and everyone should just take my word for it, right? and who are you that we should believe you?
just a guy with an opinion on a message board.
I believe most of what I said is easily reinforced by publicly available information. I suggest that everyone tries to stay informed - which, btw, is increasingly difficult with so many biased news sources on the right and left. To me the world seems very polarized at this point in time and it is becoming more and more difficult to find the middle way.
Plus there’s this from the Catechism…
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
Well, we all gain most of our knowledge anecdotally. That, in itself, doesn’t make us correct or incorrect. Even convincing commentaries or studies by “experts” are anecdotal, since there are always “experts” who take the negative side of nearly every subject.
You know the Mexicans you know, if you know any, and I know the ones I know. Until you present better evidence of the average Mexican’s view of money, enterprise, and such things as taxation, I do not stand corrected.
But if you know any, and most particularly if you do business with them, you would not seriously deny what I said.
I certainly acknowledge that many big business folks are government-lovers because they profit from government policies and sometimes direct those policies. But that’s not real “capitalism”. That’s government-aided oligopoly.
But it’s an interesting thing for you to have said. One of the reasons for the American Revolution was the granting of “patents” for business by the crown to favored bigwigs. If you didn’t have one, you couldn’t engage in the business, and wars were fought to defend or advance the interests of big, influential businesses. Perhaps one of the most amusing to me is the Brit navy serving a “grog ration” of rum to sailors. You see, the sugar plantations in the Brit west indies produced a surplus of molasses, a by-product of sugar production…
And of course Dems don’t say they want to keep Hispanics or any other minority “on the plantation”. It’s not something they would say. They just do.
Yes, Rose. Peace be with you also.
Interesting. Do you feel the Church should do the same with its condemnations of same sex marriage, euthanasia and abortion, or should the Church just shut its mouth on social justice issues when it involves money?
The things mentioned are intrinsic evils that are popular and being forcibly made legal. The issue of immigration is one of prudential decisions. They are really two different categories.
It’s pretty clear Francis doesn’t see things that way, and since the Church has long viewed part of its mission holding nations to task for the wrongs, you seem to want the Church to shut up more because you just don’t want to hear about climate change. Francis clearly views the Church’s role differently than you do.
I think climate change is a joke. I don’t want the Church to hitch its wagon to a joke. As for immigration and a general concern for our environment I agree there are Christian duties here. But practically speaking our borders have been flung open. Now if the Church wants to make a bold statement and say there should be no borders at all then I’m all for that. That is freedom of movement, which we more or less had at one time. But if it is going to say something nonsensical like there should be borders that are ignored and massive welfare states that take care of illegals then for the sake of humanity I wish they wouldn’t encourage insanity.
Apparently the Pope thinks your view is stupid.
As for immigration and a general concern for our environment I agree there are Christian duties here. But practically speaking our borders have been flung open. Now if the Church wants to make a bold statement and say there should be no borders at all then I’m all for that. That is freedom of movement, which we more or less had at one time. But if it is going to say something nonsensical like there should be borders that are ignored and massive welfare states that take care of illegals then for the sake of humanity I wish they wouldn’t encourage insanity.
People have been flooding into the United States via porous borders for over two hundred years. And really, even now, illegal immigrants make up a pretty small part of the burden of the welfare state. Now, if you just made them legal residents or even citizens, then they would be paying into social security and into the general tax base in a direct way
Well if so that wouldn’t be very nice. I’m not sure it is true though.
We didn’t have a welfare state back then and we had vast amounts of unsettled land. Illegals ain’t pioneering. I have no interest in making anyone pay more taxes. Social Security is a fraudulent system that will never be able to pay out its obligations. The simple and cost effective solution is to send them back.
Do you really think a Section 8 voucher is going to get you into the richest neighborhood in town?
If these illegals were made legal residents, they would start paying into general taxes, social security, state taxes, etc. And really, do you have some evidence that illegal immigrants are a significant cost to welfare programs?
No, but it will get you into neighborhoods full of people who think you don’t belong there and there is good reason for their skepticism. I grew up in southern California and can tell you that on the whole, Section 8 housing does more harm than good to the neighborhoods that are forced to host them. There’s a reason the richest neighborhoods like Beverly Hills et al don’t allow Section 8 at all; those fancy pants rich liberals don’t want these people for neighbors but they’re perfectly fine with foisting them on the rest of us.
In other remarks, it must be remembered that a common culture requires a common language. If there is more than one common language, such as in Switzerland, the citizens grow up speaking two or more languages fluently and then they are not that far apart culturally. Take enough immigrants who don’t assimilate sufficiently well enough, legal and illegal in a region that doesn’t mandate the native language and that region will inevitably diverge from the country it is in. It isn’t racist to say this, this has happened repeatedly in human history. A sufficiently large in-migration will change a host country every single time. The only question is the degree of that change. In the case of California, the trend will likely lead to independence for California by 2040 or so and the signs should become more and more obvious in the next decade.
In other words, a nation can tolerate some immigrants and easily retain its culture, but there is a point at which the natives will say enough. The 1924 Naturalization Act was a reaction to the massive waves of immigration that took place from the 1840’s to the 1900’s. The value of this Act was that it allowed for a breathing period in which it became possible for America to absorb those waves and integrate them into the American culture. With the 1965 liberalization of immigration, the pendulum has swung back again 50 years on, but with the big difference that the newest immigrants do not appear to assimilate as well as the previous ones did. Or at least they don’t in California. The state government there provides income tax customer service in 17 different languages and even allows the filing of certain tax forms in Spanish. Not to mention at least 15 different languages for printing election ballots. This doesn’t bode well for California’s future as a part of the USA, as I have mentioned above.
California is the sixth largest economy in the world. It seems, in general, to be doing as well as any highly populated jurisdiction in the industrialized world can.
I hope Calexit really does happen. The Democrats would basically be a regional party on the East Coast. Then we just need to implement the following steps.
Extend Trump’s wall through the new border.
Offer refugee status to whites and registered Republicans.
Wait a few decades for the People’s Republic of California to become a cesspool overridden by racial tension, crime. a socialist economy, and political correctness.
Declare a human rights crisis, annex the People’s Republic of California and incorporate them as a territory.
I rather like Herodotus’ definition which entails common descent, a common language, and common customs. Though with the current state of politics, perhaps this should be amended to include ideology as well.
You seem a bit obsessed with white people.
The Left is as well. The key difference is that I am pro-white.
Can you explain what “pro-white” means? Do you believe that whites need protection? Do you believe they are superior? Do you believe that the purity of whites should be protected? Do you believe non-whites should be kept away from whites?
Simply put, it means that I advocate for measures that are good for whites and in line with justice.
- Immediate end to affirmative action.
- End the anti-white propaganda that is being pushed by academia.
- Acknowledge the key role that whites have played in creating modern civilization and its essential concepts.
- Admit that diversity and multiculturalism are bunk.
Yes. Though all we really need is some sort of antidote to white guilt.
Superior to whom?
If this is a question about racemixing, that is not my cup of tea personally. Other individuals can do what they want. I would prefer any future children of mine to resemble me.
I do not believe in forced integration.