America's 'soul' at risk over immigration, Archbishop Gomez warns

[seakelp]

So how many times are we going to give out amnesty to those that have entered and stayed in the country illegally? We did it in the 80s, didn’t change a thing. So we now we are talking about doing it again. I suppose that all nations should have no borders at all?

Well, I think that’s a bit extreme.

It’s one thing to try and find a solution that respects the law. It’s quite another thing for that solution to have the unintended consequence of deeply hurting families. Innocent victims suffer. Any policy whose consequence results in the degree of pain suffered by innocents is at least questionable.

We can, and should, make sensible immigration reform. That’s all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

*Besides this, short-term measures: It is very important to help the families above all. In the light of the conversations that I have had with the bishops, the principal problem is that there be protection for the families, that they not be destroyed. What can be done should be done. In the same way, naturally, all that is possible must be done to work against the instability of the situations and against all the violations, and to help so that they can have a truly dignified life where they find themselves in this moment. *

-Pope Benedict

 

[Frank_Drebin]

How should they take responsibility? Pay a fine? I think some of those options are being considered. Maybe the “host” country could also recoup some of the healthcare and education costs from the “home” country.

No, I mean they should consider that there is a possibility that they could be split up before they flee.

Once here, I don’t know.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

We can, and should, make sensible immigration reform. That’s all.

We can have open boarders if we could do away with federally funded welfare which I think creates more evil than good. Nowhere written in catholic social doctrine does it support big government funded social welfare programs. Catholic social teaching may support social security and unions but never welfare or even free federally funded health care.

If they come here to work and support their families we should welcome them open arms. If they come here to be lazy and take advantage of free government programs or engage in criminal activities we should kick them out.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Perhaps in the majority of immigrants who have become citizens and voted had not voted for a virulent pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-euthenasia President, I’d be more incline to encourage more of them to come.

what choice do they have? Last time I checked Romney was pro-choice too and pro-big business and pro-war. It’s not like last election was a moral choice between Mother Theresa and Hitler. In some ways, Obama is better than Romney.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We can have open boarders if we could do away with federally funded welfare which I think creates more evil than good. Nowhere written in catholic social doctrine does it support big government funded social welfare programs. Catholic social teaching supports social security and unions but not welfare or even free federally funded health care.

If they come here to work and support their families we should welcome them open arms. If they come here to be lazy and take advantage of free government programs or engage in criminal activities we should kick them out.

I volunteered at our local food bank. We couldn’t get Hispanics to take advantage of the food program. Those in this community work, and work hard.

To take advantage of those ‘programs’ one must have a social security number.

While it’s not written, the bishops, and Pope Benedict, spoke on the necessity of government participation in programs. The Pope addressed the heads of nations with his pleas for help for the poor. That is the same as the ‘federal’ level. The problem is much larger than even the Catholic Church can handle alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pope Francis to Diplomatic Corps: Church fighting poverty, building bridges (full text)

Fighting poverty, both material and spiritual, building peace and constructing bridges: these, as it were, are the reference points for a journey that I want to invite each of the countries here represented to take up. But it is a difficult journey, if we do not learn to grow in love for this world of ours. Here too, it helps me to think of the name of Francis, who teaches us profound respect for the whole of creation and the protection of our environment, which all too often, instead of using for the good, we exploit greedily, to one another’s detriment.

 

[littlenothing]

I volunteered at our local food bank. We couldn’t get Hispanics to take advantage of the food program. Those in this community work, and work hard.

To take advantage of those ‘programs’ one must have a social security number.

While it’s not written, the bishops, and Pope Benedict, spoke on the necessity of government participation in programs. The Pope addressed the heads of nations with his pleas for help for the poor. That is the same as the ‘federal’ level. The problem is much larger than even the Catholic Church can handle alone./QUOT

Well I see them take advantage of freebies all the time, just like everyone else. I don’t think any race or nationality has a monopoly on laziness, greed or even want.

And its fairly easy to get a SSN. You just gotta pay for it. We see it all the time in medicine.

And just in case anyone might wonder, I don’t turn them in…

 

[littlenothing]

Absolutely. People’s actions have consequences, and they must know the risks they take when they engage in some action. I don’t think anyone would be against making this sort of evaluative judgment.

I think the deeper question is how we ought to treat the least among us here in the United States, especially those who immigrate here in order to make a better life! And I think we also ought to try and find a just solution to the challenges of immigration - and one that does not result in heartbreak and sorrow for families.

Are they “the least among us”? Maybe some are, but its difficult to see an entire group of people as the least, unless its the homeless, people who are fat and smell, smokers. Those are the people who are really treated with disdain. And they really don’t have many people sticking up for them. But illegal immigrants do.

If I am engaging in some sort of logical fallacy, don’t hesitate to tell me. I go crazy trying to figure out who are the least among us.

 

[bellasbane]

No, I mean they should consider that there is a possibility that they could be split up before they flee.

Once here, I don’t know.

I think families get split up when one or both parents is foreign born but the children are born here the US. When the parents get deported back to their home country - that country won’t take the children because they are American. So the family gets split up. The parents are deported and the kids go into foster care here in the U.S. At least that’s how I understand it.

 

[littlenothing]

I think families get split up when one or both parents is foreign born but the children are born here the US. When the parents get deported back to their home country - that country won’t take the children because they are American. So the family gets split up. The parents are deported and the kids go into foster care here in the U.S. At least that’s how I understand it.

If that is so, we ought to be the land that shows mercy by accepting the illegal parents. A land that wont accept the kids of its own people seems to be in greater danger of losing its soul though than the land returning the parents who created the situation in the first place…

 

[Tony_Micelli]

The problem is much larger than even the Catholic Church can handle alone.

If anything, the church has spoken out against welfare programs because it can lead to dependency. The church cares about the whole person and their development through the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity which are antithetical to big business and big government.

 

[littlenothing]

If anything, the church has spoken out against welfare programs because it can lead to dependency. The church cares about the whole person and their development through the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity which are antithetical to big business and big government.

I agree with the first sentence. Care to explain the rest to the “least (intelligent) among us”?

 

[Tony_Micelli]

I agree with the first sentence. Care to explain the rest to the “least (intelligent) among us”?

I was just trying to say that the church rejects the two extremes of individualism and statism where everything is controlled by the state. Rather the church upholds the idea of keeping things as small and decentralized as possible and creating structures that protect the small and weak. Both big government and big business are inherently opposed to this.

Hence government welfare and tax breaks for the rich are not ideas from the heart of the church.

 

[_Abyssinia]

what choice do they have? Last time I checked Romney was pro-choice too and pro-big business and pro-war. It’s not like last election was a moral choice between Mother Theresa and Hitler. In some ways, Obama is better than Romney.

Romney was against the overwhelming majority of abortions but thought there should be exceptions for the statistical 5% for rape, incest and ‘mother’s health.’ That view is not 100% pro life but it is not pro abortion. Romney had a voting record as governor defending life. Obama in comparison is not opposed to sex selection abortion, partial birth abortion, he doesn’t support any gestational restriction for abortion. Views and voiting record on abortion for Obama and Romney are not comparable

 

[Frank_Drebin]

what choice do they have? Last time I checked Romney was pro-choice too and pro-big business and pro-war. It’s not like last election was a moral choice between Mother Theresa and Hitler. In some ways, Obama is better than Romney.

Oh do tell in what ways is he better? Supreme court appointments? Thiriving healthy economy? Defendind DOMA? Obamacare? Religiouis freedom? Please, your dislike of Romney is fine, but there is hardly any way Obama has done better, spiritually or factually.

Regardless, who brought up Romney, other than you? There are lots of choices. They can vote for a third party if they want. When a large majority is voting to elect an anti-Catholic, anti-life candidates because of their own self-interests, it is hard to say “please, keep coming!” Like I said, we have enough people voting against God’s interests as it is - why encourage more? So we can increase the rate of Church oppression and support for gay marriage, all while watching the number in poverty increase? Yeah!

I welcome anyone who doesn’t vote to ruin the country. If the Bishops like Bishop Gomez stressed voting properly for authentically Catholoc reasons (not for your own selfish interests), perhaps things would improve faster for everyone, including them.

 

[10gr8kids]

Francoist;:

I propose a trade: the USA will trade one liberal, Leftist or registered Democrat to Mexico for each hard-working conservative Catholic they send to us. Then the USA can flourish with the help of morally straight Mexicans and our liberals can help Mexico remain the squalid socialist armpit that its rulers seem to want it to be.

Sounds like a good trade to me.

I agree that something should be done to make it easier for good people to come here legally. In my simple mind I don’t understand why it is so difficult to come here legally. It is very sad to think of families being separated, but not all illegal immigrants are good hard working people. So it seems that giving a blanket amnesty to every illegal immigrant is not the best answer either. We have enough evil in this country already.

As has been pointed out, America’s soul has long been at risk over abortion. When voting, I put abortion issue over immigration. Even if I have reason to believe a certain politician may improve my financial well-being, I put life issues first. As Frank pointed out, it is sad most Hispanics did not put pro-life first when deciding how to vote. Some may say immigration is a life issue, but I’d say it is more of a standard of life issue. Abortion is a life and death issue.

 

[Tigg]

Ok, this is just a question. I am not a debater. I am seeking an answer that isn’t based on emotion.

If I entered a country illegally and later was found out and sent back to the States, maybe without my family, shouldn’t I bear the responsibility for what I chose to do? Even if I was trying to “have a better life” or make more money or whatever, shouldn’t I realize I amy get caught and my family torn apart because of it?

The open border advocates don’t believe in any personal responsibility when it comes to immigration. I think the AB’s statement is correct - America’s national soul *is *at risk, although I must depart from his reasons why since this is a political issue. You see, those pushing amnesty (and please don’t insult us by saying it is not) are in a rather dicey position. In order to defend their cause, they must ignore the totality of Catholic social justice teaching…you know, those pesky little issues like the common good and the rule of law for starters, which the catechism says we have the right (and duty) to uphold.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well I see them take advantage of freebies all the time, just like everyone else. I don’t think any race or nationality has a monopoly on laziness, greed or even want.

And its fairly easy to get a SSN. You just gotta pay for it. We see it all the time in medicine.

And just in case anyone might wonder, I don’t turn them in…

On one hand I see people complaining about the state of the country and seeking to lay blame on the current serving politicians for unemployment, and in the next opportunity claiming ‘laziness.’

I work on an ambulance and while we are to collect SSNs, we do not withhold care, or transports to the hospital, for the lack of one.

Do we judge an entire group of people because of some doing wrong? I am in a rural area and we have our Hispanic population here. I assure you the greatest majority are hard working people. The Western Union office is in the grocery store and I’ve seen the lines of people sending money home to their families, keeping enough to get by on. I’ve seen the run down trailers they live in. Most of them are doing work no one else wants here.

There’s enough here they have a ‘Spanish’ Mass on Sunday afternoons. We’re not seeing the ‘great’ adverse impact people use as talking points to try and secure the borders of the country built by immigrants.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The open border advocates don’t believe in any personal responsibility when it comes to immigration. I think the AB’s statement is correct - America’s national soul *is *at risk, although I must depart from his reasons why since this is a political issue. You see, those pushing amnesty (and please don’t insult us by saying it is not) are in a rather dicey position. In order to defend their cause, they must ignore the totality of Catholic social justice teaching…you know, those pesky little issues like the common good and the rule of law for starters, which the catechism says we have the right (and duty) to uphold.

If we parse Church teachings we can make it fit any view we want. To receive the teachings in full context, we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the stranger, care for the sick and visit the imprisoned. There is no partisanship in his Kingdom.