The Wall

[gabrielofsorrows]

I don't agree with trump on everything. I feel bad for the children who are separated from their parents as i cant picture my nephew separated from my brother.  I agree with him on the choice of kavanaugh. He is a good choice as he is pro-life. We see the news all around as the left is disappointed. If kavanaugh is indeed voted for by the senate.  The left wingers will not change their views. Their hearts have to be changed. ( all of our hearts have to change to some degree)Only God can change our hearts. Even if he wins. The outlook wont change. 

*I also wanted to add as a grown adult. I think its sad how some people are mean to others on here. We are all entitled to our opinions. But cant we all be kind about it. Please no rude or hateful comments. Thank you kindly*

[little2add]

The supreme court has long been extreme left and it’s about time the SC became moderate again.  President Trump’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh is a moderate and just what is needed at this time in history.    The fact that he is catholic is icing on the cake.

Hillary Clinton will not be selecting a supreme court pick!

Edited July 11, 2018 by little2add

[little2add]

 

56 minutes ago, little2add said:

Hillary Clinton will not be selecting a supreme court pick!

(thank goodness)

Edited July 11, 2018 by little2add

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, gabrielofsorrows said:

I don't agree with trump on everything. I feel bad for the children who are separated from their parents as i cant picture my nephew separated from my brother.  I agree with him on the choice of kavanaugh. He is a good choice as he is pro-life. We see the news all around as the left is disappointed. If kavanaugh is indeed voted for by the senate.  The left wingers will not change their views. Their hearts have to be changed. ( all of our hearts have to change to some degree)Only God can change our hearts. Even if he wins. The outlook wont change. 

*I also wanted to add as a grown adult. I think its sad how some people are mean to others on here. We are all entitled to our opinions. But cant we all be kind about it. Please no rude or hateful comments. Thank you kindly*

I also don't agree with Trump on everything.  But I do expect him to do his job.  And his job is not to interpret existing law, but to enforce it.  The law dictated that children should be removed from their parents.  That wasn't his decision, and in fact it happened during Bush's and Obama's administrations.

Whether that's a good law or not is not up to Trump to decide.

You are right, though, in that their hearts have to change, and we won't see any views change on the left.

[fides' Jack]

On 7/9/2018 at 5:33 PM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

... shove it back where you got it from...

... its a dumb offensive and dishonest argument... Or as you would say 'a fair argument'

...Which also makes you quite the hypocrite...

...I'm not surprised...

...But why am I not surprised that you are latching onto the 'not even remotely coherent argument' ship?

...Well... the tent cities and the dog kennel-like cages makes you very happy then.

...You said you voted for Trump and think death threats are great... of course you are.

...I swear Phatmass is such a weird place. I want to see what bible is read here. Because it has to be the 'forgot to take meds Jesus'.

...makes you a traitor to the Republic even under the US constitutional definition.

...I just get the feeling that if it was a (D) behind Trump's name you would have blood coming from your eyes and a lit torch and pitchfork already in hand. But because its an (R)... oh... well hes 'fine'...

...You are welcome to read the discussion... but I will be honest with your excellent skills to minimize deflect and rationalize your own position I doubt a private message will be sent to you by me...

I don't know you.  I know very little about you.  I was asking serious questions, in a serious discussion.  I didn't belittle you, make fun of you, or call you names.  I wasn't even sarcastic toward you.  You went there.  I didn't.

But now I do know enough that this will be my last reply to you.  You don't understand the Catholic Church.  You don't know her teachings.  You don't know what we believe, let alone why.  You're just an angry, little person.  Probably a teenager (or at least the maturity of a teenager).  You're not willing to seriously discuss anything, because you view anything you deem to be rhetoric as hateful, and you go immediately into a defensive, fetal position as soon as you hear it.I will grant you that I am not a scholarly person.  I have a technical degree, which doesn't help my arguments here.  I don't completely understand everything in the Constitution (to be honest I haven't read it in its entirety in many, many years).  Nor do I know what kinds of laws there are in this country (and elsewhere) regarding dealing with illegals (other than those brought up in news recently). 

I recognize that I am pretty ignorant in matters of politics, economy, and law.  But as ignorant as I am, you are more so in regards to the teachings of the Church.  So don't pretend like you know anything at all about what the Church teaches.  You really, really don't.  You're not well-read on the subject.  The only examples you've given are allusions to people who clearly were heretics, and offered their thoughts as legitimate.  Everything you've said thus far, that I've seen, about Church teaching has been a misunderstanding or misconstrued basic religious principles.  If you were once Catholic, as I suspect you were, you should be warned that you turned away from the Church (and God) without understanding what you turned away from.  Maybe you weren't, I don't know...

I could maybe have learned something from you regarding these things, had you been cordial.  You could have said, "Hey, read the 14th amendment here - it seems like you don't know about this and you may find it interesting and we can discuss that."  (I actually did reread it, and I agree that I was ignorant about due process)  Or, "Hey, check out this NATO law or international treaty and tell me how your argument fits into that."  Because you lacked the maturity to remain civil, I honestly can't take anything you say seriously from here on.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I also don't agree with Trump on everything.  But I do expect him to do his job.  And his job is not to interpret existing law, but to enforce it.  The law dictated that children should be removed from their parents.  That wasn't his decision, and in fact it happened during Bush's and Obama's administrations.

Whether that's a good law or not is not up to Trump to decide.

You are right, though, in that their hearts have to change, and we won't see any views change on the left.

Well one must interpret a law in order to enforce it. When you wrote that did you mean something like "do something other than what you believe the law requires, after you have interpreted it"?

I don't think anyone, yourself included, expects or desires the executive branch to strictly execute all of the existing laws. What we expect and desire is for the executive branch to exercise discretion, prudence, and to make reasonable decisions concerning the allocation of the scare resources that are available to enforce laws. For example, in almost every place in the united states jaywalking occurs rampantly. We expect police officers to ignore jaywalking laws, so that they do no spend 90% of their time handing out tickets for relatively harmless offenses, while taking away their time and ability to protect us against serious criminals.

Whether it is prudent to strictly enforce a law that requires the separation of families under the present circumstances is also a matter of discretion for the executive branch. You apparently believe that it is prudent to do so, which is fine. But let's not sit here and pretend that what we really want is for the law to be applied strictly and by the books in every situation, under some pretense that the executive branch has the duty to enforce the law but not interpret it. Unless you think that the police should be spending their time handing out 1000 jaywalking tickets every day, and citing us for the other innumerable minor legal violations that we commit daily.

[little2add]

 If you were a Illegal immigrant trying to enter the United States at the Mexican border and you knew for a fact that your minor children  traveling with you would be taken away from you , would you?

 Obviously taking away minor children from the arms of their parents is a sin.  

Isn’t it also a sin for the parents of said children to willingly give up their children to circumvent the sovereignty of another country especially when there is a method that millions have used in the past to enter The United States legally.  

 I do not condone separating families.  It is truly a  horrendous  situation, sinful for both parties 

[dUSt]

On 7/17/2018 at 8:41 AM, little2add said:

Isn’t it also a sin for the parents of said children to willingly give up their children to circumvent the sovereignty of another country especially when there is a method that millions have used in the past to enter The United States legally.

Depends on how bad their situation was from where they came from. If giving up their children in the United States is better than the alternative of them growing up with a 90% chance of dying of gang violence or starvation, then no, I don't think it's also a sin. I think it's trying to do best for your family.

[fides' Jack]

On 7/11/2018 at 12:25 PM, Peace said:

Well one must interpret a law in order to enforce it. When you wrote that did you mean something like "do something other than what you believe the law requires, after you have interpreted it"?

I don't think anyone, yourself included, expects or desires the executive branch to strictly execute all of the existing laws. What we expect and desire is for the executive branch to exercise discretion, prudence, and to make reasonable decisions concerning the allocation of the scare resources that are available to enforce laws. For example, in almost every place in the united states jaywalking occurs rampantly. We expect police officers to ignore jaywalking laws, so that they do no spend 90% of their time handing out tickets for relatively harmless offenses, while taking away their time and ability to protect us against serious criminals.

Whether it is prudent to strictly enforce a law that requires the separation of families under the present circumstances is also a matter of discretion for the executive branch. You apparently believe that it is prudent to do so, which is fine. But let's not sit here and pretend that what we really want is for the law to be applied strictly and by the books in every situation, under some pretense that the executive branch has the duty to enforce the law but not interpret it. Unless you think that the police should be spending their time handing out 1000 jaywalking tickets every day, and citing us for the other innumerable minor legal violations that we commit daily.

All I was really pointing out was the most general level of what the president's job is.  With each administration the roles of our government's branches have been getting increasingly murky, to the point where they are now greatly overlapping each other.  That is extremely dangerous for the country, as it only leads to abuse in power.

That being said, I think you made a great argument.  Of course the president has to utilize prudence in allocating resources as he is able.  However, I have a problem with people taking issue when he is executing his office according to the letter of the law.  That's exactly what he was elected to do.  If we have a problem with things being handled by-the-book, then we shouldn't get angry at the president, we should change the book.

Lastly, I would just say that I have sympathy for those children who are legitimately removed from their parents during an illegal crossing of the border.  I also have sympathy for the (seemingly same number of) children who are being used to pretend to be moving a family across in order to smuggle something into the country (sometimes the child him/herself for sex trafficking).  When a huge percentage of the kids who are brought over belong to the 2nd category, I think it's absolutely best that all the children are removed from their supposed parents while the truth can be ascertained.  I would have 10 kids removed from their parents for a short time to find the 1 who is being used and probably abused.  All indications, though, show that number to be much higher.

On 7/17/2018 at 7:41 AM, little2add said:

 Obviously taking away minor children from the arms of their parents is a sin.  

That really depends on circumstances.  If they are being abused, then no, it's not.  

However, that excuse is used FAR too much.  I think both parents should be given every opportunity to show that they are not harming children, and I think most of the time, that's not happening.  Too often kids are pulled from one or both parents without any opportunity for the parent to defend their own rights.

I would not extend the same argument to those trying to enter illegally.  Especially for the reasons I gave above.  

[Anomaly]

I understand the concept of it is immoral to steal, but taking care of your family makes it okay to steal a loaf of bread.  

But does that translate into the baker giving away free bread to everyone who claims they need it or not stopping any shoplifters?

A regulated border is not immoral as long as there are reasonable means of crossing the border according to need.  Just as it is worthwhile helping a bread thief find a job to enable the purchase of bread instead of thinking the entire solution is handing out free bread, it is worth while to ask why refugees can’t fix problems in their own country.   

[little2add]

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

That really depends on circumstances.  If they are being abused, then no, it's not.  

In the context of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross the border with minor  into the United States it  is a sin.  However escorted children (not parent or legal guardian) of immigrants attempting to enter the United States could be.

IE: drug smugglers, gangs, terrorist

could use them children as cover...

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

In the context of undocumented immigrants attempting to cross the border with minor  into the United States it  is a sin.  

 

Worry about your own sin. I'm for a wall and strict immigration but people trying to get in because it's dangerous where they live I don't blame them. 

[little2add]

More than 653,000 immigrants naturalized in the United States in fiscal year (FY) 2014, 

people of all nations are welcome here, 653,000 immigrants naturalized in the United States without having to resort to abandoning their minor children or using them barter.   if I were to treat my own child in such a way I would be in jail for child abuse, and rightly so!

 Over the past decade, the annual number of naturalizations has ranged from about 537,000 to just more than 1 million, depending on factors including processing times and backlogs as well as the financial constraints and personal motivations of immigrants themselves.

the tactic of using unescorted children to expedite naturalizations is both wrong and unnecessary.   

Willfully putting innocent children in to mortal danger to sneak into the country is a sin.  It can be done safe and legal and is every day.

[little2add]

20 hours ago, Josh said:

Worry about your own sin.

dito

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, little2add said:

dito

 

I already do. You're the one going on and on about the sin of people coming here who's lives are in danger. No-one cares that you think it's a sin. When your back is against the wall you do what you have to do in life.