So pope backs immigrants/refugees peacefully following a law he disagrees with, and also supports priests being present during that time in order to offer moral support. What is the outrage here? Disagreeing with the law that we are following? I think all of us can be found guilty of that in some way or another.

The Banned said:

---

So pope backs immigrants/refugees peacefully following a law he disagrees with, and also supports priests being present during that time in order to offer moral support. What is the outrage here? Disagreeing with the law that we are following? I think all of us can be found guilty of that in some way or another.

---

Not outraged

But, simply taking note of their acknowledgment that their presence may affect proceedings, and their lamentation that illegal immigrants will be deported, with a clear implication that they don't want that to happen

I have no problem with our church, wanting to treat immigrants, or any other person, humanely

I do have a problem with their public position that enforcing immigration laws, borders, and prosecuting continued to stay in a country illegally is somehow morally wrong.

When did the Vatican say that "enforcing immigration laws" was morally wrong?

The bishops sure imply it's morally wrong to have border security. Especially considering the current deportations are for violent or drug-related felons. If we can't deport them morally, there's no point in having a border.

Are they going to go stand in solidarity with other criminals? Burglars? Murderers? Traffic citation recipients?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Decay said:

---

The bishops sure imply it's morally wrong to have border security. Especially considering the current deportations are for violent or drug-related felons. If we can't deport them morally, there's no point in having a border.

---

Except they aren't.

---

schmendeler said:

---

Decay said:

---

The bishops sure imply it's morally wrong to have border security. Especially considering the current deportations are for violent or drug-related felons. If we can't deport them morally, there's no point in having a border.

---

It's always interesting to see people who don't realize they are completely oblivious to current events.

---

Ah yes, enlightened one. Please share your work with the class.

Ah you caught me. They are *prioritizing* dangerous people. And then they still enforce the law even if they find someone who isn't on their list.

Have they deported anyone who didn't have a legal deportation order? One article tried to make it sound like they were rounding up legal asylum seekers at the courthouse but fell short of explaining exactly why their legal status was in question. Very likely omitting details like they overstayed their temporary status or otherwise lost their eligibility.

The real problem I have is that the large push is attempting to remove known, dangerous people, who are not legally entitled to even be committing their crimes here, and the progressive mouthpieces come out from every corner attempting to interfere. That includes grandstanding politicians, lapdog media outlets, Catholic NGOs being bankrolled, and a predictable cadre of Church leadership.

Because quotas of 3000 arrests a day don't prioritize violent criminals. It winds up blowing up the lives of innocent people and destroying communities and businesses. There's an old quote of Blackstone's that Ben Franklin paraphrased, "That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long & generally approv'd."

John Adams had another salient quote, "It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished.

But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, 'whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,' and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever."

It seems we care more about vengeance then any kind of justice today.

No reason both can't be true, that most Americans agree with what your posted about protecting innocence, and yet also think that those here illegally should be deported regardless if they are violent or not. Sure, let's prioritize the violent first, but deport the rest also. This is Trump's mandate like it or not and the will of America currently - that those here illegally follow the law and leave our country. Utmost care should be taken that they are deporting only those here illegally, and quick corrections should be made when needed.

Innocent lives may be blown up but that is the fault of those who came here illegally to begin with. We have laws and they will be followed.

File5 said:

---

No reason both can't be true, that most Americans agree with what your posted about protecting innocence, and yet also think that those here illegally should be deported regardless if they are violent or not. Sure, let's prioritize the violent first, but deport the rest also. This is Trump's mandate like it or not and the will of America currently - that those here illegally follow the law and leave our country. Utmost care should be taken that they are deporting only those here illegally, and quick corrections should be made when needed.

Innocent lives may be blown up but that is the fault of those who came here illegally to begin with. We have laws and they will be followed.

---

We also have laws against hiring undocumented workers. And I think that this is the part that no one seems to want to admit is relevant. And something like 75% of all undocumented workers have jobs. This includes huge percentages within agriculture, construction, food service, hospitality, etc. Whatever legal disincentives exist to keep companies from hiring undocumented workers, can we all admit that it clearly isn't working?

And so, I don't think its fair for Americans to clutch our pearls at the number of undocumented workers while we give slaps on the wrist to those that are providing most of the fuel to the fire.

To be clear, I think having undocumented people in the country is a big issue. But, having entire sections of our economy powered by undocumented workers in plain sight and no political will to either punish the companies involved or to radically increase the numbers we allow into the country legally feels like the actual problem. And undocumented workers is the result / symptom.

So, rounding up a bunch of undocumented people and throwing them out of the country feels a bit like a sailor trying to keep his boat afloat by scooping buckets of water out of a sinking ship with a massive gash in the side. It doesn't feel like we are addressing the issue. And the reason seems clear to me - its easier to demonize and condemn poor political refugees and migrant workers than go after American businesses and politicians benefitting from the dysfunction. Basically, we make immigrants the scapegoat for the problem that we don't have cohesive economic / immigration policy. I don't know who is to blame - I think that both political sides and a lot of economic interests have all taken advantage of the conflicting messages this country gives to would be immigrants.

I don't know the exact solution. I don't know what the exact numbers we should allow in and I don't know the exact punishments for hiring undocumented workers. Economic policy isn't my area of expertise. But, I don't have to be a master ship builder in order to point to a sinking ship with a gash in the side with water rushing in to be able to point to the hole in the ship and say 'well, that seems like a problem'.

And for the record, I'm not condoning illegal immigration. But, I do feel sympathy for the groups of people who we tell not to come over, then whisper to them under the table 'hey, quick come over and work for us so we can pay you less than Americans', and then we condemn them for coming over as criminals and rapists and pet eaters.