Archbishop Gomez steps into the debate on immigrants, refugees underlying the importance of finding merciful solutions and a way forward. “Our system has been broken for so long, our politicians have failed to act for so long, that the people we are now punishing have become our neighbors,” Gomez writes.
So? Why does finding a “merciful” solution always mean the USA needs to absorb millions and millions of people that broke the law? Why can these people understand by being “merciful” we are harming, and directly so, USA citizens?
I agree with Trump. Its time to end anchor babies. I want to be “merciful” the middle class american worker instead of ignoring them.
Agreed. Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
The fact that they are technically illegal just illustrates that the law is broken. I think Archbishop Gomez is calling for a change in the laws to that many of those who are currently lawbreakers would no longer be that. The solution is merciful because “the Lord hears the cry of the poor. Blessed be the Lord.”
I want to be “merciful” the middle class American worker instead of ignoring them.
You exaggerate the effect on middle class American workers and are unwilling to follow the Lord’s admonition to listen to the cry of the poor. To welcome the stranger. It’s in the Catechism.
It really saddens me to hear this. Deporting legal citizens is already being done and certainly not to their benefit. In one case I heard it was an extreme hardship because all the child learned was English.
Yep, on so many levels here.
I take issue with some of the rhetoric the President Elect has used, including on immigration. But if you’re saying it should be legal to enter this country without any kind of approval to do so, then I absolutely disagree.
whether or not we end anchor babies, children should be raised by their parents. If their parents are illegal then they can grow up in mexico etal, and decide to come back when they are adults.
It’s amazing how CAF posters understand the Gospel so much better than their own bishops…
They still would be splitting with their parents and many times alone. This is the way we treat humans?
A country that no longer controls it’s own borders is no longer a country.
And of course I am not saying that. Nor is Archbishop Gomez.
Consider that some of these “children” are in their late teens, have never known any country other than the US, and do not even speak the languages of Mexico et.al. What justice is there in sending them to a country that is foreign to them? If they are well-adjusted members of society here, what harm is there in letting them stay here, compared to the certain harm to them in sending them back?
A gross exaggeration of the position of Archbishop Gomez, and therefore a straw man argument.
Well I didn’t say anything about Archbishop Gomez, but I think you should clarify what you said.
Which part of my post #4 do you want me to clarify?
Many kids move abroad with their parents as teen, it’s not a sob story.
Give em a year and I bet they are fluent in two languages
There is no harm in following the rule of law, letting them reside in their legal country.
I don’t really understand the logic here. If Jose and Maia come here illegally and are deported with their US-born children, who only speak English (unlikely), why is it such a tragedy? Because all they’ve known is the US and they only speak English?
So what about Henrico and Anna, who brought their Mexico-born children to the US, when the children only know Spanish? Why is it a problem when the US enforces it’s laws but not a problem when the parents do it?
As to splitting up families when the US-born children decide to return to the US, again, all the adults I mentioned left their parents and split up their families, and in this case, the US wouldn’t even be forcing the now-adult children to return!
I would also like to point that if Jane, a US-born single mother decided to steal money in order to give her children a better life, no one would be protesting about her split-up family as she is led to jail.