Immigration

[chevyontheriver]

No. I disagree.

Not sure if that is a partial disagreement or a total disagreement. I am not trying to be disagreeable.

The majority of us no matter what political stripe they affiliate with are willing for them to be full members of society and have no issue with it except that they are doing it illegally which enables the criminal element as well. There lies the fear.

I think there is a substantial tendency to just say no to foreigners of any sort. Legal, illegal, good people or criminals.

It is not about population numbers unless a person is pro-choice. (Which is the party line). It's about fear. I do not listen to the party line concerning this issue.

The party line is that we are overpopulated and must reduce the population. Kill 'em. Exclude 'em. When I was in college the prevalent idea was that India shouldn't receive any help because it was a doomed state where everybody was going to starve. I knew that was wrong at the time but it was a popular idea.

I go from personal experience and we have had dear friends with a business deported. Sadly. What it comes down to is less virtue signaling and thoughtlessness. And more getting down to the nitty gritty of putting our noses to the grindstone and as you said, reforming the system. A lot of these people do not have the time and luxury of going back to their country of origin and waiting for this unnecessarily slow system of welcoming those to this country that genuinely need it. We need to fix that first. And now. But I have no respect for this as a political issue because it is just empty words.

Unfortunately fixing it includes fixing some laws, making it a political issue, and perhaps an insolvable one for the foreseeable future. Turn the rascals out? But that too is politicking.

Abortion has nothing to do with it. There is room. But who wants to move into a room that welcomes an outsider and kills and uses its own people as a commodity and a sacrament of sorts for women? It is a very convoluted thought process imo. We have those so concerned for lives depending on borders and none for those at home.

They do want to come. I would be wary of going to a country that so often enshrines and exports abortion, especially one that is now moving to accept euthanasia. Yuck. Those so concerned for 'women' that they kill male AND female babies in the womb and then act so concerned for immigrants. It's pandering.

 

[Michie]

I do not think our society is against people coming here and being part of our society. That's where I disagree. I think the issue is doing it illegally. I agree the immigration system needs a major overhaul.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I do not think our society is against people coming here and being part of our society. That's where I disagree. I think the issue is doing it illegally. I agree the immigration system needs a major overhaul.

And I see, time to time, real Nativists who want nothing to do with foreigners. Not in church but around the rest of the community. I'll grant you that there are more people, like me, who are for immigration but expect immigration to be done legally.

 

[Michie]

I have never met one in my life. Not once.

And I see, time to time, real Nativists who want nothing to do with foreigners. Not in church but around the rest of the community. I'll grant you that there are more people, like me, who are for immigration but expect immigration to be done legally.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I have never met one in my life. Not once.

I wish I were so lucky. Some is subtle. some is blatant. And it's not like I see it in generic Republicans or even generic Trumpists, not like the media image would lead one to believe.

 

[Michie]

I guess I am lucky. The people I know just believe the immigration system needs to be overhauled so that immigration is safe, legal and expedient. The problem lies with the government not wanting to actually do its job in this area.

I do not think the majority of people have anything against migrants themselves. I know that's the narrative but it's just a lot of blather in my experience.

 

[pdudgeon]

I think that the initial fear about illegal immigration n America goes back a few years, when we saw illegal immigrant terrorists invade not only our country (with devastating results) but also the cities of Europe most recently. That's when the reactionary, fear-filled talk began about groups of foreign people invading our country, overrunning it, and causing problems that weren't there before.

The call came to strengthen the walls on the borders NOT to keep people out, but to have some control over the influx and the rate of migration, so that the surrounding border towns wouldn't be overwhelmed and overrun with the sudden influx of people needing asylum.

Essentially if I may offer a neutral example, we all like rain in moderation.

It's good for crops, helps to replenish lakes when the water level is down, etc. What we don't like is sudden derecho's, that overwhelm the rivers and streets and storm drains, and cause levees to breach, resulting in flooded streets and whole towns that are underwater.

Immigration that is regulated, orderly, and which can be accommodated easily should be welcomed.

This country has a good history in most cases of being accommodating. It's the overwhelming, illegal immigration that scares people, and which results in calls for stronger borders and lowered immigration levels. For the most part, that is what people object to.

However it must also be noted that underneath all of the fear is an undercurrent of racial, religious, and cultural bias that has been quietly nurtured since the early 1900's.

That bias is still around today, is world wide, and can be seen in the example of people like George Soros and his friends in the United Nations, who collectively are supporting targeted abortion and lower birth populations world wide. Their influence is such that they have managed to lower birth rates in Europe, Asia, the U.S., and they have their sites on Africa as well.

So no, the immigration question is just what we see happening on the surface. But underneath the scare tactics that have been employed to portray the immigration movement as a mass of uncontrollable people happening worldwide, there exists a very long term, and devious method employed to restrict, debilitate, and thus to control all the populations of the whole world.

The last time we saw something like that happening was during WWII, and later with Communism.

Immigration is just the tip of the ice burg.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That bias is still around today, is world wide, and can be seen in the example of people like George Soros and his friends in the United Nations, who collectively are supporting targeted abortion and lower birth populations world wide. Their influence is such that they have managed to lower birth rates in Europe, Asia, the U.S., and they have their sites on Africa as well.

So no, the immigration question is just what we see happening on the surface. But underneath the scare tactics that have been employed to portray the immigration movement as a mass of uncontrollable people happening worldwide, there exists a very long term, and devious method employed to restrict, debilitate, and thus to control all the populations of the whole world.

Immigration is just the tip of the ice burg.

I think you are on to something. We are told that we have too many people, that we can't handle the onslaught of people trying to come here, and the real goal is to push a eugenics agenda.

 

[pdudgeon]

Got it in one! They have pushed birth control, eugenics, assisted medical suicide, selective abortions in order to "eliminate" birth defects, etc. All of these areas that affect human lives across the globe are supported so that only the people who are preferred and perfect can continue to exist and multiply.
Stuff that's straight out of WWII Nazi Germany.

And as an added tidbit, the U. S. is not over populated. The population of the U. S. could fit within the boundaries of the State of Texas. That's not overcrowded nor over populated.

Now consider two things:
1. the largest age group of all the U. S. population is the "Baby Boomers" (those born in the 1940's to 1950's). They influenced every single decade that they have existed in.
2. Within the next 20 years, most of them will have died, and their years of actively influencing others will have mostly passed by.

So who will be left to influence popular opinion? Their children, the Millennials; a smaller group with different ideas. Who are George Soros et al influencing today? Millennials and their children as quickly as possible. Are they working and spreading their influence within the U. S. branch of The Catholic Church? yep.

 

[joymercy]

we can ask trump on his twitter account to let them in bc they are mostly good Catholics!!

trump listens to us on twitter he really does.

we really do want good christian people here with Christian morals and values

this is my point.

I believe that south america can save our country

I really think that South Americans would welcome us into their country if the shoe were on the other foot!

 

[antiquarian]

So who will be left to influence popular opinion? Their children, the Millennials; a smaller group with different ideas. Who are George Soros et al influencing today? Millennials and their children as quickly as possible. Are they working and spreading their influence within the U. S. branch of The Catholic Church? yep.

And that's the problem. In a democracy, the rulers aren't really the people; the real rulers are those who can influence public opinion. And it's not just a few men in a conference room deciding what to tell people. It's an ideology, secular humanism, that because it doesn't have a God can plausibly claim not to be a religion even while it has all of the other characteristics of a religion. And because it's not believed to be a religion it can even infect religious people because they see it as something that would be good to add to their faith or even what their faith was saying all along, instead of what it really is, which is a competing religion. Some of the religious people it infects stay in their religion and work to make it more like their new belief system. A good example of what this process looks like when it's done is the Episcopal Church.

 

[parousia70]

I do not think our society is against people coming here and being part of our society. That's where I disagree. I think the issue is doing it illegally.

I guess I'm missing the part where crossing the Border into the U.S., presenting oneself to authorities and asking for Asylum is unlawful?

What Law prohibits that?
I haven't found it.

In fact, I've only found Laws specifically PROTECTING that act as Lawful.

 

[Michie]

I guess I'm missing the part where crossing the Border into the U.S., presenting oneself to authorities and asking for Asylum is unlawful?

What Law prohibits that?
I haven't found it.

In fact, I've only found Laws specifically PROTECTING that act as Lawful.

The thing is, a lot do not bother to do that. I said nothing about presenting themselves for asylum being illegal.

 

[parousia70]

The thing is, a lot do not bother to do that. I said nothing about presenting themselves for asylum being illegal.

Sure.. But those who are doing that are having their children ripped out of their arms and separated indefinitely from them... many have never seen them again, some of them have died in our custody..

I don't believe that is a right, just or fair response to such a lawful activity.

You may disagree.

 

[Michie]

You can go back and read my posts and see if I do. What I disagree with is that the majority in my experience are NOT anti-immigrant. We all acknowledge we are a melting pot and are richer for it. They object to immigrants coming in illegally. Which cause more problems in the longrun.

Sure.. But those who are doing that are having their children ripped out of their arms and separated indefinitely from them... many have never seen them again, some of them have died in our custody..

I don't believe that is a right, just or fair response to such a lawful activity.

You may disagree.

 

[antiquarian]

The thing is, a lot do not bother to do that. I said nothing about presenting themselves for asylum being illegal.

I'm not sure it's worth spending time arguing with someone who would have us believe that everyone who crosses the border without authorization is doing so in order to claim asylum and that none of them are crossing for economic reasons and claiming asylum when they get caught. They didn't say that, but their argument is a red herring otherwise.

 

[HardHead]

I just do not like looking at them as a replacement for the victims of abortion. There is no way to turn that tragedy into a good thing.

I agree. Its not really a one to one comparison in my view.

 

[HardHead]

so Protestants trying to argue that case

This is quite interesting. It did not occur to me that there is a potential dividing line here.

Do you think this comes to a typical us vs. them argument with obstinate posturing to match, or that its somehow distributed differently as an opinion on the topic? For example, are there Catholics who oppose immigration in some way, or the other way around regarding protestants?

 

[chevyontheriver]

This is quite interesting. It did not occur to me that there is a potential dividing line here.

Do you think this comes to a typical us vs. them argument with obstinate posturing to match, or that its somehow distributed differently as an opinion on the topic? For example, are there Catholics who oppose immigration in some way, or the other way around regarding protestants?

I suppose there are Catholic Know-nothings who oppose immigration but the Know-nothing Party was specifically Protestant back in the day. And particularly against Catholics coming in. Catholic teaching has been generally positive to immigration, within legal and practical limits. And yet there will be diversity in popular Catholic thought from banning all immigration to abolishing all borders. The mean will be more towards the official teaching of allowing immigration within reason.

A Catholic who is totally against immigration can be taught the teaching of the popes from the last 150 years and maybe they will come around. That was a discussion I would have been prepared to have.

Protestants will have a variety of opinions on immigration, from banning all immigration to abolishing all borders as well. Many evangelicals, due to political ties to Trump, tend to have a spectrum of belief from banning all immigration to banning almost all immigration. And those people do not have the social teaching of the Catholic Church to inform them, nor would they be willing to appreciate it. Their arguments against immigration were what I did not want this thread to be bogged down in.

If you want to jump into this conversation, recognize that I'm not trying to exclude all Protestants, but I do at least want the discussion to be informed by things some Protestants would not want to be informed by, which is that teaching of the popes of the last 150 years, a generally tolerant of immigration position. I just didn't want things to be bogged down by people demanding a mile high wall.

The original idea was that we have killed 60 million people by abortion who should be here. That while we can't fix that we can make room for other people who want to be here, and that it might be a kind of reparation to do so. Michie and I got into some interesting considerations, and that was good. We don't fix the killing of 60 million, yet we are in a sense under-crowded by 60 million. We have room for immigrants and we should bring them in, within reason and legally of course. We should not be afraid of the overpopulation boogie man like that strange woman at a recent town hall meeting who suggested we need to start eating babies.

 

[HardHead]

...

Thanks. I appreciate the reply.

I don't want to be bogged down with this either. It's just a thought that the opinions on the topic are likely not a monolith.