- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Another illegal alien sob story - takes sanctuary in a church
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:09 pm to Texas Weazel
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:09 pm to Texas Weazel
quote:
No. This was nothing more than a glorified international custody battle. At the end of the day, the father did have the right to custody and he wanted his child returned. The US complied (as they should have).
The rest of these are no more than glorified citizenship battles. Illegals are citizens of other countries not ours.
Even their so called "anchor babies" are also citizens of the countries their parents are.
Yes I know that "the fricked up reading of" the 14th amendment makes them also citizens of the US. An amendment that never intended to give citizenship to anyone but slaves and children of slaves.
They are still citizens of their parents countries and should leave with their parents.
If they are 18 or older than can stay but their parents need to go. I don't care if it "breaks up families. They should have thought of that when they came here illegally.
IOW frick the people who break in to our country.
This post was edited on 2/16/17 at 4:11 pm
0
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:13 pm to udtiger
She's in deep shite now!
Wait until the libtards demand the separation of church and state!
Wait until the libtards demand the separation of church and state!
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:13 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
That's not what most of us would consider a church.
That's what I thought when I heard the pastor on NPR this morning talking about faith.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:19 pm to udtiger
Honestly, I don't have a problem with illegals seeking sanctuary in houses of worship.
I would prefer that official policy would be to tell them that as long as they were on church property, ICE would be ordered not to attempt to apprehend them, but that if they willingly surrendered themselves to ICE agents there would be no "perp walk", no additional penalties, and that they would receive due process, like any other immigration offender. But they would be free to remain in their 'sanctuary' for as long as they wished without fear of a raid. And that the church itself would not be charged with any violation of Federal laws against harboring illegals immigrants.
That way, the religious institutions that wish to harbor said illegals would be solely responsible for their wellbeing. They would have to essentially take them on as permanent residents, providing them food, a place to sleep, and everything else necessary for them to live.
Let the congregation foot the bill, as it should. Those members who oppose doing so can lobby church leadership to drop their sanctuary policy, or they can vote with their feet and change churches.
But most importantly, the burden of providing for people who entered our nation unlawfully will no longer be foist upon the legal citizens.
I would prefer that official policy would be to tell them that as long as they were on church property, ICE would be ordered not to attempt to apprehend them, but that if they willingly surrendered themselves to ICE agents there would be no "perp walk", no additional penalties, and that they would receive due process, like any other immigration offender. But they would be free to remain in their 'sanctuary' for as long as they wished without fear of a raid. And that the church itself would not be charged with any violation of Federal laws against harboring illegals immigrants.
That way, the religious institutions that wish to harbor said illegals would be solely responsible for their wellbeing. They would have to essentially take them on as permanent residents, providing them food, a place to sleep, and everything else necessary for them to live.
Let the congregation foot the bill, as it should. Those members who oppose doing so can lobby church leadership to drop their sanctuary policy, or they can vote with their feet and change churches.
But most importantly, the burden of providing for people who entered our nation unlawfully will no longer be foist upon the legal citizens.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:30 pm to Champagne
quote:
Completely wrong. US law is very clear that the "best interests of the child" is paramount.
And that best interest is usually for the child's custody to go to his parents. Because his mom died, his maternal relatives tried to apply for asylum on his behalf as guardians. But because the father also wanted custody, the US determined that the custody should go to the father. And because only the father could apply for his asylum (which he didn't want to do), Elian was sent back.
Like I said, glorified international custody battle that the media spun because it was a ratings bonanza.
This post was edited on 2/16/17 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:35 pm to FearlessFreep
quote:
That way, the religious institutions that wish to harbor said illegals would be solely responsible for their wellbeing. They would have to essentially take them on as permanent residents, providing them food, a place to sleep, and everything else necessary for them to live.
Let the congregation foot the bill, as it should. Those members who oppose doing so can lobby church leadership to drop their sanctuary policy, or they can vote with their feet and change churches.
So assuming said church is a Christian Church, that would mean that members either have to act as good Christians and house those less fortunate or denounce Christianity and leave their church.
Not a good plan.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:36 pm to udtiger
quote:
Has been fighting to stay in the country for 8 years
He should have fought by doing it legally
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:36 pm to Texas Weazel
quote:
So assuming said church is a Christian Church, that would mean that members either have to act as good Christians and house those less fortunate or denounce Christianity and leave their church.
Not a good plan.
Sounds like a great plan
Posted on 2/16/17 at 4:51 pm to Fun Bunch
So, did ICE get the name of that church.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 7:08 pm to LSURulzSEC
quote:
ICE is not vampires, they can walk on Holy ground...march in there and drag their arse out...
Wait until about 50 more illegals catch on and go there thinking it's safe. Then, go get all of them.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 7:21 pm to udtiger
I hope they storm inside the church and drag her out screaming while her children wail watching their mother being taken away from them. Will be GREAT optics for Trump.
Posted on 2/16/17 at 7:21 pm to Texas Weazel
quote:
that would mean that members either have to act as good Christians and house those less fortunate or denounce Christianity and leave their church.
Just gonna ignore the whole "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" thingy huh?
Posted on 2/16/17 at 7:21 pm to Toddy
Toddy, you do realize trump is continuing obama's policy, right?
Posted on 2/16/17 at 7:45 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Funny how these stories are popping up now, I mean Obama did deport more illegals than any other president (one of the good things he did).
Posted on 2/16/17 at 8:22 pm to Aristo
Go to the church website that aint no church its a gotdamn cult.
Posted on 2/17/17 at 10:21 am to Texas Weazel
quote:If the church leadership decides that defying black-letter Federal law is part of their mission, I would think they would need complete buy-in from their congregants.
So assuming said church is a Christian Church, that would mean that members either have to act as good Christians and house those less fortunate or denounce Christianity and leave their church.
Not a good plan.
Ultimately, it's up to each individual to decide whether or not they believe their duties and responsibilities as Christians include providing sanctuary for those in violation of the laws of the nation.
I'm a member of a fairly liberal mainline Protestant church. We've had several members leave due to theological differences with our national leadership. Not one of them, to my knowledge, had to 'denounce Christianity' - they merely moved to other churches more in line with their beliefs, just as someone who disagreed with this church's policy towards sheltering undocumented people from Federal immigration enforcement could.
Not really sure where you came up with the idea that not agreeing with a church's sanctuary policy = denouncing Christianity. Are you implying that every self-professed Christian is required to behave according to a very specific set of behavioral guidelines? If so, can you provide a reference?
This post was edited on 2/17/17 at 10:31 am
Posted on 2/17/17 at 10:32 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
and that they would receive due process,
That's just it. She has already received due process. She was convicted of a felony and was under a deportation order (that was the result of a hearing). She's had all the process to which she was entitled.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News