Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Aramis]

Let us always remember that what the state calls a crime may not be what the Church calls a crime and the other way around.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

The church has always taught to obey all but unjust or immoral laws.

 

[JReducation]

The church has always taught to obey all but unjust or immoral laws.

This is true and the Church gives us criteria for discriminating between what is fair and moral and that which is either unfair or immoral or both. We need to carefully apply that criteria.

Equally important, we need to be careful that we understand the Church’s statements. Because when we do not understand we can make serioius mistakes that are dangerous to our spiritual life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Please be sure to read CAF rules regarding charity and respect. Please stick to the topic and not discuss each other. Archbishop Dolan, the clergy and religious are not the topic of this thread. You may agree or disagree with their statements, but you may not speak disrespectfully about the Archbishop, any other member of the clergy or any religious.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[sidbrown]

When authority denies people assistance, it is not properly exercisiing its function.

The Catholic Church also holds that a person has the right to seek a better life, safety, education, and healthcare where ever they can find it.

I suppose that you are speaking here of immigrants from Mexico, who are poor and according to what you say, supposedly have a right to education and healthcare in the USA even though they are not citizens? But Mexico has a GDP per capita of $13,628. There are many other countries with a lower GDP than Mexico. Does that then mean that people from these countries also have a right to a better life, safety, education, and healthcare in the USA at the expense of the American taxpayer?
Here is a list of countries with a lower GDP per capita than Mexico:
Uruguay
63 Belarus
12,737
64 Mauritius
12,527
65 Turkey
12,476
66 Venezuela
12,201
67 Romania
11,917
68 Bulgaria
11,900
69 Panama
11,788
70 Kazakhstan
11,693
71 Iran
11,172
72 Grenada
10,712
73 Serbia
10,635
74 Costa Rica
10,579
75 Brazil
10,514
76 Montenegro
10,393
— World[5]
10,366
77 South Africa
10,244
78 Saint Lucia
10,178
79 Dominica
10,177
80 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
9,977
81 Azerbaijan
9,564
82 Macedonia, Republic of
9,171
83 Colombia
8,936
84 Dominican Republic
8,896
85 Jamaica
8,777
86 Suriname
8,642
87 Peru
8,638
88 Tunisia
8,254
89 Thailand
8,060
90 Ecuador
7,881
91 Belize
7,719
92 El Salvador
7,366
93 Bosnia and Herzegovina
7,361
94 Albania
7,164
95 Tonga
7,061
96 Algeria
6,869
97 Guyana
6,688
98 Namibia
6,614
99 China, People’s Republic of
6,567
100 Ukraine
6,339
101 Egypt
6,123
102 Angola
6,117
103 Kiribati
6,049
104 Turkmenistan
5,971
105 Samoa
5,782
106 Swaziland
5,709
107 Jordan
5,620
108 Bhutan
5,212
109 Armenia
4,966
110 Maldives
4,894
111 Syria
4,887
112 Guatemala
4,840
113 Sri Lanka
4,769
114 Georgia
4,757
115 Vanuatu
4,737
116 Morocco
4,604
117 Paraguay
4,533
118 Bolivia
4,455
119 Fiji
4,359
120 Indonesia
4,157
121 Honduras
4,151
122 Congo, Republic of the
4,146
123 Cape Verde
3,588
124 Iraq
3,570
125 Philippines
3,521
126 Mongolia
3,481
127 Vietnam
2,942
128 India
2,941
129 Moldova
2,843
130 Solomon Islands
2,819
131 Uzbekistan
2,807
132 Pakistan
2,661
133 Nicaragua
2,627
134 Timor-Leste
2,522
135 Djibouti
2,484
136 Yemen
2,458
137 Sudan
2,380
138 Laos
2,266
139 Kyrgyzstan
2,253
140 Nigeria
2,249
141 Papua New Guinea
2,167
142 Cameroon
2,147
143 Tajikistan
2,104
144 Mauritania
2,037
145 Cambodia
2,015
146 São Tomé and Príncipe
1,814
147 Senegal
1,743
148 Kenya
1,730
149 Côte d’Ivoire
1,674
150 Chad
1,612
151 Ghana
1,551
152 Zambia
1,542
153 Bangladesh
1,465
154 Benin
1,445
155 Gambia, The
1,438
156 Tanzania
1,416
157 Haiti
1,339
158 Burkina Faso
1,304
159 Lesotho
1,218
160 Nepal
1,205
161 Burma
1,197
162 Uganda
1,196
163 Mali
1,173
164 Comoros
1,160
165 Rwanda
1,150
166 Guinea-Bissau
1,068
167 Guinea
991
168 Ethiopia
954
169 Afghanistan
935
170 Mozambique
934
171 Madagascar
932
172 Malawi
885
173 Togo
826
174 Sierra Leone
759
175 Central African Republic
745
176 Niger
719
177 Eritrea
680
178 Liberia
424
179 Burundi
400
180 Zimbabwe
355
181 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
332

 

[pnewton]

This is true and the Church gives us criteria for discriminating between what is fair and moral and that which is either unfair or immoral or both. We need to carefully apply that criteria.

For me, the largest morality issue with immigration is that it does one thing that God clearly has forbidden, it despises the poor, making it harder for a poor person to immigrate than one who has skills to offer or wealth to sustain him. That is the moral turning point for me. I say this despite the fact that I have helped enforce this law against those who have committed crimes (other than illegal immigration for the persnickity).

 

[sidbrown]

The Catholic Church also holds that a person has the right to seek a better life, safety, education, and healthcare where ever they can find it.

Consider the 120 countries that are poorer than Mexico. Should the American taxpayer have the responsiblity to provide for the safety, education and healthcare of those from these 120 poor countries? Or if the American taxpayer does not fund this, then who do you propose should provide for the education and healthcare of these people? And BTW, there are many Americans today who are being forced out of their homes as more and more houses are being foreclosed by the banks. Should these Americans who have lost their homes be required to provide for the safety, education and healthcare of people from the 120 countries listed above which are poorer than Mexico? Who is going to help these Americans provide for the tuition for the college education of their children? Who will help them to pay for their ever increasing health insurance? Who will help them when they and their families are evicted from their foreclosed homes?

 

[JReducation]

For me, the largest morality issue with immigration is that it does one thing that God clearly has forbidden, it despises the poor, making it harder for a poor person to immigrate than one who has skills to offer or wealth to sustain him. That is the moral turning point for me. I say this despite the fact that I have helped enforce this law against those who have committed crimes (other than illegal immigration for the persnickity).

I believe that what is happening is that people are doing two things:

First: we are blending immigration and crime. But if we look closely, the proportions are no larger among the immimgrant populations than they are among the natioal propulation. The real issue is to punish crimes.

Second: we are becoming a very anti-clerical society forgetting that the Church has a right to speak on public affairs. The Church is the conscience of every nation. It is her job, through her bishops, to remind every nation of the mission that Christ has given to us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, give shelter the homeless and so forth. The USA is going through the same crisis that the French and the Mexicans went through many years ago. When they got angry at the Church, they carried it over to every sphere of life and nothing that the Church ever did or say was right. Yet, they would not leave the Church either.

It was a rather interesting phenomenon, just as it is today in the USA. One would think that if the word of bishops, clergy and religious means so little or is so untrustworthy, those who believe this would just move on to another religion. But this not what happened in Mexico or France and it is not what is happening in the USA. I believe that deep down, people do want the presence of the clergy and religious. It’s just that at times we want to determine the how that presence should manifest itself. It does not work that way. The Church, bishops, and religious orders found out, the hard way, that wen we accommodate to the wishes of the people, everything gets very chaotic very quickly. Look at what happend in history when popes and kinds were strange bed-fellows, when the laity told religious how to live the religious life, when people appealed to the monarchs to appoint bishops and so forth. It was a disaster.

I believe that the Vatican, the bishops and the major superiors of religious communities learned from that experience not to do this, but to engage in the world on their own terms. Because those terms are at times in conflict with the individual interests, needs and desires of the faithful, the result is hostility. But the same people who are often very hostile whould cringe if the Church told them to go away and join the Episcopaleans where the laity does regulate its bishops and religious. In the bottom of our hearts, we know that this is not good for the Church. The Church has to exercise her freedom of speech or she loses her place in the world.

I believe that Pope Paul VI said it best at the United Nations when he reminded the world community that the Church was not going to go away and that it was going to be the voice of conscience. He threw down the gauntlet, in his gentle manner, because he was a gentle and saintly man. But the message was very clear. The Catholic Church has been placed in the world to be the voice of conscience for every nation and it expects every nation to listen. We don’t have to like what we hear and we can even disagree. But we cannot ask the Church to be quiet, that would violate the Church’s right to be a loud voice in the world.

This is not a matter about Mexicans or Japanese. This is a matter of the Church speaking up and warning people of the spiritual dangers that we can fall into, if we are not careful. The spirtual dangers are more damaging than the economic dangers.

One last thought that is always on my mind is what Pope John Paul said about human life. “All life is sacred, from conception to natural death.” If we truly believe this, then we have to believe that all human beings are sacred. Therefore we must find solutions that are good for everyone.

The other night, Fr. Corapi was talking about the priest sex abuse scandal and he said something that I had never stopped to think about. He said that we’er making a big mistake by throwing people out as if they were garbage, because they made a serious mistake 30 years ago, when they have lived holy and devout lives ever since. He was not talking about those who continue to make the same mistake. But his point was that we are too fast to punish, too slow to remember that we too have made many mistakes and we shall pay for this. In this case with the immigrants, I believe that we can fall into that trap of throwing people away, wihtout considering what John Paul called the sacredness of the human being.

The solution is to find ways to protect the sacredness of every life, those who are here and those who come from other places, be it Mexico or Antartica.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rodomonte]

The Church would never disagree with the idea of securing borders to protect the sovereignty of nations and to protect tthe immigrants who cross illegally and get abused or taken advantage of. At the same time, the Church also teaches that when someone comes to our door and asks for help, we do not turn our backs. That’s from Christ himself. We don’t want to protect criminals who do actual harm to others. But protecting those who are desperately trying to find a beter life is a moral duty. We must protect and show them how to do it. Teach them to fish.

While crossing a border without a visa is a civil crime, the Church has made it clear that it is never a sin unless your intention is to do harm, such as those who cross with drugs, weapons or terrorists.

The point is that good citizenship is not always good. The second point is that the same 200 million who raise their voices about the security of our borders, which is a legitimate concern, should also raise their voices about these things. At least the 25 million Catholics in this country should and they don’t. This thing with Planned Parenthood was slipped under the radar and most people didn’t even undestand the gravity of the consequences. An adult can impregnate a girl and get away with it, so as not to stop her from getting an abortion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am afraid, Brother, that you have extrapolated the dictum to help individuals to apply to the entire country of Mexico. That is obviously incorrect. I have helped individuals in my life, at times giving away half of everything I had, so my conscience is clear.

There is no moral right to a better life, only to life itself. In fact, I would say I want a better life for my family by removing the illegal aliens from my country. Whose right to a better life is superior? Mine is, because I am a legal citizen of this country. This so-called right to a better life moves us ultimately to socialism, or even communism, where everyone has exactly the same amount of material wealth. Everyone has achieved a better life until at last everyone is equal, and there is no where to go to get a better life any longer.

You wrote that crossing the border is not a sin unless they intend to break other laws, that they only come here to work. But they cannot work here without breaking other laws. But that won’t matter because they will be given amnesty for those crimes too.

You have berated us for being more concerned about illegal immigrants than about abortion. If there was a anti-abortion demonstration led by a local cleric, I would attend, but I have never seen one or even heard of one, In fact, I have heard of parishes where the priests were told not to give sermons against abortion.

My sister holds the same views on illegal immigration as I do. She lives in Northern Virginia and has attended many of the annual anti-abortion protests at the Supreme Court. She has also guested on radio programs and testified before a state legislature on right to life issues. A Catholic can be anti-abortion and anti-illegal immigration without any logical conflict.

The moderator has posted this:

“Catholics can charitably disagree with the Church’s position on teachings that are not concerning faith or morals but that doesn’t give license to Catholics, conservative or liberal, to disrespect the clergy.”

Since we are having this debate on the Church’s position on illegal immigrants, it must not concern faith or morals. something contrary to your contention that it is a moral issue.

After reading your many fine posts on this matter, in summary, I disagree that this is a moral issue and consider it fundamentally a political one. I also disagree that I shouldn’t publicly disagree with my Bishop’s position on this issue because that engenders anti-Catholicism. As a practical matter, the Church had already reached the limit of anti-Catholicism with the abuse scandal. No non-Catholic is going to overlook the abuse scandal and suddenly attack the Church solely for its stand on immigration.

 

[BenjaminLumen]

I think the Roman Catholic Church mess’s up, when it espouses its Social Theory, it is applicable only to the Roman Catholic Church itself, and I think it is unwise for the Church to try to apply its social theory outside what is the Roman Catholic Church.

No I just think that the Catechism needs to set a scope for the applicability of its Social Theory, something that it does not do. It was mere oversight by the College of Cardinals and his HOLINESS that didn’t set a scope on the Social Theory and where it is applicable.

I don’t know what to do about the immigration problem, but the timing is everything.
If I personally had been an AB, I would publically state that I would address the issue in the next 3-4 years and turn around and walk away form the podium. Because its just bearucrats wanting a poll bump for their…

The Church should avoid by all means playing into politicians goings ons either way.

There is NO reason that an AB knowing full well. This is how the Church gets into trouble.
He’s an Archbishop he doesn’t have to say anything, on anyones timeline but his own.

Who says that you have to weigh in on a matter when the politicians have brought it up?
Who says?? Who the heck are the politicians? No body!!! Utterly No one, they are no one largely in the Church, so what does this church owe them?? NOTHING!!

It seems to me that largely, the Church doesn’t understand its own position. The Pope is arguing his cases that he is a Head of State, Let me tell you guys something, Your not Heads of State, allright… Your the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Its EUROPEAN THINK, that would have Clergy seeing admirable in heads of state, when they should avoid the designation by all means.

GET THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OUT OF POLITICS!!

AB Dolan should have refused to speak about the matter until it was framed in a circumstance where no side was being betrayed by the mere comment.
It may take years for this circumstance to present itself, but so what…
We got time, no one brought the issue up prior to it, not even the Roman Catholic Church,
so we got time to wait until their is nothing political going on in society with respect to this issue, but to a larger extent any issue.

So the Church to the way that I see things has two Options, it can bring all issues up years before they are a problem, or it can’t wait to address issues years after they have
played out in secular society.

Rome is supposed, by intent, to be above all things, so merely stop playing to the body politic in individual nation states.

ROMES TIMELINE TO ADDRESS ISSUES,

Look at this, we are largely addressing issues, who’s honesty isn’t even in the debate.
IMMIGRATION, What was the last years that IMMIGRATION was HONESTLY Being addressed. 1930’s??? SO until the debate is framed as it was back in the 10’s,20’s or 30’s there is no reason for the Church to say anything, because the ISSUE as a whole lost HONEST DEBATE over 70’s years ago… There is no reason for the Church to issue any
guidlines,thought on this issue until the beauracrats take the issue back to when it was last HONESTLY being debated with any sort of intellectual rigor.

Healthcare, the last honesty in the issue was prior to the 1920’s. There is no reason for Rome to issue THINK on the issue, until intellectual rigor is returned to the debate.

Everything else on these two issues, has been political meanuvering and expediency or seeing some political gain out of the issues, and If I was ROME , I would say nothing, because there is nothing honest going on about the ISSUES. So Romes words are being road to benefit This side which will produce a negative result, or this other side which will produce a negative result.

Rome is known for it’s intellectual capacity, so why cheapen ourselves by issuing THOUGHT on an issue that isn’t even debated Honestly in the public forum.

See , are we for Immigration reform?? We don’t even know…

So We say yes, and this generates a ground swell of support for a bill, that Republicans can’t stop, when we may doing more damage to Immigration as a whole, we may be setting real immigration reform 20 years off. We are going to be supporting a bill, that like the healthcare bill no legistlator will even bother to read… I mean I am for not enabling idiots, allright, and if the Church generates support for a Bill that is being written by idiots who have zero concern for actual immigration, who’s whole purpose is to legalise Illegal Immigrants currently in America in the auspices of it being immigration reform.

I just can’t AB’s and this church’s stance on immigration which it serious about translating into support for a bill that is doing nothing more then gaining 20,000,000 votes for politicians, which is their sole purpose…

We are stupid. This Church treats every poltico as if they are seriously addressing an issue, and that is stupid in todays world. There hasn’t been any honesty in these measures for at least 70-80 years. I haven’t seen but in a few cases a politician warrant being treated seriously save in a handful of cases in 30 years that I have watched, I can count 5 politicians that I know are serious about what they do, and that is no lie.

The Church is serious; politicians are not serious and haven’t been serious in over 70 years depending on the issue. So why does THIS CHURCH extend its seriousness in addressing issues to politicians that have largely SHOWN zero seriousness about any issues.

Why do we play stupid for these people?? Why??? It is insulting to arguably half of the Roman Catholic Parishioners at all times when our Church enters into Political Debate.

You’re not going to get Honest Immigration reform, you are going to get 20,000,000 votes which is the only reason that democrats have brought the issue up. They don’t care outside of that.

Why play into that?? WHy??

 

[Ender]

Whose right to a better life is superior? Mine is, because I am a legal citizen of this country.

You will probably catch some flack for this statement but I think Aquinas supports your position. Other things being equal, the citizen has a greater claim to his country’s benefits than the alien and we should prefer that arrangement.

Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens (ST, II/II 26,8 - On the Order of Charity)

I disagree that this is a moral issue and consider it fundamentally a political one.

This is the core of the problem and why the involvement of the bishops and clergy is so offensive, as it distorts the understanding Catholics should have of the problem. Again, Aquinas is helpful here:

And if of two, one be more closely connected, and the other in greater want, it is not possible to decide, by any general rule, which of them we ought to help rather than the other, since there are various degrees of want as well as of connection: and the matter requires the judgment of a prudent man. (ST II/II 31, 3 ad 1 - Beneficence)

Just so - the judgment of a prudent man … that is, the issue is prudential, not moral.

I also disagree that I shouldn’t publicly disagree with my Bishop’s position on this issue because that engenders anti-Catholicism. As a practical matter, the Church had already reached the limit of anti-Catholicism with the abuse scandal. No non-Catholic is going to overlook the abuse scandal and suddenly attack the Church solely for its stand on immigration.

I disagree as well. Like you, I am unconcerned from a practical perspective as anti-Catholicism is generated when the Church expresses an opinion contrary to the common sentiment. On immigration, the bishops are on the side of the prevailing media and therefore won’t be attacked by them. What the bishops will do is further alienate and discourage Catholics who are sick to death of the clergy’s involvement in politics.

Ender

 

[Aramis]

Unless His Grace has declared it a moral issue, ABp Dolan is allowing himself to be used for political issues.

And if he’s declaring the law put forth for Arizona immoral, he’s under a burden by Tradition (and canon law) to teach why it is so to the faithful.

If, however, he’s going further and declaring US Immigration laws as a whole immoral, he’s acting beyond his see, and should be bringing the issue up to the national conference’s synod…

Based upon prior stuff his grace has been quoth as saying, I suspect that His Grace really thinks the border should be opened wide… and that is clearly not in line with the overall teachings of the church.

Now, the moral issue of immigration includes not doing things such as simply summarily executing border crossers who get caught (Tho that WOULD deter a great many).

But, in the US, the laws are such that only Citizens and certain aliens may hold jobs legally. Therefore, the purpose of most illegals is to in fact commit crimes:* Employment crimes* crimes of trespass (being in the US without the US’ permission)* crimes of fraud (tax evasion, work in violation of the minimum wage laws, work in violation of safety laws)* continued evasion of legal justice* (flight, evasion, resisting arrest)

Those here ‘just to work’ are in fact committing multiple crimes.
Some are even committing crimes in two countries… Canadian often work in the US to avoid paying the Canadian taxes, and many of them also pay no US taxes other than indirectly through sales and property taxes. Ths makes them committing a US crime and a Canadian Crime at the same time… and a number of the folks doing so are illegals.

It’s not just the mexicans… the Canadians, and even some brits, even ukrainians.

====

• Legal Justice and Moral Justice are not synonyms. Legal justice is those committing crimes get the punishment assigned to the crime.

 

[michael_john_ch]

I am a legal immigrant. When I came to this country my Mother had have a sponsor and a job, she also had sign if there was a military draft I would have to go. Illigal is illegal, I feel sorry for some but it is against the law.

 

[pnewton]

You will probably catch some flack for this statement but I think Aquinas supports your position. Other things being equal, the citizen has a greater claim to his country’s benefits than the alien and we should prefer that arrangement.

Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens (ST, II/II 26,8 - On the Order of Charity)

In matters of nature, that is correct. That is our natural order. However, let us not forget that Jesus turned the natural order around.

*For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?
*
In other words, loving those that we love in accord with our nature is of no account. Pretty much everyone in Hell loved someone. But rather,

*You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ *
*But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, *
I should note that this applies on an individual level and was never directed at public policy. However, those who wish to follow Jesus will consider love of those for whom we receive nothing. Charity that looks at a balance sheet is not charity. It seems from me after listening to debate on this over the last week, many people take a stance based on what effects them and their pocket book, not what charity demands.

 

[sidbrown]

I am a legal immigrant. When I came to this country my Mother had have a sponsor and a job, she also had sign if there was a military draft I would have to go. Illigal is illegal, I feel sorry for some but it is against the law.

Yes. I welcome legal immigrants and those who are here legally, regardless of their race, color or creed. I know several legal immigrants as friends and colleagues and they are wonderful people. I just do not agree with breaking the law. Further, I don’t think it is fair to compare those of us who welcome legal immigrants to compare us to the Ku Klux Klan since the Ku Klux Klan was against immigrants of any kind.
There is only so much that the American people can do with regard to inviting people from poorer countries to live here. With the economy in such bad shape, I don’t see how anyone could say that Americans have a moral obligation to invite 5 billion poor people to come here and live in the USA. The American economy could not take an influx of 5 billion people and it would be a disaster all around. Why then should Americans who want legal immigration be accused of turning a blind eye to the poor? This is not only very unfair but also shortsighted and unrealistic.

 

[I_wanna_know]

I am new to this site, and will have to admit that this topic caught my eye. I see it as one of the greatest moral dilemmas of our time. People wanting to work to support their families, and coming here, sometimes in great peril, for a better life. Perhaps we can open our doors wider for LEGAL immigration. I feel distressed that the Bishops can speak out against a law in Ariz that makes a distinction between legal and illegal. I certainly don’t see racial profiling in asking for documentation. (I was stopped for speeding today and asked for documentation. The officer was not racial profiling, but simply doing his job) We have the right to screen people who enter our country for criminal records, to expect them to follow our laws. Basically, I am in agreement with all the statements by MLund on this topic.

 

[Ender]

In matters of nature, that is correct. That is our natural order. However, let us not forget that Jesus turned the natural order around.

And your claim is that Aquinas was unfamiliar with that aspect of Jesus’ teaching?

In other words, loving those that we love in accord with our nature is of no account. Pretty much everyone in Hell loved someone. But rather, …

Once again an argument made by the Church’s greatest theologian and thinker is rebutted with … personal interpretation of Scripture. I have no response except to say you can believe pretty much whatever you want if you think your understanding exceeds that of everyone else.

It seems from me after listening to debate on this over the last week, many people take a stance based on what effects them and their pocket book, not what charity demands.

Apparently you are not familiar with that part of the Catechism on “Offenses against truth”, specifically section 2247 and the explanation of rash judgment and calumny. Insults are to be expected in the political arena but it is always disappointing when a Catholic, who has just expounded on love, charity, and respect for all, ignores pretty much everything he claims to believe to demean those with whom he disagrees. I attribute it to the frustration that comes of not being able to present a rational argument.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

I suppose that you are speaking here of immigrants from Mexico, who are poor and according to what you say, supposedly have a right to education and healthcare in the USA even though they are not citizens? But Mexico has a GDP per capita of $13,628. There are many other countries with a lower GDP than Mexico. Does that then mean that people from these countries also have a right to a better life, safety, education, and healthcare in the USA at the expense of the American taxpayer?
Here is a list of countries with a lower GDP per capita than Mexico:
Uruguay
63 Belarus
12,737
64 Mauritius
12,527
65 Turkey
12,476
66 Venezuela
12,201
67 Romania
11,917
68 Bulgaria
11,900
69 Panama
11,788
70 Kazakhstan
11,693
71 Iran
11,172
72 Grenada
10,712
73 Serbia
10,635
74 Costa Rica
10,579
75 Brazil
10,514
76 Montenegro
10,393
— World[5]
10,366
77 South Africa
10,244
78 Saint Lucia
10,178
79 Dominica
10,177
80 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
9,977
81 Azerbaijan
9,564
82 Macedonia, Republic of
9,171
83 Colombia
8,936
84 Dominican Republic
8,896
85 Jamaica
8,777
86 Suriname
8,642
87 Peru
8,638
88 Tunisia
8,254
89 Thailand
8,060
90 Ecuador
7,881
91 Belize
7,719
92 El Salvador
7,366
93 Bosnia and Herzegovina
7,361
94 Albania
7,164
95 Tonga
7,061
96 Algeria
6,869
97 Guyana
6,688
98 Namibia
6,614
99 China, People’s Republic of
6,567
100 Ukraine
6,339
101 Egypt
6,123
102 Angola
6,117
103 Kiribati
6,049
104 Turkmenistan
5,971
105 Samoa
5,782
106 Swaziland
5,709
107 Jordan
5,620
108 Bhutan
5,212
109 Armenia
4,966
110 Maldives
4,894
111 Syria
4,887
112 Guatemala
4,840
113 Sri Lanka
4,769
114 Georgia
4,757
115 Vanuatu
4,737
116 Morocco
4,604
117 Paraguay
4,533
118 Bolivia
4,455
119 Fiji
4,359
120 Indonesia
4,157
121 Honduras
4,151
122 Congo, Republic of the
4,146
123 Cape Verde
3,588
124 Iraq
3,570
125 Philippines
3,521
126 Mongolia
3,481
127 Vietnam
2,942
128 India
2,941
129 Moldova
2,843
130 Solomon Islands
2,819
131 Uzbekistan
2,807
132 Pakistan
2,661
133 Nicaragua
2,627
134 Timor-Leste
2,522
135 Djibouti
2,484
136 Yemen
2,458
137 Sudan
2,380
138 Laos
2,266
139 Kyrgyzstan
2,253
140 Nigeria
2,249
141 Papua New Guinea
2,167
142 Cameroon
2,147
143 Tajikistan
2,104
144 Mauritania
2,037
145 Cambodia
2,015
146 São Tomé and Príncipe
1,814
147 Senegal
1,743
148 Kenya
1,730
149 Côte d’Ivoire
1,674
150 Chad
1,612
151 Ghana
1,551
152 Zambia
1,542
153 Bangladesh
1,465
154 Benin
1,445
155 Gambia, The
1,438
156 Tanzania
1,416
157 Haiti
1,339
158 Burkina Faso
1,304
159 Lesotho
1,218
160 Nepal
1,205
161 Burma
1,197
162 Uganda
1,196
163 Mali
1,173
164 Comoros
1,160
165 Rwanda
1,150
166 Guinea-Bissau
1,068
167 Guinea
991
168 Ethiopia
954
169 Afghanistan
935
170 Mozambique
934
171 Madagascar
932
172 Malawi
885
173 Togo
826
174 Sierra Leone
759
175 Central African Republic
745
176 Niger
719
177 Eritrea
680
178 Liberia
424
179 Burundi
400
180 Zimbabwe
355
181 Congo, Democratic Republic of the
332

It seems to be that that is what the bishops in question are wanting for America. Anybody can come to America from a poor country without preconditions.

That is what the bishops and liberal Catholics in general are telling us that they want.

 

[pnewton]

That is what the bishops and liberal Catholics in general are telling us that they want.

And as inconvenient as this thought may be for you, some conservative Catholics.

 

[pnewton]

And your claim is that Aquinas was unfamiliar with that aspect of Jesus’ teaching?

Of course, I did not say that. I would not say that. It is unwise to make claims about what another person knows or does not know, regardless of whether that person is deceased or a fellow poster.

Once again an argument made by the Church’s greatest theologian and thinker is rebutted with … personal interpretation of Scripture.

I have always responded to this criticism by a challenge that if you think the Scripture in question says something else, then please share with us your thoughts.

Apparently you are not familiar with that part of the Catechism on “Offenses against truth”, specifically section 2247 and the explanation of rash judgment and calumny. Insults are to be expected in the political arena but it is always disappointing when a Catholic, who has just expounded on love, charity, and respect for all, ignores pretty much everything he claims to believe to demean those with whom he disagrees.

You assume much and you assume often. I invite anyone to read over my last post and see if I demeaned anyone. Your claim that this contradicts 2247 is unfounded. If you read the chapter, you see that each person is entitle to their good name. I did not name a soul, nor would I, as that would truly be judgemental. I was speaking my opinion (it’s what we do on forums) that the anti-immigration sentiment has materialistic roots.

I attribute it to the frustration that comes of not being able to present a rational argument.

Then to what did you attribute this little bon mot?

 

[angelic06]

Brother Jr,

Point well taken. However, for us lay people, it is our task to take care of the secular world according to Catholic teaching—therefore, it is very much within our realm to discuss these matters in both private and public.

The Church has also called upon the secular states to provide for both the welcoming of immigrants—as well as provide for the public safety of those already within the realm. Shall the state provide for one—and not the other?

I am not anti-immigrant (I am the son of lawful ones), and there are a few things I may disagree with in the Arizona law (such as the provision which allows any Arizona resident the right to sue for its enforcement), but I think this is one step in the right direction for making sure that both current resident, as well as prospective ones, have a better quality of life—by ensuring that those who arrive here go through the proper channels to make sure that they are not criminals (we have enough natives here who do the same, and I think they should be deported to Antartica).

Is it possible that if a lay person supports a law that the bishops disagree with, the bishops might withold Holy Communion? It is a possibility for churchmen who have extreme views, although the making of secular laws for the public good is clearly the competence of laypersons who are in those positions of authority. One could easily see an otherwise faithful Catholics who desire to provide for the public good (albeit not to satisfaction of a bishop) being told that he/she is not in communion with the Church if he/she votes for this or that law.

The point of this posting is that it is sometimes impossible to see when a bishop truly is promoting an authentic Catholic teaching or just his own views. Combine that with his legitimate power over the faithful, and you can see why people are angry with the churchmen.

Now, for some you other posters: It was remarked either in this thread or another that Jesus will ask each one of us what we did to welcome the stranger. We should also balance that by saying that if what others say (from various sources I do not have at hand)—I do not know if this is true or not—that Phoenix, Arizona, next to Mexico City is the kidnapping capital of the world, and we choose to do nothing to protect the ones who are already here, can we say, if we decide to advocate for unlimited arrival of aliens, at the end of our lives, that we stand on the higher moral ground? Are we guilt free at the close of our days if we welcome the aliens (and some them happen to be murderers but we let those 0.5 percent or whatever in due to unfettered welcoming of immigrants and lack of enforcement of immigration laws)…and half of the natives die as a result (I know, I’m making an extreme case)? Can we really say we obeyed divine law?

That these arrivals may or may not be prospective murderers, kidnappers, etc., is not known to us…that is why we have laws which provide for the background check of these persons.

When we have done that and have ensured that these will not add to the natives who already are those kind of individuals, then we can say:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free…”