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

[Ridgerunner]

My objection to Archbishop Gomez’s comment is the assumption that underlies it: people who oppose his solutions do so from bad intentions. How else could our souls be at risk? That is an uncharitable judgment and it was quite inappropriate of him to make it.

Ender

I don’t know whether he intended that message or not. He didn’t say “individuals who believe A or B about immigration put their souls in jeopardy.”

Let’s face it. This country has not addressed some aspects immigration in an orderly or reasonable way ever since the “Reagan amnesty” failed. It has long seemed to me that George Bush looked the other way because he perceived the need (true then) that America needed all kinds of workers but wasn’t producing them by natural increase.

In addition, he might have believed any attempt to actually make it a more just and welcoming system might actually work against Hispanic immigrants and favor those from better-educated, but less-than-friendly cultures. (And I personally think he would have been right to think it.)

Obama, of course, has converted it into a game for political gain. He has gone beyond Bush’s lax enforcement of the law to outright defiance of it; a defiance that clearly has caused very negative reactions among many; not so much because it involves illegals or any particular sort of them, but because it’s the enshrinement of lawlessness in a nation whose underlying cohesion depends on respect for the rule of law. I have little doubt the Cardinal, who comes from a place that is not held together by respect for the rule of law, knows that.

So now we have this mess that seems politically impossible to correct. Certainly, people are caught in it. Possibly the worst off are those from truly horrific places like Haiti or those whose homelands are at a very long distance from here like the numerous illegal Poles in Chicago or the illegals in California from China or Vietnam.

I don’t know that the Archbishop was saying we have to amnesty all illegals just because it’s hard on them to do otherwise. But he would certainly be correct in asserting that the current immigration “system” is lawless and chaotic, and that it has been for quite some time.

And at least in this article, he did not propose any specific measures himself.

 

[spartan_cop]

Cry me a river

 

[lynnvinc]

Maybe, just as many Jews have gone back to their homeland of Israel, ousting others there, the Aztecas should be allowed to come back to Aztlan and oust others here; and Native Americas should be allowed to reclaim their lands.

http://www.aztlan.net/AztlanMap.jpg

And intruders (everyone who has come since 1492) should go back to their own lands, as well.

Problem solved

 

[Francoist]

The problem is, I haven’t seen the average immigrant covered in gore, or carrying a bloody axe.

I have seen families; fathers, husbands, mothers, wives, children.

My point was that you’re spouting these absolutes without appearing to take into account the actual circumstances. How is that any better than grandstanding?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My point was that you’re spouting these absolutes without appearing to take into account the actual circumstances. How is that any better than grandstanding?

I have not stated absolutes. I have shared my view, and that of the Archbishop. I have also shared those things that I have considered in forming a faith based conscience.

 

[TEPO]

Maybe, just as many Jews have gone back to their homeland of Israel, ousting others there, the Aztecas should be allowed to come back to Aztlan and oust others here; and Native Americas should be allowed to reclaim their lands.

http://www.aztlan.net/AztlanMap.jpg

And intruders (everyone who has come since 1492) should go back to their own lands, as well.

Problem solved

That’s a good idea! except for one problem…

…I’m part Slovak, Olde English, Scottish, Dutch, Irish, etc, etc, etc…

Should I just be chopped up and delivered piece by piece to my homelands?

 

[Francoist]

Aztlan? You know, it it wasn’t just the Spanish who overthrew the Aztecs. It was also thousands of Tlaxcalans who were tired of the demon-worshipping Aztecs ripping their hearts out.

The Aztecs were one of the most repulsive civilizations in human history. There are plenty of other civilizations in Mexico one could take after. Call it “Tlaxcala” or something and we’ll talk.

Leave it to the Lefties to name something after a bunch of racist, xenophobic, imperialist demoniac pagans.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know whether he intended that message or not. He didn’t say “individuals who believe A or B about immigration put their souls in jeopardy.”

It may be difficult to interpret his message but it is not hard to recognize its effect. Much of the discussion on this thread and pretty much every other thread dealing with this topic deals with what position the church takes. There are any number of specific points that could be debated - What has been the effect of the Arizona law? Was it foreseeable? What are the pros and cons of building a fence? - but the most common topic is about whose side is the moral one.

That debate is inevitable once a bishop has advanced his position, whether that is his intention or not, and when the question of the loss of ones soul (or the “national soul”) is raised it is understood that this can only occur by the commission of an evil act, which is presumably an act at variance with the one the bishop prefers. Prodigal Son is not the only one to make that connection and while I may deplore it it is surely an understandable reaction.

And at least in this article, he did not propose any specific measures himself.

His position is implied and is none the weaker for its lack of specificity - at least to those who see his comments as validating their position and morally condemning that of their opponents. I am tired of that challenge and whether that was the archbishop’s intent or not that has been the result.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe, just as many Jews have gone back to their homeland of Israel, ousting others there, the Aztecas should be allowed to come back to Aztlan and oust others here; and Native Americas should be allowed to reclaim their lands.

http://www.aztlan.net/AztlanMap.jpg

And intruders (everyone who has come since 1492) should go back to their own lands, as well.

Problem solved

I realize you’re joking.

But it’s interesting if some claim that the Aztecs ruled the Comancheria which is within that map as part of “Aztlan”. The Comanches ousted the Apaches from the Southern Plains, driving them into less desirable areas. And I think the Navajos and Yaquis might also have a problem with the outlines of “Aztlan”. Well, then, there were the Tonkawas and others…

And that’s to say nothing about the Spanish and Anglos.

 

[lynnvinc]

I realize you’re joking.

But it’s interesting if some claim that the Aztecs ruled the Comancheria which is within that map as part of “Aztlan”. The Comanches ousted the Apaches from the Southern Plains, driving them into less desirable areas. And I think the Navajos and Yaquis might also have a problem with the outlines of “Aztlan”. Well, then, there were the Tonkawas and others…

And that’s to say nothing about the Spanish and Anglos.

That was the only map I could find in a snap, and I also had the same problems as you – what about the Native American tribes in those areas.

But I suppose if one considers all the tribes of the Uto-Aztecan languages, then we get this map:



What really impressed me as a young anthro student in the 60s was Kroeber’s map of all the tribes across America. They had control of 100% of the land in pre-Columbian times. And then my vision sweeping across the succeeding maps as those darned immigrants, mainly from Europe (including my ancestors ), were taking over their lands, sort of looked like a flip card movie of disappearing land. I’m sure Kroeber did not mean it as a political statement – just doing anthropological science – but it really grabbed me. That and my 1st and 6th grade teachers who taught us well about Native Americans.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That was the only map I could find in a snap, and I also had the same problems as you – what about the Native American tribes in those areas.

But I suppose if one considers all the tribes of the Uto-Aztecan languages, then we get this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Uto-Aztecan_langs.png

What really impressed me as a young anthro student in the 60s was Kroeber’s map of all the tribes across America. They had control of 100% of the land in pre-Columbian times. And then my vision sweeping across the succeeding maps as those darned immigrants, mainly from Europe (including my ancestors ), were taking over their lands, sort of looked like a flip card movie of disappearing land. I’m sure Kroeber did not mean it as a political statement – just doing anthropological science – but it really grabbed me. That and my 1st and 6th grade teachers who taught us well about Native Americans.

And, of course, the map of the various tribes would have changed from time to time. Immediately before white settlement, a Siouxan tribe, the Osage, had driven all other tribes out of the area in which I live, converting it to a virtually deserted “hunting preserve”.
Pre-settler Kentucky was much the same way, having been depopulated by powerful Ohio Valley tribes.

More easterly tribes eventually drove the Osage into Oklahoma, then, under settler pressure (there was some intermarriage) moved on themselves.

As I mentioned before, the Comanche, a tribe from the Rocky Mountains and related to the Utes, drove the Apaches from the southern plains. The Sioux and Cheyenne drove other tribes out of the northern plains.

While there were some tribes that held more or less constant territories for some time, the whole thing was in flux, depending on who won the last inter-tribal war.

Europe wasn’t much different for a long time. Earlier (likely Mongolic) people were driven out by Iberians, who were then conquered by Celts, who were then conquered and Romanized by Romans and their various allies, then significantly supplanted by Teutons, Avars, Magyars. Formerly Teutonic lands became Slavic. On and on.

There is no “single photograph” of the “homelands” of various peoples until relatively modern times. Before that, it was all a “moving picture”.

Even the Aztecs themselves weren’t “originals” in the Valley of Mexico. They were relative latecomers, probably from the Pacific coast of Mexico. They did call their semi-mythical place of origin “Aztlan”, but that Aztlan certainly didn’t include the American southwest, the actual occupants of which would have mightily contested any assertion that it did.

Nor do linguistic similarities determine cultures or nationalities. If it were so, then Finland and Hungary and Turkey would all be one country.

 

[RACJ]

Amen! Every night my husband walks through the door is a prayer answered.

I feel very badly for good people in your situation, but I do NOT support amnesty. No one here illegally should jump ahead of a single person who is trying to emigrate through the legal system. The fact is that people who come from dictatorships more often than not vote to impose the hell that they are escaping on America, that is, by voting for socialist Democrats. Too many come here for the freebies, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of others, are criminals and gang bangers.
Nowhere else on earth can one enter another sovereign nation and head straight to the welfare office, or a hospital to give birth, or enroll children in a school system without being questioned. Our nation has become feeble and addle-brained, and we are rapidly comitting suicide in the name of “compassion”. THe only people-sovereign nation on earth will soon become one more hellish tyranny. Rob

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I feel very badly for good people in your situation, but I do NOT support amnesty. No one here illegally should jump ahead of a single person who is trying to emigrate through the legal system. The fact is that people who come from dictatorships more often than not vote to impose the hell that they are escaping on America, that is, by voting for socialist Democrats. Too many come here for the freebies, and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of others, are criminals and gang bangers.
Nowhere else on earth can one enter another sovereign nation and head straight to the welfare office, or a hospital to give birth, or enroll children in a school system without being questioned. Our nation has become feeble and addle-brained, and we are rapidly comitting suicide in the name of “compassion”. THe only people-sovereign nation on earth will soon become one more hellish tyranny. Rob

Is that opinion, or do you have a source?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

That was the only map I could find in a snap, and I also had the same problems as you – what about the Native American tribes in those areas.

But I suppose if one considers all the tribes of the Uto-Aztecan languages, then we get this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/Uto-Aztecan_langs.png

What really impressed me as a young anthro student in the 60s was Kroeber’s map of all the tribes across America. They had control of 100% of the land in pre-Columbian times. And then my vision sweeping across the succeeding maps as those darned immigrants, mainly from Europe (including my ancestors ), were taking over their lands, sort of looked like a flip card movie of disappearing land. I’m sure Kroeber did not mean it as a political statement – just doing anthropological science – but it really grabbed me. That and my 1st and 6th grade teachers who taught us well about Native Americans.

Technically, God wants us all to return to our place of origin, Eden.

I don’t see us all fitting though.

 

[RACJ]

Maybe, just as many Jews have gone back to their homeland of Israel, ousting others there, the Aztecas should be allowed to come back to Aztlan and oust others here; and Native Americas should be allowed to reclaim their lands.
http://www.aztlan.net/AztlanMap.jpg
And intruders (everyone who has come since 1492) should go back to their own lands, as well.
Problem solved

Why, would you like to see the death shroud of Marxism extend over ever greater territory? It is spreading anyway, thanks to our insane immigration policies. All such a suggestion does is give quarter to those who wish to blame American imperialism for the grave condition of Mexico, instead of the radical socialist government which has nationalized everything in sight. All Communism ever brings is poverty and desperation, and it is coming to a country near you soon enough.
Pray for our posterity, who will never live to see as great a nation as we once had. Rob

 

[RACJ]

Is that opinion, or do you have a source?

No, PS, I am simply guessing. Please expose yourself to more than MSNBC. Unlike you, I do not apologize for my desire for America to remain a great nation, where freedom of every individual is cherished. Many, many people who do NOT love America come here, and to survive we must recognize and reject this onslaught. Try finding an American flag flying at a soccer match in Los Angeles if you don’t believe me. Best, Rob

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, PS, I am simply guessing. Please expose yourself to more than MSNBC. Unlike you, I do not apologize for my desire for America to remain a great nation, where freedom of every individual is cherished. Many, many people who do NOT love America come here, and to survive we must recognize and reject this onslaught. Try finding an American flag flying at a soccer match in Los Angeles if you don’t believe me. Best, Rob

I do not watch MSNBC.

I believe America will continue to be a great nation. I also recognize that this great nation was built by immigrants.

Why would our bishops support such as you describe, in your opinion?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I do not watch MSNBC.

I believe America will continue to be a great nation. I also recognize that this great nation was built by immigrants.

Why would our bishops support such as you describe, in your opinion?

I don’t believe anyone opposes immigration, any more than anyone opposes being good stewards of the earth. To claim otherwise is to liken traditional marriage proponents as bigots. Likewise, not wanting to throw money and wasteful green energy projects when we have a close to 17 trillion dollar debt does not make you a poor steward. If our financial situation was not perilous, we could honestly afford more speculative or costly ventures. But until we find a way to clean up our financial mess (which no one seems to care about until their own interests get cut), there is no money to be wasted. Many of us have been warning of this sort of thing for years, and we vote (both locally and in congress) to continue the gravy train approach.

As we all things, there are sensible, compassionate approaches that are also financially tenable, fair, and not risks our national security.

 

[jwinch2]

This was written back in 2010 by a seminarian, but it is just as pertinent today.

I thought it’d be a good time to remind the world what the CCC actually teaches on illegal immigration.

CCC 2241 “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent that they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin, Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him”

Political authorities for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I’m going to split this into parts

a. to the extent that they’re able to.

In case you forgot, we’re 12 trillion dollars in the hole, and really can’t afford ANYTHING as a country, I know that over a billion bucks on zerocare made you forget our 12 trillion dollar deficit, but we’ve still got it. If we were to capture EVERY illegal immigrant (illegal because the law was broken) and deport them all back to their country or origin, if the average ticket to whatever country of origin costs say 1000 bucks, it’s something we can’t afford. That’d $ 300 000 000 000 that we don’t have. Yet at the same time full amnesty is not the answer either because absolving them of a crime they’ve committed is wrong. Why have a law on the books if you’re not going to enforce the punishment?

b. welcome the foreigner in search of livelihood and security he can not find in his country of origin

In many situations, for example Vietnam, China, the Faith is being persecuted actively, in some situations it’s not practical for people to go back home because of safety concerns. In other countries such as Mexico you have the drug cartels which are a handful to deal with. These are situations which you can understand why people are trying to escape. They shouldn’t be demeaned just because they’re an immigrant. We shouldn’t make the immigrants lives hell for coming over here, (this is the part where the US Bishops are right) and whether they’re legal or illegal they do deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

c. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him

You do have the right to live wherever you so choose, (of course under the laws of wherever you’re living), this is to be respected. This is NOT saying that we should have open borders (as we’ll later find out). While anyone is on our soil, we’re bound to protect them in so far as we’re able. Not like a nanny state police, but if something God forbid goes wrong, we should protect them first because that is our duty before God. (punishment comes later).

d. Political authorities for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants duties toward their country of adoption

The host country has a right to protect itself and enforce its own laws. I have bad news for those of you that think the official Church position is “amnesty for all” Far from it, the Church respects BOTH the rights of the individual and the state to enforce the laws. (An unjust law is talked about in the next section of the catechism). In this case, the United States has a right to set up what the rules for immigration are, to protect its sovereignty. The rules being if you’re here in the US you need a green card or some type of identification to say that you’re here legally.

e. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

People are bound to obey the laws of the country where they are. They can not plead ignorance of the law, when you walk into the territory wherever you go, you’re under the jurisdiction of wherever you’re staying at. In this case the immigrant is bound to obey all traffic laws, city ordinances, state laws, federal laws, including immigration laws.That’s to say if you broke the law you’re bound to pay the punishment, or find a way to establish yourself legally here.

verbumveritatis.wordpress.com/

I cannot bring myself to agree with Archbishop Gomez’ comments on this issue. I can certainly understand that the splitting apart of families is a tragic situation and I recognize our moral duty to help those that we can, particularly the poor and marginalized. However, this breaking apart of families is hardly limited to illegal immigrants, or for that matter, others who are deported for breaking the law. If a person robs a bank and is sent to jail as a result, that family is broken up also. Yet, in both situations, breaking the family is a result of the actions taken by the person committing the crime.

The United States did not create the poor economic or social conditions in the country that the illegal immigrant comes from (particularly with the amount of foreign aid given to many of those same countries), nor force that person to make a decision to break laws. If any actual grievance with a government exists, it is with the persons responsible for creating the economic or social climate in the country they are trying to leave behind, not with the United States or any other country who punishes people in accordance with the law of the land.

 

[Kelfa28]

So we are cool with asylum for all of these immigrants coming over who vote for pro-abrotion and pro-socialist agendas…yet when we are faced with a family that is Christian and genuinely needs help…we kick them out?

wnd.com/2010/03/130685/

A German homeschooling family looking for asylum in this country to be able to raise their children Christian clearly has no place in our country.

I’m sorry…but this is clear hypocrisy.

Immigration reform is nothing but a socialist agenda.