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

[ishii]

So it's not correct for me to speak my view because of the affect it might have on others, but it's acceptable for others to speak their view even if it has affect on me, and those who share my view?

You can speak all you want - I don’t think anyone is challenging your right to express yourself, but I think you’re wrong on this issue and am merely pointing out why I think you’re wrong. You have not addressed one of my points at all.

Because I share the view of the Archbishop, I now have a profound lack of understanding of basic economics and common sense, even in light of my explaining I believe a profound faith in Christ can accomplish all things? Please. I have done my best to avoid ad hominems, spinning what others say, or making direct derogatory remarks towards anyone. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I am having a hard time squaring what you’ve been saying here about open borders with what Archbishop Gomez said in the news article. The Archbishop seemed to be reminding us not to be overbearing and arbitrary in enforcing our laws on immigration - to remember the inherent dignity of all humans. But he acknowleges the need for both justice & laws as well as compassion & common sense. He seemed to be for striking a balance:

“Archbishop Gomez called the nation to be “a better people than this.” He said America must be a place of both justice and law, as well as compassion and common sense”.

That doesn’t exactly seem like a call for open borders now does it?

The Archbishop also complained about the secularism in our country that prevents us from arguing from the standpoint of biblical principles to promote the dignity of all - including illegal immigrants: "but increasing secularism, he said, “makes it hard to talk about the values and commitments we find in America’s founding documents.”

Increasing secularism he speaks of is a by product of the modern left and currently finds its home in the modern Democrat party. Of course the left is not above using biblical and religious references when it serves them, but complaining if conservatives do the same.

Finally, I don’t think we should be surprised when a society which allows the unborn to be legally killed - by the millions each year, also does not promote the dignity of the illegal immigrants.

Would you not agree, Prodigal?

Ishii

 

[BroomWagon]

I’ve heard open borders provided there is no welfare.

 

[Geist]

It’s not my scenario. My scenario is to repeat the scenario spoken of by the men of the Church.

Here’s a link to the full text of what the Pope said.

Pope Benedict Tuesday, 15 April 2008

Are you under some compulsion to never answer a question?

**Again:
**

So you then advocate deporting the entire family or having no criminal law whatsoever?

Because thats the only other two alternatives.

Either they all get deported or none of them do in your scenario. Neither is morally acceptable at all.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How can something not spoken against by the Church not be consistent with Church teachings?

How did the discussion go to open immigration. I have explained that, ‘while I not opposed to open immigration, this discussion is about immigration reforms?’ I spoke, in passing, something I am not against, and the Church doesn’t speak against my non-opposition to open immigration.

Inconsistent is inconsistent. What you’re saying is reminiscent of those who argued that voting Obama is not immoral because the Pope didn’t specifically say not to vote for him.

And one may well wish benefits on others who want to enjoy a higher living standard here than in their home countries. But one is not acting morally in giving away someone else’s livelihood or living standard just to feel good about how “charitably” one acted in giving another’s livelihood away.

How many millions or billions of immigrants would it take before you accepted it that it actually harmed others to do it?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Virtually nobody in this country opposes immigration as such. What most oppose is the chaotic situation we have now, in which there actually are immigration laws but which the government will not enforce as they are written. And further, if this government won’t obey the current laws, what assurance is there that any changes in the law will be obeyed by it? This administration refuses to obey laws it doesn’t like. Why concede to it the power to write laws it will obey simply because it refuses to obey any others?

 

[Tigg]

We have responsibilities, the greatest is to place all in Him, in my opinion. The scriptures provided shows that God knows our needs and will supply those needs if we seek God’s justice.

In your utopia, do you think the government, which rules society, is seeking God’s justice? Does it place its all in Him while depriving unborn children to right to live?

 

[Tigg]

We form the national soul, which is not meant to be taken literally. It’s how we, as a nation, approach issues. Christ sent the apostles to all nations, without any regard of seeking permission to be in those nations. This ‘immigration’ thing is man made, and now being upheld by a country built by immigrants.

Soo……let’s see – you do admit the concept of nations, each with their own government. Yet you believe that it is somehow *unjust *that they form their own laws to preserve that nation and the good of those who reside there? (I’m trying to wrap my mind around this before I go further.) Yet your liberalism believes that only a world state is just because then everyone belongs to the same society with equality and without any borders. Is this correct? In order for a world state to exist it would then have to deprive individual nations of their right to govern themselves which would be their death. I’m not finding any justice in this at all!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me we’re a bit off track. Apb Gomez feels there is a significant moral dimension to this country’s immigration policies. I don’t think many would disagree with that.

The problem comes in figuring out what this country is going to do about it. One trouble is that years and years of lax enforcement or outright refusal to enforce the laws we have has left us without even knowing whether the present system, if actually followed or perhaps tweaked just a bit, would work well enough.

It seems to me, then, that in the face of governmental lawlessness, the government itself, not the programs, are the very first problem. We have no assurance that, given the history of lawlessness, any new program will work any better.

Supposedly, the present system ensures effective border enforcement; perhaps the number one concern of American citizens. But it’s not obeyed by the government. Some proposals, like Rubio’s require prior enforcement and independent verification to any liberalization. But again, is there any reason to believe a government that refuses to enforce the borders now, will suddenly do so just because a complicated new law is passed requiring it?

Personally, I think everybody is looking in the wrong direction with this, including Abp Gomez. The central problem is not the particularities of the law, but a government that defies the law. Until we cure that, no orderly and rational plan can serve a useful purpose because there is no assurance it will be obeyed either.

 

[Ender]

I speak for the Kingdom of Christ.

I think this is the where you lose the rest of us.

Show me the bishops that speak for closed borders and mass deportations to include the separation of families. Without that, I would have a hard time with ‘pastoral guidance.’

Show us the bishops who claim church doctrine demands the elimination of national boundaries or immigration without limits, or those who state that doctrine forbids both barriers on the borders as well as deportation of those who cross them illegally. Absent any of that, it ought to be apparent we are dealing with practical choices between competing goods so while it is valid to dispute which approach will be most helpful it is not valid to claim there is a moral distinction between them because in such cases the morality does not lie in the choice itself but in the intent behind it.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me we’re a bit off track. Apb Gomez feels there is a significant moral dimension to this country’s immigration policies. I don’t think many would disagree with that.

The problem comes in figuring out what this country is going to do about it. One trouble is that years and years of lax enforcement or outright refusal to enforce the laws we have has left us without even knowing whether the present system, if actually followed or perhaps tweaked just a bit, would work well enough.

It seems to me, then, that in the face of governmental lawlessness, the government itself, not the programs, are the very first problem. We have no assurance that, given the history of lawlessness, any new program will work any better.

Supposedly, the present system ensures effective border enforcement; perhaps the number one concern of American citizens. But it’s not obeyed by the government. Some proposals, like Rubio’s require prior enforcement and independent verification to any liberalization. But again, is there any reason to believe a government that refuses to enforce the borders now, will suddenly do so just because a complicated new law is passed requiring it?

Personally, I think everybody is looking in the wrong direction with this, including Abp Gomez. The central problem is not the particularities of the law, but a government that defies the law. Until we cure that, no orderly and rational plan can serve a useful purpose because there is no assurance it will be obeyed either.

It seems strange to me that human smuggling from Mexico alone generates an estimated 5 billion a year. a lot of cocaine is also smuggled in from Mexico, while guns are smuggled out of here and sold in Mexico, where they are illegal…

Could the American government be involved in this underground trade movement by turning a blind eye…? Surely Mexican wealthy men who are also players in their government would be willing to pay billions to keep their ‘businesses’ alive.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am having a hard time squaring what you’ve been saying here about open borders with what Archbishop Gomez said in the news article. The Archbishop seemed to be reminding us not to be overbearing and arbitrary in enforcing our laws on immigration - to remember the inherent dignity of all humans. But he acknowleges the need for both justice & laws as well as compassion & common sense. He seemed to be for striking a balance:

“Archbishop Gomez called the nation to be “a better people than this.” He said America must be a place of both justice and law, as well as compassion and common sense”.

That doesn’t exactly seem like a call for open borders now does it?

The Archbishop also complained about the secularism in our country that prevents us from arguing from the standpoint of biblical principles to promote the dignity of all - including illegal immigrants: "but increasing secularism, he said, “makes it hard to talk about the values and commitments we find in America’s founding documents.”

Increasing secularism he speaks of is a by product of the modern left and currently finds its home in the modern Democrat party. Of course the left is not above using biblical and religious references when it serves them, but complaining if conservatives do the same.

Finally, I don’t think we should be surprised when a society which allows the unborn to be legally killed - by the millions each year, also does not promote the dignity of the illegal immigrants.

Would you not agree, Prodigal?

Ishii

I can agree. The only difference is that I believe the increasing secularism is not confined to a single political view. The statement you make about partisans using scriptures goes both ways. Neither political party is made up completely of believers. In this world we only have believers, and non-believers, and that crosses all man made, and defined, lines.

While it’s continually swayed back to open borders for some reason, the humanity of how we approach immigration is the issue. It doesn’t matter how one gets here, it matters how we respond to those here, especially those in need. That’s the point the Archbishop is making, and one I agree with. The Church teaches a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death. An acceptable offense, in any regard, endangers all offenses against that dignity. Splitting how we, Christians, stand on all the issues can have adverse perceptions from those we try to join to us as believers. That puts the ‘soul’ of America, as believers and non believers, at risk. We have to embrace all people.

 

[Ender]

Christ is more than practical. In Matthew 6, Christ specifically addresses the needs, and how ‘all these things shall be added unto you.’ Faith.

This is one of those “holier than the church” positions. It is obviously nothing the church ever taught.(2) Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances.

• (2 ad 1) Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one*
  (3) On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): “Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us.”
  (Aquinas ST II-II 31)
  Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you under some compulsion to never answer a question?

**Again:
**

I thought my view was expressed clearly enough, and apologize you feel your question was not answered.

I am not for deporting entire families, uprooting them from an established life they may have made for themselves. I am for ‘just’ laws. Our immigration laws have become such that the truly poor are not welcomed. That, to me, is not morally acceptable.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I speak for the Kingdom of Christ.

No you don’t. You just think you do. You have no authority (nor do I) to speak “for” “The Kingdom of Christ.” You are not the Spokesperson for the Kingdom. Christ was and is the Spokesperson.

Rather, you have misinterpreted both the Gospels and Archbishop Gomez’ statement to be endorsements of abandoning earthly sovereign borders, and you claim that that’s what is meant by “The Kingdom of God.” Again, Jn 18:36: “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

Our immigration laws have become such that the truly poor are not welcomed. That, to me, is not morally acceptable.

The truly (abysmally) poor are not coming here, legally or illegally, in most cases. The most poor anywhere cannot afford to move, whether that is in the First, Second, or Third World. A truly committed Christian would become an activist for transformation of that kind of poverty in the many neglected countries, regions, and cities of this world. That was the kind of poverty Jesus was talking about – the kind of poverty that is truly dependent on others for relief. Most of those who immigrate here legally or illegally are not in that category.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Inconsistent is inconsistent. What you’re saying is reminiscent of those who argued that voting Obama is not immoral because the Pope didn’t specifically say not to vote for him.

And one may well wish benefits on others who want to enjoy a higher living standard here than in their home countries. But one is not acting morally in giving away someone else’s livelihood or living standard just to feel good about how “charitably” one acted in giving another’s livelihood away.

How many millions or billions of immigrants would it take before you accepted it that it actually harmed others to do it?

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Virtually nobody in this country opposes immigration as such. What most oppose is the chaotic situation we have now, in which there actually are immigration laws but which the government will not enforce as they are written. And further, if this government won’t obey the current laws, what assurance is there that any changes in the law will be obeyed by it? This administration refuses to obey laws it doesn’t like. Why concede to it the power to write laws it will obey simply because it refuses to obey any others?

Let’s not cloud issues. Inconsistent seems to be based on a personal view. The statements you make are generalized to exclude many possibilities that has to be discerned, and can be a topic of it’s own. If you wish to start another thread somewhere, we can discuss all those possibilities.

Livelihoods are not as endangered as the subject is used. Many of those ‘livelihoods’ are jobs that are available, yet unfilled because no one desires those jobs. After passing immigration laws, Alabama farmers had trouble harvesting it’s crops. I’ve personally seen seafood companies all but shut down because they lost their labor pool. The latter had paid positions that paid more than minimum wage.

There doesn’t seem to be any objections to the more educated immigrants, that come here legally and take higher paid positions, sought by our own people. Again, our laws show favoritism towards economic differences, and still at a cost of ‘livelihoods.’ When it’s not fair, it’s not just, in my opinion.

Millions or ‘billion?’ Really? Trillions would have more impact wouldn’t it? What are the realistic number of immigrants in this country right now? It’s a serious question, I don’t know. Before providing such numbers, remember my point is that we should not place our own interests above the needs of others, as Christians; a point that I have received much criticism because I provided the scriptures that help form my view.

 

[Ender]

Apb Gomez feels there is a significant moral dimension to this country’s immigration policies. I don’t think many would disagree with that.

I am not comfortable conceding this point. It is surely true that our immigration policies and their enforcement or non-enforcement have created a messy situation where people’s lives are severely affected. Does that make solving those problems a moral concern? We surely have a moral obligation to try to resolve the problems but once that decision is made the choices are practical, not moral.

Is it immoral to build a fence across the southern border? The answer to that is clearly no: that is not an immoral act. It could be immoral to either support it or oppose it but that would be determined by the reasons behind the choice. Why I oppose the archbishop’s comments is because they imply both that certain practical choices are immoral and that the intent underlying most opposition to liberal immigration policies is also immoral. The first is wrong as a matter of fact and the second is an uncharitable judgment.

What moral choices are involved in deciding which policies will work best for all involved?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In your utopia, do you think the government, which rules society, is seeking God’s justice? Does it place its all in Him while depriving unborn children to right to live?

It’s Christ’s ‘utopia,’ if it’s anyone’s. He’s the focus of my view.

There is no government of men that seeks God’s justice, as much as they seek to serve those that will give them the power they seek.

We, as a nation, have not placed all in Him in an effort to give to the unborn, or those from conception until natural death.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Well written.

Now, cue smug, holier-than-thou response…

I see you were right.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Soo……let’s see – you do admit the concept of nations, each with their own government. Yet you believe that it is somehow *unjust *that they form their own laws to preserve that nation and the good of those who reside there? (I’m trying to wrap my mind around this before I go further.) Yet your liberalism believes that only a world state is just because then everyone belongs to the same society with equality and without any borders. Is this correct? In order for a world state to exist it would then have to deprive individual nations of their right to govern themselves which would be their death. I’m not finding any justice in this at all!

I’ll repeat it again, I am not against ‘just’ laws. ‘Just’ is from God, and is His. That’s neither liberal or conservative.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is one of those “holier than the church” positions. It is obviously nothing the church ever taught.(2) Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances.

• (2 ad 1) Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one*
  (3) On the contrary, Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): “Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us.”
  (Aquinas ST II-II 31)
  Ender

I disagree, because I believe the Church teaches us to imitate Christ. He is the head of the Church.