The problems with the way liberals think...

[ironmonk]

Liberals are illogical in their thinking.

Why they are illogical in thinking, can be found in the foundation of their "logic" or lack thereof, which is their priorities.

Liberals place material/physical needs over spiritual needs, and this of course is a very backwards way to think. So they will have no logical reasoning in their arguments. I believe this is why many of us who place spiritual needs first have such a hard time explaining the most basic concepts to them.

This is why Mahony is not a good example of the Catholic Church. Since the beginning of the Church, it has been stressed that spiritual needs are of greater importance than our physical needs.

Of course the liberals will try to argue that Christ says take care of the poor... Of course we all know this, and we do take care of the poor. The poor are people who are poor through nothing of their own fault. Being lazy or illegally in the USA does not equal poor. Since we have adequatly covered the lazy part in another thread, we'll cover the illegals here.

By coming to America illegally people put themselves in harms way. This is of their own doing. Helping them stay in America by providing shelter and jobs is a sin because it breaks the law. Remember, sprititual needs come first, the first spiritual need in a human's life is to avoid all sin... not some sin... not when it fits you... but all sin.

Liberals do not realize (or maybe they are too lazy to think?) that [u][b]the only just way to help illegals is to give them a meal, and help them get home to their country. [/b][/u]If they want to help them out of poverty, then pay for their education in Mexico and send money to Catholic Churches in Mexico to help the families. The liberal leaders of course will be against that because illegal immigration is big business and it will cost them a lot of money. If people are sending money to people in Mexico instead of crooked liberals in America, then the liberals won't be able to get their free meal anymore and might have to find a real job.

Spiritual needs outweigh all physical needs. All physical needs will pass. Spiritual needs are forever. "Seek first the kingdom of God" means that our priorities must start with the Spirit.... To put a physical need infront of a spiritual need is wrong, and therefore a sin... I would think it's venial, but it is still a sin. To embrace a venial sin and do it because you know it's venial, then it just might become grave.

No one is saying do not give food, water, or medical treatment to illegals, nor does the bill even imply this. To assume that Mahony is competant in the matter is foolish. Encouraging someone to stay in America is providing a job and a place to stay... Give illegals food, water, and medical treatment and help them get back to their country of origin if you do not want to sin.

It is time people learn to think, and to know how to think one's priorities must be in order... Spirit comes first, everything else is after that. When spiritual needs are first, "NOT sinning" is the first priority.

There is nothing unjust about saying illegal aliens are illegal... There is nothing unjust about making it a felony to give a job or shelter to illegals. This bill targets those who abuse illegals and those who make it easy to be illegal.

AGAIN, to those who pick or or two lines above and ignore the context, [b]PAY ATTENTION:[/b]
Feed illegals, give them water, give them medical attention [u][b]AND[/b][/u] help them get back to their country (this includes calling the immigration department). NO ONE is saying make illegals suffer.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 4 2006, 12:08 PM']Feed illegals, give them water, give them medical attention [u][b]AND[/b][/u] help them get back to their country (this includes calling the immigration department). NO ONE is saying make illegals suffer.
[right][snapback]935232[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although I'm sure you're ignoring me, it's been shown in several other threads that the proposed law DOES potentially penalize ANYONE who helps an undocumented immigrant. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that this might be possible.

Perhaps that reason is that your slavish fidelity to Republican politics blinds you.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 4 2006, 10:21 AM']Although I'm sure you're ignoring me, it's been shown in several other threads that the proposed law DOES potentially penalize ANYONE who helps an undocumented immigrant. For some reason you refuse to acknowledge that this might be possible.

Perhaps that reason is that your slavish fidelity to Republican politics blinds you.
[right][snapback]935241[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]But Soj, there is a possibility of having a sloavish fidelity that is anti-Republican. What other aspects of the Bill are good? Does not the US have a right to control it's borders? What is the morality of fostering a broken system that exploits the poor? The illegals wouldn't come if it wasn't better than their home country. Mahoney's error is being up in arms about one principle to the detriment of non-emotional discussion of other important elements. Using emotional reactions, political hay was made. It will back fire.
In my experience, illegal immigrants are the LAST ones that just want a hand out. They want to become citizens and earn their meals, unlike the generations of welfare recipients now who won't do the job. Mahoney made it about rights to hand outs, not rights to a hand-up. Give the current illegals a reasonable and fair way to work here legally, and I'll show you another huge success of the American opportunity 10 years from now.

[Sojourner]

I totally understand that. And I've said on several occasions that I'm supportive of many pieces of this bill. Just not the aforementioned bit, and I'd like to see some form of amnesty provision be part of the whole picture.

I'm fine with regulating immigration. It just needs to be done in a way that makes sense and benefits and protects both Americans and immigrants.

[Peccator]

I'm sorry, but the immigrats we have here are almost exclusively in control of our Drug cartels, prositution dens and car thefts...and I was never against illegals until I interned in our Court system.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Peccator' date='Apr 4 2006, 11:17 AM']I'm sorry, but the immigrats we have here are almost exclusively in control of our Drug cartels, prositution dens and car thefts...and I was never against illegals until I interned in our Court system.
[right][snapback]935302[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That is not saying that all illegals are involved, just that some illegals contol alot of illegal activity. That is a problem that makes amnesty unworkable. Amnesty also will be misconstrued to others who want to come. Amnesty is a poor choice of words. Appropriate consideration for the time they've been here and been out of trouble and been productive is more accurate. Amnesty will be criticized by all the other immigrants that are here but not in the same numbers.

[Peccator]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 4 2006, 07:31 PM']That is not saying that all illegals are involved, just that some illegals contol alot of illegal activity.  That is a problem that makes amnesty unworkable.  Amnesty also will be misconstrued to others who want to come.  Amnesty is a poor choice of words.  Appropriate consideration for the time they've been here and been out of trouble and been productive is more accurate.  Amnesty will be criticized by all the other immigrants that are here but not in the same numbers.
[right][snapback]935320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]The problem here is...this is Africa.

Just about every country here is poor, and the flooding of these illegals to South Africa putts such strain on our already limited resources. We simply do not have the means to accomodate these people - we can bearly come with our already huge problem of unemployment within our own populace(we have about roughly 40-50% who are unemployed).

At the moment there are virtual small wars inside our shanty towns against the illegals and the locals..

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also, you might note that following a law that goes against God's law is a sin. Some might say, even the CC I might imagine, that the notion that immigration laws goes against the natural law. Therefore, to give a job to an immigrant is not only not a sin, it is a sin not to give the job because he's an immigrant.


Of course that argument is based on the idea that we are not lacking resources. We are the richest nation in the world, no one is really close to suffering, yet we are preventing people from coming. The worst we might do is take from people a little of their affluence and inconvenience them a little.

Your theories that we have limited resources do well in theory. Too bad they're lacking in reality.

If there are laws that attack the illegals that abuse our system, that's fine. I'm only talking of the laws that abuse the natural order.

PS Is that really true, or when did JasJis become ex-Catholic and all that?

Edited April 4, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[toledo_jesus]

I think it's funny that so-called conservatives are trying to put the government into churches.

You have to wonder if the Republicans are really 'conservative' and 'small-government' when they put something like this into a bill.

I mean, am I the only one who thought conservatives would favor keeping government small over immigration concerns?

[jasJis]

Dairy,
The CC does teach and believe a nation has a natural right to regulate immigrants for the benefit of the citizens. That teaching is not exclusive with the right of people to get work to feed their families. Immigrants and Citizens are to respect the order of Law, the rule of Government, and the dignity of Humanity.
The US is morally right to regulate illegals. Nor does the US particularly not want these people here. The problem is a blind eye was turned toward them for too long. The illegals are now exploited, the US wants them working here, the US does have jobs for them, the illegals want the jobs. The problem is how to correct the situation so they can work here legally without encouraging more illegal immigration.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Apr 4 2006, 02:27 PM']Also, you might note that following a law that goes against God's law is a sin. Some might say, even the CC I might imagine, that the notion that immigration laws goes against the natural law. Therefore, to give a job to an immigrant is not only not a sin, it is a sin not to give the job because he's an immigrant.
Of course that argument is based on the idea that we are not lacking resources. We are the richest nation in the world, no one is really close to suffering, yet we are preventing people from coming. The worst we might do is take from people a little of their affluence and inconvenience them a little.

Your theories that we have limited resources do well in theory. Too bad they're lacking in reality.

If there are laws that attack the illegals that abuse our system, that's fine. I'm only talking of the laws that abuse the natural order.

PS Is that really true, or when did JasJis become ex-Catholic and all that?
[right][snapback]935384[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
A guy I know who's a law professor at the University of Oklahoma (Catholic, posts often at [url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com"]Mirror of Justice[/url]) recently wrote an opinion piece for [url="http://newsok.com/article/1803716/"]The Oklahoman[/url] relating to some of what you say. You have to register for the site, so I'll just post the column here.
[quote]Confused in the heartland

By Michael Scaperlanda
My fellow Oklahomans, I am confused. I thought this was a "red state" -- a place where families, hard work and courage are valued. I thought Oklahomans understood that our rights and duties emanate from God. But then I read state Senate Bill 1769 and House Bill 3119, which call for the state to use its resources to hunt down hardworking people trying to provide for their families.

These bills would require state and local government employees to verify the immigration and citizenship status of every person they come in contact with. These employees must report the names of those who cannot verify their status to federal immigration authorities. Failure to do would be a crime. And those who cannot "produce proof of U.S. citizenship or valid documents or a visa" are to be jailed.

Authors of the legislation suggest that "illegal immigration is causing lawlessness." But most undocumented noncitizens are "lawless" only in the sense that they are evading the broken federal-immigration system. They are lawless in the way that Jean Valjean was lawless in "Les Misérables," stealing bread to feed his family.

Our federal immigration system needs repair. It adds to the creation of a shadow population living in fear and subject to exploitation. They cannot fully develop their talents to be used for the benefit of family and community. Their only crime is risking life and what little money they have to be able to provide for family. As a nation, we need to find a way to stop undocumented migration.

As Oklahomans, how do we respond? Do we respond like Inspector Javert who spent his entire life -- his resources and creative energy -- in pursuit of the bread thief Jean Valjean? Or do we respond with mercy the way the bishop did when Valjean was first released from prison? Will we play the part of the sheep or goats as depicted in Matthew's rendering of the last judgment? Will we welcome the stranger as we listen to the words of Christ: "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do for me"? Javert's quest destroyed him. He couldn't live in a world of mercy and love. And we know what happened to the goats!

If we truly believe that biblical values provide the foundation for our public policy, if we reject the strict separationist arguments so frequently heard in some quarters, then we must live those values consistently. In Leviticus, God says, "When an alien resides among you in your land, do not molest him," remembering that you once were aliens. In the New Testament, Jesus' followers are instructed to love their neighbor as themselves.

Fortunately, the Senate sponsor of HB 3119 has withdrawn it, realizing it is too harsh. Unfortunately, the bills' proponents continue, like Javert, on their mission to hunt down the Jean Valjeans of modern day Oklahoma. Let us together work to fix broken federal-immigration law, but let us do it with a deep-seated love for our undocumented neighbors.

[i][b]Scaperlanda is the Edwards Chair in Law and a professor of immigration law at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.[/b][/i] [/quote]

[Sojourner]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Apr 4 2006, 02:40 PM']I think it's funny that so-called conservatives are trying to put the government into churches. 

You have to wonder if the Republicans are really 'conservative' and 'small-government' when they put something like this into a bill. 

I mean, am I the only one who thought conservatives would favor keeping government small over immigration concerns?
[right][snapback]935399[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
It's not about being "conservative."

It's about being "Republican."

[jasJis]

Sadly, Soj, I think that article is biased and littered with emotional appeal and not clear thinking. Yes, I agree with them that we need to stop undocumented workers because they simply want to provide for their families. By being illegal, they subject themselves to exploitation. But to characterize any and all means of enforcement as 'hunting down' the poor is emotional rehtoric and counterproductive. Many who may agree with providing legal means for immigrants would automatically reject any measure that didn't have a means of control and regulation for those who would abuse the system. Government and laws legislate and enforce for the greater good. Choices and concessions have to be made. Correcting a decades old problem concerning 11 million people is never going to be painless.
Instead of raising hell about the percieved negative enforcement, what about raising hell because the Bill did not provide a workable method of letting these workers gain legal status?

[AngelofJesus]

Just a question on the side for IronMonk:

Is your post a reflection of KofC's teaching in regards to becoming a 4th degree knight? Just curious. My dad (rest in peace) was a 3rd degree knight, but never was interested to become 4th degree.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Apr 4 2006, 02:52 PM']Sadly, Soj, I think that article is biased and littered with emotional appeal and not clear thinking.  Yes, I agree with them that we need to stop undocumented workers because they simply want to provide for their families.  By being illegal, they subject themselves to exploitation.  But to characterize any and all means of enforcement as 'hunting down' the poor is emotional rehtoric and counterproductive.  Many who may agree with providing legal means for immigrants would automatically reject any measure that didn't have a means of control and regulation for those who would abuse the system.  Government and laws legislate and enforce for the greater good.  Choices and concessions have to be made.  Correcting a decades old problem concerning 11 million people is never going to be painless.
Instead of raising hell about the percieved negative enforcement, what about raising hell because the Bill did not provide a workable method of letting these workers gain legal status?
[right][snapback]935412[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Well yeah, of course it's biased. There's no such thing as "unbiased" in this discussion. As you yourself said, this is an emotional topic that lends itself to emotional characterizations. But nonetheless I think he does bring up some good points. What is our responsibility as Catholics toward the aliens living among us? What is our responsibility to vote for in terms of a national policy dealing with immigration? Just saying "help them all go home" is unrealistic, and doesn't address the practical problems.

And, I don' t think he meant to characterize all enforcement as hunting down poor hardworking families ... just the enforcement provided for in the proposed Oklahoma bill.