Trump signs order aimed at allowing churches to engage in more political activity

[bcking 3,157]

 

In the case of the Catholic church they're literally using funds giving assistance to people in the country illegally. And while I'm unsure of the legality of that itself, there's no doubt that their advocacy extends beyond what a church or organization in general exempt from taxes would normally have. I'm not suggesting in any way to pull their status or seize their funding, or even remove their exempt status (which I'm not 100% against either, just not advocating for it), but this topic for example with the left whining about churches utilizing speech for causes the left may not approve of just shows the lefts double standards.

The immigration status of a person should not matter for a church. The moment it does matter, that Church is no longer acting on Christian values and beliefs.

[IAMX 3,055]

 

The immigration status of a person should not matter for a church. The moment it does matter, that Church is no longer acting on Christian values and beliefs.

The church specifically targets illegals, and recently offered to shelter illegals from deportation (overtly saying Trump's illegal immigrant deportations).

 

They would suggest that what they're doing is a very Christian thing to do.

 

To me, I think suggesting other people are more or less Christian or whatever is strange, given this is all over fiction anyways.

 

Nonetheless, it's hypocritical because the Vatican (Pope) also targeted Trump and the border wall, criticizing walls, all while being behind the massive Vatican walls.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

 

The church specifically targets illegals, and recently offered to shelter illegals from deportation (overtly saying Trump's illegal immigrant deportations).

 

They would suggest that what they're doing is a very Christian thing to do.

 

To me, I think suggesting other people are more or less Christian or whatever is strange, given this is all over fiction anyways.

 

Nonetheless, it's hypocritical because the Vatican (Pope) also targeted Trump and the border wall, criticizing walls, all while being behind the massive Vatican walls.

I believe that it's ok for a church to say we will help you regardless of your status.  However sanctuary isn't my cup of tea 

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

The church specifically targets illegals, and recently offered to shelter illegals from deportation (overtly saying Trump's illegal immigrant deportations).

 

They would suggest that what they're doing is a very Christian thing to do.

 

To me, I think suggesting other people are more or less Christian or whatever is strange, given this is all over fiction anyways.

 

Nonetheless, it's hypocritical because the Vatican (Pope) also targeted Trump and the border wall, criticizing walls, all while being behind the massive Vatican walls.

i was raised by parents who believe the teachings of jesus. the church 'targets' illegals because it is their god given duty to assist those in need. it's really not a difficult concept to grasp. 

[IAMX 3,055]

 

I believe that it's ok for a church to say we will help you regardless of your status.  However sanctuary isn't my cup of tea 

While I can respect consistency, like what you said about helping people regardless of their status, I still think it's criminal to help illegals, and it's one of the things that puts me at odds with religion, when they put themselves in a position where they're helping people break the law, placing their beliefs above the Constitution. I can't respect that.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

 

While I can respect consistency, like what you said about helping people regardless of their status, I still think it's criminal to help illegals, and it's one of the things that puts me at odds with religion, when they put themselves in a position where they're helping people break the law, placing their beliefs above the Constitution. I can't respect that.

I see it more as don't ask don't tell.  They're going by the teachings of Jesus to look past the situation and care about the person.  If the Salvation Army or The Good Shepherd told an illegal immigrant sorry we can't help you I guarantee they'd see adversity over it

 

but I respect your opinion 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Transborderwife

[smilesammich 10,727]

i'd love to know who is doing more harm in this situation, ice or the church. what good comes from ripping a mother from her four children to uphold an immigration law? none that i can think of. the problem with tough deportation policy that looks back to remove those that have been here for years is that it negatively affects legal citizens. do you think any of these children are going to grow up with a positive sense of citizenship? hell no. america is going to be to blame for destroying their family and lives..

 

"Jeanette Vizguerra walked into a Colorado church on Wednesday — and into the forefront of a possible clash between Donald Trump and sanctuary churches across the country.

Vizguerra has lived in the U.S. since 1997. She has four children, three of them born here. Vizguerra was due to check in with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, she took sanctuary inside the First Unitarian Society of Denver.

"I did not make this decision lightly," Vizguerra said through an interpreter during a news conference at the church. "I was thinking about it for weeks. But I think that I made the right decision in coming here, instead of going to the immigration office today."

Vizguerra may be the first immigrant to seek sanctuary in a church since the Trump administration took office, but she likely won't be the last. Across the country, dozens of churches and other faith communities say they're preparing to offer sanctuary to immigrants who are in the country illegally.

Vizguerra pleaded guilty to using a fake ID in order to work in 2009. ICE officials say they've already granted her six stays of removal, and declined to issue another. That's when Vizguerra sought refuge in the church rather than face deportation to Mexico.

"It is our position as a people of faith that this is sacred, and faithful work," said the Rev. Mike Morran during the news conference at his church. "We know Jeanette. We know her to be an honorable human being."

But critics say the church is violating law.

"It is illegal for anyone to deliberately and knowingly shield an illegal alien from detection by federal authorities," says Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, a nonprofit organization that favors less immigration.

"Potentially these church leaders could be placing their parish at risk for prosecution and fines," Vaughan says. "I hope it won't come to that."

For years, it's been federal policy not to do immigration enforcement in churches and other "sensitive locations," such as schools, unless absolutely necessary. That was spelled out in a memo issued by ICE in 2011, under President Obama. The policy is still in place, for now.

"I think the administration thought it was prudent, politically and just aesthetically, to avoid rounding people up in places like hospitals or churches," says Richard Garnett, director of the program on Church, State and Society at the University of Notre Dame Law School."

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515510996/colorado-church-offers-immigrant-sanctuary-from-deportation

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

I see it more as don't ask don't tell.  They're going by the teachings of Jesus to look past the situation and care about the person.  If the Salvation Army or The Good Shepherd told an illegal immigrant sorry we can't help you I guarantee they'd see adversity over it

essentially the church would then be working more for ice than their morals. that sort of thing is always a bad sign..

[IAMX 3,055]

 

I see it more as don't ask don't tell.  They're going by the teachings of Jesus to look past the situation and care about the person.  If the Salvation Army or The Good Shepherd told an illegal immigrant sorry we can't help you I guarantee they'd see adversity over it

 

but I respect your opinion 

I respect yours too. My issue isn't with goodwill, I've known of these policies for years especially when I went the route of a K1 for my ex fiancée, contacted the diocese myself regarding a few questions on the K1 app, and they said their expertise is not with legal routes of immigrants.

 

Couple that with their recent sanctuary statements about protecting illegals from ICE and they've now earned my dislike and disgust. I would not feel bad if the dioceses found themselves in trouble with the law over these policies.  

 

As for the immigrants, if an immigrant, in the loosest definition, cannot respect the laws and customs of the country they move to they're a pretty worthless immigrant. 

 

I had enough respect to where I immigrated to to follow their laws and customs, to not suggest or push for changes toward American policies I liked such as Stand Your Ground, or the Castle Doctrine.  Part of being an immigrant is assimilating to and respecting the country you move to. That should be the minimum basis. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

 

I respect yours too. My issue isn't with goodwill, I've known of these policies for years especially when I went the route of a K1 for my ex fiancée, contacted the diocese myself regarding a few questions on the K1 app, and they said their expertise is not with legal routes of immigrants.

 

Couple that with their recent sanctuary statements about protecting illegals from ICE and they've now earned my dislike and disgust. I would not feel bad if the dioceses found themselves in trouble with the law over these policies.  

 

As for the immigrants, if an immigrant, in the loosest definition, cannot respect the laws and customs of the country they move to they're a pretty worthless immigrant. 

 

I had enough respect to where I immigrated to to follow their laws and customs, to not suggest or push for changes toward American policies I liked such as Stand Your Ground, or the Castle Doctrine.  Part of being an immigrant is assimilating to and respecting the country you move to. That should be the minimum basis. 

A large part of me agrees with you, since I recently went through the legal process with my wife. It took a lot longer for us to follow the rules, despite even a lawyer recommending she just overstay her visa back in August and then apply for status. His comment was even though we would be breaking the law, we would be together sooner and she would likely have gained status sooner as well. Neither one of us feel comfortable with that. I feel very strongly about upholding the social contract you make with a society, and if our society has regulations on who can immigrate I believe in respecting those. I don't agree with people who come here illegally and I agree they are "criminals" in the literal sense. Minors I excuse because they had no choice.

 

That being said, while I don't work for a church I work in an institution that acts somewhat similarly to a church when it comes to illegal immigrants. I have a lot of patients who are illegal immigrants (Well their parents are, my actual patients are always citizens since I work with newborns). Social work does ask, but we don't report it. It's not our duty. Our duty is to provide them care and support and where they come from doesn't impact that. Furthermore if we did start reporting them, people would be less likely to show up at our door when they need us. They would in turn suffer more because they were afraid that they would be judged in a moment where what they need is care and support.

 

I see a Church in a similar light. The whole reason religion exists is to provide people with love, support and community. They exist beyond nations. Christianity specifically was founded on the beliefs of charity, sacrifice and helping the most unfortunate. It was also founded on forgiveness, so even if "illegals" are breaking a law, a Church should not judge them. Their duty to the community is to help and care for those who need and ask for it. If they started reporting illegal immigrants then other people wouldn't look towards them for assistance, and they would have a much harder time in their mission.

 

The idea of a Church specifically "targetting" illegal immigrants is a little bit weirder to me, but I also think it rather makes sense if you assume that illegal immigrants are going to be some of the highest risk people in terms of needing support (shelter, food etc...). I don't know of any Churchs who ONLY help illegal immigrants though. So as long as they are providing their services to anyone who comes looking for it, I don't see a reason if they think they are best able to find those most in need if they specifically look for a certain group of people. Many churchs also have "outreach" for people suffering from drug addiction, alcoholism and other high risk groups.

 

Bottom line while I think some services have the right and/or obligation to report illegal immigrants, I don't think Churches or Hospitals should ever be included in those.

[smilesammich 10,727]

i've always felt that doing immigration the right way was more about personal piece of mind. who wants to be 'illegal' and in constant peril of losing everything? not many. 

although the simple fact that we did things the legal way, doesn't put us in a position to judge those who did not - especially those who were brought here as children through no fault of there own.

[Transborderwife 4,666]

 

i've always felt that doing immigration the right way was more about personal piece of mind. who wants to be 'illegal' and in constant peril of losing everything? not many. 

although the simple fact that we did things the legal way, doesn't put us in a position to judge those who did not - especially those who were brought here as children through no fault of there own.

I always seem to see it as a high horse people sit on.  Cr1s look down on k1s sometimes, Both look down on AOS from visas, high fraud countries look down on those who have an easy time, the Philippines takes a lot of abuse etc

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

I always seem to see it as a high horse people sit on.  Cr1s look down on k1s sometimes, Both look down on AOS from visas, high fraud countries look down on those who have an easy time, the Philippines takes a lot of abuse etc

i always think back to when we were going through the k1 and the haiti earthquake happened. the sheer number of people who had zero qualms about publicly vocalizing their jealousy that destitute haitians that  had lost everything, including family, and even orphaned children were going to get processed before them was sickening.

[bcking 3,157]

 

I always seem to see it as a high horse people sit on.  Cr1s look down on k1s sometimes, Both look down on AOS from visas, high fraud countries look down on those who have an easy time, the Philippines takes a lot of abuse etc

For us it isn't "looking down" as much as it is feeling a little bit of jealousy.

 

Of course we would always want to prioritize refugees etc... but I still think it is crazy how much quicker the processing is for couples who both live abroad and can therefore do "Direct Consular Filing". That is the hardest one, in my opinion. That couple is already living together, they are already residents in another country and yet their application process takes like 2 months or less. They then get to move together to the USA. I realize it isn't because they are "ahead" in the queue, it is merely because the consulates process their applications quicker and it removes the "middle men" at the NVC.

 

Oh also jealous of people from countries that get to file electronically. Also a seemingly arbitrary thing that cuts down processing times substantially. In general I am just jealous of people who have to deal with the NVC less. I have no respect for the NVC.

 

K-1 is something that looking back we have both wondered if maybe we should have done it that way, but honestly there are negatives to the K-1 process as well. Doesn't mean we aren't jealous that the time apart is shorter, we are humans who are in love, can't help it .

Edited May 5, 2017 by bcking

[Transborderwife 4,666]

 

For us it isn't "looking down" as much as it is feeling a little bit of jealousy.

 

Of course we would always want to prioritize refugees etc... but I still think it is crazy how much quicker the processing is for couples who both live abroad and can therefore do "Direct Consular Filing". That is the hardest one, in my opinion. That couple is already living together, they are already residents in another country and yet their application process takes like 2 months or less. They then get to move together to the USA. I realize it isn't because they are "ahead" in the queue, it is merely because the consulates process their applications quicker and it removes the "middle men" at the NVC.

 

K-1 is something that looking back we have both wondered if maybe we should have done it that way, but honestly there are negatives to the K-1 process as well. Doesn't mean we aren't jealous that the time apart is shorter, we are humans who are in love, can't help it .

Yeah I see what you're saying but often on here it seems to be "we did things the right way" or "there's so much fraud coming from the Philippines why are they faster?" Etc

 

ill be honest, I don't really like the k1 but it serves a purpose