Islam is poison
Did this guy give a whole talk without realizing the 4th horse is 'pale', not 'green'?!?
No Human is Illegal
You have two arguments, and they seem to be based on contradictory principles.
First, the US gov't promotes 'illegal' immigration, therefore it is actually legal. This implies that if the gov't did not promote it, it would be illegal. Therefore there COULD BE such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
Second, an immigrant is a human, and 'no human is illegal', therefore there could NOT be such a thing as an illegal immigrant.
I don't know what promotion of illegal immigration you are speaking, so I won't try to address that. My original point was that the statement, 'No human is illegal,' is weird. This is because it obfuscates what is actually being said. When I asked if 'human' refers to man's 'essence', you said yes. That means we have the statement. 'No human nature/essence is illegal.' That would mean the opposite is true as well. 'Every human nature/essence is legal.' What do those statements even mean? How can you take an abstract thing and predicate a particular relation to it? You might as well say 'No human nature is small.' If in the statement, 'no human is illegal', the word 'human' refers to a concrete human being, then to say 'no human being is illegal, i.e., has the status of being in contravention with the law', then it is clearly false. The criminal is a human being, and he has a status which is in contravention with the law. One doesn't say the 'criminal is illegal', because the very word criminal implies this status. The word immigrant does not imply illegality, that is why one distinguishes between the two, the legal or illegal immigrant.
Whether deliberately or not, you further blur the question by saying 'it is not a crime for an alien to remain in the country'. The question is not the 'remaining' but the 'coming into' the country illegally. The first point on the link you posted is that coming into the country illegally IS a crime. To say 'remaining' is not a crime, is like saying for a murderer to go shopping is not a crime, so why is he being arrested? He's not being arrested for shopping, he's being arrested for the murder. That is the act which put him in contravention of the law. To close, I will say that I agree that we are moving towards a police-state. But I don't think that comes from the current work of ICE or Trump. I think it is rather the agenda of the radicals on the Left.
No Human is Illegal
??? wierd. 'Illegal' means contrary to the law. Are you suggesting that MAGA is claiming that a 'human is illegal' according to their very essence??? very wierd post. It is not a crime in the sense of being a felony, but in the sense of being at contradiction with the law of the land, it certainly is. That's why it allows for deporation. You're position is simply that a gov't is not allowed to enforce immigration law; which necessarily presupposes that it is immoral for a gov't to have immigration law. Most people would disagree. Btw, careful about locking your own home or car... that might be considered domestic immigration law. :-)
Unthinkable Before Amoris Laetitia – Leo XIV Received Divorced Remarried British Royals
"According to Catholic teaching, a marriage is only legal and binding from The Sacrament of Marriage by a Catholic Priest." This is false. Old Code c.1099; New Code 1117. The Church's positive law is not binding on non-Catholics.
ICE Does it Again
So a few bad apples among ICE... what's the conclusion? Destroy immigration enforcement? and promote the woke agenda? Are you reproaching one ICE officer, or do you think the enforcement of immigration laws is evil?
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF 1. I agree with the example: avoid him, but this is not a denial of his jurisdiction 2. To say that the pope denies a Catholic doctrine can be a statement of fact; to say that it is formal heresy requires knowledge of the state of his soul or authority over him to demand an account of his actions (neither of which you have). 3. 'Jump' to sedevacantism? It's the logical consequence of your principles (and embracing irony, you then immediately say/imply Bergoglio is not the pope). 4. There is no straw man argument. I simply applied your principles (from #2) that each person can decide for himself who is pope. There is no way back to a 'Catholic Church' under such a Protestant principle. 5. I'm not defending his heresies; I'm defending the primacy of the papacy because it is one of Our Lord's teachings. I didn't speak on the Eucharist because I was replying to your comments on a different topic. However, I think it unlikely that we will change one another's minds, so I close here and wish you God's grace and blessing.
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF So your response is to restate your personal interpretation without answering the objection? And if the an automatically excommunicated bishop were exercising his authority from some other location than the episcopal palace (where his office premises are), then we could assume there would be no formal declaration?!?! (because he's already off the physical premises?). Absurd! As for St Robert Bellarmine, I do agree with his opinion, but he would never have taught that manifest heresy is to be decided by the opinion of any and every Catholic in the world. Let's face it, sedevacantism may be referred to as a whole, but in fact it is a multiplicity of singulars. If a conservative pope were to be elected, what must happen? - every single sedevacantist would need to judge for himself whether he thought he was conservative enough, Catholic enough, etc. Every single sedevacantist is a Law unto himself. Sedevacantism is very close to Protestantism. It's one thing to say "I won't obey my boss's evil commands"; it's quite another to say "My boss is no longer in charge; and no one will be in charge again unless I say it's ok."
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF I am afraid that you have simply imposed your own interpretation on the text. I don't think you'll find any classic commentary on Canon Law that supports such an understanding. A person can be obliged (or forbidden) in conscience to act, and yet not obliged in conscience to denounce himself. A thief is morally bound to return stolen goods; he is not bound to put himself in prison. However, once a judge declares the sentence; then he is bound to go to prison. This is not exaclty the same, but has a similarity. One under latae sententiae excommunication is morally bound in conscience not to exercise his office, however, if by so doing he would incriminate himself, this obligation is suspended until it is 'imposed' by formal declaration. Otherwise, the delay allowed by certain canons in such matters is simply a canonical statement: "Allow him to stay on the premises for a while, even though there is no obligation to follow his orders.", which is absurd. (cf 1347 and 1352). @Mária D Angelos. I'm not a canonist, but curious why it should just be my qualifications in question, and not those of the one with whom you agree...
Why won't Bishop Schneider see that a heretic can't be Pope? - LifeSite
@PNF Canon 194 requires declaratory sentence to remove person 'physically from the premises'?! It speaks of removing a heretic from ecclesiastical office, and you interpret that as a 'physical office'? It is a question of jurisdiction: The declaratory sentence is required to prevent precisely what you are trying to justify, namely that a subordinate decide who his superior is.
EXCLUSIVE: 4 million babies victimized by IVF every year, says pro-family activist Katy Faust - LifeSite
This is false. Voting for the "lesser of two evils" does not make one a participant in that evil. Lesser of two evils is simply an expression that most people understand to mean that one is voting for the good that is involved in limiting a greater evil. In other words, one is choosing a good. Omission is also a sin; by your logic, not voting against the greater evil makes you a material participant in that evil by ommission.
Bishop Destroys Thriving Parish, Then Offers Consolation Prize
@philosopher. Correction: Archbishop Lefebvre never said the Novus Ordo Mass.