Pope Francis vs Trump

[Guest]

Who's side are you on? I've been hearing more Catholics side with Trump.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

"A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel," the Pope told journalists who asked his opinion on Trump's proposals to halt illegal immigration.

"Trump immediately fired back, calling Francis' comments "disgraceful."

"If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president," Trump said."

Edited February 19, 2016 by Guest

[Papist]

I find it peculiar that a journalist would ask the pope that question.  I do not believe the pope is properly informed with US's border problem, and Trump's position on how to address it. 

And Trump....he's just a big sensationalist blowhard. 

[Gabriela]

I think the (inappropriate) question reveals how desperate the American people are for a leader with moral credibility.

[Ice_nine]

I assume the Catholics who have gripes with the current Pope are the kinds of people who think Trump is an OK guy. It makes me kind of nauseous.

I will say on the immigration issue, the attitude of closed borders and building walls seems unChristian to me. The talk about the dangers of welcoming refugees and use that to justify shutting out desperate people who find themselves in horror-movie type scenarios. We can even ignore the fact that the US has played a heavy role in creating the hellscapes these people are trying to flee from (the laughably ineffective war on drugs and operation Iraqi freedom). Even though that adds a terrible irony, and I love irony, it is not necessary.

As Christians we are to welcome the stranger and emulate the Good Samaritan. We are told to lose our lives in order to find them. These are dangerous, and radical things. I just get tired of people trying to reconcile their own fears (and there's legitimate reasons to fear) with the Gospel by arguing that building walls and keeping refugees out is actually Christian because we are showing respect to the lives God gave us and protecting our families and using our rational faculties which are a gift from God etc etc. Just admit you're afraid, for now, to accept the radical call of the Gospel in this specific area.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

I assume the Catholics who have gripes with the current Pope are the kinds of people who think Trump is an OK guy. It makes me kind of nauseous.

I will say on the immigration issue, the attitude of closed borders and building walls seems unChristian to me. The talk about the dangers of welcoming refugees and use that to justify shutting out desperate people who find themselves in horror-movie type scenarios. We can even ignore the fact that the US has played a heavy role in creating the hellscapes these people are trying to flee from (the laughably ineffective war on drugs and operation Iraqi freedom). Even though that adds a terrible irony, and I love irony, it is not necessary.

As Christians we are to welcome the stranger and emulate the Good Samaritan. We are told to lose our lives in order to find them. These are dangerous, and radical things. I just get tired of people trying to reconcile their own fears (and there's legitimate reasons to fear) with the Gospel by arguing that building walls and keeping refugees out is actually Christian because we are showing respect to the lives God gave us and protecting our families and using our rational faculties which are a gift from God etc etc. Just admit you're afraid, for now, to accept the radical call of the Gospel in this specific area.

I actually don't have a problem with a wall or other increased border security. Regulating the flow of traffic of people into the country is a safety issue with all of the terrorism and stuff that is going on today.

The main problem I have is where folks want to put up a wall but then keep the same restrictions that we have that make it very difficult for people to immigrate here legally. If you come from certain countries and you are not a doctor or an engineer you are not getting a visa. If people want to come live here and we have not reached the limit of our capacity to accommodate them, then I think it is our duty as Christians to welcome them. It seems like the general mindset of Trump and some folks like him is like "It's us versus them" instead of "We are all brothers and sisters and how can we help each other?" The former view does not seem very Christian and I think that is kind of what Pope Francis was trying to get at.

[Anomaly]

Typical shallow comments.   

An unregulated and open border defeats the security of US citizens.  There are plenty who wish us harm.   It encourages people to spend thousands to travel from Guatamala through Mexico, subjecting them to exploitation by gangs, human smuggling, etc..  And no, the government corruption and broken social systems in Mexico and Guatamala are not solely or primarily due to war on drugs.  

What is being done to fix  Mexico and South American economies?  Is US millennials buying illegal pot the cause of everything?

Trump and Francis both tend to pontificate opinion with little nuance that is gleefully misinterpreted by others in pursuit of various agendas.  

[Ice_nine]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Is US millennials buying illegal pot the cause of everything?

 

Yes

[Makarioi]

People who are surrounded by a wall shouldn't throw bricks.......just sayin'

[bardegaulois]

Francis, as he often does, was speaking off the cuff, likely knowing little about US electoral or immigration politics. He should know, though, that the US has built bridges (by which I presume he means the ways to immigrate legally), and many of them indeed. It's not our fault if many would rather break the law in order to immigrate than use them.

[Makarioi]

Francis is liberal and very political, I think he stepped into a place that he shouldn't have. Our borders are a free for all and that has to be changed, for safety if anything else...........

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Makarioi said:

Francis is liberal and very political, I think he stepped into a place that he shouldn't have. Our borders are a free for all and that has to be changed, for safety if anything else...........

He is not a liberal. Some of his views can be characterized as more liberal and some of his views can be characterized as more conservative. And the same is true for the Church.

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, bardegaulois said:

Francis, as he often does, was speaking off the cuff, likely knowing little about US electoral or immigration politics. He should know, though, that the US has built bridges (by which I presume he means the ways to immigrate legally), and many of them indeed. It's not our fault if many would rather break the law in order to immigrate than use them.

Um, most of the people coming here illegally would *rather* do so legally. They often do so because they 1) do not have the money to pay for the fees, 2) do not have the time for the long waiting period out of fear for their lives or well-being, or 3) both. We have an incredibly broken legal system. Those who want to come here legally often have to wait years, and many people from central and south America trying to come here do not have years to wait. 

It's not these peoples' fault that they have to look out for their family's well-being and, in a way, feel no choice but to come here illegally. It is our fault that we are so partisan that we cannot make the simplest attempts at improving the immigration system. None of this is to say that there aren't those who come here illegally just so they can exploit the system. But there is no data I am aware of suggesting this is the majority.

We need to stop pointing fingers and start doing something. Fixing immigration laws will largely fix the immigration issue. Make revisions, not walls. 

[Anomaly]

Imagine for a moment, if the US removed all restrictions to come here.  Ignore the possibility of terrorists, they can be home grown, or with a little effort, cross over like the hundreds of thousands that do so now. 

People with little means would be abandoning their communities to travel here.   South Americans would have to travel through other countries that may not want them, even temporarily.   They would be vulnerable to villagers, theives, highwaymen, corrupt officials, etc. as they travel.  The immigrants would be so numerous, no government, including the US, could provide basic food, shelter, medical, sanitation, education, police, etc.    it would be a catastrophe.   The communities they leave behind would be losing some of their best.   Those with a little wealth to provide the means to travel, self motivation to actually travel, ability to even travel.  What would the populations left behind be like then?   What about the societies and government they leave?   The dissidents, the motivated, the able, would be leaving the weak and vulnerable.   The wicked would be rid of many hindrances and be able to stenghthen their oppression within those societies.   

Don't Catholics recognize their familial association and shared responsibilities of their fellow national citizens?   In a sense, aren't they abandoning their communal families for a selfish, "better" life?

I don't think the US should have impenetrable borders.  I think the US has a responsibility to provide security and opportunity for its citizens and cooperative participants within our society.   I also think that as world citizens, we also have a responsibility to help others not just escape oppression in their countries and societies, but to combat and eliminate the oppressions (economic and social) so they can remain and build their own communities, different or maybe even better than the US, as they deem suitable.   And to do so until the lands they were born in and with and for the community they are with now  

Though that hope of outside aid and enabling others in other countries is always defeated with cries of "meddling" and "imperialism".   The failure of corupt governments crushing their own citizens and societies is sadly demonstrated in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.  Same island, similar people, but vastly different societies despite the billions spent on aid.  Haiti is so corrupt, those who can, leave.   Abandoning and condemning those left to generations of misery and deprivation under a corrupt government with little fear of being challenged by its citizens and the world community spending their sweat and treasure trying to alleviate the misery created by their neglect and oppression  

The US is afraid to "meddle" because we are told we are so awful and terrible and responsible, but people abandon their friends, community, and family, risking their very lives to live here in this "hellish 'Murcia". The Pope chastises a border wall, but says nothing about the corrupt governments that caused it in the first place. Trump is unchristian but the Castros are fine fellows.   Maybe because the Castros are so adept at creating the poor, who are so blessed.  Maybe for oppressing and creating the meek who are the "heirs".

It really isn't about the walls, borders , or bridges.    Why must these people escape to evil America to have a decent standard of living?

Edited February 21, 2016 by Anomaly
Spellins and ghrammahs

[Peace]

26 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Imagine for a moment, if the US removed all restrictions to come here.  Ignore the possibility of terrorists, they can be home grown, or with a little effort, cross over like the hundreds of thousands that do so now. 

People with little means would be abandoning their communities to travel here.   South Americans would have to travel through other countries that may not want them, even temporarily.   They would be vulnerable to villagers, theives, highwaymen, corrupt officials, etc. as they travel.  The immigrants would be so numerous, no government, including the US, could provide basic food, shelter, medical, sanitation, education, police, etc.    it would be a catastrophe.   The communities they leave behind would be losing some of their best.   Those with a little wealth to provide the means to travel, self motivation to actually travel, ability to even travel.  What would the populations left behind be like then?   What about the societies and government they leave?   The dissidents, the motivated, the able, would be leaving the weak and vulnerable.   The wicked would be rid of many hindrances and be able to stenghthen their oppression within those societies.   

I think that this was pretty much the case in the USA until the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. And up until the Immigration Act of 1924 there were not many restrictions on immigration by groups of people other than the Chinese. You pretty much had free immigration up until that point and much immigration of "people with little means". During some of the peak times you had as many as 5000 people arriving per day. I would guess that the majority of Americans other than African Americans and Latinos can trace their lineage back to one of the immigration waves that occured after our nation's founding. Many of them had little high-level skills and packed into slum-like tenements in cities like New York while trying to make a better life for themselves. Needless to say, having open borders for that long period of our history was not a catastrophy. Those people contributed much to the building of this country and we are better off for their many contributions today. Why then should not other people be given the same opportunity?

As for the argument that we should limit immigration here so that other countries "would not be losing some of their best" - that sounds a bit paternalisic. Other countries can make those decisions for themselves. If Mexico believes that Mexico would benefit by not allowing it's citizens to immigrate to the USA then nothing is stopping Mexico from building a wall or otherwise preventing it's citizens from leaveing (as some other countries in the past have done).  If they have chosen not to do so then I do not think it is a very strong argument to say "It is in those countries best interests that they not be allowed to leave." The fact that their governments allow them to leave indicates that those governments have determined that doing so is not harmful to the country.

Obviously, having immigration from Mexico to the USA helps Mexico, for example. If immigration to the USA hurt Mexicans everyone over there would be agreeing with Donald Trump. Nobody over there agrees with him.

I have actually lived and worked in another country and it was quite nice and would like that opportunity again. I certainly would not appreciate it if the country I wanted to live in declined my request because "America would be harmed by allowing its best and brightest to leave". I do not think that is a very good argument, with all due respect.

26 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Don't Catholics recognize their familial association and shared responsibilities of their fellow national citizens?   In a sense, aren't they abandoning their communal families for a selfish, "better" life?

No. For example, the janitor in my office is from El Salvador and he sends money back to his family every month. You will find that the same is true for many Mexicans and people from other countries who come here to work. The US dollars that they earn here can in many circumstances go a long way to helping out their people back home.

26 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I don't think the US should have impenetrable borders.  I think the US has a responsibility to provide security and opportunity for its citizens and cooperative participants within our society.   I also think that as world citizens, we also have a responsibility to help others not just escape oppression in their countries and societies, but to combat and eliminate the oppressions (economic and social) so they can remain and build their own communities, different or maybe even better than the US, as they deem suitable.   And to do so until the lands they were born in and with and for the community they are with now  

 It need not be either/or. It can be both/and.