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

[Frank_Drebin]

Well, yes. If you include the amendment process, anything is possible.

Plus, let’s not forget that there are effective extra-legal means to live the Gospel. As a practical matter, using the heavy hand of the law can do more to *hurt *our desire to bring Christ’s message to others than to help it.

Of course. That’s why people want to pass immigration reform, overturn Roe V Wade, enforce current border security laws, and whatnot.

You can change the law to accomplish the Church’s goals, but have to live its message and spread what she teaches every day in the mean time.

 

[Tigg]

What I’d like to see is the Bishops encourage those who come to America to vote with authentic Catholics values that protect the unborn and elderly first and foremost. VOting for the party that promises leniency on immigration policy primarily is not how we are to vote as Catholics.

Now here’s a concept. But also the problem, because you see, 71% of Latino votes in the last election went to Obama and the Democrat party with little concern over those annoying social trivialities you mention that the Catholic Church is known for defending.

 

[Tigg]

This report addresses some key issues in immigration reform that matter to me. Below is a summary of what I feel are important points to consider:

How Today’s Immigration Enforcement Policies Impact Children, Families, and Communities

What happens to children when their parents are deported? How do these deportations, now more numerous than ever, affect families and the communities in which they live?

A total of 16.6 million people currently live in mixed-status families—with at least one unauthorized immigrant—and a third of U.S. citizen children of immigrants live in mixed-status families.

Effects on families:

• Deportations have a large effect on families, forcing children into foster care as their parents are shipped out of the country and leaving single mothers struggling to make ends meet.
• Children and their parents live in constant fear of separation

Foster Care & Single Mothers
(The report reviews what we already know about the risks to healthy development that are associated with both so I won’t post it all here. I recommend that those interested read the report - it’s a good review)

Constant Fear of Separation
(The literature on this risk factor may be less well known, so I’m posting what I believe are the key issues to understand)

The author asked a 12-year-old girl, “What scares you?” She replied:

I’m scared, ‘cause maybe one day, they take her [Mom], and maybe we’re at the mall, or we’re walking around. Just leave us all by yourself, like what happened when this girl … just because she went to the store to buy diapers … and her daughter that was 10 or 11, they said that they took her.​

These fears were perhaps best illustrated in May 2010, in the wake of the passage of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070. Speaking at an elementary school in Silver Spring, Maryland, a second grader expressed her own concern for her parents, telling First Lady Michelle Obama that,
“My mom … she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn’t have papers. … my mom doesn’t have any papers.”

It is the final scenario that parents and children fear the most: Parents will lose custody of their children—not for being bad parents but due solely to their undocumented status.

A large literature on child development shows the detrimental effects that such anxieties and the overall social environment can have on early childhood development, and with it these children’s future successes, including things such as school achievements and earnings as adults. Ensuring the successful development of all citizen children, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, should be paramount.

(Also there is a massive literature on the impact of separation anxiety on a whole range of outcomes from juvenile delinquency to inability to maintain stable relationships in adulthood - no surprise there!)​

​

​

I believe any immigration reform measures must begin with the assumption that parents will not be separated from their children due solely to their undocumented status. After that, the details of the policy can be worked out for various scenarios based on the legal status of the parents, whether or not the children have started school and the willingness of the home country to cooperate. For example:

If both parents are undocumented and none of the children have started school in the US - the entire family is deported to to “home” country, but the children retain US citizenship and may return once they adults. If the “home” country will not agree to take the children then the family remains in the US and some sort of sanction is placed on the “home” country (e.g. a tariff on imports or reduction in aid) for failing to cooperate.

Please comment!

I have always understood my parental responsibilities to be the most important task I have. Therefore, to knowingly and willingly place my children in danger by illegally crossing the border into a foreign country would not even be an option to consider. I would be placing them at considerable risk - even to the point that our family could be separated. I’m sorry - as a parent, I find this horrifying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have always understood my parental responsibilities to be the most important task I have. Therefore, to knowingly and willingly place my children in danger by illegally crossing the border into a foreign country would not even be an option to consider. I would be placing them at considerable risk - even to the point that our family could be separated. I’m sorry - as a parent, I find this horrifying.

Is it possible that some exhibit parental responsibility by seeking a better way of life in our country, and have very little to get started so they cross the border ‘illegally?’ It’s not how we find life for ourselves, but to try and view life through the eyes of others.

 

[New_World_Man]

I actually support a pathway to citizenship. Saying that,it always gauls me how Democrats use their position on life,marriage and other issues,then on an issue like immigration use them as a weapon.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I actually support a pathway to citizenship. Saying that,it always gauls me how Democrats use their position on life,marriage and other issues,then on an issue like immigration use them as a weapon.

We need to stop viewing issues through the political lens and start viewing them through the spiritual lens. No political party is perfect, but each holds to some truth. Both parties pander to blocs of voters and believers are a very large bloc.

 

[Holly3278]

We do need to have good immigration laws that do not break up families so I totally agree with the Archbishop.

 

[twoshoes]

In treating the least in our society we should not use methods that create a more cruel situation. Open borders create sex trafficing, slave labor, poverty in this country from the jobs taken, wages stagnet by a mass flooding of the labor force, health and school resources depeleted. I’ve never read or seen one politican or church offical speak to the Effects of illegal immigration. Maybe it is better to address the Cause.

 

[Ender]

The Gospel message is quite clear, and it’s predominant over a ‘state’s’ rights, or laws, for believers.

What you dismissively refer to as “state’s” rights are recognized by the church, as in:States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers (BXVI)
So this is apparently part of the Gospel message as well. What ought to be clear is that these are often competing rights and if the rights of immigrants always prevailed then the State would have no right to regulate migration … which is not the case.

Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the stranger, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned. I don’t see exception qualifications in those teachings.

What you also don’t see is any specific direction in how this is best accomplished, which means each of us is responsible for determining that for himself. As is often the case, people come to opposite conclusions not from disagreement over the objective but over the best means to achieve it. Archbishop Gomez’s statement notwithstanding, that is the more charitable assumption to make in this case.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What you dismissively refer to as “state’s” rights are recognized by the church, as in:States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers (BXVI)
So this is apparently part of the Gospel message as well. What ought to be clear is that these are often competing rights and if the rights of immigrants always prevailed then the State would have no right to regulate migration … which is not the case.
What you also don’t see is any specific direction in how this is best accomplished, which means each of us is responsible for determining that for himself. As is often the case, people come to opposite conclusions not from disagreement over the objective but over the best means to achieve it. Archbishop Gomez’s statement notwithstanding, that is the more charitable assumption to make in this case.

Ender

The Church does recognize the state’s ‘rights’, and still calls for a dignity of life for immigrants, where they find themselves at this moment. One does not outweigh the other, and the Gospel is not intended to be ‘legally’ dissected to fit a worldly view.

I disagree that we can determine for ourselves, when the authoritative men of the Church have included methods of implementation. We’ve had many bishops, and even Popes address the issue. It’s not a political issue, as governments in general are included. With that said, we can go the extra mile above and beyond, but we really should give consideration of what the authoritative men have spoken.

 

[littlenothing]

I have always understood my parental responsibilities to be the most important task I have. Therefore, to knowingly and willingly place my children in danger by illegally crossing the border into a foreign country would not even be an option to consider. I would be placing them at considerable risk - even to the point that our family could be separated. I’m sorry - as a parent, I find this horrifying.

Right you are!

 

[Ender]

The Church does recognize the state’s ‘rights’, and still calls for a dignity of life for immigrants, where they find themselves at this moment. One does not outweigh the other, and the Gospel is not intended to be ‘legally’ dissected to fit a worldly view.

Since I have not actually given a view on how to resolve the immigration problem, worldly or otherwise, suggesting that I am “legally” dissecting the Gospel is more than a bit of a stretch. I simply reject your perspective on the relative holiness of your opinion.

I disagree that we can determine for ourselves, when the authoritative men of the Church have included methods of implementation.

You continue to speak as if the political inclinations of few bishops represented the teaching of the church. It doesn’t. Archbishop Gomez’s comments no more oblige my assent than do yours.

We’ve had many bishops, and even Popes address the issue.

“Addressing” the issue is just the vague sort of approach that ought to inform everyone that we are dealing with opinions, which is unsurprising given that the differences are not about whether to find a just solution but about how to achieve one. That is, the differences are entirely practical.

It’s not a political issue, as governments in general are included. With that said, we can go the extra mile above and beyond, but we really should give consideration of what the authoritative men have spoken.

It is an entirely political issue and I do not consider the bishops to be particularly well informed on it, which should hardly be surprising. I doubt that a one of them has the slightest conception of what would happen if his (ephemeral and unspecified) inclinations were implemented. I understand their desire to help those who are suffering but that desire lends them no expertise in how to resolve the problem. They are generally no better suited to solving immigration problems than to solving medical ones despite a genuine desire to welcome the immigrant and heal the sick.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You continue to speak as if the political inclinations of few bishops represented the teaching of the church. It doesn’t. Archbishop Gomez’s comments no more oblige my assent than do yours.

“Addressing” the issue is just the vague sort of approach that ought to inform everyone that we are dealing with opinions, which is unsurprising given that the differences are not about whether to find a just solution but about how to achieve one. That is, the differences are entirely practical.
It is an entirely political issue and I do not consider the bishops to be particularly well informed on it, which should hardly be surprising. I doubt that a one of them has the slightest conception of what would happen if his (ephemeral and unspecified) inclinations were implemented. I understand their desire to help those who are suffering but that desire lends them no expertise in how to resolve the problem. They are generally no better suited to solving immigration problems than to solving medical ones despite a genuine desire to welcome the immigrant and heal the sick.

Ender

Prudential judgments? I can’t agree. We’ve had more than one man of the Church speak on the subject, including Pope Benedict who called for a dignity of life for wherever they find themselves at this moment. As for the moral aspect, I completely agree with the men of the Church because it is directly supported by the Gospel of Christ, in my honest opinion. Christ didn’t qualify any exceptions to His teachings.

We also lack any man of the Church, that I am aware of, that calls for closing the borders and mass deportations, even at the risk of splitting up families, as a solution to the ‘problems.’

The laws of the state are not always ‘just’, as I am sure you’re aware. In this instance, we are a nation built by immigrants, and it’s ironic to see the people claim that immigration is a problem that needs solving, in my opinion.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Francoist]

The laws of the state are not always ‘just’, as I am sure you’re aware. In this instance, we are a nation built by immigrants, and it’s ironic to see the people claim that immigration is a problem that needs solving, in my opinion.

Wait… do you actually hold that immigration causes no social or economic problems for the areas in the USA affected by that immigration? That seems like an incredible claim.

Step back from the situation for a moment. Consider a far-removed case: North Korea. It has a population that is uneducated and starving. Most do not have salable skills (knowing how to drive a tank or pray to the Kim family don’t count). What would happen if North Korea suddenly become totally unlivable (as opposed to simply intolerable), for whatever reason? Where would those people go?

You might easily say: they can go to South Korea. But what would actually, I’m speaking here of reality and facts and all that stuff, really happen to South Korea? The whole economy would implode. What would they do with all these people? What would they eat? Where would they work? What would happen to the crime rate? If North Korea actually began to sink beneath the waves or some similar disaster, the South Koreans would have little recourse but to herd the populace into camps. What else could they possibly do?

I bring up that science fiction just to illustrate that the movement of people has real consequences. The money, food and water needed to support such a relocation has to come from somewhere. The communities into which they relocate will be impacted. The economy will most certainly be affected.

I have great sympathy for the plight of the Mexicans and other immigrants. But people in the USA also have rights. They have the right for their laws to be respected and their prosperity to be protected. They have the right to safety. Large scale immigration challenges these things.

I’m not saying “no amnesty” or anything like that. I’m just pointing out that it would be totally incredible to deny that there’s actually a problem. Do you think that people who are anti-immigration are just racists? Or meanies? I don’t understand your comment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wait… do you actually hold that immigration causes no social or economic problems for the areas in the USA affected by that immigration? That seems like an incredible claim.

Step back from the situation for a moment. Consider a far-removed case: North Korea. It has a population that is uneducated and starving. Most do not have salable skills (knowing how to drive a tank or pray to the Kim family don’t count). What would happen if North Korea suddenly become totally unlivable (as opposed to simply intolerable), for whatever reason? Where would those people go?

You might easily say: they can go to South Korea. But what would actually, I’m speaking here of reality and facts and all that stuff, really happen to South Korea? The whole economy would implode. What would they do with all these people? What would they eat? Where would they work? What would happen to the crime rate? If North Korea actually began to sink beneath the waves or some similar disaster, the South Koreans would have little recourse but to herd the populace into camps. What else could they possibly do?

I bring up that science fiction just to illustrate that the movement of people has real consequences. The money, food and water needed to support such a relocation has to come from somewhere. The communities into which they relocate will be impacted. The economy will most certainly be affected.

I have great sympathy for the plight of the Mexicans and other immigrants. But people in the USA also have rights. They have the right for their laws to be respected and their prosperity to be protected. They have the right to safety. Large scale immigration challenges these things.

I’m not saying “no amnesty” or anything like that. I’m just pointing out that it would be totally incredible to deny that there’s actually a problem. Do you think that people who are anti-immigration are just racists? Or meanies? I don’t understand your comment.

Where does Christ say, 'give shelter to the stranger EXCEPT when…?" Think in spirit and not so much in flesh; it shows Him we have faith.

 

[Elizabeth502]

nytimes.com/2013/03/22/us…y.html?hp&_r=0

"More than two years after Homeland Security officials told Congress that they would produce new, more accurate standards to assess security at the nation’s borders, senior officials from the department acknowledged this week that they had not completed the new measurements and were not likely to in coming months, as the debate proceeds about overhauling the immigration system.

Lawmakers have pressed Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary, on Capitol Hill this month, for standards with which to examine the Obama administration’s efforts on border enforcement.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers were taken aback at a hearing on Wednesday in the House of Representatives when Mark Borkowski, a senior Homeland Security official, said he had no progress to report on a broad measure of border conditions the department had been working on since 2010. The lawmakers warned that failure by the Obama administration to devise a reliable method of border evaluation could imperil passage of immigration legislation.

“We do not want the Department of Homeland Security to be the stumbling block to comprehensive immigration reform for this country,” said Representative Candice Miller, a Republican from Michigan who is the chairwoman of the House Homeland Security subcommittee on border security. She told Mr. Borkowski that the lack of security measurements from the administration “could be a component of our failure to pass something I think is very important for our country.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

We do need to have good immigration laws that do not break up families so I totally agree with the Archbishop.

I have difficulty understanding how enforcement of immigration laws “breaks up families” except by the CHOICE of the family members. If, say, one is an illegal immigrant from Mexico and is deported, there is nothing preventing him from taking his family back to Mexico with him.

Perhaps he does not choose to take his family back. Perhaps other relatives will help provide the citizen children with free public education better than they would receive in Mexico. Perhaps the children have Medicaid cards. Quite possibly the parent or parents fully intend to return illegally again. But whatever the reason, to the extent it’s “breaking up families” it’s a choice made by the parents.

So, while I understand how disappointing it might be to take one’s family back to, say, Mexico, even though the unemployment rate is lower than here, and the wages and cost of living are about 1/3 what they are here, and where the social benefits paid by people legally here are more generous, it’s still really an economic choice.

Some countries of origin really are miserable. Guatemala comes readily to mind in that regard. But Mexico is about 13th among nations in average wages. It’s not “third world” at all, and certainly not in the way Guatemala is.

Yes, it’s better to make American wages that go a lot further in one’s home country, just as it is for those oil workers who go to Kuwait to make the “big bucks” and return here eventually well “ahead of the Joneses’”. But that does not translate into a human right for me to work in Kuwait or to get ahead of the Joneses at all.

The highest wages in the world are those enjoyed by the people in Lichtenstein the last I looked. If I could work illegally in Lichtenstein and come back wealthy or even live the life of Reilley forever in Lichtenstein, that does not mean I have a moral right to work illegally in Lichtenstein. Nor does it necessarily translate into a “right” inherent in me, if deported from Lichtenstein, to leave my children there to be supported by the generous welfare benefits provided by the people of Lichtenstein when I could support them in this country, even on a lower scale, myself.

I certainly understand that there are human stories behind all deportations, and some of them make for choices that are difficult. But sometimes I wonder whether some churchmen really understand the economics behind some of the choices that are made.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have difficulty understanding how enforcement of immigration laws “breaks up families” except by the CHOICE of the family members…

And the first choice to break up that family occurred when particular family members left the others behind in crossing the border illegally. That was the original compromise of that family, a decision which is not necessarily repaired over time. The secondary aspect of that break-up is that most often the extended family is never rejoined in the States, meaning that the moral formation of the children (typically a role of secondary family members) is abruptly halted, allowing the children to be (im)morally “formed” by our really, really morally righteous U.S. society.

 

[Ender]

Where does Christ say, 'give shelter to the stranger EXCEPT when…?" Think in spirit and not so much in flesh; it shows Him we have faith.

Acting without regard to consequences shows not so much faith as a lack of reason. As to what Christ would say, Aquinas and Augustine understood him to mean this:(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.” *(ST II-II, 31)
  Ender

 

[twoshoes]

Where does Christ say, 'give shelter to the stranger EXCEPT when…?" Think in spirit and not so much in flesh; it shows Him we have faith.

The work level illegal immagrants enter the work force puts them in competition with low income poverty level citizens. I love it when people feel they are being charitiable with other people low wages. I’m sure there are very few catholic’s on this site that suffer from illegal immigration there may even be some who benefit at the substandard wages they pay. 44 million people on food stamps a record high number. Poverty at all time high levels not all from illegal immigration to be sure but it has an impact.