No. To break the law is a criminal act. That’s what a crime is. A breach of the law. Lesser offences are classified as ‘misdemeanors’ but are still criminal offences. Someone who illegally enters another country is committing a serious criminal offence and it is the duty of any state to secure its own borders.[/quote]
What I was referring to is those laws that are decriminalized, but not legalized. Like how weed was treated in the great state of California.
What about those illegal aliens that didn’t illegally enter another country?
[quote]
See above. I must say you seem to have a strange view of ‘cruelty’ what with the Hernando Cortes apologetics on the one hand and the title of this thread on the other.[/quote]
I don’t believe ad hominem attacks are necessary. If you notice, there is a question mark at the end of the title. I have yet to post my opinion on the matter. Further, most of my postings in this thread have been questions, not statements.
No. To break the law is a criminal act. That’s what a crime is. A breach of the law. Lesser offences are classified as ‘misdemeanors’ but are still criminal offences. Someone who illegally enters another country is committing a serious criminal offence and it is the duty of any state to secure its own borders.[/quote]
What I was referring to is those laws that are decriminalized, but not legalized. Like how weed was treated in the great state of California.
What about those illegal aliens that didn’t illegally enter another country?
[quote]
See above. I must say you seem to have a strange view of ‘cruelty’ what with the Hernando Cortes apologetics on the one hand and the title of this thread on the other.[/quote]
I don’t believe ad hominem attacks are necessary. If you notice, there is a question mark at the end of the title. I have yet to post my opinion on the matter. Further, most of my postings in this thread have been questions, not statements.[/quote]
Sorry Chris. I wasn’t attacking you just pointing out what seems to me a strange position. But as you say the title is posed as a question. However, I was also thinking about your assertion that the Afghan war does not fit the criteria of a bellum iustum.
Now regarding decriminalisation. Even though something may be decriminalised it doesn’t mean that it is not a criminal offence. Decriminalisation in practice merely moves something into the misdemeanor category. It is still a ‘criminal offence’ but criminal penalties are removed.
Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean by illegal aliens who haven’t entered a country illegally. If they are illegal aliens then they HAVE entered a country illegally. What’s more they have taken the place of legal migrants in doing so.
Even better, SCOTUS has already ruled this is constitutional, to check immigration status without probable cause. [/quote]
I was more in awe at the ability of the regional gov’t to authorize putting a band aid on top of a band aid on top of a bullet wound. It’s nice that the USSC gave them the go ahead to do their jobs and enforce the law though. Wouldn’t want our police upholding the State and Federal law with out Fed. and State support I guess.
No. To break the law is a criminal act. That’s what a crime is. A breach of the law. Lesser offences are classified as ‘misdemeanors’ but are still criminal offences. Someone who illegally enters another country is committing a serious criminal offence and it is the duty of any state to secure its own borders.[/quote]
What I was referring to is those laws that are decriminalized, but not legalized. Like how weed was treated in the great state of California.
What about those illegal aliens that didn’t illegally enter another country?
[quote]
See above. I must say you seem to have a strange view of ‘cruelty’ what with the Hernando Cortes apologetics on the one hand and the title of this thread on the other.[/quote]
I don’t believe ad hominem attacks are necessary. If you notice, there is a question mark at the end of the title. I have yet to post my opinion on the matter. Further, most of my postings in this thread have been questions, not statements.[/quote]
Weed is not exactly decriminalized, it is still illegal, you are only allowed to have a specific quantity and you need a medical marijuana card to legally possess it.
As far as illegal immigration, are you asking if it is illegal ? Are you asking if illegally immigrating into a country makes you a criminal ?
My answers to those questions are yes and yes.
The Bible passage I quoted (John 10:1-2) specifies and delineates the difference between the right and wrong way. In other words, it does not say that it is illegal to just come, but that it is illegal to come in a way that differs from when it specified in the immigration law.
Here is the Federal Law…
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by
immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading
representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
That is a far cry from coming in on your Nike’s whenever you want.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Sorry Chris. I wasn’t attacking you just pointing out what seems to me a strange position. But as you say the title is posed as a question. However, I was also thinking about your assertion that the Afghan war does not fit the criteria of a bellum iustum.
Now regarding decriminalisation. Even though something may be decriminalised it doesn’t mean that it is not a criminal offence. Decriminalisation in practice merely moves something into the misdemeanor category. It is still a ‘criminal offence’ but criminal penalties are removed.
Lastly, I’m not sure what you mean by illegal aliens who haven’t entered a country illegally. If they are illegal aliens then they HAVE entered a country illegally. What’s more they have taken the place of legal migrants in doing so.[/quote]
Okay on the first part. And, my thinking of the Afghan conflict not fitting bellum iustum wouldn’t have anything to do with immigration. I’m not an expert in bellum iustum, but those that are and what I can figure out on my own it seems as if it is not.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren’t those who have expired visas (work, student, &c) considered illegal immigrants?
Yes BC, if your Visa expires, you are no longer having legal status. If you do not renew your Visa within a year, you must go back to your country of origin and do it all over again.
As far as illegal immigration, are you asking if it is illegal ? Are you asking if illegally immigrating into a country makes you a criminal ?
My answers to those questions are yes and yes.[/quote]
No, not necessarily. If you notice I live in Arizona and I supported SB 1070, even sent letters and called in to my senators and requested they pass it.
My question is – I suppose – is this bill going too far on the other side? At least the Catholic Church has always taught that acts of corporal mercy (feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, visit the sick, visit those in prison, and bury the dead) should be done when reasonable.
The bill effectively limits our freedom to do what we ought to do. Now, should there be justice in the situation of them being illegally here in the country? Yes, most definitely. It has been the opinion of mine and the teaching of the Church that a state has the right to regulate the immigrants which enter its country for safety AND cultural reasons (including other stuff like infrastructure, economy, &c.)
I was giving you shit about the passage, because the literal sense of the verse is that those who do not enter through Jesus (or the door), and, therefore, do not teach properly are heretics and shamans.
But, I get what you are saying.
[quote]Here is the Federal Law…
Under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:
Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by
immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading
representation or the willful concealment of a material fact; has committed a federal crime.
Violations are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment for up to six months. Repeat offenses can bring up to two years in prison. Additional civil fines may be imposed at the discretion of immigration judges, but civil fines do not negate the criminal sanctions or nature of the offense.
That is a far cry from coming in on your Nike’s whenever you want. [/quote]
Yes, I am well aware of the Title 8, section 1325.
The issue of giving mercy to those broke the law should go to those who are remorseful and will not do it again.
There is no point in giving reprieve to those will continually break the law if they intend to capitalize on your mercy.
These people came here illegally, knowingly and intentionally, so they should keep it real about paying the price for it. For those who are argue about the kids coming through no fault of their own, that they should not be punished, well they should also not be rewarded either. It is a form of affirmative action.
Why doesn’t the Catholic Church take a proactive effort in policing those priests who molest kids, when they have actually sheltered them from the law and allowed them to further continue molesting kids?
BC, I know you’re a good guy, but the Catholic Church is not acting out God’s will without prejudice. They are picking and choosing which laws to enact, when they should be either enforcing all of them or none of them. It’s like when I used to yell at a ref, “call all of it or call none of it.”
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So if a prisoner breaks out of prison, should you harbor them to help them, fix their wounds, given them food and care for them?
[/quote]
There is no crime in helping people in need. The overlords just get jealous and would rather us help them and that is why they punish us – it is an act of vengeance against our disobedience to the them.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So if a prisoner breaks out of prison, should you harbor them to help them, fix their wounds, given them food and care for them?
[/quote]
There is no crime in helping people in need. The overlords just get jealous and would rather us help them and that is why they punish us – it is an act of vengeance against our disobedience to the them.[/quote]
The problem is those “people in need” lots of times break the law. Steal identities, steal benefits from broke states and cities and generally act like criminal sea anchors on society.
But by all means…give them your money if you like.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So if a prisoner breaks out of prison, should you harbor them to help them, fix their wounds, given them food and care for them?
[/quote]
There is no crime in helping people in need. The overlords just get jealous and would rather us help them and that is why they punish us – it is an act of vengeance against our disobedience to the them.[/quote]
The problem is those “people in need” lots of times break the law. Steal identities, steal benefits from broke states and cities and generally act like criminal sea anchors on society.
[/quote]
So what?! What has that got to do with me and whether or not I decide to help them if they need it and ask for it?
Most of the time the real criminals are the people who put them in cages in the first place.
[quote]apbt55 wrote:
So if a prisoner breaks out of prison, should you harbor them to help them, fix their wounds, given them food and care for them?
[/quote]
There is no crime in helping people in need. The overlords just get jealous and would rather us help them and that is why they punish us – it is an act of vengeance against our disobedience to the them.[/quote]
The problem is those “people in need” lots of times break the law. Steal identities, steal benefits from broke states and cities and generally act like criminal sea anchors on society.
[/quote]
So what?! What has that got to do with me and whether or not I decide to help them if they need it and ask for it?
Most of the time the real criminals are the people who put them in cages in the first place.[/quote]
Hey Deeerp…
Did you read the part where I said if you want to give them YOUR money go right ahead.
See above ^^^^
Limited resources necessitate the need for secure borders…doesn’t that fit into your Mad Max anarchy theory?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The issue of giving mercy to those broke the law should go to those who are remorseful and will not do it again.[/quote]
So, you’re saying in order for me to give someone charity…I have to make sure first they are here legally?
Of course, not I don’t intend to facilitate someone’s immoral behavior.
Charity is reward?
Lol. What? Is this some kind of argument? The Catholic Church shouldn’t give charity to those in need (if they happen to be illegal immigrants), because over 35 years ago there was a small group of homosexual priests who liked to have sex with minors.
And, the reason why SOME of the Bishops didn’t correct their priests is many reasons, but if you wish to discuss it make another thread. Don’t throw red herrings out now.
Which laws are they not enforcing? I didn’t even know you studied Canon Law.