The Next Phase of Immigration Reform

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Texans on southern border vow to fight Trump's efforts to take their homes for border wall [In-Depth]

A swing sits in the backyard of Salvador Castillo and Yvette Arroyo's home next to the Rio Grande levee in Brownsville, Texas. (Photo by Brenda Bazan for The Washington Post)


[...]

President Donald Trump aims to build 166 miles of border barrier in Texas, almost all of it slated to go on private land that the government has yet to acquire -- thousands of parcels along the river, an unknown number of them occupied by their owners, including churches and single-family homes. No new border wall has been built on private land in Texas since the president took office, but land acquisition in the Rio Grande Valley is about to enter a new phase this week, as U.S. attorneys began filing initial petitions in court while making cash offers to property owners, according to Justice Department officials with knowledge of the process.

On Friday, the federal government filed its first land acquisition case to condemn nearly 13 acres of private property in the Rio Grande Valley, a parcel near the river levee in Hidalgo County. The owner was offered $93,449 in compensation for the land.

As the government pushes to accelerate construction of what Trump has promised will be a total of 500 miles of new barrier by the end of 2020, it is families like the Castillos, Trevinos and Carrascos that are in the way. Building a wall means more than cutting through desolate desert, grassy ranchlands, shrubby wildlife preserves or old vacant lots -- it also means seizing land from working families.

The fight that likely will ensue pits Texans against Trump, who has long said he wants to take whatever land he needs to build his signature promise to America. Landowners, including some who support Trump, are preparing a legal fight that could stall the wall-building effort and lead to years-long court battles over private land rights, family homes and what the Trump administration deems a critical national security issue.

[...]

The letters landowners have been receiving are the first step in what can be a contentious process, with the government seeking "right of entry" to conduct surveys on the properties and unfettered access for 12 to 18 months. Most landowners consent at first contact and eventually sell, according to attorneys familiar with the eminent domain process.

A growing number of South Texans have not signed those letters and are facing federal lawsuits seeking access to their land. Some said in interviews they have refused to sign because they have concerns about the process or oppose the border wall project.

[...]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

That has definitely been a problem here with the wall--many people own land which goes all the way to the river's edge and they don't necessarily want to sell. These landowners will probably wind up being screwed by eminent domain, which is really just legal theft by the government. I know they give you fair market value but it is still stealing--what would you call it if I tell you "I am buying your car from you, here is a check for its value, and these guys with guns are here to make sure you agree to the deal"?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's not so much defending as it is responding to this huge paint brush you use to paint with, especially as it pertains to religion. I get it, you are virulently opposed to religion, and seem to hold that religion should not be in the public purview.

Ah, well there's part of the problem. You don't understand my position towards religion. I have no issue with religion in the public purview whatsoever. I take issue with an organization that relies on government handouts aiding and abetting law breakers.

However, the church (little 'c') should always participate in civil disobedience against law that are patently unjust. Discrimination because of color and religion, slavery, etc. though perhaps legal at some stage, should have been opposed even more vigorously than they were by the church. It should have protested hugely against the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and I imagine a few did, but all of them should have.

I agree with you 100%. However the government does not have to exempt them from paying taxes if they're aiding and abetting crimes against the people, of which the government is an extension. The principled stand would be to do the right thing even though they're aware that it's going to cost them. You know, sort of like someone decided to do in Gethsemane....

Are you trying to convince me that all laws are right and just and should never be opposed?

Absolutely not. I'm trying to convince you that you should do the right thing.

I am not a great fan of religion, myself--don't tell Ms. Lebwohl I said that--because historically they have done so much more harm than good. All the philanthropic work the catholic church has done in the last two or three centuries is a good start towards making up for the 1200 years before that, when they littered the Earth with corpses and rivers ran thick with blood, all in the name of God.

We should all engage in civil disobedience against unjust laws. Fortunately, we don't have many of those any more--this is 2019, not 1959. The people protesting immigration laws are not protesting unjust laws; instead, they are pushing an agenda whose ultimate goal is "if you can set foot in the United States then you get a free ride and the right to vote so you can give yourself even more free stuff". Now that I think about it that is rather ironic--in decades past unrestricted and unethical capitalists who thought only about this quarter's bottom line sucked the value out of many places and now people are flooding here to suck all the value out of us.

Well put Hashi.

[Rawedge Rim]

It's not so much defending as it is responding to this huge paint brush you use to paint with, especially as it pertains to religion. I get it, you are virulently opposed to religion, and seem to hold that religion should not be in the public purview.

Ah, well there's part of the problem. You don't understand my position towards religion. I have no issue with religion in the public purview whatsoever. I take issue with an organization that relies on government handouts aiding and abetting law breakers.

However, the church (little 'c') should always participate in civil disobedience against law that are patently unjust. Discrimination because of color and religion, slavery, etc. though perhaps legal at some stage, should have been opposed even more vigorously than they were by the church. It should have protested hugely against the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and I imagine a few did, but all of them should have.

I agree with you 100%. However the government does not have to exempt them from paying taxes if they're aiding and abetting crimes against the people, of which the government is an extension. The principled stand would be to do the right thing even though they're aware that it's going to cost them. You know, sort of like someone decided to do in Gethsemane....

Gotta be carefull, your point would have all church's in the US to lose thier tax exemption because they oppose things the government wants the church's to approve of, such as abortion, same sex marriage, the Seal of the Confessional, etc.

[Rawedge Rim]

I am not a great fan of religion, myself--don't tell Ms. Lebwohl I said that--because historically they have done so much more harm than good. All the philanthropic work the catholic church has done in the last two or three centuries is a good start towards making up for the 1200 years before that, when they littered the Earth with corpses and rivers ran thick with blood, all in the name of God.

We should all engage in civil disobedience against unjust laws. Fortunately, we don't have many of those any more--this is 2019, not 1959. The people protesting immigration laws are not protesting unjust laws; instead, they are pushing an agenda whose ultimate goal is "if you can set foot in the United States then you get a free ride and the right to vote so you can give yourself even more free stuff". Now that I think about it that is rather ironic--in decades past unrestricted and unethical capitalists who thought only about this quarter's bottom line sucked the value out of many places and now people are flooding here to suck all the value out of us.

You are gonna have to show me an unbiased source for the "littered earth and the rivers red with blood" charge against the Church. Most I've seen is perhaps a few thousand in several centuries, as opposed to just a few years during the 100 years war in Europe, and Lord knows we won't talk about WWI and WWII, none of which had a thing to do with religion.

As for immigration, I've voiced my opinion in opposition to unrestricted immigration many times. There are some things I think the US government is encouraging others to do to discourage illegal entry into the States that I think are wrong, but that's a long way from supporting open borders.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

It's not so much defending as it is responding to this huge paint brush you use to paint with, especially as it pertains to religion. I get it, you are virulently opposed to religion, and seem to hold that religion should not be in the public purview.

Ah, well there's part of the problem. You don't understand my position towards religion. I have no issue with religion in the public purview whatsoever. I take issue with an organization that relies on government handouts aiding and abetting law breakers.

However, the church (little 'c') should always participate in civil disobedience against law that are patently unjust. Discrimination because of color and religion, slavery, etc. though perhaps legal at some stage, should have been opposed even more vigorously than they were by the church. It should have protested hugely against the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII, and I imagine a few did, but all of them should have.

I agree with you 100%. However the government does not have to exempt them from paying taxes if they're aiding and abetting crimes against the people, of which the government is an extension. The principled stand would be to do the right thing even though they're aware that it's going to cost them. You know, sort of like someone decided to do in Gethsemane....

Gotta be carefull, your point would have all church's in the US to lose thier tax exemption because they oppose things the government wants the church's to approve of, such as abortion, same sex marriage, the Seal of the Confessional, etc.

None of those things have anything to do with the law.

Disapproving of abortion is not the same thing as actively protecting and encouraging illegal aliens to remain within the country. Not performing same-sex marriages is not the same as harboring fugitives.

If you want the government handout, you have to play by the government's rules. This is why libertarians and small-government conservatives disagree with the government being involved in everything. Stop taking the candy, then you don't have to get in the van.

[Rawedge Rim]

Ah, well there's part of the problem. You don't understand my position towards religion. I have no issue with religion in the public purview whatsoever. I take issue with an organization that relies on government handouts aiding and abetting law breakers.
I agree with you 100%. However the government does not have to exempt them from paying taxes if they're aiding and abetting crimes against the people, of which the government is an extension. The principled stand would be to do the right thing even though they're aware that it's going to cost them. You know, sort of like someone decided to do in Gethsemane....

Gotta be carefull, your point would have all church's in the US to lose thier tax exemption because they oppose things the government wants the church's to approve of, such as abortion, same sex marriage, the Seal of the Confessional, etc.

None of those things have anything to do with the law.

Disapproving of abortion is not the same thing as actively protecting and encouraging illegal aliens to remain within the country. Not performing same-sex marriages is not the same as harboring fugitives.

If you want the government handout, you have to play by the government's rules. This is why libertarians and small-government conservatives disagree with the government being involved in everything. Stop taking the candy, then you don't have to get in the van.

Think so....then why does refusal to bake a cake get you to the SCOTUS? Or for that matter refusing to place orphans in the homes with same sex partners?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Gotta be carefull, your point would have all church's in the US to lose thier tax exemption because they oppose things the government wants the church's to approve of, such as abortion, same sex marriage, the Seal of the Confessional, etc.

None of those things have anything to do with the law.

Disapproving of abortion is not the same thing as actively protecting and encouraging illegal aliens to remain within the country. Not performing same-sex marriages is not the same as harboring fugitives.

If you want the government handout, you have to play by the government's rules. This is why libertarians and small-government conservatives disagree with the government being involved in everything. Stop taking the candy, then you don't have to get in the van.

Think so....then why does refusal to bake a cake get you to the SCOTUS? Or for that matter refusing to place orphans in the homes with same sex partners?

I'm not sure what this means or what point you're trying to make.

Churches take a handout from the government. As such, they're forbidden from doing certain things like campaigning. It also means that they have to play by the government's rules if they want to continue to get their handout. The second any church (yours or otherwise) wants to take a principled stand on a law that they feel is unjust, they can forego the handout and act as they please.

Put in personal terms, I'm giving you money on the condition that you don't act against me. You start interfering with my business, then I stop giving you money. That's the arrangement that churches have with the government, and the churches are free to end the arrangement at any time.

[Rawedge Rim]

None of those things have anything to do with the law.

Disapproving of abortion is not the same thing as actively protecting and encouraging illegal aliens to remain within the country. Not performing same-sex marriages is not the same as harboring fugitives.

If you want the government handout, you have to play by the government's rules. This is why libertarians and small-government conservatives disagree with the government being involved in everything. Stop taking the candy, then you don't have to get in the van.

Think so....then why does refusal to bake a cake get you to the SCOTUS? Or for that matter refusing to place orphans in the homes with same sex partners?

I'm not sure what this means or what point you're trying to make.

Churches take a handout from the government. As such, they're forbidden from doing certain things like campaigning. It also means that they have to play by the government's rules if they want to continue to get their handout. The second any church (yours or otherwise) wants to take a principled stand on a law that they feel is unjust, they can forego the handout and act as they please.

Put in personal terms, I'm giving you money on the condition that you don't act against me. You start interfering with my business, then I stop giving you money. That's the arrangement that churches have with the government, and the churches are free to end the arrangement at any time.

probably wrong thread for this discussion, but in answer, I'll ask.....what handout? Oh the one where if the government doesn't tax the Church the Church will stay out of politics for the most part? And in return the State won't interfere with the Church in regards to religion?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Churches take a handout from the government. As such, they're forbidden from doing certain things like campaigning.

How does Robert Jeffress get away with essentially being the President's personal preacher, I wonder? That isn't "campaigning" but I am pretty certain that Jeffress politicizes from the pulpit every Sunday.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Think so....then why does refusal to bake a cake get you to the SCOTUS? Or for that matter refusing to place orphans in the homes with same sex partners?

I'm not sure what this means or what point you're trying to make.

Churches take a handout from the government. As such, they're forbidden from doing certain things like campaigning. It also means that they have to play by the government's rules if they want to continue to get their handout. The second any church (yours or otherwise) wants to take a principled stand on a law that they feel is unjust, they can forego the handout and act as they please.

Put in personal terms, I'm giving you money on the condition that you don't act against me. You start interfering with my business, then I stop giving you money. That's the arrangement that churches have with the government, and the churches are free to end the arrangement at any time.

probably wrong thread for this discussion, but in answer, I'll ask.....what handout? Oh the one where if the government doesn't tax the Church the Church will stay out of politics for the most part? And in return the State won't interfere with the Church in regards to religion?

Yes, the tax exemption. That's a rather big deal.

Churches take a handout from the government. As such, they're forbidden from doing certain things like campaigning.

How does Robert Jeffress get away with essentially being the President's personal preacher, I wonder? That isn't "campaigning" but I am pretty certain that Jeffress politicizes from the pulpit every Sunday.

That's a good question. As far as I'm concerned he's over the line.

[Gaius Octavius]

[SoulBiter]

I'm good with the Churches being taxed and thus being allowed to get more involved in politics (Which means more lobbying) and being able to say who they think you should support from the pulpit.

I suspect however that there are many that would balk at organized religion being able to organize in politics.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Gaius Octavius]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white- ... nstruction

[Fist and Faith]

It's Hammer Time!!!

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+


Jesuit News @jesuitnews | Twitter [Video: 2 min]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

Pope meets new arrivals in Rome, says helping migrants is moral duty

Pope Francis blesses a cross featuring a refugee's life vest during a meeting with recently arrived refugees from the Greek island of Lesbos at the Vatican Dec. 19, 2019. The pope met 33 refugees and migrants who had arrived in Rome two weeks ago. (CNS/Stefano Dal Pozzolo)


Vatican City -- Before blessing a large resin cross constructed around a used orange life vest, Pope Francis insisted human beings have a "binding" moral obligation to save those whose lives are threatened, including the lives of migrants and refugees.

"We must rescue and save because we are all responsible for the lives of our neighbor and the Lord will ask us to account for them at the moment of judgment," the pope said Dec. 19 as he met 33 migrants and refugees brought to Rome two weeks earlier by Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, the papal almoner.

The group, which included 14 children and teens, arrived in Rome from the Greek island of Lesbos Dec. 4. Most were originally from Afghanistan, but there also was a woman from Togo and a young mother and her 3-month-old baby from Cameroon. The group included both Christians and Muslims.

The life vest in the center of the cross, which the pope blessed and had hung in an alcove by the guest elevators in the Apostolic Palace, was picked up by a migrant rescue organization in the central Mediterranean Sea July 3, 2019. A small plaque below the cross gives the date along with the GPS coordinates of where it was recovered.

Francis said he wanted the jacket to be part of a cross because the cross symbolizes both suffering and redemption through the triumph of Jesus. "The unknown migrant, who died hoping for a new life, participates in this victory," the pope said.

[...]

No one knows who the life vest in the cross belonged to, he said. "We are facing another death caused by injustice. Yes, because it is injustice that forces many migrants to leave their homelands. It is injustice that obliges them to cross deserts and endure abuse and torture in detention camps. It's injustice that rejects them and makes them die at sea."

Francis said he wanted to display the life vest "'crucified' on the cross to remind us that we must keep our eyes open, keep our hearts open and to remind everyone of the binding obligation to save every human life, a moral obligation that unites believers and nonbelievers."

"How can we not hear the desperate cry of our brothers and sisters who prefer facing a stormy sea rather than dying slowly in Libyan detention camps, places of torture and despicable slavery?" the pope asked.

Francis called for the closure of all detention camps in Libya, where many of the migrants and refugees attempting to reach Europe are held for a time.

And, he said, "we must set aside economic interests because at the center must be the person, every person whose life and dignity are precious in God's eyes."

[...]

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+


Jesuit News @jesuitnews | Twitter

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+


Refugee Council USA @RCUSA_DC | Twitter

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Apparently there is another migrant caravan forming in Honduras and beginning to head north. What does that really mean? It means that cartels are going to have a new crop of people to traffick or conscript in about 3 months.

How many of them are going to sell their own children to pay for a coyote? How many of them are going to steal or share children in an attempt to pretend to be trying to seek asylum with a family?