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

[seakelp]

Again, that’s like blaming the justice system for splitting up the Manson family.

I can see having sympathy, and we should look at whether we can do better, but let’s lay blame squarely where it laws - on the person who to the risk, and got deported. That’s why it is called risk.

I still see a lot of platitudes but no proposed solutions. like I said, if all we are going to do in here is say that we need to work on a just immigration system that protects our security and respects the dignity or workers and families, lets all agree, and close the topic. There is no need to clutter these boards with pages on generic platitudes.

I understand the analogy, but I don’t think it’s apt. First, it’s not a crime to be in the US illegally. Second, even if it were, what’s the actual harm done by these people? Wanting to come to a nation where they can improve their lives? Where they can work hard and ensure that children will have better lives than their parents? Come on.

I’ve already admitted that I’m not a policy person, and have no in-depth understanding of the proposals for reform. I do know that they exist, however.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Feed the hungry, unless it’s their fault they’re hungry, clothe the naked, unless it’s their fault they’re naked, give shelter to the stranger, unless it’s their fault they’re strangers, care for the sick, unless it’s their fault they’re sick, and visit the imprisoned, unless it’s their fault they’re imprisoned.

The qualification seems to change the Gospel message, in my opinion.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

So we should take away free will that God could but does not? The answer is to follow His Gospel, which is not fighting, or forcing others to Him.

Love is an important tenet of Christianity. The republican message during the election did not convey that love, on the subject of immigration, in my and other people’s opinions. Would those percentages have been as high among Hispanic voters if they found the republican view sympathetic to their own situations, and that of their family and friends? We can save ourselves, if we have faith in Him and follow all His Gospel teachings. There are the non-negotiable issues. But the way we handle other issues has an affect on the non-negotiable.

For a “non-partisan” (lol), why do you spend so much time lecturing Republicans, who platform is devoid of intrincially evil issues, even when you may disagree on other issues? They may not be perfect, but the focus of these post is literally 10 to 1 going after the Republican party (who I myself as a conservative have issues with too). To claim to be even handed and continue quoting scripture as though that actually gives you the higher ground (hint - it only does that when you are making a valid point) renders those quotes teethless.

The election went the same way - “I cannot in good faith vote or support either man as President. Now here are ten pages about why Romney is wrong.” Can we be honest on here(a requirement of membership, tecnically) and drop the pretense of being evenhanded, please?

If people spent half as much time worrying about the serious gravity of what the Democratic party stands for as written in their platform as they do the perceived “meanness” (which is what your complains amount to) of the Republican party, our world would be better off for it, more children would continue to breathe, and God would smile.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I understand the analogy, but I don’t think it’s apt. First, it’s not a crime to be in the US illegally. Second, even if it were, what’s the actual harm done by these people? Wanting to come to a nation where they can improve their lives? Where they can work hard and ensure that children will have better lives than their parents? Come on.

I’ve already admitted that I’m not a policy person, and have no in-depth understanding of the proposals for reform. I do know that they exist, however.

There are mountains of stats that support the harm they do, and support the good they do. If you want to judge whether or not we should enforce laws by that standard, you open up a whole can of worms. The way our laws work is you work to have them changed, because they are pointless, not ignore the ones YOU think are pointless.

The fact is, I would be much more for considering any host of proposals or programs for this or any other issue if we had been good stewards with God’s gifts prior to this, as many of us were shouting. We dug a hole, and how expect our children to fix our mess? That is hardly Catholic teaching, which is the standard I choose to use.

Again, perhaps people who want to do any host of things that cost money these days should have thought of that when ignoring mounting deficits and debt when others warned them. I frankly don’t have a lot of pity for people who ignored those warnings, and cannot in good conscience vote to castoff our poor like Greece has done because of their pie in the sky ideals.

Let me ask you - why doesn’t Greece simply reup the pensions for all the homeless they cast out., and also offer to take in the Mexican immigrants who are looking for a better life as well?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For a “non-partisan” (lol), why do you spend so much time lecturing Republicans, who platform is devoid of intrincially evil issues, even when you may disagree on other issues? They may not be perfect, but the focus of these post is literally 10 to 1 going after the Republican party (who I myself as a conservative have issues with too). To claim to be even handed and continue quoting scripture as though that actually gives you the higher ground (hint - it only does that when you are making a valid point) renders those quotes teethless.

The election went the same way - “I cannot in good faith vote or support either man as President. Now here are ten pages about why Romney is wrong.” Can we be honest on here(a requirement of membership, tecnically) and drop the pretense of being evenhanded, please?

If people spent half as much time worrying about the serious gravity of what the Democratic party stands for as written in their platform as they do the perceived “meanness” (which is what your complains amount to) of the Republican party, our world would be better off for it, more children would continue to breathe, and God would smile.

Speaking an opinion on how a party could strengthen is not lecturing. The same can be applied to the democrat party. If they put up a pro-life, pro-DOMA, etc. candidate, they could probably gain more of the moderate vote, and possibly increase the Hispanic support.

I offer the scriptures that are applicable in today’s world, in my opinion. As for higher ground, no one has explained how those scriptures can be applied any other way.

Romney played it along party lines. He had support for all his views. Had immigration had a stronger support, he may have presented a different view. It’s not a republican thing, it’s a politician thing. They all have a view where they feel they can gain the most voters.

True, and if those who supported the republican party had demanded a more sympathetic view on the other issues, we might have made ground on the non-negotiable issues. There seemed to be an unwillingness to give on the other issues, even for the sake of the non-negotiable issues. That’s why I say, neither party is perfect, and both parties have views that are in line with parts of the Gospel, but neither supports all the Gospel 100%.

I’m afraid of what the republican party is considering for more support in future elections. How many have said that they can see a republican candidate supporting ‘gay marriage?’

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Feed the hungry, unless it’s their fault they’re hungry, clothe the naked, unless it’s their fault they’re naked, give shelter to the stranger, unless it’s their fault they’re strangers, care for the sick, unless it’s their fault they’re sick, and visit the imprisoned, unless it’s their fault they’re imprisoned.

The qualification seems to change the Gospel message, in my opinion.

Since no one said that, your post is meaningless. Nice one. Why not quote other posters and refute them line by line, like everyone else does in the name of courtesy, instead of incessantly posting Scripture in irrelevant places?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

True, and if those who supported the republican party had demanded a more sympathetic view on the other issues, we might have made ground on the non-negotiable issues. There seemed to be an unwillingness to give on the other issues, even for the sake of the non-negotiable issues. That’s why I say, neither party is perfect, and both parties have views that are in line with parts of the Gospel, but neither supports all the Gospel 100%.

In the interest oif sanity, I am not going to address everything else you said, but to equivocate on the parties, even as impect as the Republicans are, is to trivialize the mnost serious issues of life.

Until the Democratic platform drops its wholesale endorsement of evil in the likes of abortion, gay marriage, and euthansia (all part of the offical platfrom in most states), the two are worlds apart in terms of morality.

The Republican party has blemishes thta need to be fixed. The Democratic party has a soul that is missing. The two are not in any way comprabale, since all imperfections are not equal. Prior to the 1990s, I would have agreed with you. Since around 1992, when the Democrats married themselves to the right to murder, they have gone off the edge.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since no one said that, your post is meaningless. Nice one. Why not quote other posters and refute them line by line, like everyone else does in the name of courtesy, instead of incessantly posting Scripture in irrelevant places?

You qualified blame on immigrants, or so it seemed. I can’t see where Christ made those type qualifications when He commanded us to help one another.

I will share scriptures that influence my faith formed conscience on the issues which are the topic of a thread. I am open to considering scriptures you feel support your view.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In the interest oif sanity, I am not going to address everything else you said, but to equivocate on the parties, even as impect as the Republicans are, is to trivialize the mnost serious issues of life.

Until the Democratic platform drops its wholesale endorsement of evil in the likes of abortion, gay marriage, and euthansia (all part of the offical platfrom in most states), the two are worlds apart in terms of morality.

The Republican party has blemishes thta need to be fixed. The Democratic party has a soul that is missing. The two are not in any way comprabale, since all imperfections are not equal. Prior to the 1990s, I would have agreed with you. Since around 1992, when the Democrats married themselves to the right to murder, they have gone off the edge.

So it’s wrong to consider asking our politicians to give on other issues for the sake of the non-negotiable issues?

 

[pnewton]

Rob, if you are correct about the political demographic justification, why did President G.W. Bush support amnesty?

FYI - Bush was always clear he did not support amnesty, but did support reform whereby deportation of those here could seek guest worker status or citizenship, but not necessarily that it be free as amnesty would be.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This land does not rightly belong to us, it was stolen by robbery and genocide by thieves and murderers (my antecedents and even some of my relatives), who rightly should not have benefitted from their atrocities.

We American citizens and residents should consider ourselves keepers, not owners, of the land, to be kept in good condition as God intended (and commanded in Genesis) and shared with those who want to come here…in an orderly fashion, without further “oustings” of people who are already here, and within the carrying capacity of the land – which is still very vast. We are very much underpopulated. Of course when the impacts of climate change really start kicking in within a few decades the carrying capacity of nearly all the lands of the earth may start being diminished well below the populations. By the end of this century I think it will start becoming a vicious killer musical chairs of ever-diminishing life-sustaining resources.

We have not protected creation and are bringing on this devastation ourselves, and mainly to the poor peoples and indigenous peoples. We do not deserve to have this land. We do not deserve any good or benefit at all. But God graciously deigns not to punish us … yet.

There is almost certainly no population on this planet that has not displaced another at some time or other. To call the greater part (or perhaps all) of humankind “thieves” and “murderers”, particularly when almost none now living had anything to do with the original displacement, is extremely excessive.

I am of the opinion, as you are, that this country is underpopulated. Since the native birth rate is lower than replacement, expanded immigration is an obvious answer. But simply saying that does not make it easy as a practical matter. There are real problems associated with immigration, and it’s just romanticism to imagine somehow that there are not.

Since the MMGW stuff really isn’t remotely topical, I’ll leave that for another thread.

 

[livnlern]

I don’t see a consideration of ‘why’ people come here. Is that not something Christians should give consideration?

Would you call for the Church to address the way those who become citizens vote if they voted along political lines that you agree with? We can’t remove people acting on their faith based consciences to accomplish political goals, for either side. How one decides to vote, or what political party they decide to align with, should they gain legal citizenship, is not a part of the equation, in my honest opinion. Should we ask the Church to support removing the rights of citizens who were born here, to accomplish a political goal?

Would you say the Democratic party supports the views of the Catholic Church? If you say yes, you’re fooling yourself. The Democratic platform supports abortion and gay marriage amongst other things. And they promote the welfare system in order to keep people under their control. Like it or not, many Hispanics vote for the Dems. which in turn is persecuting the Catholic Church. This is a problem. The Church is reaching out to help immigrants but is not really catechizing them at the same time. Why else would they vote for a pro-abortion party?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Would you say the Democratic party supports the views of the Catholic Church? If you say yes, you’re fooling yourself. The Democratic platform supports abortion and gay marriage amongst other things. …The Church is reaching out to help immigrants but is not really catechizing them at the same time. Why else would they vote for a pro-abortion party?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Would you say the Democratic party supports the views of the Catholic Church? If you say yes, you’re fooling yourself. The Democratic platform supports abortion and gay marriage amongst other things. And they promote the welfare system in order to keep people under their control. Like it or not, many Hispanics vote for the Dems. which in turn is persecuting the Catholic Church. This is a problem. The Church is reaching out to help immigrants but is not really catechizing them at the same time. Why else would they vote for a pro-abortion party?

I don’t say there is a political party that supports all the views of the Catholic Church. To say there is justified reasoning to stop immigrants based on their potential to choose one political party, or the other, is not representative of freedom, or what the Church teaches about each person’s conscience.

We are the Church. Are we catechizing by keeping them at bay?

 

[Ridgerunner]

True, and if those who supported the republican party had demanded a more sympathetic view on the other issues, we might have made ground on the non-negotiable issues. There seemed to be an unwillingness to give on the other issues, even for the sake of the non-negotiable issues. That’s why I say, neither party is perfect, and both parties have views that are in line with parts of the Gospel, but neither supports all the Gospel 100%.

’

I don’t see why we should believe this. The Dem party became wedded to abortion before the current immigration argument. It is true that they have more recently become wedded to homosexual “marriage”. But what are they going to compromise on any of that to gain? Higher taxes? I very much doubt higher taxes would equal abortion or homosexual marriage in the Democrat party.

I am not sure either party really promotes gospel views. The Repub party comes close in some ways; protection of the family and marriage and opposition to abortion. It is more inclined toward subsidiarity. But it’s rather indifferent to aiding the truly poor; those in this society who cannot help themselves, and in that indifference, the Dems are easily their equals.

No, I think the political parties are a long way from 100% adherence to the gospels or to Church teachings for that matter. But at this point, only one party’s leaders are active oppressors of the Church and its institutions, and that is the Democrat party.

So, for that reason as well as the Dem party’s wedded devotion to abortion and the degradation of marriage, and in the absence of its promotion of any gospel tenets at all, I do not see how any Catholic can, in good conscience, do anything other than oppose it and its candidates.

And no, I’m not a Repub and have never been one. I do vote for many of their candidates and never vote for Democrats, because many Repub candidates do favor Catholic values, while the Democrat candidates on my ballot never do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t see why we should believe this. The Dem party became wedded to abortion before the current immigration argument. It is true that they have more recently become wedded to homosexual “marriage”. But what are they going to compromise on any of that to gain? Higher taxes? I very much doubt higher taxes would equal abortion or homosexual marriage in the Democrat party.

I am not sure either party really promotes gospel views. The Repub party comes close in some ways; protection of the family and marriage and opposition to abortion. It is more inclined toward subsidiarity. But it’s rather indifferent to aiding the truly poor; those in this society who cannot help themselves, and in that indifference, the Dems are easily their equals.

No, I think the political parties are a long way from 100% adherence to the gospels or to Church teachings for that matter. But at this point, only one party’s leaders are active oppressors of the Church and its institutions, and that is the Democrat party.

So, for that reason as well as the Dem party’s wedded devotion to abortion and the degradation of marriage, and in the absence of its promotion of any gospel tenets at all, I do not see how any Catholic can, in good conscience, do anything other than oppose it and its candidates.

And no, I’m not a Repub and have never been one. I do vote for many of their candidates and never vote for Democrats, because many Repub candidates do favor Catholic values, while the Democrat candidates on my ballot never do.

We aren’t talking about what came first. Reality is, we have multiple issues before all of us, believers and non-believers. We could have suggested candidates moderate on the lesser issues, and conservative on the non-negotiable issues for the interest of the more important issues. Why is that unacceptable? Why wouldn’t people have given on the lesser issues for the greater issues? It has appearances of the important issues being used to promote all the issues.

God does not have a political party.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t say there is a political party that supports all the views of the Catholic Church. To say there is justified reasoning to stop immigrants based on their potential to choose one political party, or the other, is not representative of freedom, or what the Church teaches about each person’s conscience.

We are the Church. Are we catechizing by keeping them at bay?

I have little doubt George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration laws was at least partially motivated by politics. After all, he received something like 40% of the Hispanic vote. Nor do I doubt Obama’s defiance of immigration laws is also politically motivated.

Regardless, that’s really not a valid reason to be for or against immigration reform. Repubs might favor more educated immigrants who are more likely to support them. Dems might favor less educated immigrants for the same reason.

The difficulty isn’t really any of that. One of the bigger questions, and one that has people at odds about it, is whether we increase or bless immigration that burdens the rest of society or whether we do so in a way that aids it. Then there is the “political correctness” aspect of it, which is nearly insoluble.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To say there is justified reasoning to stop immigrants based on their potential to choose one political party, or the other, is not representative of freedom, or what the Church teaches about each person’s conscience.

Correct. It is also not in line with what the Church teaches to support discrimination, which is the effect of the Church’s support of illegal immigration. The latter discriminates against people who are as poor and much poorer than the current crop of undocumented immigrants, who are overwhelmingly from Latin America. An honest and non-hypocritical moral position on immigration would recognize, and lobby, for the poor in other parts of the world to migrate with the same level of impunity and generosity which the Church seems to celebrate and support for those from Latin America. But I don’t hear any official of the Church saying that. No, we must particularly and exclusively support those who are conveniently near us, regardless of the objective state of need (poverty, persecution, much else) of those from other regions desirous of coming here. I wonder if it’s because many of those “others” are Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and even affiliated with superstition as a belief system.

So the scandal that is created by such a discriminatory position is that social justice is reserved for some people more than others, which is NOT the doctrine of the Church, nor the way theology is structured, defended, and understood by the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have little doubt George Bush’s failure to enforce immigration laws was at least partially motivated by politics. After all, he received something like 40% of the Hispanic vote. Nor do I doubt Obama’s defiance of immigration laws is also politically motivated.

Regardless, that’s really not a valid reason to be for or against immigration reform. Repubs might favor more educated immigrants who are more likely to support them. Dems might favor less educated immigrants for the same reason.

The difficulty isn’t really any of that. One of the bigger questions, and one that has people at odds about it, is whether we increase or bless immigration that burdens the rest of society or whether we do so in a way that aids it. Then there is the “political correctness” aspect of it, which is nearly insoluble.

A valid reason to be for immigration is the Gospels, and the guidance from the men of the Church, in my opinion. They aren’t politically motivated. They guide based on a ‘spiritual correctness.’

 

[Ridgerunner]

We aren’t talking about what came first. Reality is, we have multiple issues before all of us, believers and non-believers. We could have suggested candidates moderate on the lesser issues, and conservative on the non-negotiable issues for the interest of the more important issues. Why is that unacceptable? Why wouldn’t people have given on the lesser issues for the greater issues? It has appearances of the important issues being used to promote all the issues.

God does not have a political party.

Unacceptable? Romney was pretty close to the kind of person you describe above. But he didn’t win. An unbending radical won. So what is Obama really willing to give up as regards abortion and homosexual “marriage” and oppression of the Church? When has he ever given the least persuasive indication that he would? When did he “put abortion on the table” with the Repubs?

Back in the “bipartisan” talks about Obamacare, he was very clear that he wouldn’t give an inch on anything at all…not even additions to his program. Why should anybody think the man would yield on things of greater import?