The News & Topicality Thread

[Hovannes]

One of my former employers gets sued
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/calif ... d=msedgntp&
It's about time.

[Del]

One of my former employers gets sued
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/calif ... d=msedgntp&
It's about time.

Teachers must also prove in performance evaluations that they respect and acknowledge students of diverse backgrounds.

Used to be that a good professor could respect all of his students, offer generous office hours for students who need help, and grade them fairly. That was good enough.

But now, they have to prove that they care differently for each identity group (which is racism, by definition). And if they don't write it up just so, they will be disciplined adversely.

Daily Wire reports more about this story:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/californ ... quirements

“I’m a professor of chemistry. How am I supposed to incorporate DEI into my classroom instruction?” said Reedley College professor Bill Blanken. “What’s the ‘anti-racist’ perspective on the atomic mass of boron?”

.....

Under the guidelines, professors must develop “knowledge of the intersectionality of social identities and the multiple axes of oppression that people from different racial, ethnic, and other minoritized groups face.” Professors are also directed to teach using a “collectivism perspective” and “social justice lens,” according to the lawsuit.

“These regulations are a totalitarian triple-whammy,” said FIRE attorney Daniel Ortner. “The government is forcing professors to teach and preach a politicized viewpoint they do not share, imposing incomprehensible guidelines, and threatening to punish professors when they cross an arbitrary, indiscernible line.”

I don't think this lawsuit is going to settle soon enough to sustain the careers of these brave professors. They are suing the State of California, who will fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

They are suing California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian, the State Board of Governors, and State Center Community College.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

It's really just that simple.

You probably have a point here, but your writing style makes is very difficult to comprehend. I used to read government regulations for a living, so I can unwind incomprehensible prose. But you are over my head.

You know my thoughts on migration and asylum: …

[…]

We need Trump's policy of "a big, beautiful wall with a big, wide door."

Then let's take this slowly and try to distill things down to the basics:

It really doesn't matter how big or how wide the "door" is, unless those who break-in through the "window" are also afforded their Due Process before any potential deportation proceedings.

If not — if the policy purposes to deny Due Process to "invaders" or "criminals" or "window-breakers" — then the "Big, Wide Door" rhetoric associated with such policy is the migration-world's equivalent to the abortion-world's "Safe, Legal & Rare" rhetoric.

• To put a point on it: It's not good enough that very many Migrants are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Door any more than it's good enough that very many Babies are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Womb.

So given that Trump-era policy was purposed to deny Due Process to illegals (and I think it's pretty-much inarguable that it was so-purposed) any desire to return to Trump-era policy must be a desire to return to a crucially qualified or modified Trump-era policy. That is, if it wants to conform to nonnegotiable Catholic ethical demands.

That about sums up the basic lesson.

[Del]

It really doesn't matter how big or how wide the "door" is, unless those who break-in through the "window" are also afforded their Due Process before any potential deportation proceedings.

yes, that is the point. Apply for immigration or asylum before entry, or at least present oneself at point of entry and ask for asylum. The point is that we deserve to know who we are allowing in.

• To put a point on it: It's not good enough that very many Migrants are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Door any more than it's good enough that very many Babies are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Womb.

That's just silly. The right to life is inalienable.

The right to migration must be balanced with the duty to control our borders and keep our people safe from drugs, terrorists, and child sex traffickers who abuse our undefended border.

So given that Trump-era policy was purposed to deny Due Process to illegals (and I think it's pretty-much inarguable that it was so-purposed)

False. That is exactly the point that is being argued. We want Due Process evaluation, and we need legal entry to provide it.

Trump policy was not "deport everyone." He deported roughly the same rate as Obama did. (I'm not clear on whether Obama was more or less.) Only difference was that media said Trump was "racist."

Trump's policy was to defend the border and welcome migrants through recognized points of entry, so we know who is here. Then they could enjoy Due Process and also work legally.

any desire to return to Trump-era policy must be a desire to return to a crucially qualified or modified Trump-era policy. That is, if it wants to conform to nonnegotiable Catholic ethical demands.

Your notion of "non-negotiable Catholic ethical demands" is one-side.
Catholic teaching is always "both/and." We have both a duty to welcome migrants, and a duty to maintain our borders and defend our people.

Biden neither welcomes migrants with Due Process, nor does he defend our borders. Thus causing a crisis of suffering.

Texas is left to defend its border (encouraging migrants to enter legally), and Catholic Charities to welcome migrants. These are suitable Catholic works.

Two Truths:

1) Trump-era policy could be improved. Trump did the best he could, given that neither Democrats nor Republicans were willing to work with him on just, moral immigration reform.

2) But even Trump-era policy, with all of its flaws, was far more responsible and humane than the humanitarian crisis that Biden's policy has afflicted upon both migrants and residents. For love of the unfortunate migrants, you have to at least acknowledge this before you hate on Trump.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

• To put a point on it: It's not good enough that very many Migrants are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Door any more than it's good enough that very many Babies are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Womb.

That's just silly. The right to life is inalienable.

The right to migration must be balanced with the duty to control our borders and keep our people safe from drugs, terrorists, and child sex traffickers who abuse our undefended border.

[…]

The Right to Migrate is similarly inalienable.

"Inalienable" does not mean "automatically steamrollers any competing Rights".

Rather, "Inalienable" means that said Right is Prepolitical (i.e. not bestowed, but only secured, by the State). It is bestowed by Nature or Nature's God. The gift of Land is titled in the Universal Destination of Goods, thus the Right to Migrate is "founded in the very nature of land (Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia)."

So, it must be stressed that Inalienable Rights can still collide. For example, the Rights of the Baby can collide with the Rights of the Mother (which is exactly why "indirect abortions" are morally admissible), If said Rights were unable to collide, a Mother couldn't even take a gravely needful diabetes medication if said med were to endanger, even indirectly, the life of the Baby.

As a consequence, the Right to Migrate is still perfectly capable of colliding with the Right of a Nation to Control its Borders. The inalienability of the Right to Migrate does not mean that the Migrant automatically steamrollers its way over any competing Rights of the Nation. The Nation is not helpless before a tide of Marching Migrants (just as the Nation does not hold all the cards whilst the Migrant is Oliver Twist begging hat-in-hand).

The key point is that the State does not bestow or withdraw the Right to Migrate at its good pleasure. It cannot "dictate terms & conditions" as to the use of a Right.

Let's break-down the implications:

• The State morally-forbidden to say, "You may have your Due Process, but only if you come through the Big Open Door."
  ​
• The State is morally-obliged to say, "It is our Duty to afford you your Due Process regardless of whether you saunter through the Door or break-in though the Window."
  • However, the State is well within its rights to add, "But you'd better have a damn good, morally-compelling reason as to why you used the Window instead of the Door, or else the impartial judge negotiating the competing Rights of the Nation and of the Migrant is liable to rule against you."

The More You Know.

[Del]

+JMJ+

[…]

• To put a point on it: It's not good enough that very many Migrants are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Door any more than it's good enough that very many Babies are "generously" and "charitably" indulged to enter through the Big Open Womb.

That's just silly. The right to life is inalienable.

The right to migration must be balanced with the duty to control our borders and keep our people safe from drugs, terrorists, and child sex traffickers who abuse our undefended border.

[…]

The Right to Migrate is similarly inalienable.

"Inalienable" does not mean "automatically steamrollers any competing Rights".

Rather, "Inalienable" means that said Right is Prepolitical (i.e. not bestowed, but only secured, by the State). It is bestowed by Nature or Nature's God. The gift of Land is titled in the Universal Destination of Goods, thus the Right to Migrate is "founded in the very nature of land (Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia)."

So, it must be stressed that Inalienable Rights can still collide. For example, the Rights of the Baby can collide with the Rights of the Mother (which is exactly why "indirect abortions" are morally admissible), If said Rights were unable to collide, a Mother couldn't even take a gravely needful diabetes medication if said med were to endanger, even indirectly, the life of the Baby.

As a consequence, the Right to Migrate is still perfectly capable of colliding with the Right of a Nation to Control its Borders. The inalienability of the Right to Migrate does not mean that the Migrant automatically steamrollers its way over any competing Rights of the Nation. The Nation is not helpless before a tide of Marching Migrants (just as the Nation does not hold all the cards whilst the Migrant is Oliver Twist begging hat-in-hand).

The key point is that the State does not bestow or withdraw the Right to Migrate at its good pleasure. It cannot "dictate terms & conditions" as to the use of a Right.

Let's break-down the implications:

• The State morally-forbidden to say, "You may have your Due Process, but only if you come through the Big Open Door."
  ​
• The State is morally-obliged to say, "It is our Duty to afford you your Due Process regardless of whether you saunter through the Door or break-in though the Window."
  • However, the State is well within its rights to add, "But you'd better have a damn good, morally-compelling reason as to why you used the Window instead of the Door, or else the impartial judge negotiating the competing Rights of the Nation and of the Migrant is liable to rule against you."

The More You Know.

It's certainly more fun talking to you, and not just scanning posted articles and wondering why you post them.

The State has a moral duty to lock the windows and monitor the door.

Biden's border policy is ignorant of and unguided by Catholic moral teaching... just like his abortion policy. He should know better, even with his dementia.

I'm not sure why you think the Texas buoys are "immoral." They simply exist to assist the Border Patrol officers in their work. Do you believe that Border Patrol should be abolished? Do you genuinely support Biden's failure to execute the immigration laws passed by our Congress?

I'm not debating with you.... just trying to figure out how much of an absolutist you are. Or whether you hate Trump so much that you can't imagine Trump had a better policy than Biden regarding anything. Did you care about migrants and border policy at all during the Obama years?

When did you become radicalized over border concerns?

[Jocose]

Where’s the popcorn?

[Biff]

Where’s the popcorn?

Foyer. $10 for a small bag.

[Jocose]

Where’s the popcorn?

Foyer. $10 for a small bag.

Sweet. I have accumulated 80 reward points so that’s $3.00 off.. oh and extra butter, please also can you have it delivered to my seat, thanks you!

[Del]

Where’s the popcorn?

Foyer. $10 for a small bag.

I'm in for a dime bag.