Fans of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy come to mind.
Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
^Not surprising. Hope the courts will deport them.
Leaked video exposes Dem staffer admitting 'quiet part out loud' in fiery tirade: 'Open the f---ing border'
A Democratic organizer in two key Ohio races was caught on video calling for open borders and labeling those who promote securing the border as "racist."
once again Texas is not waiting around for Feds. We can hope Allred does not get to tear down our wall.
www.foxnews.com
The state of Texas has taken another major step in its efforts to build a wall at its border with Mexico, acquiring a 1,400 acre ranch along the Rio Grande in a key area that officials say has seen human trafficking, as well as weapons and drug smuggling.
The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has acquired the ranch in Starr County, in Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Sector, which saw some of the highest levels of migrant traffic. The state will now use that land to build additional border wall.
'Shut it down': Red state makes massive land buy to ramp up border wall efforts amid migrant surge
Texas has acquired a 1,402 acre ranch in its efforts to build a border wall at the border with Mexico after the Biden administration ended construction in 2021.
The state of Texas has taken another major step in its efforts to build a wall at its border with Mexico, acquiring a 1,400 acre ranch along the Rio Grande in a key area that officials say has seen human trafficking, as well as weapons and drug smuggling.
The Texas General Land Office (GLO) has acquired the ranch in Starr County, in Border Patrol’s Rio Grande Sector, which saw some of the highest levels of migrant traffic. The state will now use that land to build additional border wall.
But NYC declared themselves to be a Sanctuary City - shouldn't they be welcoming the immigrants with open arms?
Most true Catholics are ashamed these grifters use the name.
nypost.com
]
Paxton launched an investigation earlier this year into the charity, demanding the immediate release of documentation about its migrant clients, which it has refused to do.
“Annunciation House staff … made multiple admissions that they had assisted migrants in the past in the United States who had not surrendered to Border Patrol, had assisted persons in Mexico in crossing over to the United States in the past, and they intended to continue these activities in the future.
Texas AG says Catholic charity is smuggling migrants into US, running a ‘stash house’
The Texas Attorney General says that Annunciation House has crossed the line, and is helping migrants cross the border into the US
nypost.com
Paxton launched an investigation earlier this year into the charity, demanding the immediate release of documentation about its migrant clients, which it has refused to do.
“Annunciation House staff … made multiple admissions that they had assisted migrants in the past in the United States who had not surrendered to Border Patrol, had assisted persons in Mexico in crossing over to the United States in the past, and they intended to continue these activities in the future.
Last edited:
Don't presume to speak for me, please.
A. Catholic Charities is not an organization of grifters.
B. Providing aid and basic necessities to our brothers and sisters in Christ will not destroy the country, and is called for by the Catechism of the Church.
I would kindly ask that you carefully read this article. It does a very good job of outlining the Catholic outlook on migration. I would ask you to note the difference between how we are called to treat individuals and how the Church approaches the question of nationhood and mass migration.
Upon reading this, I hope you will come to see that your issue is very much with our insane governmental policy which essentially allows open borders, and not so much with the Catholic response to the individual people who are caught up in piss poor circumstances thanks to our governmental insanity.
Thank you, sincerely, for your consideration.
B. Providing aid and basic necessities to our brothers and sisters in Christ will not destroy the country, and is called for by the Catechism of the Church.
I would kindly ask that you carefully read this article. It does a very good job of outlining the Catholic outlook on migration. I would ask you to note the difference between how we are called to treat individuals and how the Church approaches the question of nationhood and mass migration.
Upon reading this, I hope you will come to see that your issue is very much with our insane governmental policy which essentially allows open borders, and not so much with the Catholic response to the individual people who are caught up in piss poor circumstances thanks to our governmental insanity.
Thank you, sincerely, for your consideration.
The charge is facilitation, not assisting. Big difference. Didn’t realize Jesus instructed his followers to break the law for someone’s financial benefit (I.e., jobs placement program).
Last edited:
SN
I did read the article in my link. This is what stood out to me
"Annunciation House staff … made multiple admissions that they had assisted migrants in the past in the United States who had not surrendered to Border Patrol, had assisted persons in Mexico in crossing over to the United States in the past, and they intended to continue these activities in the future."
I also read very carefully your link which actually reinforces a nation's right to control its' own borders and decide who can come in legally
This from your link, John Paul's words
"The exercise of such a right [that is, the right to immigrate to a particular country] is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant."
In the article it asks a to me very relevant question.
"Efforts must be made to address the conditions in the refugees’ homeland that led to the desire to migrate in the first place."
Why isn't the Catholic Church which dominates the Central and South American countries addressing the needs IN the countries?
Here is another article that actually discusses that question. I hope you read it.
crisismagazine.com
Of course our Gov't bears most of the blame. Catholic Charities also shares the blame.
IF there were a way to ONLY allow deserving people in that have been vetted how wonderful that would be.
I did read the article in my link. This is what stood out to me
"Annunciation House staff … made multiple admissions that they had assisted migrants in the past in the United States who had not surrendered to Border Patrol, had assisted persons in Mexico in crossing over to the United States in the past, and they intended to continue these activities in the future."
I also read very carefully your link which actually reinforces a nation's right to control its' own borders and decide who can come in legally
This from your link, John Paul's words
"The exercise of such a right [that is, the right to immigrate to a particular country] is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant."
In the article it asks a to me very relevant question.
"Efforts must be made to address the conditions in the refugees’ homeland that led to the desire to migrate in the first place."
Why isn't the Catholic Church which dominates the Central and South American countries addressing the needs IN the countries?
Here is another article that actually discusses that question. I hope you read it.
Illegal Immigration and the Catholic Church: Follow the Money
Is the Church enabling criminality and facilitating the oppression of the immigrants we are hoping to help?
crisismagazine.com
Of course our Gov't bears most of the blame. Catholic Charities also shares the blame.
IF there were a way to ONLY allow deserving people in that have been vetted how wonderful that would be.
Yes. This was my point to you. Our issue is with our government, not the charitable efforts of the Church.
What leads you to believe the Church isn't doing what it can to address problems in those countries?
I see that Allred is trying to use a Sheriff in his ad. Nevermind that Culberson County is more noted for a checkpoint on I-10 than it is illegals entering from the river.
Clearly, Allred doesn't believe voters understand Texas geography. He is banking on the stupid people.
Clearly, Allred doesn't believe voters understand Texas geography. He is banking on the stupid people.
The facts are not on Allred's side - therefore, the only thing he can do is rely on lies and hope enough voters are gullible enough to accept his line.
Still not a fan of the wall. Would much rather see E-Verify become the law of the land with a provision that would allow some entity other than the federal gov't to be responsible for enforcement. A provision that would allow a citizen to sue for some small bit of damages would go a long way to getting companies to finally adhere to immigration/employment law. The law should put the onus on the company to validate that they attempted an appropriate amount of due diligence to ensure that the employee was authorized to work in the US.
One of the objectives I fear during their final 60 days.
I'm not suggesting that the sole focus of the administration be immigration, but getting real and concrete immigration controls in place should be priority 1, 2 and 3 right now. The GOP is the only side that is ever going to care about this and our odds of fixing this the right way go way down if we lose the house in mid-terms. Right now is the time to act on it and we should not spend ANY of our time on political infighting.
1. Remain in Mexico immediately back in place
2. E-Verify on a national level allowing John Q. Citizen to sue for damages when they are denied work and the company can be shown to be failing in basic due diligence of vetting employees.
3. Change the interpretation of 14th amendment to disallow birthright citizenship to children who don't have at least one US citizen parent.
1. Remain in Mexico immediately back in place
2. E-Verify on a national level allowing John Q. Citizen to sue for damages when they are denied work and the company can be shown to be failing in basic due diligence of vetting employees.
3. Change the interpretation of 14th amendment to disallow birthright citizenship to children who don't have at least one US citizen parent.
f the marxist Mexican Presidente.
Agree, and use every diplomatic and economic piece of leverage we have if necessary.
I'm all for this, but it'll take an act of Congress to do it. Trump can't do it alone. Be prepared for a major fight with the business community.
This would have to come from the Supreme Court, and I don't think they'll go along and frankly shouldn't. The text of the 14th Amendment is pretty clear.
To reach the desired outcome requires a "the lawmakers said X but meant Y" logic. Liberal justices won't go along with that, because they don't like the outcome. Roberts won't go along, because he generally doesn't like decisions that make major changes in the law. However, you'll also lose Gorsuch and likely Kavanaugh, who are unsympathetic to arguments that dismiss the text of the Constitution based on arguments about legislative intent.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
Prediction Results Threads
