Mass incarceration or Mass Deportation?

6,050 Views | 74 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Rongagin71
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:58a, 7/18/24
I'm seeing much moaning and wailing and rending of garments offered up by the left cath twittersphere regarding the comments made by Catholics Greg Abbott and JD Vance regarding mass deportations. They have been strangely silent on Vance's deplorable pivot towards support of Mifepristone however.

With regards to some of the "send them all back" rhetoric; I find it slightly aggressive in tone; but such is to be expected at the red meat conventions. In practice I don't see much of a problem in reconciling it with Catholic teaching.

I firmly agree that no person is illegal, but that doesn't mean that a person's presence is definitionally legal anywhere they want to go.

The US as a sovereign nation has the right and the mandate to regulate who it allows into its nation and under what conditions. If someone decides to violate that law, they can either be imprisoned or sent back to their place of origin.

I don't know why that is so difficult to understand. We are telling people as loudly as possible "PLEASE DO NOT COME HERE, IF WE CATCH YOU, YOU WILL BE DEPORTED" yet they still come…..what are we supposed to do, other than humanely deport them back to their country of origin??
Reply Quote
6
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 6:59a, 7/18/24
AG
I think this is on the wrong forum.
Reply Quote
15
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 7:17a, 7/18/24
kurt vonnegut said:
I think this is on the wrong forum.


If I wanted a reaganesque circle of poo flinging I would have posted this on the politics board. This is about the moral obligation as espoused by Catholic Social teaching
Reply Quote
2
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:03a, 7/18/24
I struggle with the balance. I think people coming here truly fleeing hardship should be allowed to stay. BUT there need to be strict rules on integrating. You need to pick up the language. You need to understand that while you can be proud of your heritage, if you want to be American, you have to leave any allegiances to the old way of life behind. If what you left behind was really that bad, then work your ass off to stay here. Indians and Pakistanis don't really have this issue, because they don't really have a community that will buffer them from needing to integrate. Many from Spanish speaking countries get here and have absolutely no societal pressure to change.

I don't see anything in Catholic teaching preventing a country from leveling these demands.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:35a, 7/18/24
AG
Quote:
I think people coming here truly fleeing hardship should be allowed to stay. BUT there need to be strict rules on integrating. You need to pick up the language. You need to understand that while you can be proud of your heritage, if you want to be American, you have to leave any allegiances to the old way of life behind.
I always think of Milton Friedman's analysis

Quote:
Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California.

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It's a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It's a good thing for the United States. It's a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it's only good so long as it's illegal.

Reply Quote
1
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Windy City Ag • 11:14a, 7/18/24
Windy City Ag said:
Quote:
I think people coming here truly fleeing hardship should be allowed to stay. BUT there need to be strict rules on integrating. You need to pick up the language. You need to understand that while you can be proud of your heritage, if you want to be American, you have to leave any allegiances to the old way of life behind.
I always think of Milton Friedman's analysis

Quote:
Immigration is a particularly difficult subject. There is no doubt that free and open immigration is the right policy in a libertarian state, but in a welfare state it is a different story: the supply of immigrants will become infinite. Your proposal that someone only be able to come for employment is a good one but it would not solve the problem completely. The real hitch is in denying social benefits to the immigrants who are here. That is very hard to do, much harder than you would think as we have found out in California.

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It's a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It's a good thing for the United States. It's a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it's only good so long as it's illegal.



Economically, sure. This was more about how we can approach this from a faith perspective.
Reply Quote
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 11:18a, 7/18/24
AG
I think from a faith perspective it is very straight forward. The Golden Rule or Christian teachings or simple decency says you should allow people a chance to improve their lives, escape danger, and otherwise find health and happiness.

The only moral argument today is that they are free-riding on the system, so your proposal addresses that issue somewhat.

Reply Quote
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:04p, 7/18/24
AG
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 1:06p, 7/18/24
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.


Yes, the "legally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence
Reply Quote
3
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 1:35p, 7/18/24
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.


And the stranger is supposed to abide by the code of the new land he's entered into. So the US could easily enforce integration laws, based on biblical standards.
Reply Quote
3
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:02p, 7/18/24
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:16p, 7/18/24
AG
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.
And blown away that some 'liberals' don't understand that there is a legal way to do that, and an illegal one. Conservatives simply want it to be done legally. And we don't need and can't absorb 30 million of them.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
Reply Quote
6
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Martin Cash • 2:24p, 7/18/24
Martin Cash said:
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.
And blown away that some 'liberals' don't understand that there is a legal way to do that, and an illegal one. Conservatives simply want it to be done legally. And we don't need and can't absorb 30 million of them.

Where are you getting that 30 million number? What are you including in that?

To your last point, I actually think we can absorb much more than you might think. Again, I don't know what this 30 million number means.



Reply Quote
1
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 2:37p, 7/18/24
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.


We do not need immigrants for our economy to work. We need to make it harder for citizens not to work and let wages rise to fill needs.
Reply Quote
12
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 2:52p, 7/18/24
AG
kurt vonnegut said:
I think this is on the wrong forum.
With all due respect my friend, this forum has become a haven for progressive political views because of the reaction on Forum 16.

Do not see why all of a sudden this is a thing.

And every time I have noted that it has not been received well.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 2:55p, 7/18/24
You keep saying this but all of these threads are started by people of faith. Not us goodness liberal heathens.
Reply Quote
5
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 3:09p, 7/18/24
AG
Macarthur said:
You keep saying this but all of these threads are started by people of faith. Not us goodness liberal heathens.
Fair enough. And I do not have to respond.

And I applaud your self awareness. Just kidding my friend.

I mean, I am a Christian Ultimate reconciliation believer so I am a heretic to most on here,

So we are in the same boat I guess.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2 edits
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 3:19p, 7/18/24
AG
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.
Yes but it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to take that to its extreme conclusion. That hurts everyone. Just like the idea of someone saying that if you really believe that, then allow a bunch of illegal immigrants to live in your house. Allowing one person who is here legally to live in your house would make sense, but at a point allowing many and some who you know nothing about is not tenable for you and taking care of your family or the stranger.

The care of the citizens of the nation is partly governed by our laws. We cannot just let people come here at will illegally. Unfortunately there are alot of bad people who do make it here and not coming from Central America.

The Lord also calls us to be prudent. So while I believe we need to give refuge to some, that does not mean God meant for us to welcome all strangers blindly and with no consideration for our families and resources.

The Church teaches that nations have sovereignty regarding issues like immigration, yet that that sovereignty is not absolute.

So I think all of this is somewhere in the middle...unlike most things that are often made to sound extreme and divisive.

We need a better system where we can reasonably manage those immigrating, and those who are here illegally should be returned to their countries and then processed through the legal methods. We should treat those who are following the laws, even those who are granted asylum, with respect and love.
Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BluHorseShu • 3:37p, 7/18/24
AG
BluHorseShu said:
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.
Yes but it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to take that to its extreme conclusion. That hurts everyone. Just like the idea of someone saying that if you really believe that, then allow a bunch of illegal immigrants to live in your house. Allowing one person who is here legally to live in your house would make sense, but at a point allowing many and some who you know nothing about is not tenable for you and taking care of your family or the stranger.

The care of the citizens of the nation is partly governed by our laws. We cannot just let people come here at will illegally. Unfortunately there are alot of bad people who do make it here and not coming from Central America.

The Lord also calls us to be prudent. So while I believe we need to give refuge to some, that does not mean God meant for us to welcome all strangers blindly and with no consideration for our families and resources.

The Church teaches that nations have sovereignty regarding issues like immigration, yet that that sovereignty is not absolute.

So I think all of this is somewhere in the middle...unlike most things that are often made to sound extreme and divisive.

We need a better system where we can reasonably manage those immigrating, and those who are here illegally should be returned to their countries and then processed through the legal methods. We should treat those who are following the laws, even those who are granted asylum, with respect and love.
Agree. There is a balance and unfortunately all we see and hear are extremes for political reasons.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
kurt vonnegut
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 3:58p, 7/18/24
AG
dermdoc said:
kurt vonnegut said:
I think this is on the wrong forum.
With all due respect my friend, this forum has become a haven for progressive political views because of the reaction on Forum 16.

Do not see why all of a sudden this is a thing.

And every time I have noted that it has not been received well.

The original post was 95% political with the word 'Catholic' thrown in there twice. Quo then clarified what he wanted to get from the discussion. At which point, I shut up because his clarifications put my concerns to rest. I have no objection to the direction he wanted to bring the thread after his clarification. And I've stayed out of the conversation and just read along.

Quo and I had a back and forth about the purpose of the thread. It got settled. Whats the problem?

Reply Quote
3
1 edit
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to kurt vonnegut • 4:08p, 7/18/24
AG
My problem is I am a grumpy old man.

I will say I can now read liberal posts without getting angry and retort.

Baby steps.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
BluHorseShu
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 4:35p, 7/18/24
AG
dermdoc said:
BluHorseShu said:
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.
Yes but it doesn't follow that it is reasonable to take that to its extreme conclusion. That hurts everyone. Just like the idea of someone saying that if you really believe that, then allow a bunch of illegal immigrants to live in your house. Allowing one person who is here legally to live in your house would make sense, but at a point allowing many and some who you know nothing about is not tenable for you and taking care of your family or the stranger.

The care of the citizens of the nation is partly governed by our laws. We cannot just let people come here at will illegally. Unfortunately there are alot of bad people who do make it here and not coming from Central America.

The Lord also calls us to be prudent. So while I believe we need to give refuge to some, that does not mean God meant for us to welcome all strangers blindly and with no consideration for our families and resources.

The Church teaches that nations have sovereignty regarding issues like immigration, yet that that sovereignty is not absolute.

So I think all of this is somewhere in the middle...unlike most things that are often made to sound extreme and divisive.

We need a better system where we can reasonably manage those immigrating, and those who are here illegally should be returned to their countries and then processed through the legal methods. We should treat those who are following the laws, even those who are granted asylum, with respect and love.
Agree. There is a balance and unfortunately all we see and hear are extremes for political reasons.
Reply Quote
Rongagin71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:51p, 7/18/24
AG
Apparently it needs to be repeated that there is an obvious difference between legal and illegal immigrants.
The U.S. allows approx a million legal immigrants per year, that is more than any other country and allows in plenty of doctors and engineers to "keep our economy going" - what we don't need is laborers simply showing up in a mass migration illegally crossing our borders. The labor mkt in 2024 is not like 1924, we don't need labor now and we don't need massive numbers of people added to welfare.
That 30million figure is one I've heard but am not sure about - I think it includes back more than a decade and also includes an estimate of those illegals that have never contacted U.S. authorities in any way.
Reply Quote
3
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:53p, 7/18/24
Oh boy. Welfare.
Reply Quote
1
Rongagin71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 5:14p, 7/18/24
AG
Yeah.
These days that means housing, feeding, training, medical care etc.
In some cases, it means investigation, catching, trying, sentencing, and imprisoning.
Reply Quote
Sapper Redux
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 8:34p, 7/18/24
Quo Vadis? said:
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.


We do not need immigrants for our economy to work. We need to make it harder for citizens not to work and let wages rise to fill needs.


We do, actually. You think inflation has been bad the last few years? By all means, deport every illegal immigrant and raise wages to a level where other people will choose to work in, say, a slaughterhouse.
Reply Quote
5
Martin Cash
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 9:11p, 7/18/24
AG
Macarthur said:


Where are you getting that 30 million number? What are you including in that?

To your last point, I actually think we can absorb much more than you might think. Again, I don't know what this 30 million number means.



No one knows for sure. Estimates are that at least 7.5 million have come ins since Biden threw the doors open, and there were at least 20 million illegals here before.
The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes 10:2
Reply Quote
1
Rongagin71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 9:31p, 7/18/24
AG
Sapper Redux said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.


We do not need immigrants for our economy to work. We need to make it harder for citizens not to work and let wages rise to fill needs.


We do, actually. You think inflation has been bad the last few years? By all means, deport every illegal immigrant and raise wages to a level where other people will choose to work in, say, a slaughterhouse.
Slaughterhouses have to be kept cold, and of course no one likes working around blood and stink.
But a few years ago, when a major slaughterhouse was cleared of illegals by a govt sweep, there was a line of American citizens applying for employment - way more than needed. Been awhile, was in Kansas City, I believe.
As you pointed out, people will work if paid a living wage.
Reply Quote
3
Quo Vadis?
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sapper Redux • 11:42p, 7/18/24
Sapper Redux said:
Quo Vadis? said:
Macarthur said:
I'm ovbously not catholic, but I find the rhetoric very disturbing. The chanting and the signs was, IMO, a very very bad look regardless of it being a 'red meat' convention.

We've had similar discussions on here before and the biggest problem, IMO, is that there are certain factions on the right AND left, that really don't want to solve the immigration problem. They simply want the political club to hit the other over the head.

Here's the thing. We NEED immigrants for our economy to work. I'm blown away by folks that are seemingly 'conservatives' that don't understand how this mass deportation thing would light a nuclear bomb fuse to our economy.


We do not need immigrants for our economy to work. We need to make it harder for citizens not to work and let wages rise to fill needs.


We do, actually. You think inflation has been bad the last few years? By all means, deport every illegal immigrant and raise wages to a level where other people will choose to work in, say, a slaughterhouse.


Rising wages for actual Americans would be good actually. Illegal immigration keeps wages artificially low, let them rise to market level. Rising costs are fine when they're a product of market signaling, not when they're a product of pumping trillions of paper into the economy
Reply Quote
6
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 2:32p, 7/19/24
AG
Quo Vadis? said:
PabloSerna said:
"Am I my brother's keeper?" GN 4:9

To my understanding, the RCC moral teaching on the basic human right to migrate (legally) on God's earth begins with the understanding that we need to do all we can to welcome the stranger in a strange land.


Yes, the "legally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence

As it should. No RCC Bishops are calling for "illegal" immigration.

Many of the people seeking a better life come here because of the blessings given to us from above. We cannot turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis right here on our southern border just because of the crimes committed by some immigrants.

When politicians elicit fear by characterizing the many people seeking asylum as an "invasion" or worse, only highlighting the criminals that have made it into our country- it is easy to see why government leaders such as Abbott who share the Catholic faith, will emphasize a more extreme response like mass deportation or separating of families- instead of a compassionate response that would involve coordinating real help, food, and possibly a path to citizenship (for some, not all) that is more in line with the RCC position.

Reply Quote
1
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 2:54p, 7/19/24
AG
dermdoc said:
kurt vonnegut said:
I think this is on the wrong forum.
With all due respect my friend, this forum has become a haven for progressive political views because of the reaction on Forum 16.

Do not see why all of a sudden this is a thing.

And every time I have noted that it has not been received well.

To me it seems like Christ's message could be seen as progressive. The whole, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, give your shirt off your back, golden rule thing seems weak -maybe?

Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 3:12p, 7/19/24
AG
PabloSerna said:
dermdoc said:
kurt vonnegut said:
I think this is on the wrong forum.
With all due respect my friend, this forum has become a haven for progressive political views because of the reaction on Forum 16.

Do not see why all of a sudden this is a thing.

And every time I have noted that it has not been received well.

To me it seems like Christ's message could be seen as progressive. The whole, love your enemies, turn the other cheek, give your shirt off your back, golden rule thing seems weak -maybe?

Those things are fine. Do not see that in modern progressive political groups. I see forced views via government enforcement.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
canadiaggie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Banned • 4:18p, 7/19/24
AG
The Banned said:
Indians and Pakistanis don't really have this issue, because they don't really have a community that will buffer them from needing to integrate.
Take this as an anecdotal data point from personal observation in the community but I think it holds true across the spectrum of Indian and Pakistani immigrants.

Indo-Pak (South Asian in general) immigration to the United States is unique when compared to migration from Hispanic countries to the US or even Indo-Pak migration to other countries - take Canada and the UK as examples.

The H-1B lottery system as well as the limitations on family migration because of visa backlogs (not counting immediate relatives, but applies to parents, adult children, and siblings) as well as the natural border and geographic difference has caused a selective migration of Indians and Pakistanis to the U.S. As a person of Pakistani origin, I can tell you the general profile: middle class background, well educated, mildly conservative but not usually religiously fanatical (think - no/loose hijabs among women, certainly no burkas or niqabs, Friday Muslim types), usually already English speaking, and upwardly mobile. You are getting doctors, engineers, IT types, for the most part. You are not, for the most part, getting asylees or refugees fleeing war.

I would also say that it's not true that Indians and Pakistanis don't have semi-ethnic enclaves within the U.S., but the unique thing about these enclaves is that because of the socioeconomic background of the immigrants, you are not getting cultural ghettos like Bradford and Brampton. You get places like Sugar Land instead. These people are generally receptive to liberal (classical liberal) values, are generally live-and-let-live, law-abiding people, and their children are not receptive to turning to more radical ideologies because mom and dad are relatively successful and have provided for their every need, ensuring that they don't feel the need to pick up jihad or turn to crime.

That's not to say that there aren't less educated immigrants from India or Pakistan - but because of the geographic distance and because the US is much more fertile ground for entrepreneurs and people with a business-minded spirit, the successful entrepreneurs and businessmen out of the less educated immigrants in the first wave who built up convenience store or wholesale or motel empires were able to bring their family over with some pre-built wealth, so the migration continued to be that of people who were successful or armed with an advantage instead of a steady stream of refugees and uneducated unskilled workers. Their kids then fell in line with the rest of the Indian/Pakistani migrants in pursuing higher education, going on into white collar professions, which is why the communities are well integrated and successful today.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
PabloSerna
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to canadiaggie • 8:34a, 7/20/24
AG
"well integrated"…

Well said, however, I would like to know from your experience at which point do you feel that the rest of the people in Surgarland begin to see people whose parents, grandparents that are from these countries- are seen as Texans? 1st generation? 2nd or 3rd?
Reply Quote
1 edit
Rongagin71
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to PabloSerna • 8:45a, 7/20/24
AG
I'm going to butt in here and say that question is impossible to answer if you are already Texans, and impossible to answer if you are trying to project how the future will go (the speed of societal change due to mass migration, technology, and the political rivalry between American cities and country people makes prediction uncertain)
Reply Quote
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.