For those who defend Trump

[havok579257]

20 minutes ago, Socrates said:

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

 

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.

This is not at all what I am talking about.  I was just making an anology with the american citizen who is arrested.  Basically I am saying an immigrant applies for legal status.  They are denied for unjust reasons.  Take your pick.  Corruption,some people are bigoted.   Doesn't matter what the unjust reason is.  They obviously in their heart believe they were denied because of unjust reasons.  They have no respresentation who can take up their claim of being unjustly denied legal status.  As an american citizne, no matter what happens or what you do, you have respresentation.  If you are treated unjustly (by the government, a person, a company) you have recourse.  You have someone, a congress man, an elected official or a judge you can turn to, to plead your case of being unjustly treated.  An immigrant does not have this.  If they were treated unjustly in their hearing, they have no recourse, no one to respresent them.

[Socrates]

8 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

This is not at all what I am talking about.  I was just making an anology with the american citizen who is arrested.  Basically I am saying an immigrant applies for legal status.  They are denied for unjust reasons.  Take your pick.  Corruption,some people are bigoted.   Doesn't matter what the unjust reason is.  They obviously in their heart believe they were denied because of unjust reasons.  They have no respresentation who can take up their claim of being unjustly denied legal status.  As an american citizne, no matter what happens or what you do, you have respresentation.  If you are treated unjustly (by the government, a person, a company) you have recourse.  You have someone, a congress man, an elected official or a judge you can turn to, to plead your case of being unjustly treated.  An immigrant does not have this.  If they were treated unjustly in their hearing, they have no recourse, no one to respresent them.

One last time, READ MY LAST POST, INCLUDING THE LINKED ARTICLES.  (I'll even repeat them here, since apparently you missed them the last two times.)

They deal specifically with how an immigrant can legally appeal and avoid deportation.

Quote

 

To initiate removal proceedings, the deportation officer will serve you and the immigration court with a Notice to Appear (NTA). The Notice to Appear lists the immigration-related charges against you. You then have the right to see an immigration judge. The immigration judge does not work for ICE — he or she is part of the U.S. Department of Justice and is there to give you a fair trial.

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.

 

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

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/possible-defenses-deportation-undocumented-alien.html

Your claim that immigrants have no one to appeal to regarding deportation and legal status is simply wrong.  But if you continue to refuse to read what's given to you, I'm afraid there's no point wasting further time trying to reason with you.  Bless your heart.

[havok579257]

9 hours ago, Socrates said:

One last time, READ MY LAST POST, INCLUDING THE LINKED ARTICLES.  (I'll even repeat them here, since apparently you missed them the last two times.)

They deal specifically with how an immigrant can legally appeal and avoid deportation.

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

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/possible-defenses-deportation-undocumented-alien.html

Your claim that immigrants have no one to appeal to regarding deportation and legal status is simply wrong.  But if you continue to refuse to read what's given to you, I'm afraid there's no point wasting further time trying to reason with you.  Bless your heart.

when did i talk about immigrants already in this country or deportation?  Never once.  Obviously you are not reading what I wrote and just skimming.  

 

I am specifically talking about immigrants not in this country who are trying to obtain legal status through the legal means.  They are not in the country as an illigeal immigrant.  They live in another country and are applying to come here as a legal immigrant.

Edited January 21, 2017 by havok579257

[Socrates]

4 hours ago, havok579257 said:

when did i talk about immigrants already in this country or deportation?  Never once.  Obviously you are not reading what I wrote and just skimming.  

 

I am specifically talking about immigrants not in this country who are trying to obtain legal status through the legal means.  They are not in the country as an illigeal immigrant.  They live in another country and are applying to come here as a legal immigrant.

I earlier asked you if this was what you were talking about:

Quote

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?

And you replied:

Quote

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.

People are not instantly granted citizenship at the border gate (and it would be stupid to suggest that they should). Are you referring to people at the U.S. border trying to get in, or people applying for citizenship?  Those are two different things.

And how does one "earn legal status" if they are not even in the country to begin with?

Again, it seems you are suggesting that absolutely everyone wanting to cross the U.S. border must be allowed in by border officials (which would undermine national security), or else, that all those who are denied entrance must be brought into the U.S. for a courtroom trial on whether they should be allowed to stay or not.

Is what you are saying?  If not, explain, clearly.

Seems to me, you don't have any clue what the hell you're trying to say, but are just playing infantile games by changing the topic every post.  If so, please kindly go and find someone else to bug.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Socrates

[havok579257]

37 minutes ago, Socrates said:

I earlier asked you if this was what you were talking about:

And you replied:

People are not instantly granted citizenship at the border gate (and it would be stupid to suggest that they should). Are you referring to people at the U.S. border trying to get in, or people applying for citizenship?  Those are two different things.

And how does one "earn legal status" if they are not even in the country to begin with?

Again, it seems you are suggesting that absolutely everyone wanting to cross the U.S. border must be allowed in by border officials (which would undermine national security), or else, that all those who are denied entrance must be brought into the U.S. for a courtroom trial on whether they should be allowed to stay or not.

Is what you are saying?  If not, explain, clearly.

Seems to me, you don't have any clue what the hell you're trying to say, but are just playing infantile games by changing the topic every post.  If so, please kindly go and find someone else to bug.

i am talking about people applying for citizenship and are not currently in the united states.

 

I am not playing games and literally have said the same exact thing with all my posts.  Everything your commenting about has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.  Every thing your trying to defend I never argued against.  Your just bringing up talking points against things I have never even said or complained about.  Your not reading.  So I will spell it out one more time.

 

If an immigrant lives in Mexico(he is not in america, he is in mexio.  so he is not here but lives in that country) and applies for citizenship he is either approved or denied.  If he is denied for what he believes are unjust reasons, he has no recourse.  He has no one to turn to and say, I think I was unjustly denied citizenship because...blah, blah, blah (whatever the reason they believe was).  He has no representation in that instance.  If he feels he was unjustly denied citizenship then that's it, to bad so sad.  He doesn't have other avenues to go down to prove he was unjustly denied citizenship.  

 

You as an american citizen have many avenues to go down if you feel you were treated unjustly.  You can go to a congressman, a before a judge in a civil case, go to the police.  You have many avenues to go down if you feel you were unjustly treated.  

 

An immigrant seeking legal status has no resprsentation.  An american citizen does.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Is there a natural right to live in the United States?

There is a natural right to justice. Immigration is closely related to justice. But they are not identical. A person could be denied immigration to the US without violating the virtue of justice.

[havok579257]

2 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Is there a natural right to live in the United States?

There is a natural right to justice. Immigration is closely related to justice. But they are not identical. A person could be denied immigration to the US without violating the virtue of justice.

I agree with this.  Someone can be denied citizenship without violating the virtue of justice. Although people can be denied citizenship that violates justice.

[Nihil Obstat]

I also do not think it is necessarily a violation of justice if there is no avenues of appeal available to potential migrants. It could be, but it is not necessarily so.

[bardegaulois]

10 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

i am talking about people applying for citizenship and are not currently in the united states.

 

I am not playing games and literally have said the same exact thing with all my posts.  Everything your commenting about has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.  Every thing your trying to defend I never argued against.  Your just bringing up talking points against things I have never even said or complained about.  Your not reading.  So I will spell it out one more time.

 

If an immigrant lives in Mexico(he is not in america, he is in mexio.  so he is not here but lives in that country) and applies for citizenship he is either approved or denied.  If he is denied for what he believes are unjust reasons, he has no recourse.  He has no one to turn to and say, I think I was unjustly denied citizenship because...blah, blah, blah (whatever the reason they believe was).  He has no representation in that instance.  If he feels he was unjustly denied citizenship then that's it, to bad so sad.  He doesn't have other avenues to go down to prove he was unjustly denied citizenship.  

 

You as an american citizen have many avenues to go down if you feel you were treated unjustly.  You can go to a congressman, a before a judge in a civil case, go to the police.  You have many avenues to go down if you feel you were unjustly treated.  

 

An immigrant seeking legal status has no resprsentation.  An american citizen does.  

One cannot apply for American citizenship while outside of the United States. One may apply to an American embassy or consulate within their own nation for a visa allowing residency, but one does not apply for naturalization until having lived for five years in the United States as a permanent resident.

Havok, I think Socrates is right in that you are arguing based on what you think might happen, and not on the basis of how immigration law and the naturalization process actually work. Reading a little more about this might alter your perspective. Consider reading this: https://www.usa.gov/green-cards

Also read this: https://www.usa.gov/become-us-citizen

[havok579257]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I also do not think it is necessarily a violation of justice if there is no avenues of appeal available to potential migrants. It could be, but it is not necessarily so.

does an immigrant who was unfairly denied legal citizenship become a violation of justice?

[Nihil Obstat]

4 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

does an immigrant who was unfairly denied legal citizenship become a violation of justice?

You are loading the question. You should ask instead "does [a potential] immigrant who was denied legal citizenship become a violation of justice?" Although it is not a grammatical question regardless.
An unfair denial may well be a violation of justice. That is more or less what we take unfair to mean. The more important question is what makes a denial of immigration fair or unfair? Although it is a bit problematic to conflate fairness and justice. I am not sure they are identical.

[Socrates]

58 minutes ago, havok579257 said:

If an immigrant lives in Mexico(he is not in america, he is in mexio.  so he is not here but lives in that country) and applies for citizenship he is either approved or denied.  If he is denied for what he believes are unjust reasons, he has no recourse.  He has no one to turn to and say, I think I was unjustly denied citizenship because...blah, blah, blah (whatever the reason they believe was).  He has no representation in that instance.  If he feels he was unjustly denied citizenship then that's it, to bad so sad.  He doesn't have other avenues to go down to prove he was unjustly denied citizenship.  

 

You as an american citizen have many avenues to go down if you feel you were treated unjustly.  You can go to a congressman, a before a judge in a civil case, go to the police.  You have many avenues to go down if you feel you were unjustly treated.  

 

An immigrant seeking legal status has no resprsentation.  An american citizen does.  

Again, it appears you have no clue how the immigration system works.  No foreign person is granted U.S. citizenship at the border (nor, to my knowledge, is anyone granted citizenship of any other nation that way).

Being allowed to enter the U.S. over the border as a visitor (requiring only a visa, passport, or such), being allowed to live and work in the U.S. as a permanent legal resident (green card holder), and being granted U.S. citizenship are three separate things.

If you aren't a U.S. citizen by birth, you must legally live in the U.S. as a green card holder for at least five years before applying for citizenship (though it can be faster for spouses of U.S. citizens and those serving in the military).

And, as I pointed out earlier, you can appeal at an immigration court, if you believe you are being wrongly denied legal status or such.

You may not like this system, but that's how it works, and I don't think you can honestly claim the U.S.'s immigration laws are inherently unjust, and that people have a moral obligation to disobey them.  The Catechism states that immigrants must respect their host country's laws, and that nations have the right to place conditions on citizenship.

[Peace]

57 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Is there a natural right to live in the United States?

Interesting question. I would venture to say yes. Let's say that hypothetically you are sailing though the Pacific Ocean and come across a deserted boat with a 2 day old infant on it. There is absolutely no way of determining where the child was born or what country the child's parents came from. The child has a natural right to live somewhere on the Earth. So how could you justify saying that the child has a natural right to live in Mexico, but does not have a natural right to live in the USA or some other location? Why would the child not have just as much as a right to live in one place as another?

From the above, it seems to me that the natural right of a man is to live anywhere on the Earth, but that we place limits on that natural right for various prudential reasons (maintaining culture, avoiding terrorism, famine, overpopulation, etc.)

When God creates the new Heaven and the new Earth, do you think that you and I would be restricted from traveling to country X or country Y? Somehow I doubt that we are going to have a wall between the US and Mexico, where people wanting to go from one place to another will have to submit to a terrorism check, etc. . .It would seem that the natural order is for man to be able to go anywhere in the land that God has created for him. The reason why that is not possible today is because we live in a fallen world, where there are things like famine, terrorism, lack of jobs for everyone, etc. But our various restrictions on travel does not seem to be very consistent with the way that God intended creation to be.

That is just me speculating, but Pope Pius XII seems to come fairly close to saying that the right to immigrate is a natural right, here:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm

Quote

 

Moreover, we have repeatedly addressed the Rulers of States, the heads of agencies, and all upright and cooperative men, urging upon them the need to consider and resolve the very serious problems of refugees and migrants, and, at the same time, to think of the heavy burdens which all peoples bear because of the war and the specific means that should be applied to alleviate the grave evils. We asked them also to consider how beneficial for humanity it would be if cooperative and joint efforts would relieve, promptly and effectively, the urgent needs of the sufferings, by harmonizing the requirements of justice with needs of charity. Relief alone can remedy, to a certain extent, many unjust social conditions. But we know that this is not sufficient. In the first place, there must be justice, which should prevail and be put into practice.

Likewise, from the first days of our Apostolic Office, we have directed our earnest attention to all our migrant sons, and we have been most anxious about their welfare, both temporal and eternal.

For this reason, on June 1, 1951 in a radio address on the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, we did speak of the right of people to migrate, which right is founded in the very nature of land.

Let us recall here a section of that address:

Our planet, with all its extent of oceans and was and lakes, with mountains and plains covered with eternal snows and ice, with great deserts and traceless lands, is not, at the same time, without habitable regions and living spaces now abandoned to wild natural vegetation and well suited to be cultivated by man to satisfy his needs and civil activities: and more than once, it is inevitable that some families migrating from one spot to another should go elsewhere in search of a new home-land.

Then,—according to the teaching of “Rerum Novarum,” —the right of the family to a living space is recognized. When this happens, migration attains its natural scope as experience often shows. We mean, the more favorable distribution of men on the earth's surface suitable to colonies of agricultural workers; that surface which God created and prepared for the use of all.

If the two parties, those who agree to leave their native land and those who agree to admit the newcomers, remain anxious to eliminate as far as possible all obstacles to the birth and growth of real confidence between the country of emigration and that of immigration, all those affected by such transference of people and places will profit by the transaction.

The families will receive a plot of ground which will be native for them in the true sense of the ward; the thickly inhabited countries will he relieved and their people will acquire new friends in foreign countries; and the States which receive the emigrants will acquire industrious citizens. In this receive the migrants will acquire industrious citizens. In this way, the nations which give and those which receive will both contribute to the increased welfare of man and the progress of human culture.

We again recalled these general principles of natural law the following year on Christmas Eve before the Sacred College of Cardinals.

We wrote specifically on this subject in a letter of December 24, 1948 to the American Bishops:

You know indeed how preoccupied we have been and with what anxiety we have followed those who have been forced by revolutions in their own countries, or by unemployment or hunger to leave their homes and live in foreign lands.

The natural law itself, no less than devotion to humanity, urges that ways of migration be opened to these people. For the Creator of the universe made all good things primarily for the good of all. Since land everywhere offers the possibility of supporting a large number of people, the sovereignty of the State, although it must be respected, cannot be exaggerated to the point that access to this land is, for inadequate or unjustified reasons, denied to needy and decent people from other nations, provided of course, that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.

Informed of our intentions, you recently strove for legislation to allow many refugees to enter your land. Through your persistence, a provident law was enacted, a law that we hope will be followed by others of broader scope. In addition, you have, with the aid of chosen men, cared for the emigrants as they left their homes and as they arrived in your land, thus admirably putting into practice the precept of priestly charity: "The priest is to injure no one; he will desire rather to aid all." (St. Ambrose, "De Officiis ministrorum," lib. 3, c. IX).

 

 

[Peace]

32 minutes ago, Socrates said:

You may not like this system, but that's how it works, and I don't think you can honestly claim the U.S.'s immigration laws are inherently unjust, and that people have a moral obligation to disobey them.  The Catechism states that immigrants must respect their host country's laws, and that nations have the right to place conditions on citizenship.

Well at least in the 1950's Pope Pius XII seemed to think that they were unjust.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/p12exsul.htm

Quote

Therefore, when Senators from the United States, who were members of a Committee on Immigration, visited Rome a few years ago, we again urged them to try to administer as liberally as possible the overly restrictive provisions of their immigration laws.

I am not sure how much they have changed since then.

The very same part of the Catechism that you refer to states that "The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin."

Note the word "obliged." The USA can accommodate many more immigrants than we currently do. Every year we allow roughly 1 immigrant for every 300 Americans, and there are many other countries that take in much more than that on a per capita basis. Simply put, we are not accommodating the number of immigrants that we are able to, and therefore we are not satisfying the obligation set forth in the Catechism. That makes our laws unjust.

 

[Nihil Obstat]

People have a natural right to live, and that entails living somewhere. But that does not entail living anywhere, or specifically living wherever one wants. I am generally pretty in favour of migration for various circumstances, but the state has the right and the obligation to have laws in place that establish reasonable limits. If some are more restrictive than others, if some people do not prefer a particular way of doing things, that does not necessarily mean that way is unjust. The details are all shades of prudential judgments on the part of civil authorities.

We could possibly parse out a natural right to migrate in a general sense, but that still is not equivalent to having a natural right to migrate to the United States specifically.

I think it is a bit of a false equivalence to say that the redeemed earth will not have national borders. The point is we do live in a polity now, in the real world, and that the state does have a positive right to exist, to make laws, and to enforce those laws. It is not a bad thing we will eventually get rid of; it is a good thing (theoretically) according to the natural order, but one which will pass away after the general judgement.

Edited January 21, 2017 by Nihil Obstat