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

[pnewton]

Is there a specific remedy you believe would be just?

The one thing I notice is unjust, at least as the Catholic Church teaches, is that preference for citizenship and legal entry are given to those who are professional, instead of an option for the poor as the Church teaches. I personally would like to see the current quota system eliminated, but if it is not, then at least it needs to give the preference to the poor as per Church teaching.

 

[Brendan]

It is not a federal crime. Only subsequent re-entry after deportation is a crime, and that is a misdemeanor.

How do you get that from the law

Section 1325 [of Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII].
…

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection;
misrepresentation and concealment of facts
**Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States
at any time or place other than as designated by immigration
officers, or **(2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration
officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United
States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the
willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or
imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent
commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or
imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

I don’t see where this applies only to any subsequent entry. Could you quote the specific section of the law you are referring to?

The first bolded section seems to indicate otherwise.

The second bolded would indicate that prison time IS a possibility for the first offence. I can see how deportation is often the initial response, as immediate deportation would have a equivalent effect as prison time followed by deportation, and would save the government the cost of incarceration.

But the law seems to read as even the first offence being a misdemeanor punishable by 6 months prison time.

If you could indicate what section of the law you used to arrive at your conclusion, I would appreciate it.

I would also refer you to this Syracuse Univ study
trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/251/

The study noted this

Illegal reentry is a felony offense and results in longer sentences than the second most frequent immigration charge brought this year, illegal entry, which is classed as a petty misdemeanor.

It seems that illegal REentry is a felony, while the first offense is a petty misdemeanor

 

[pnewton]

How do you get that from the law

I believe I have been misinformed by an immigration lawyer, but I think I see the error. Yes, if one is caught entering illegal, then they have committed a crime, but being here illegally is not a crime. That seems to be why it is always tried as a civil matter.

If one chooses to disobey a law that one considers unjust, that is laudable, but such a one must be willing to be punished by the statute.

 

[Brendan]

I believe I have been misinformed by an immigration lawyer, but I think I see the error. Yes, if one is caught entering illegal, then they have committed a crime, but being here illegally is not a crime. That seems to be why it is always tried as a civil matter. .

I see the difference you are talking about. Entering the US via ways other than a legitimate customs point would be a crime, but overstaying a legitimate visa ( and making no attempt to evade customs officials), would not be a crime under this statue .

 

[Geist]

If you are tired, you can always take a break. The phrase** was** used “I have zero sympathy for anyone deported or their families.” I did not make this up. If you jump in the middle of a debate, you only have yourself and your conscience to thank for comments you take personal.

Yes, because by your own admission…

I am not speaking about criminals. Not all who come here without documentation are criminals. The largest majority are not.

The people getting deported? Are criminals. They’ve done something else to get deported. And they and their families suffer the consequences. just like my family would suffer should I commit a crime and be sent to prison.

This is why I have zero sympathy for them, because via their own actions they themselves have caused great suffering to their families; no one is to blame but themselves.

Is personal responsibility and accountability this alien a concept to some?

 

[pnewton]

I see the difference you are talking about. Entering the US via ways other than a legitimate customs point would be a crime, but overstaying a legitimate visa ( and making no attempt to evade customs officials), would not be a crime under this statue .

From a practical point, I could see even in the case of those who did enter illegally that it would not be easy to prosecute, unless they were caught in the act.

 

[pnewton]

The people getting deported? Are criminals. They’ve done something else to get deported. And they and their families suffer the consequences. just like my family would suffer should I commit a crime and be sent to prison.

This is why I have zero sympathy for them, because via their own actions they themselves have caused great suffering to their families; no one is to blame but themselves.

Then you show that Archbishop Gomez is right. Realize that by the manner we judge others (no sympathy), so also will will we be judged by God. I understand those that want to see the law enforced. I do not understand a calloused heart in a Christian.

 

[jwinch2]

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/01/exclusive-illegal-border-crossings-double-as-beltway-gets-close-to-deal-on-immigration-reform-n1554148

Exclusive: Illegal Border Crossings Double, Border Becomes Less Secure as Beltway Gets Close to Deal on Immigration Reform

As the immigration reform Gang of Eight inside the Beltway prepares to announce a deal later this week, claiming border security will come before a path to citizenship for millions of illegals, Border Patrol agents have seen illegal border crossings double and warn the cutting of agent work hours will only result in less border security, not more.

“We’ve seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening,” an agent told Townhall, who asked to remain unnamed due to fears of retaliation within Customs and Border Protection [CBP], something he said is common. "A lot of these people, although not the majority, are criminals or aggravated felons. This is a direct danger to our communities.

When you reward breaking the law, it only encourages more of it.

 

[Brendan]

From a practical point, I could see even in the case of those who did enter illegally that it would not be easy to prosecute, unless they were caught in the act.

I would disagree, if they entered in legally, there would be a record of an issued visa and a record at the point of entry.

 

[pnewton]

I would disagree, if they entered in legally, there would be a record of an issued visa and a record at the point of entry.

I was speaking practically. Since the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, the evidence can not be a lack of something. They can not prove a crime by showing that a person is unable to offer defense. To prove that one person did not enter in on a visa, every visa and checkpoint would have to be entered as evidence and then referenced that it did not include the accused. Sure it can be done, but it is really not practical to tie up teams of people on a single prosecution.

I know it is* not* done. I am only hypothesizing why.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

*Los Angeles, Calif., Mar 22, 2013 / 12:21 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Addressing America’s immigration problem, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles urged religious believers to recall the nation to an understanding of human dignity based on its biblical roots.

“The real problem is that immigration is a question about America – about our national identity and destiny, about the national ‘soul,’” the Archbishop of Los Angeles told the Jewish advocacy group AJC’s event “Bonds of Fellowship and Friendship” March 19.

“The question for us is what’s our role in immigration reform, as religious people? … I think our role is to be the voice of conscience and vision. That’s what’s been missing in the debate so far.”*

-Archbishop Gomez

The call from the Archbishop is as a ‘voice of conscience’ as it pertains to ‘understanding of human dignity based on it’s biblical roots.’ We can uphold what he said, or uphold the ‘laws’ of man, in this debate.

 

[Tigg]

Prodigal Son1;10538482:

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?

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 Son: Since you consistently suggest that those opposed to illegal immigration are not following the gospel mandate, I would be very interested in your response to Elizabeth’s post. Did I miss it?

What source do you have for it creating more suffering than it solves? Those that have moved to this area are productive hard working people. Some live in less than desirable conditions, but I’ve seen them at the Western Union sending money home to support families.

The poverty-stricken citizens in America are living in less than desirable conditions as well. Does your love and sympathy extend to them if they have lost their jobs to an illegal foreign work force? Or is sending money home to Mexico morally superior when low-income Americans have hungry children to feed as well. Or, in other words, do you too, discriminate against the welfare and common good of the national family? How do you address the current immigration imbalance and injustice being committed against non-Hispanics? More importantly, how does AB Gomez?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son: Since you consistently suggest that those opposed to illegal immigration are not following the gospel mandate, I would be very interested in your response to Elizabeth’s post. Did I miss it?

The poverty-stricken citizens in America are living in less than desirable conditions as well. Does your love and sympathy extend to them if they have lost their jobs to an illegal foreign work force? Or is sending money home to Mexico morally superior when low-income Americans have hungry children to feed as well. Or, in other words, do you too, discriminate against the welfare and common good of the national family? How do you address the current immigration imbalance and injustice being committed against non-Hispanics? More importantly, how does AB Gomez?

It does not have to be a ‘dogmatic’ teaching. Some of the Church’s dogmas are relatively young, when compared to the age of the Church. There are living teachings being given as a ‘voice of conscience.’ The Gospels of Christ should not be ‘legalistically’ dissected, which sometimes appears as seeking a way around.

We should not forget those who are not here, but that does not mean we should overlook, or object, to those that are here. There is no exclusivity in Christ’s teachings.

We are a global family, at least, and a family of the Kingdom at best. Christ did not teach us to count our beans and then decide what to do. In our faith to Him, we share, and we will be blessed accordingly. We may find that not sharing will cost us dearly.

 

[Tigg]

It does not have to be a ‘dogmatic’ teaching. Some of the Church’s dogmas are relatively young, when compared to the age of the Church. There are living teachings being given as a ‘voice of conscience.’ The Gospels of Christ should not be ‘legalistically’ dissected, which sometimes appears as seeking a way around.

We should not forget those who are not here, but that does not mean we should overlook, or object, to those that are here. There is no exclusivity in Christ’s teachings.

We are a global family, at least, and a family of the Kingdom at best. Christ did not teach us to count our beans and then decide what to do. In our faith to Him, we share, and we will be blessed accordingly. We may find that not sharing will cost us dearly.

A complete non-answer, blithely side-stepping the entire dialogue.

 

[TEPO]

A complete non-answer, blithely side-stepping the entire dialogue.

Tigg,

Christs teachings teach us to care for the needs of others before ourselves… Therefore, our focus should be directed to the benefit of Mexico before that of the US. We should be asking ourselves; What’s best for Mexico…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A complete non-answer, blithely side-stepping the entire dialogue.

I apologize if you cannot see the connection that I tried to convey. I do not think it was ‘blithely side-stepping the entire dialogue.’ I have a post previous to that one, where I spoke of upholding what I see as more important, for myself, that I feel obligated to live by.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Tigg,

Christs teachings teach us to care for the needs of others before ourselves… Therefore, our focus should be directed to the benefit of Mexico before that of the US. We should be asking ourselves; What’s best for Mexico…

We cannot forget anyone, anywhere.

 

[TEPO]

I apologize if you cannot see the connection that I tried to convey. I do not think it was ‘blithely side-stepping the entire dialogue.’ I have a post previous to that one, where I spoke of upholding what I see as more important, for myself, that I feel obligated to live by.

in caring for the needs of others, what is best for Mexico?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

in caring for the needs of others, what is best for Mexico?

We seek what is best for the people, of any country, or we should, in my opinion. We should also take care to consider our motives for care, so that it’s genuinely what’s in the best interest of His, and not really what’s in our own best interest. It comes down to our intentions, which only One can see and will judge accordingly.

 

[livnlern]

We seek what is best for the people, of any country, or we should, in my opinion. We should also take care to consider our motives for care, so that it’s genuinely what’s in the best interest of His, and not really what’s in our own best interest. It comes down to our intentions, which only One can see and will judge accordingly.

As I see it, we have to do what we’re told when flying on an airplane. If the airbags are released, FIRST put the oxygen mask over your own face. AND THEN assist your child or whoever needs help. If our own country goes down the tubes for financial reasons, we can’t help ourselves or anyone else.
We have to get our own house in order first. And when it comes to how countries are run, you have to have order and laws that are obeyed. Otherwise there’s chaos and anarchy. We can’t take on the burden of caring for all these illegals while running up trillions of dollars of debt. We have to take care of that first.
That aside, the US has always been very charitable to other nations. And I’m sure we’ve given lots of money to Mexico. We can’t take care of so many of their citizens at once. Our laws are being broken by those who are overrunning our borders.