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

[twoshoes]

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.

This is the very center of the issue Politicans who want votes and employers who want a large low income work force to keeps all wages stagnet. Keep the poor fighting for the same scrap of bread. This is much larger than just breaking up family. The hot button.

 

[Francoist]

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.

I’m sorry but this attitude is part of the reason that the immigration situation is such a disaster. There are people who feel that they can advocate policy without any knowledge or consideration of the consequences.

If a stranger came to my door covered in gore and holding a bloody axe and asked me to give him shelter, all he’d get is politely asked to seek shelter elsewhere… or the opportunity to be introduced to a 12 gauge or a 9mm.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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

I’m sorry Ender. I don’t see how that changes the message.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m sorry but this attitude is part of the reason that the immigration situation is such a disaster. There are people who feel that they can advocate policy without any knowledge or consideration of the consequences.

If a stranger came to my door covered in gore and holding a bloody axe and asked me to give him shelter, all he’d get is politely asked to seek shelter elsewhere… or the opportunity to be introduced to a 12 gauge or a 9mm.

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.

 

[TEPO]

I didn’t know America had a soul…

If it did, would that mean that a pure American soul would guarantee all Americans salvation?

…I don’t get it.

 

[TEPO]

Maybe some day there will be a global soul?

 

[TEPO]

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.

So all these people come knocking at your door? Or are they knocking on the “American” door, in which we have no control over?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So all these people come knocking at your door? Or are they knocking on the “American” door, in which we have no control over?

America is a community, largely with people claiming to be Christian. Collectively we are the government, and as Christians we are a part of His. It’s through our support, that we control. If we have no control over this issue, we have no control over any issue.

 

[Tigg]

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.

THANK YOU for this post, RR. You have perhaps, made points others have not yet considered in their rush to take the moral high ground when they rashly judge those of us opposed to the political solution.

 

[TEPO]

America is a community, largely with people claiming to be Christian. Collectively we are the government, and as Christians we are a part of His. It’s through our support, that we control. If we have no control over this issue, we have no control over any issue.

Sir you are mistaken! We are NOT the government -if we were, abortion would have never been made legal. Even when we vote republican, policy does not change. We do not write policy, we don’t know who does… All we have are TWO simple choices, and that’s ALL!

 

[TEPO]

Okay, I was wrong… We have three choices -we can also choose not to vote.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sir you are mistaken! We are NOT the government -if we were, abortion would have never been made legal. Even when we vote republican, policy does not change. We do not write policy, we don’t know who does… All we have are TWO simple choices, and that’s ALL!

We the people, are the government. Because something exists, or doesn’t, only shows that the majority ruled on an issue. Politicians, both parties, weigh support to make decisions, for the most part.

 

[TEPO]

We the people, are the government. Because something exists, or doesn’t, only shows that the majority ruled on an issue. Politicians, both parties, weigh support to make decisions, for the most part.

That’s bologna, we don’t live in a republic -where we get to decide on each and every policy, we live in a democracy where we vote for A or B. the political ideologies of either party are mixed between the good and the bad.

…if Americans could vote for policies rather than candidates then I would agree with you.

 

[TEPO]

By the way, your icons make me feel guilty -like I’m yelling at Jesus.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

That’s bologna, we don’t live in a republic -where we get to decide on each and every policy, we live in a democracy where we vote for A or B. the political ideologies of either party are mixed between the good and the bad.

…if Americans could vote for policies rather than candidates then I would agree with you.

Unless your reference is to another country, you should be aware that the United States is a republic. Check your definitions.

 

[TEPO]

Unless your reference is to another country, you should be aware that the United States is a republic. Check your definitions.

Well, every political word seems to have ten definitions these days. But there has to be an official name for a system of government where citizens vote on actual policies themselves as opposed to the system where citizens vote for ‘politicians’ who in turn vote on policies for us.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, every political word seems to have ten definitions these days. But there has to be an official name for a system of government where citizens vote on actual policies themselves as opposed to the system where citizens vote for ‘politicians’ who in turn vote on policies for us.

Direct democracy.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Maybe some day there will be a global soul?

Wasn’t it Emerson who believed in an “oversoul”; a sort of universal soul? Kind of a mix of Masonic deism and some concepts of Buddhism.

Not accusing the Archbishop of promoting that, and I’m sure that’s not what he meant. I guess if I were asked whether the “soul” of America, in terms of its overlying moral ethos, I would have to admit I would say it’s pretty wanting in many respects, and getting worse.

It is remarkable to me how pagan so much of what we’re now seeing officially promoted really is…how anti-Catholic. Our failure to devise even a legal approach the government will obey pretty much tells us there’s no real desire to take a truly orderly approach, let alone one that provides mutual advantages to both immigrants and to the society at large.

 

[Bill1940]

The PRI and its forebears have, since their rise to power out of the bloody revolutions at the turn of the century, forced a succession of Communist and Socialist regimes upon the Mexican people. Mexico has always had the population and the natural resources to be a top-rate country. However, since the fall of Diaz nobody besides President Fox has had any serious notion of ending corruption, cronyism and economic decay in that country. Diaz heavily subsidized rail construction and Limantour and los cientificos brought in not only foreign investment but foreign technology, including refrigerated cars and froth flotation mining.

Since the rise of the PRI Mexico has been nothing but a third-world hellhole. It’s too bad their grip on the country is so close to absolute.

It’s no wonder so many Mexicans want to come to the USA. It’s a much nicer place to live and work. Sadly, the horrible state of Mexico as a country means that the people who come here are often not equipped to be functional citizens.

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.

I agree with you, concerning the failed state of Mexico. How many people know about the firing squads for Catholic priests during the revolution? Is it not sad that the socialists who most want the immigrants want them in order to turn our own country into another failed Marxist state? However, deportation of those established here is immoral and cruel. They are here, much due to the perfidy of our politicians. We need a just policy but we need first to trim our lanterns and go daily about looking for honest men to frame it.

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry Ender. I don’t see how that changes the message.

The message is not changed: It is impossible to do good to everyone. Choices have to be made. This is why states have the right to control their borders, and given that hard choices are involved it should be understandable that people reach opposite conclusions. It should be equally obvious that, given the myriad of practical difficulties involved, the church has no position on what should be done beyond a generic “do your best for those who are suffering.”

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