Not saying it is or isn't. I'm just saying that many innocent people are thrust into desperate living conditions in their countries that are in part created by US policy. There seems to be little compassion for said people. That is all.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335926325' post='2425904']
...well, Texas has done stuff they won't admit... like the time they deported a minor wihtout even contacting her family...she went to mexico and lived there for months... she claimed she was an illegal just to get out of her family's hair...they took her word for it, and she was gone...


...so, the government isn't really to be trusted... at least that is the message i get from most of you conservatives... until we are talking about immigration or the death penalty, than suddenly, the government knows exactly what they are doing and they are proficient at it...

Bishop Gomez is definitely NOT a liberal, he's just being Catholic... looking out for the less fortunate... sorry if that seems too liberal for some people...

as far as a guarantee I won't be deported, or treated like a criminal in Arizona, well... i won't take you guys word for it... i'm steering clear from that place...
[/quote]

I find it fascinating that whenever someone actually follows church teaching, but teaching that is not in line with what is considered "conservative" ideas that that people is automatically labeled as a liberal. Bishop Gomez is simply discussing what the USCCB has already written about and taught:

[quote][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][left]The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the [/left][/size][/font][/color][i]foreigner[/i][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][left] in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him." Catholic Catechism, 2241.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][left]The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: "Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens." Catholic Catechism, 2241.[/left][/size][/font][/color]
[color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][left]In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, "[/left][/size][/font][/color][i]Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope[/i][color=#333333][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][left]." In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, "[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right." No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the "[m]ore powerful economic nations…ave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows." No. 36.[/left][/size][/font][/color][/quote]

Sorry it is so long, but I think there are many good points. We must respond with Christ-like compassion in when it comes to immigration issues--NOT with party politics.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336427137' post='2428240']
Look, I wasn't interested in an actual debate, but do you have any proof for this other than it's intuitive? I mean that criminalizing substances curbs usage and demand at all? It sure seems like that [i]would[/i] be the case, but the research I've read (including the summit held in Brazil last year I think) indicate the opposite.



Initially it may increase. Just as if the drinking age were abolished there would most likely be an initial spike in usage. Overall, I'm not sure there'd be a significant long-term change. I'm not dragging out the numbers but it might be worthwhile into looking the usage rates of countries with more relaxed drug policies. [url="http://www.globalcommissionondrugs.org/wp-content/themes/gcdp_v1/pdf/Global_Commission_Report_English.pdf"]http://www.globalcom...ort_English.pdf[/url]



Not saying it is or isn't. I'm just saying that many innocent people are thrust into desperate living conditions in their countries that are in part created by US policy. There seems to be little compassion for said people. That is all.
[/quote]The Drug Policy was an interesting link. I will have to do some more research. I am surprised at their claims that use of 'legalized marijuana' did not increase after legalization. I find that against what I would expect intuitively, based on my observations of human nature and drug use. I do agree with many of their suggestions about reducing criminal penalties on low-end users and providing more education for preventing drug use in the first place. They cite how that education is very beneficial, but that is also why I question their claims that allowing drug use decreases use. How does anti-drug use education work when you teach that on one hand, but then legalize drug use with the other hand?

Society has enough problems with stupid people impairing their minds and bodies with the already legal and plentiful substances we have. It's one thing to deal with alcoholism when alcholoic beverages have been an intregal part of 99% of all cultures, all continents, for 1,000's of years and then try to equate it with marijuana that hasn't been an integral part of human cultures in a significant number of cultures for any significant amount of time. Even if marijuana was legalized, there would not be ANY decrease in the need to secure our borders because of all the other substances (drugs, slaves, unsafe foods, illegal products, criminals) who would have desire to cross the borders with impunity.

As far as compassion, it's a two way street. What about the compassion of the US citizens that have to deal with the vast numbers of immigrants that cross the border, demanding to be fed, housed, employed, given health care, educated, etc., without having fundamental respect for the laws and norms of the communities they overwhelm? I don't live in Arizona, and I find the problems they have dealing with illegal immigrants astounding. It's easy for outsiders to tell other states/communities to 'deal with it', when you don't have to deal with it every day on a personal level. That's evidenced when my mid-western relatives visit here in Florida and freak over the Cuban atmosphere in parts of Tampa which isn't anything like Miami and probably isn't anything like living in Arizona. Then they see Mexican communities here in the 'burbs of Tampa where we grow strawberries and tomatoes. They never could imagine a migrant or farm camp though they've seen ethnic neighboorhoods that have been around for eons in their cities and towns.

The US, as a Nation has established National Immigration Laws. Some States have unique situations that those citizens have to deal with. The States, as smaller communities, should be allowed to ensure the National laws are enforced according to the needs of the smaller communities. The US has a right to have policies and laws to protect their citizens and our borders. Sorry that it causes misery when people want to violate the policies and laws. However, the Mexican Government and Society has a greater responsibility for their citizens then the US has responsibility for Mexican citizens choosing to break the immigration laws in the US.

[havok579257]

[quote name='LaPetiteSoeur' timestamp='1336490310' post='2428648']
I find it fascinating that whenever someone actually follows church teaching, but teaching that is not in line with what is considered "conservative" ideas that that people is automatically labeled as a liberal. Bishop Gomez is simply discussing what the USCCB has already written about and taught:



Sorry it is so long, but I think there are many good points. We must respond with Christ-like compassion in when it comes to immigration issues--NOT with party politics.
[/quote]

Wonderful post. We here should be catholics first and conservatives second. Not the other way around.

[Ice_nine]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1336765763' post='2429860']
It's one thing to deal with alcoholism when alcholoic beverages have been an intregal part of 99% of all cultures, all continents, for 1,000's of years and then try to equate it with marijuana that hasn't been an integral part of human cultures in a significant number of cultures for any significant amount of time. [/quote]

are you 100% sure about this? I'm not. I seem to recall learning that hashish has been a staple in Morocco where it's hard for the mountains there to grow much of anything else. Could be wrong. Jus' throwin it out thurr.

[quote] Even if marijuana was legalized, there would not be ANY decrease in the need to secure our borders because of all the other substances (drugs, slaves, unsafe foods, illegal products, criminals) who would have desire to cross the borders with impunity.[/quote]

No. I just feel bad for people in central America who are victim to violent drug cartels that exist basically to serve Americans. And sure if the demand for drugs on our side of the border didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a problem, but also if America didn't go ahead and illegalize substances (which to my knowledge has not happened in human history until very recently) there wouldn't be violent cartels to service America's demand for drugs.

Which is why it was clearly labeled a side rant. A quip really. I didn't want to get much involved into this debate because I admittedly don't have a complete argument, but just wanted to throw my 1.5 cents in on this corner of the issue. I didn't mean to imply that legalizing substances would solve all immigration issues and such. That would be jus silly.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1336860403' post='2430099']


are you 100% sure about this? I'm not. I seem to recall learning that hashish has been a staple in Morocco where it's hard for the mountains there to grow much of anything else. Could be wrong. Jus' throwin it out thurr.

Considering the harm that is inflicted in other countries and cultures be cause of world wide drug demand, I fear any message of ambivalence towards recreational drug use.

No. I just feel bad for people in central America who are victim to violent drug cartels that exist basically to serve Americans. And sure if the demand for drugs on our side of the border didn't exist, then there wouldn't be a problem, but also if America didn't go ahead and illegalize substances (which to my knowledge has not happened in human history until very recently) there wouldn't be violent cartels to service America's demand for drugs.

Which is why it was clearly labeled a side rant. A quip really. I didn't want to get much involved into this debate because I admittedly don't have a complete argument, but just wanted to throw my 1.5 cents in on this corner of the issue. I didn't mean to imply that legalizing substances would solve all immigration issues and such. That would be jus silly.
[/quote]Yhe use of marijuana in a few rare cultures cannot compare to the widespread alcohol use in almost all cultures. You're right, this topic is only marginally related to border security. Drug use iis a topic I am passionate about though. I apologize for getting amped about it, but you do have thoughtful and challenging points.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Anomaly

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1336360133' post='2427897']
2. so in your mind, someone who works in immigration, actually everyone who has ever been in immigration has had never been racist, sexists, bigioted ever? thats the arguement your going to use? my point is if someone an illegal immigrant is dealing with is bigioted towards them they have no way to complain about being treated unfairly. they have no representation. they are at the mercy ofwhomever they are dealing with. heck it could just be adisgruntled employee who is having a horrible day and is looking for someone to take it out on. is this right?[/quote]
So has no cop been racist or bigoted [i]ever[/i]? By your logic, we should just abolish all law enforcement and let everyone commit whatever crimes they like with impunity on the grounds that some police officers out there [i]might [/i]be racist. (And I still have no clue what the hell "sexism" has to do with any of this.) As Anomaly pointed out, there are immigration courts to appeal to. Besides, a large percentage of immigration and border officers are themselves Hispanic, as fluent Spanish speakers are desired for such positions.

If you're going to insinuate that current U.S. immigration policy is racist or bigoted, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Sorry.

[quote]this is shows exactly why repbuplicans are just like democrates. republicans are all against big bad government when it intrudes on your taxes, your money and giving so called entitlements to others using their money. they big government is bad and evil. although when it comes to the military,immigration policy, and other such things, big givernment is great and there is absolutly no reason to doubt they would ever do the wrong thing. although when it comes to entitlements and taxes the givernment can do nothing right. democrates are just the opposite. all for big government on taxes, entitlements and usch but when it comes to abortions, contraceptions and morals issues, then government is big and bad and does nothing right. both republicans and democrates want big government, niether are for smaller government.[/quote]
The topic here isn't "big government" or "small government," Republicans or Democrats, but rather immigration policy and how our borders ought to be protected. If you can't stay on topic, then maybe you'd not post in the thread.

And, as I've pointed out before, big gov politicians love lax immigration and border enforcement, as it increases the number of people on welfare and voters for big-gov socialism.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Socrates

[vee]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1335926325' post='2425904']
...well, Texas has done stuff they won't admit... like the time they deported a minor wihtout even contacting her family...she went to mexico and lived there for months... she claimed she was an illegal just to get out of her family's hair...they took her word for it, and she was gone...


...so, the government isn't really to be trusted... at least that is the message i get from most of you conservatives... until we are talking about immigration or the death penalty, than suddenly, the government knows exactly what they are doing and they are proficient at it...

Bishop Gomez is definitely NOT a liberal, he's just being Catholic... looking out for the less fortunate... sorry if that seems too liberal for some people...

as far as a guarantee I won't be deported, or treated like a criminal in Arizona, well... i won't take you guys word for it... i'm steering clear from that place...
[/quote]

I'll be the first one running around yelling "she's illegal!!"

[havok579257]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337048995' post='2430716']
So has no cop been racist or bigoted [i]ever[/i]? By your logic, we should just abolish all law enforcement and let everyone commit whatever crimes they like with impunity on the grounds that some police officers out there [i]might [/i]be racist. (And I still have no clue what the hell "sexism" has to do with any of this.) As Anomaly pointed out, there are immigration courts to appeal to. Besides, a large percentage of immigration and border officers are themselves Hispanic, as fluent Spanish speakers are desired for such positions.

If you're going to insinuate that current U.S. immigration policy is racist or bigoted, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Sorry.


The topic here isn't "big government" or "small government," Republicans or Democrats, but rather immigration policy and how our borders ought to be protected. If you can't stay on topic, then maybe you'd not post in the thread.

And, as I've pointed out before, big gov politicians love lax immigration and border enforcement, as it increases the number of people on welfare and voters for big-gov socialism.
[/quote]

your logic is so flawed. so the people who are trying to enter into america legally and are denied are just trying to legally enter america so they can commit crimes? your logic makes no sense.

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337063103' post='2430792']
your logic is so flawed. so the people who are trying to enter into america legally and are denied are just trying to legally enter america so they can commit crimes? your logic makes no sense.
[/quote]
Your logic, sir, is nonexistent.

You have not provided one single fact to back up your endless mindless emoting. Not one. Until you can do so, kindly stop wasting your time and mine.

More people have entered America (both legally and illegally) over the past decade than ever before in our nation's history (today down somewhat from the all-time high in 2007 - under a Republican president, G. W. Bush).

And I'd recommend taking time to learn some basic reading comprehension, spelling, and grammar skills. They will benefit you greatly.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337127896' post='2431064']
Your logic, sir, is nonexistent.

You have not provided one single fact to back up your endless mindless emoting. Not one. Until you can do so, kindly stop wasting your time and mine.

More people have entered America (both legally and illegally) over the past decade than ever before in our nation's history (today down somewhat from the all-time high in 2007 - under a Republican president, G. W. Bush).

And I'd recommend taking time to learn some basic reading comprehension, spelling, and grammar skills. They will benefit you greatly.
[/quote]

attacking grammer on an internet forum. last i checked this wasn't an english class.

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1337152124' post='2431161']
attacking grammer on an internet forum. last i checked this wasn't an english class.
[/quote]
That's "gramm[b]a[/b]r," capital "I," and "English" (capital "E").

I'm not attacking grammar, but defending it. Your posts are a violent assault on the English language.