A quick presentation for higher clergy

General
1

So I’ve noticed that cardinals and very reverend types have a problem learning the difference between immigrants. Key word: Immigrants, used as a blanket term

First I’d like clarity a few other things for priests that use language like “We are a nation of immigrants” or “Our city was built by immigrants” or “This church is for immigrants”.

First of all: the USA is NOT a nation of immigrants.
Second of all: sanctuary cities are a crime.
Third of all: Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime
Fourth: violating our immigration and labor laws is also a crime
Fifth: felony identification theft is a crime.

I can go on and on but you hopefully understand. And I type this because a lot of higher level priests seriously DO NOT understand the above.

Now, for the lesson.

There are two types of immigrants. It is exceedingly dishonest to continue referring to all immigrants as just “immigrants” as a blanket term, you know, to conceal the truth.

The truth is that there are

  1. legal immigrants. These are people who follow the laws.
  2. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. These are people who disregard our laws and usually does not end there because they break numerous laws all the time, and every day they are here illegally.

So that’s the lesson. Send it on out to all the cardinals who have acted dishonestly about this matter. Good day & God bless!

2

I am a registered Libertarian and there are more than two views when it comes to the topic of immigration.

  • There are closed borders libertarians (No one can enter our borders without permission and if caught are deported.)
  • There are open border libertarians (Individuals should have the right to trade freely, escape from tyranny and not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. This means keeping you from leaving the United States if she become tyrannical. You should not need permission to leave, but may need permission to enter another country. What is “unreasonable” is debated among various libertarians.)
  • There are State-Border libertarians (Leave it up to each State to enforce their own borders. I know very few libertarians who hold this view.)
  • There are private-property bordertarians (You have the right to allow/exclude whomever you want onto/from your private property. Just like there the walls of your house is a border, these libertarians include your property line as a border in which you enforce yourself. Some believe it is the role of the state to protect your private property, in addition to yourself.)
  • There are closed-borders-until-we-end-government-programs libertarians (Incentives & entitlements that encourage individuals to come here illegally is what these libertarians view as theft and redistribution of wealth by force.)
  • And then there are other views that are less common.

I can see valid arguments of a few different points of view. As the great Thomas Sowell said in A Conflict of Visions, “There are no real solutions, only trade-offs.”

My problem with most Democrats is that they only look at the benefits of open borders and not the trade-offs (diseases, homelessness, crime, a breakdown of order, etc.)

My problem with how many Republicans frame it is how they paint all illegal immigrants as violent criminals. Some are. We had a Hispanic off-duty police officer shot, along with two others, by an illegal immigrant at a bar. The officer, a husband and father did not make it. Extremely sad and would not have happened had this individual not been here illegally. However, we also had a woman who was rąped and murdered by a man who was born and raised in the United States! It later came out that he was a serial rąpist (11 other woman that we know of)! A few months back we had a stabbing outside of a local bar. The individual was also not an illegal immigrant. You get my point.

The Bible tells us that, as Christians, we are to treat “aleans” with human dignity and respect. Jesus also said that if someone is robbing you of your coat (and you have two), then just give the man with no coat your extra coat. This, however, is not a legal framework. This is a voluntary giving and not involuntary Socialism.

To the open-border individuals, I tell them that I will be over for Dinner tonight and raid their fridge, and tomorrow night, and the night after that. If they have a problem with this, then they are hypocrites. To the closed-border individuals I ask what they would do if your politicians no longer adhere to the Constitution & Bill of Rights, should you be free to leave? Does the government have a right to decide whom you should be able to do business with? How closed borders are you?

I lean more towards the private-property model and closed-border hybrid model. This means that if you would like to invite someone from another country to be a United States citizen (with limited rights, similar to Japan) then you would be held responsible for these individuals. Meaning that if they starve to death, then you are held accountable. If they commit a crime, then you are held responsible. If you hold these individuals against their will, then you will be held responsible. If you make them do forced labor, then you will be held responsible. So be wise whom you sponsor and do not mistreat individuals that you do sponsor. The part that would be like Japan’s model is that non-native citizens would not have the privilege of voting. This would eliminate the Democrats from abusing the immigration system to cheat in elections (hypothetically). I’m against entitlement programs for native-born citizens, so of course I would not extend them to non-native-born citizens. I believe that it is the role of charity to take care of one another. Involuntary Socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.

Thoughts?

3

You have a right to be against the programs, Cade, but I (a native-born US citizen) and my wife (an immigrant US citizen) depend on Social Security and Medicare. I have a retirement annuity that by itself would pay the rent, but food, medical care, and all our other expenses would not be paid for. Conceivably we could hold jobs, but we don’t have the strength or energy that we used to (we are both in our 70s).

4

The fact that this even needs to be explained is mind-boggling. What planet are these people living on? There are definitely some uninformed and also some very unintelligent people in the world, but I really don’t believe it’s a lack of understanding for most. It’s about promoting the ideology and the party line without caring about the safety and well-being of actual people.

The way that the border/immigration discussion is framed is interesting when you consider that for most of human history, the modern concept of the nation-state did not exist, and neither did extremely powerful, centralized governments that controlled every square centimenter of their land and kept extremely strict and detailed records about every person in the territory to the extent that one would need “papers” to travel freely between different territories. Given that the rise of the so-called “Westphalian” nation-state took place in a time period and historical context involving the decline of Christendom and the rise of religious pluralism and secularism, I think it’s very debatable as to whether organizing land according to this political system should be the ideal or the default way of doing it.

That being said, the world we live in today is the world we live in, and pretending that it’s still 1500 and that we do not live in a modern nation-state is delusional and self-defeating. The other thing is that five hundred years ago, people did not move around as much and as rapidly as they do today, with entire populations being displaced and moving thousands of miles away. In addition to keeping out illegal immigrants, it would sometimes be prudent to limit even legal immigration simply because governments are finite entities with finite resources and have a moral obligation to ensure their own citizens’ welfare first—just like a parent needs to make sure their own kids are fed before giving extra food to the neighbor’s kids. (Just an analogy—I’m not suggesting that the government has a direct obligation to feed its people through handouts or anything, or that it should assume the role of a parent. It’s just another example of that ordo amoris everyone’s been talking about.)

More fundamentally, however, it’s also necessary to examine the extent to which political maneuvering and war-mongering in the past 100 years has caused this crisis in the first place by destabilizing entire societies and either forcing people out of their ancestral homelands as wartime refugees or at least greatly incentivizing them to settle somewhere else by making their homes uninhabitable. Border control is only part of the solution in the present moment; any long-term solution must necessarily involve stopping useless wars that cause refugee crises, the destruction of cultures, and the destruction of ancestral homes built over centuries by different peoples. But of course none of the mainstream modern “scholars” specializing in studying genocides will talk about that.

5

If I were elected (I have been asked to run for office, but I have no desire to rule over others), I would allow individuals to opt-out of these programs. I understand that many have become dependent on government (by design). I also understand that you and I have payed into these programs and we ought to get back that which we have payed in. Why is laser eye surgery so cheap in this country compared to other surgeries? It isn’t because eyes are not important. I would say that our eyes are very important. It is because insurance does not cover the procedure and there is coopetition, which drives the cost down. You don’t have that when you are on a system where government spends money she doesn’t have or insurance pays for things. Why does a paint pill cost a hundred dollars when you are in the Hospital, something you can get for a few bucks at a gas station or grocery store? Same reason. It is easy to spend someone else’s money, but when it is our own money, cost matters.

Some demand “free” healthcare, but positive rights are immoral and do not come from God. They require someone else’ labor (either through force or theft). Nothing is free unless it is a gift or charity, voluntarily given. I’m all for free education (if teachers want to donate their time and resources to educate). I’m all for free healthcare (if Doctors freely donate their time and resources to provide care). I’m all for charitable organizations to providing such resources. And I’m all for citizens to give to such organization voluntarily.

“No action can be virtuous unless it is freely chosen.” — Murray N. Rothbard

6

I don’t pay a hundred dollars for paint pills, but they do make me turn blue.

1 Like
7

We’ve been renovating the downstairs for my Wife’s future Salon Studio :joy:

1 Like