For those who defend Trump

[Socrates]

On 1/5/2017 at 8:16 PM, havok579257 said:

i would argue they are unjust and here is why.  If someone tries to legally get into the united states and are denied legal status they have no one to turn to.  They have no one to represent them if they feel they were unjustly denied.  You as an american citizen, if you feel you have been denied one of your rights or felt like a government offical was wrong in denying your claim, you can turn to many elected officals to plead your case.  You have avenues avaliable to plead you case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status has no such person.  Even if they are denied for some unjust reason.  Let's just say one of the people working on their case is having a bad day, just found out their spouse cheated on them, are doing things just to be evil and mess with people, no matter the reason, if an immigrant is denied legal status that is it.  They can not plead their case to anyone because no one represents them.

 

This is why the immigration law is unjust.  Immigrants have no recourse if they are unfairly denied legal status.

To be honest, I'm not clear on  exactly what you are trying to state or argue here.

We have immigration courts in the U.S. to hear cases concerning legal status, deportation, etc.  I'm not going to get into arguments about how these courts are administered (I'm no expert on the topic), and it may be true that they can use improvement or reform, but your claim that immigrants "have no one to turn to" or that they "cannot plead their case to anyone" is quite simply false.

But it seems you're talking about people stopped at the border who are trying to get in.  Are you saying persons at the border must be brought into the U.S. for a trial every time anybody at the border is denied entrance by border officials for any reason?

Also, as was already pointed out here, immigration into any given country is not an absolute right owed anybody who desires it.

The Church in fact teaches that sovereign nations have a right to make and enforce border laws (even the notoriously liberal USCCB admits as much), and that immigrants are obligate to obey the laws of the country they are migrating to.

There is certainly nothing in Catholic moral teaching that states or suggests that people have a "moral duty" to break U.S. immigration laws, or that officials are obligated not to enforce it.  Quite the contrary.

As American immigration policy is one of the world's most generous and lenient, it seems you are advocating that any and all immigration laws anywhere must be disregarded and broken.  The Church has in fact never advocated such lawlessness.

[Socrates]

On 1/6/2017 at 0:08 AM, Norseman82 said:

The idea that "there is no line" is a bunch of hogwash.  I've known multiple people who came here legally and became citizens - including an ex-girlfriend - and I recall one friend emphasizing the word "legally" when describing his immigration story.  Additionally, regarding the various work visas, how much of the reason behind them is for businesses to bring in cheap labor to depress wages?

Also hogwash is the assertion that we need massive and ever-increasing immigration because there aren't enough American citizens to fill jobs, when the reality is that there are many  Americans who are unemployed or who need better jobs who are looking for work.  A country's chief responsibility is for the good of its own citizens.  Massive immigration lowers the price of labor, which is why many big businesses and their government cronies favor it.  Also, Dems love the constant influx of future voters who overwhelmingly vote leftist.

[bardegaulois]

3 hours ago, Socrates said:

Also hogwash is the assertion that we need massive and ever-increasing immigration because there aren't enough American citizens to fill jobs, when the reality is that there are many  Americans who are unemployed or who need better jobs who are looking for work.  A country's chief responsibility is for the good of its own citizens.  Massive immigration lowers the price of labor, which is why many big businesses and their government cronies favor it.  Also, Dems love the constant influx of future voters who overwhelmingly vote leftist.

But if they're not going to vote leftist, like those Cubans in Florida, we just have to look at one of the Obama administration's parting gifts this week: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/obamas-last-big-cuba-move

[havok579257]

5 hours ago, Socrates said:

To be honest, I'm not clear on  exactly what you are trying to state or argue here.

We have immigration courts in the U.S. to hear cases concerning legal status, deportation, etc.  I'm not going to get into arguments about how these courts are administered (I'm no expert on the topic), and it may be true that they can use improvement or reform, but your claim that immigrants "have no one to turn to" or that they "cannot plead their case to anyone" is quite simply false.

But it seems you're talking about people stopped at the border who are trying to get in.  Are you saying persons at the border must be brought into the U.S. for a trial every time anybody at the border is denied entrance by border officials for any reason?

Also, as was already pointed out here, immigration into any given country is not an absolute right owed anybody who desires it.

The Church in fact teaches that sovereign nations have a right to make and enforce border laws (even the notoriously liberal USCCB admits as much), and that immigrants are obligate to obey the laws of the country they are migrating to.

There is certainly nothing in Catholic moral teaching that states or suggests that people have a "moral duty" to break U.S. immigration laws, or that officials are obligated not to enforce it.  Quite the contrary.

As American immigration policy is one of the world's most generous and lenient, it seems you are advocating that any and all immigration laws anywhere must be disregarded and broken.  The Church has in fact never advocated such lawlessness.

 

No, I am actually talking about people trying to earn legal status.  If they apply for citizenship and are denied for what they believe is an unjust reason,they have no recourse.  If you as an American citizen get arrested and are sentanced for a crime you claim you did not commit, you have recourse.  You can appeal the case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status for reasons they believe to be unjust has no recourse.  They have no one to turn to.  No new avenue to pursue when they are treated unjustly.  We all know,government workers are not exempt from being evil.  They are not all good, altruistic people.  So with that said, what happens when a corrupt person denies someone who should have legal status for not just reason?  The immigrant basically has to take it and leave.  He has no one to respresent him and plead his case that he was unjustly denied legal status.  There are no checks and balances in place for illegal immigrants who are denied unjustly.

4 hours ago, Socrates said:

Also hogwash is the assertion that we need massive and ever-increasing immigration because there aren't enough American citizens to fill jobs, when the reality is that there are many  Americans who are unemployed or who need better jobs who are looking for work.  A country's chief responsibility is for the good of its own citizens.  Massive immigration lowers the price of labor, which is why many big businesses and their government cronies favor it.  Also, Dems love the constant influx of future voters who overwhelmingly vote leftist.

To be fair though, we do need an influx of immigrants to perform low paying jobs because to many americans these days look down upon these jobs and think they are beneath them and refuse to work them.  To many Americans would rather collect unemployement and welfare than work a job they deem undignified to them.  

 

So to be fair, we do need immigrants to come in and do the low paying jobs because Americans as a whole will not do these jobs perferring instead to stay unemployed than work a job they view is beneath them.

[Anomaly]

Feeding the system that needs underpaid and unappreciated workers with illegal immigrants is not the moral choice.   It supports a poor work ethic, lowers wages, foster an elitist attitude by enabling the establishment of a lower class, and is only marginally better for the immigrants forced to leave their children, family, community, culture, and country. 

To be fair, you only reinforce the perception these jobs and wages should be beneath regard.  

[havok579257]

13 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Feeding the system that needs underpaid and unappreciated workers with illegal immigrants is not the moral choice.   It supports a poor work ethic, lowers wages, foster an elitist attitude by enabling the establishment of a lower class, and is only marginally better for the immigrants forced to leave their children, family, community, culture, and country. 

To be fair, you only reinforce the perception these jobs and wages should be beneath regard.  

I don't think those jobs are beneath people and I don't think bringing immigrants in to do low paying jobs is the right course of action.  I am just stating what the facts are.  There are tons of people who are unemployed in this country.  There are tons of low paying jobs whichc people refuse to work. If no one in this country will work them and an immigrants will, then you need immigrants to work the jobs.

 

Realistically it would be better if the unemployed people would take these jobs.  Although that will never happen.  There will never be a law saying you need to work some kind of job to receive unemployment benefits.  In a perfect world we would have something like this, but we all know this will never happen in America.  So then the question is what to do about low paying jobs no one will work?

[Anomaly]

Stop telling people jobs are too menial, too cheap, are for foreign immigrants, and then owe those who WON'T work, food, housing, healthcare, internet access, and esteem.   Wages are low because we bring people willing to work that cheap, others refuse because we make it easy and respectful to refuse to work.  

  It doesn't take a perfect world, all solutions are messy, and things take time to improve.  Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't collapse in a weekend. 

[CatherineM]

When they did a change in the temporary foreign worker program here, fast food places started hiring some of our developmentally disabled kids who couldn't get interviews before. 

My father worked as a mechanic's helped. He ran for parts, filled up tanks on trucks and changed licence plates once a year. Not very trying for a man with a 156 IQ. He never felt ashamed of his job, even if I did, may my Dad forgive me. It was all he could get since he quit school during the depression to support his grandmother. He also had physical limitations due to war injuries. 

He was grateful for the work. I think we've lost sight of that, being grateful for simple work. 

[havok579257]

2 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Stop telling people jobs are too menial, too cheap, are for foreign immigrants, and then owe those who WON'T work, food, housing, healthcare, internet access, and esteem.   Wages are low because we bring people willing to work that cheap, others refuse because we make it easy and respectful to refuse to work.  

  It doesn't take a perfect world, all solutions are messy, and things take time to improve.  Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't collapse in a weekend. 

i am not telling anyone anything.  Politicians are.  They are doing it to pander for votes.  This will never change.  

 

In the current system there is no answer.  Conservatives and Liberals are unwilling to comprimise.  They have their ideological views and they would rather run this country into the grouond than comprimise their platform views.  I feel like right now you asking the near impossible.  Your asking liberals to not pander to the unemployed basically telling them vote for us and stay unemployed and keep all the beneifts.  Do you honestly see in the next 15 years Liberals and Conservatives suddenly come to the middle on things and work together? Do you see the republicans and democrat elected officals suddenly all become moderates and work together.  At the current climate we are in, there is no comprimise and none in the forseeable future.  Democrats(Chuck Shumer their leader) has said he will oppose republicans on 95% of everything they propose.  The only way he will agree to work with them is if they come completely to their side.  That will not happen.

[Anomaly]

Nothing gets better with a negative attitude.  When you say never, others won't change, and impossible, you're just a buzz kill and contribute to the polarization of extreme thinking.  

Get over changing the minds of large groups of people and seeing a major difference in a couple of months.  That's for the media to get people worked up so they'll watch ads for cars and skin lotion. 

Two different sides need to compromise more than one needs to win.  That's how we tend to get the better from both.  It's not perfect.  Dems and Reps both want to keep their jobs and get votes.  We all want people to work if capable, and get help if they can't.  We should be arguing about how to accomplish a common goal, not electing adversaries.   A little friction smooths things out, too much breaks something.  We just had an election and srsly, neither candidate really wants Americans to suffer or the country to fail despite what each are saying about the other.   They both attended each other's weddings, parties, and hung out at times. 

[havok579257]

3 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Nothing gets better with a negative attitude.  When you say never, others won't change, and impossible, you're just a buzz kill and contribute to the polarization of extreme thinking.  

Get over changing the minds of large groups of people and seeing a major difference in a couple of months.  That's for the media to get people worked up so they'll watch ads for cars and skin lotion. 

Two different sides need to compromise more than one needs to win.  That's how we tend to get the better from both.  It's not perfect.  Dems and Reps both want to keep their jobs and get votes.  We all want people to work if capable, and get help if they can't.  We should be arguing about how to accomplish a common goal, not electing adversaries.   A little friction smooths things out, too much breaks something.  We just had an election and srsly, neither candidate really wants Americans to suffer or the country to fail despite what each are saying about the other.   They both attended each other's weddings, parties, and hung out at times. 

Its not a negative attitude, its accepting reality.  Like, would I love it if every country got rid of their nuclear weapons? Yes. Is it realistic? No.  Is it having a negative attitude by saying it will never happen? No.  Its just accepting reality.  All nations will not disarm all their nuclear weapons.  I wish they would but I know they won't.  That's just accepting fact, that's not being negative.

 

Both Dems and Repubs want to keep their jobs,yes.  Altough it has been proven today that to keep your job you can not reach across the isle and meet the other party in the middle.  If a republican even mentions comprimising with the democrats when their mid term election comes up another republican runs against them for the nomination and blasts them for this pandering to their base.  The base who votes in the primaries.  I've seen it happen a lot in my red state.  The problem is to win your primary you have to pander to your base and right now both bases (the majority who vote) want no comprimise.  It comes back to the two party system.  Until this is done away with, this will never change.  The only way it gets changed is enough people vote in a 3rd party candidate to president which by the looks of it is no where close to happening.  I don't think you are going to convince over half the voting population to not be a demorat or republican and vote thrid party is a good candiate comes along.  

 

The issue you want solved right now, is not going to happen in the forseeable future.  Both sides and their bases are convinced their way is the only way and the other side can do no right.  Its even to the point where if republicans have supported something in the past,years ago but now the democrats try to pass legisltion about it, repbulicans will be against it.  Whatever one side supports, the other side opposes.  

 

To me the problem is just as unlikely to change as term limits for congressmen.  We should have term limits.  Although the only way for that to happen is for the elected officals to put that in place.  To put in place something they view that negatively effects them. Niether side will do that because they know they can not be a politician for life.  

 

There are some problems that are not fixable in the forseeable future.  I think we have to work with what we have, not just hope for change and not do anything until we get the change this country needs.  

[Socrates]

On 1/18/2017 at 11:30 PM, havok579257 said:

 

No, I am actually talking about people trying to earn legal status.  If they apply for citizenship and are denied for what they believe is an unjust reason,they have no recourse.  If you as an American citizen get arrested and are sentanced for a crime you claim you did not commit, you have recourse.  You can appeal the case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status for reasons they believe to be unjust has no recourse.  They have no one to turn to.  No new avenue to pursue when they are treated unjustly.  We all know,government workers are not exempt from being evil.  They are not all good, altruistic people.  So with that said, what happens when a corrupt person denies someone who should have legal status for not just reason?  The immigrant basically has to take it and leave.  He has no one to respresent him and plead his case that he was unjustly denied legal status.  There are no checks and balances in place for illegal immigrants who are denied unjustly.

Once again, you're simply wrong (and you would know you are wrong if you bothered to do even the quickest research on the subject).

If an immigrant who is not a U.S. citizen is accused of a crime in the U.S., he is usually tried in a state court, and if found guilty, he is sent to prison, where he is handed over to ICE officials to be deported to his home country.  He must stand trial and be found guilty before being deported.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-an-illegal-immigrant-commits-a-major-crime-such-as-murder-in-the-USA

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-when-undocumented-immigrant-is-caught.html

It appears you're completely ignorant of this subject, and are just talking out of your rear-end, without providing anything at all to back up your ignorant assertions.

 

Quote

 

To be fair though, we do need an influx of immigrants to perform low paying jobs because to many americans these days look down upon these jobs and think they are beneath them and refuse to work them.  To many Americans would rather collect unemployement and welfare than work a job they deem undignified to them.  

 

So to be fair, we do need immigrants to come in and do the low paying jobs because Americans as a whole will not do these jobs perferring instead to stay unemployed than work a job they view is beneath them.

 

You've made yet another baseless assertion.  I myself have worked plenty of "menial" jobs some would regard as "beneath me," and I have yet to meet a single person, poor or rich, who would prefer living off the public dole to having a job.  Yes, such people may exist, but I'd hardly say they are representative of most Americans, and to say so without solid basis is slanderous.

But if what you are saying is in fact true and accurate, what is needed is serious reform of our welfare system, rather than ever higher levels of immigration.  It doesn't help that more than half of immigrants are themselves on welfare.  Our system of high immigration and welfare is economically unsustainable.

 

 

[havok579257]

16 minutes ago, Socrates said:

Once again, you're simply wrong (and you would know you are wrong if you bothered to do even the quickest research on the subject).

If an immigrant who is not a U.S. citizen is accused of a crime in the U.S., he is usually tried in a state court, and if found guilty, he is sent to prison, where he is handed over to ICE officials to be deported to his home country.  He must stand trial and be found guilty before being deported.

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-when-an-illegal-immigrant-commits-a-major-crime-such-as-murder-in-the-USA

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-when-undocumented-immigrant-is-caught.html

It appears you're completely ignorant of this subject, and are just talking out of your rear-end, without providing anything at all to back up your ignorant assertions.

 

You've made yet another baseless assertion.  I myself have worked plenty of "menial" jobs some would regard as "beneath me," and I have yet to meet a single person, poor or rich, who would prefer living off the public dole to having a job.  Yes, such people may exist, but I'd hardly say they are representative of most Americans, and to say so without solid basis is slanderous.

But if what you are saying is in fact true and accurate, what is needed is serious reform of our welfare system, rather than ever higher levels of immigration.  It doesn't help that more than half of immigrants are themselves on welfare.  Our system of high immigration and welfare is economically unsustainable.

 

 

Ok, I honestly have like no idea why you are talking about immigrants who commit crimes in your first paragraph.  I specifically mentioned immigrants trying to obtain legal status.  Never once did I mention them commiting crimes.  I have absolutely no idea why your rambling on about immigrants convicted of a crime and going to jail.  That was not my point and I have no idea how you even took away I was talking about immigrants commiting crimes.  I never even mentioned criminal immigrants.  So I dont have a clue where your ramblings are going because its not on the topic I am talking about.

 

[Socrates]

15 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

Ok, I honestly have like no idea why you are talking about immigrants who commit crimes in your first paragraph.  I specifically mentioned immigrants trying to obtain legal status.  Never once did I mention them commiting crimes.  I have absolutely no idea why your rambling on about immigrants convicted of a crime and going to jail.  That was not my point and I have no idea how you even took away I was talking about immigrants commiting crimes.  I never even mentioned criminal immigrants.  So I dont have a clue where your ramblings are going because its not on the topic I am talking about.

 

You said, "If you as an American citizen get arrested and are sentanced for a crime you claim you did not commit, you have recourse.  You can appeal the case.  An immigrant who is denied legal status for reasons they believe to be unjust has no recourse."

So I thought you might be talking about (legal) immigrants who were accused of a crime.

If you are talking about people who snuck into this country illegally, they already committed a crime by entering the country illegally, rather than following the law.  If they don't want to be subject to deportation, they should have chosen the legal route.

However, even they have legal defenses available, as would be clear if you read my second link.  I'll post it again for you: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-happens-when-undocumented-immigrant-is-caught.html

 

Quote

 

If you do not agree with the charges, you can fight them. Even if the charges are correct, you may still be eligible for relief from removal. For a discussion of possible defenses, see “Possible Defenses to Deportation of an Undocumented Alien.”

Removal proceedings can be lengthy, sometimes taking years to complete. As long as you do not have a prior order of removal, nor sign agreement to your deportation or accept voluntary departure, you will not be immediately deported just because you are caught.

 

Though at this point, I don't have a clue what you're trying to argue, and neither, it appears, do you.  Have a good night.

[Peace]

I am so glad I decided to stop wasting my time in this thread.