Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Elizabeth502]

Having ministered to thousands of immigrants over the years, I have found them to be devout Catholics, humble people, hard working and very honest. The only law they broke was how they entered the country, but hat’s not a sin. This does not mean that I have not met those who are also dysfunctional people. But the percentage of dysfunctional people among the immigrants that I have ministered to is no higher than the percentage of those in mainstream America.

You’re not ministering to a representative sampling of the entire immigrant population, even among the “thousands” you have encountered, unless you’re making it a point to have personal encounters with gang members (difficult to find those opportunities, and many of them are illegals), drug smugglers (don’t want to be identified above ground), people with long prison sentences who have committed violent crimes (most of them are not receptive to Catholic ministry, and many of those are also illegal), and the kinds of people here:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100502/ap_on_re_us/us_drug_war_prison_gangs

I’m going to assume, that even the “dysfunctional” ones basically were receptive to your message, in which cases I totally believe that were devout Catholics, hard workers, etc. That has nothing to do with whether a sovereign country has both a legal right and a moral responsibility (to its own citizens first) to patrol its borders and to enforce a consistent policy. True justice is consistent, or it’s a sham. There’s also no logic to your arguments. You’re positing an implicit contradiction between two groups: that illegal immigrants deserve the same (maybe more?) largesse “because” they’re hard working and supposedly religious; whereas legal immigrants should just suck it up (because maybe they’re not as hard-working or religious?)

Not enforcing immigration laws makes sense from a moral and pragmatic point of view when demand for international labor far exceeds supply, and when the desire to immigrate is an insignificant factor in the economic, educational, and environmental equation. But it’s not insignificant: it’s huge. If we abandon enforcement of our laws, we will become virtually overnight a Third World country ourselves – no longer in a position to offer quality of life to those residing here and those to come, whether legal, illegal, and of whatever origin. That is not a moral result. Millions of people have very little to lose in the attempt to make it here, as long as we are not prepared to prosecute any of them. And it only makes sense not to enforce immigration laws if we’re going to do so across the board; anything else is unjust. That means that all of the European, Asian, Australian, and African countires should similarly be without restrictions on immigration to the U.S., and have no procedures to follow, if that’s what our policy is going to be for those coming from Latin American countries.

Anyone honestly interested in “social justice” should be passionately engaged ***as a priority ***in initiatives and policies outside of our borders to improve conditions and empower those citizens so that there is more than one alternative to a painful life in one’s country of origin than declaring oneself above our laws and engaging in reverse occupation. Anything else on the part of the so-called social justice crowd does not pass the moral smell test.

 

[JReducation]

You’re not ministering to a representative sampling of the entire immigrant population, even among the “thousands” you have encountered, unless you’re making it a point to have personal encounters with gang members, difficult to find those opportunities, and many of them are drug smugglers, people with long prison sentences who have committed violent crimes:

Actually you are mistaken. Most Franciscans live among these people. These folks know and trust the Franciscans. We have a long history among them. The Friars of the Renewal, the Little Brothers of St. Francis, the Capuchin Franciscans, the Franciscans of Life, the Franciscans of the Eucharist, the Franciscans of Peace, the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance and all of the Franciscans of the reform. We do not serve any other population. We do not serve the middle class. We do not do parish work. We do not serve the mainstream of society. We do not serve the saved or those who are well. We live and work among the drug dealers, drug users, prostitutes, theaves smugglers, those with prison sentences, homeless, drunks, unmarried mothers, gays, and Catholics who have problems with the Church. Our founder insisted that we do three things: 1) that we become one with this population and 2) that we convert Catholics. to poverty and 3) that we embrace poverty as a blessing.

I have no idea how many we convert. Francis sent us to be a living witness of God’s infinite mercy. We are to be living signs of God’s mercy. Francis sent us among them for our own salvation. The only way that we will be saved is through them. That is where the crucified and the poor Christ is to be found, among the lepers of society.

Many of us have lived under bridges, in abandoned buildings or slept on a piece of cardboard on the streets of cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Boston and others. That is our call. That is where we find Christ and where we take Christ. So far, there are over 800,000 lay Catholics who are involved in our way of life and our ministry. And we are a total of 1.7 million brothers and sisters around the world. We’re the largest religious family in the Church. God is showing us that he does appreciate our mission and our way of life. God is the God of mercy and the God of perfect timing. He will convert each soul when it’s time to do so. We only serve as examples of Gospel living.

That has nothing to do with whether a sovereign country has both a legal right and a moral responsibility (to its own citizens first) to patrol its borders and to enforce a consistent policy

No one has denied this. But the enforcement has to be according to the moral and social teachings of the Church, otherwise it is not based on Truth.

True justice is consistent, or it’s a sham.

True Justice must be Godly. God’s justice is very different from person to person. Never forget what Christ revealed to St. Faustina about his justice and his mercy.

There’s also no logic to your arguments. You’re positing an implicit contradiction between two groups: that illegal immigrants deserve the same (maybe more?) largesse “because” they’re hard working and supposedly religious; whereas legal immigrants should just suck it up (because maybe they’re not as hard-working or religious?)

I never said that. I have simply said that most of these people are faithful Catholics and hard working people. I never said that those who are legal immigrants and equally faithful and equally hard working should be ignored.

Not enforcing immigration laws makes sense from a moral and pragmatic point of view when demand for international labor far exceeds supply, and when the desire to immigrate is an insignificant factor in the economic, educational, and environmental equation.

The Church has never said not to enforce immigration laws. She says that you must do so in a just manner. Our system is broken. It has to be fixed. But look at where our government spends our tax dollars, not on fixing this problem, but on abortion.

But it’s not insignificant: it’s huge. If we abandon enforcement of our laws, we will become virtually overnight a Third World country ourselves – no longer in a position to offer quality of life to those residing here and those to come, whether legal, illegal, and of whatever origin.

What is quality of life without mercy, without trust in God’s Providence, without love for the unborn, without charity toward the poor? Is quality of life measured by material posessions?

Anyone honestly interested in “social justice” should be passionately engaged ***as a priority ***in initiatives and policies outside of our borders to improve conditions and empower those citizens so that there is more than one alternative to a painful life in one’s country of origin

Agreed. So let’s demand that our government retract the Mexico City policy and invest that money in Pax Caritas or other charitable organizatons that can improve the quality of the poor in their homeland instead of giving it to abortionists or to corrupt governments, when we know that our foreign aid will never make it to the poor. These are our tax dollars handed over to corrupt governments, while good missionary and charitable organizations are in need of funds.

than declaring oneself above our laws and engaging in reverse occupation. Anything else on the part of the so-called social justice crowd does not pass the moral smell test.

The only test that it has to pass is the test of the Church. It’s the only test that counts, because only the Church can lead us to salvation. Maybe you need to align you sense of smell to that of your Church you may have a Franciscan vocation.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

I’ve met 3 virtuous illegal immigrant adults. All three arrived legally, but merely have not been permitted to renew their visas and can not afford to leave, but are working, paying rent (and thus property taxes), and are otherwise law abiding. 2 of them have since married US citizens and legally obtained green cards, and all three are Catholic.

Anecdotal evidence can reflect our individual experiences. I know hundreds of hard-working illegal immigrants that are not involved in crime. Perhaps Archbishop Dolan has similar experience.

 

[mdzialo]

Illegal means NOT legal. So its not possible to be here illegally and not have committed a crime. It’s not possible to know an illegal immigrant who has not committed a crime, because, afterall, they are here illegally.

Funny how you say illegals have enough money to get here but not enough money to return.

 

[white_sheep]

If they came here illegally then they should be sent home. Does the good bishop also recommend that I break our country’s laws? How about paying an exorbitant level of taxes? Should those laws be ignored as well?

 

[Loy]

The Catholic Church does not hold illegal immigration to be a sin. Therefore it would be wrong for any bishop to say that it is.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities … he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Romans 13:1—2; CCC 1899. Which magisterial pronouncement excepts immigration laws from the general moral precept of obedience to authority?

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.

Could you please give specific citations?

 

[Aramis]

Anecdotal evidence can reflect our individual experiences. I know hundreds of hard-working illegal immigrants that are not involved in crime. Perhaps Archbishop Dolan has similar experience.

Their very presence within the US is a crime, punishable by time in prison and/or deportation, and forfeiture of all property accumulated.

Therefore your statement is impossible.

They might not be involved in other crimes, but by simply being here, they are criminals by the letter and the spirit of the law.

And the vast majority of those I’ve encountered commit other crimes.

Then again, I don’t live near any seriously porous borders, either.

 

[BenjaminLumen]

Lets cut the ****; these people are comming into the United States with Cocaine shoved into their rectums in codemns, the Mexican police shoot at American police officers,
there is an unofficial state of war on the Mexican border with American Border Partol, The Mexican Govermnet is completely run by the drug lords in south/central and Mexico.
The Mexican GOvernment does nothing to patrol their own boarders.

And frankly they are costing billions and billions of dollars , even if you are a liberal, then they are taking money out of your liberal hands. That doesn’t belong to you, and doesn’t belong to the illegals either.

What is wrong with Ellis Island??

Build a triple fence from California through to the gulf of mexico, stack it halfway high
with concentina wire in between the fences a 100 yards across.

Immigration reforms is pure drivel, there is nothing honest comming out of the United States Government right now, it all has an ulterior motive.

Bishop Dolan, is a very naive personality, and I am tired of these very naive personality types in the form of clergy venturing into Politics, Frankly I am tired of this Church , Yes that is right, I am tired of the Roman Catholic Church, venturing into Politics, I am tired of it.

GET THE CHURCH OUT OF POLITICS COMPLETELY!!!

No more , I am tired of listening to naive clergy wax poetic towards persons that have every intention of doing America ill…

Its not the illegals, its the damn beauracrats. So the leave illegals illegal, because you can’t trust the damn beauracrats.

Its a stupid thing to listen to Clergy wax poetic toward someone who is illegal, but very likely Catholic, but I don’t care, they are very likely Catholic, and very likely hate the very place they are comming.

GET THE CHURCH OUT OF POLITICS, I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER POLITICAL THING COME OUT OF THIS CHURCH!!

I am going to say this, hypotethically, “BRILLIANT BRILLIANT POWERFUL PRIEST, but the guys is a damn idiot.”, and I am not talking about Bishop Dolan, I am talking about so many many clergy everywhere…

Stick to your area of Expertise… You are a Priest, keep your *** inside the Church, because Priests always end up taken advantage of. And I hate seeing it, I hate looking at people look up to you guys, when you are outside your area of expertise.

A Beauracrat will use a Priests Ignorance against him every single time!! I have watched it 100 times throughout history. The Church has got to stay out of POLITICS!!!

 

[Loy]

If a person is willing to ignore the laws about borders, odds are good they will ignore a great many other laws. My personal experience is that border runners tend strongly to be involved in crime.

Despite your personal experiences, your proposition is grossly overbroad. It would be fair to state, however, that there are a disproportionate number of unpeaceful and lawbreaking individuals among illegal immigrants, as opposed to legal immigrants.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Actually you are mistaken. Most Franciscans live among these people. These folks know and trust the Franciscans. We have a long history among them. The Friars of the Renewal, the Little Brothers of St. Francis, the Capuchin Franciscans, the Franciscans of Life, the Franciscans of the Eucharist, the Franciscans of Peace, the Franciscans of the Primitive Observance and all of the Franciscans of the reform.

I’m extremely well acquainted with the Franciscans, of all types. Don’t tell me I am mistaken. They are close friends of mine and I have studied with them for years. I know where the limits of their ministry are, and it does not extend signficantly to a representative sampling of who is and is not a danger to this country, or people we are not required to extend services to by any valid, approved theology of the Catholic Church, because they are not here out of just survival needs but for other reasons – such as illegitimate opportunity and/or crime. The problem with your thinking is that you bundle all immigrants together as freshly born innocents, which is absurd. That is not a Jesus view no matter how you try to shape it and cut it. I am well acquainted with scripture and do not need a lecture from you.

The enforcement has to be according to the moral and social teachings of the Church, otherwise it is not based on Truth.

What I am saying is that whatever representation you have made here on what supposedly is “just” is not what accords with Catholic teaching at all. It is not just to prefer one country or region of needy people over another country or region because a country or a church is too lazy or cowardly to deal directly with a problem.

The only test that it has to pass is the test of the Church. It’s the only test that counts, because only the Church can lead us to salvation. Maybe you need to align you sense of smell to that of your Church you may have a Franciscan vocation.

I find these comments offensive. I don’t need to align myself to a morally inconsistent “theology” (as it has been restated) in terms of its practical suppositions and practical realities when those worldly suppositions are false. Rather, some members of the Church need to re-examine what they assume to be “justice” (in very large quotes), to accord with truth, both a small and capital T. And the country 's first moral obligation is to its citizens, not to the teachings of the Catholic Church, including teachings which may be or are based on flawed assumptions. I’m very clear on where my moral prioriites are; they are based on classic Catholic teaching as well as the whole compendium of scripture. I don’t pick and choose which immigrants get to jeopardize the economic and educational opportunities of our legal residents, including our very poor legal residents, out of some idealistic but essentially flawed and unjust world view – versus which immigrants have to stand in line or be denied access from their just-as-desperately-poor Third World countries. I know what justice is. It demands equality in its principles and truth in its foundation, or it doesn’t meet the standards for justice.

 

[Loy]

Perhaps Archbishop Dolan has similar experience.

When Archbishop Dolan strongly insinuates that supporters of the Arizona law are nothing more than modern-day Know-Nothings and Ku Klux Klansmen, isn’t he himself engaging in bigotry and overbroad generalizations? How does he think he can reduce fear and hatred of illegal immigrants by promoting fear and hatred of others? It is not good pastoral teaching to sabotage Christ’s message of love.

 

[Loy]

The problem with your thinking is that you bundle all immigrants together as freshly born innocents, which is absurd.

No, JReducation never said anything remotely resembling this.

I am well acquainted with scripture and do not need a lecture from you.

If you don’t want to read JReducation’s point of view, why are you here?

What I am saying is that whatever representation you have made here on what supposedly is “just” is not what accords with Catholic teaching at all.

Nothing that JReducation has written is in accord with Catholic teaching? You need to seriously rethink your post.

It is not just to prefer one country or region of needy people over another country or region because a country or a church is too lazy or cowardly to deal directly with a problem.

That is not at all what JReducation wrote.

I find these comments offensive. I don’t need to align myself to a morally inconsistent “theology” (as it has been restated) in terms of its practical suppositions and practical realities when those worldly suppositions are false. Rather, some members of the Church need to re-examine what they assume to be “justice” (in very large quotes), to accord with truth, both a small and capital T.

Then perhaps you should give us examples of authentic Catholic teaching on this matter.

And the country 's first moral obligation is to its citizens, not to the teachings of the Catholic Church,

America’s first moral obligation is to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But most Americans don’t realize that yet.

including teachings which may be or are based on flawed assumptions.

Not all of the teachings of the individual bishops are necessarily teachings of the Catholic Church, but all the teachings of the Catholic Church are infallible.

I’m very clear on where my moral prioriites are; they are based on classic Catholic teaching as well as the whole compendium of scripture.

Are you saying that classic Catholic teaching and scripture are the only two authentic sources of instruction for Catholics?

I don’t pick and choose which immigrants get to jeopardize the economic and educational opportunities of our legal residents, including our very poor legal residents, out of some idealistic but essentially flawed and unjust world view – versus which immigrants have to stand in line or be denied access from their just-as-desperately-poor Third World countries. I know what justice is. It demands equality in its principles and truth in its foundation, or it doesn’t meet the standards for justice.

Please point out the posts in which anyone has advocated for picking and choosing which immigrants get to jeopardize the opportunities for legal American residents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, JReducation never said anything remotely resembling this.

Yes he did. Reread his posts. They’re based on sheer naivete.

If you don’t want to read JReducation’s point of view, why are you here?

You are actually the one putting words in people’s mouths. I never said I “didn’t want to read his point of view.” I said that he lectures unnecessarily to those who are easily as educated in the faith (included in social justice) as he is, and apparently far more educated in the political, economic, and educational realities of this country – which are direclty impacted by massive illegal immigration).

Nothing that JReducation has written is in accord with Catholic teaching? You need to seriously rethink your post.

I never said that “nothing” he has written is in accord. It appears that you are the one that need to seriously rethink and re-examine how well you read. The point is this: When confronted with examples of the toxic and immoral, unjust effects of illegal immigration, JR responds with feel-good stories about his sleeping under bridges, which is nonresponsive and does not relate to the full swath of what it means to be a socially just society within the framework of Catholic teaching, and how immoral and unjust the current illegal immigration realities are right now on May 3, 2010 – not selective fairy tales about myths and theories and utopias. What needs to be addressed is here right now, how illegal immigration is compromising funding and services for legitimately residing poor or struggling citizens of our country. Jesus never said nor meant that we should always prefer the usurper, if poor, to the non-usurper, if also poor. That’s nowhere in the gospels and nowhere in official Catholic teaching.

America’s first moral obligation is to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Nope. We are not a theocracy yet. Reread all the Founding Father documents. There’s nothing in there are about the Catholic Church controlling U.S. policy decisions, externally or internally.

Not all of the teachings of the individual bishops are necessarily teachings of the Catholic Church, but all the teachings of the Catholic Church are infallible.

Nope. That’s not the definition of infallibility.

Are you saying that classic Catholic teaching and scripture are the only two authentic sources of instruction for Catholics?

I’m saying that when any individual or any religious order in the Church decides of its own volition to take on a particular social or moral cause (naturally approved of by the Church or certainly not disapproved of), that’s all well and good, but their priorities do not define the scope of Catholic moral teaching in context. Nor does it mean that their particular activities can be broadened to redefine the priorities of full justice. They may choose to focus on one area of social justice or some moral cause, but their activities don’t make dogma or doctrine. Justice in the Catholic tradition, is always in context – related to the situation at hand. It doesn’t mean that it’s relative in a negative or wiggly sense: it means that the principle of justice is absolute, but the conditions for how that applies varies according to the parties who are the recipients of justice.

Please point out the posts in which anyone has advocated for picking and choosing which immigrants get to jeopardize the opportunities for legal American residents.

Just the fact that when posters confront him with the facts of some of the documentable evil effects of immigration, he responds off-topic with what a terrific person he is and his order is for their selective preference for sharing space with immigrants who include many illegals. But there’s never addressed the injustices done to immigrants who must abide by a different standard and are often every bit as needy.

 

[white_sheep]

Being anti-illegal immigration can not make one racist. One either is or isn’t racist entirely separate from their stance on illegal immigration.

Illegal immigrants come from all countries and all races. However, even if we only look at Mexicans, Mexico is a country, not a race.

I take a hard stance on crime. That’s my position. You do the crime, you do the time. If you sneak into our country illegally, you should be deported.

 

[Ender]

What she is saying is the illegal immigation itself is not a sin.

This is absolutely not what she is saying and you cannot point to any Church document that says: “Illegal immigration is not a sin.” What I think you meant is that the Church has nowhere declared illegal immigration is always a sin, which is a very different thing altogether, and is a bit disingenuous as well. The Church could hardly say that an unlawful act is necessarily an immoral one when she also proclaims that some laws are themselves immoral.

Too many Catholics are calling something a sin, because the state said that it’s a crime. Crime and sin are no the same. That’s the point here.

Those of us who believe that the laws are just are justified in calling behavior that violates those laws sinful. Nor has the Church come out and declared those laws to be immoral.

As to our system of immigration laws, we all know that it’s broken and needs to be fixed. But look where our government is putting our money: abortion.

We should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time; there is no need to approach these problems sequentially. It is not so much that the immigration system is broken as it is that, before the new Arizona law, no one in government was willing to enforce the laws. Abortion, health care, et al have nothing whatever to do with immigration.

Should we be attacking Archbishop Dolan or questioning our government?

I think they both deserve all the opposition and condemnation their actions have brought down on them.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Their very presence within the US is a crime, punishable by time in prison and/or deportation, and forfeiture of all property accumulated.

Therefore your statement is impossible.

They might not be involved in other crimes, but by simply being here, they are criminals by the letter and the spirit of the law.

And the vast majority of those I’ve encountered commit other crimes.

Then again, I don’t live near any seriously porous borders, either.

That is precisely why I worded it the way I did, “are involved”, present tense, using a term that denoted more than a single commission of an immigration violation. Surely you can understand the difference between a person who commits a single legal violation, like an illegal border crossing and one who crosses the border for the express purpose committing numerous violations. It is not that difficult of a concept. There are many here that are deliberately obtuse on this concept and love to lump all who have committed any crime in the same category. Thus all illegal immigrants are the same as dope dealing criminals. To this I advise that it would be best to guard your soul. Jesus (remember Him in this debate?) told us that we will be judged by the measure we judge others. Do you want to be lumped together with murders and child molesters based on your sin?

 

[JReducation]

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities … he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” Romans 13:1—2; CCC 1899. Which magisterial pronouncement excepts immigration laws from the general moral precept of obedience to authority?

Could you please give specific citations?

Read Veritas and Caritas.

Also, it is a moral law that authority must be legitimately exercised and only the Church has the authority to judge when authority is being legitimately exercised. When authority is abused, there is not obligation to obey. When authority violates justice, charity, or human dignity, we do not have to obey. When authority denies people assistance, it is not properly exercisiing its function.

Let me ask you a question. Why are you, a Catholic, insistent on finding issue with your bishops rather than with your government? Who holds a higher authority in your life? Which one can save your soul?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aramis]

That is precisely why I worded it the way I did, “are involved”, present tense, using a term that denoted more than a single commission of an immigration violation. Surely you can understand the difference between a person who commits a single legal violation, like an illegal border crossing and one who crosses the border for the express purpose committing numerous violations. It is not that difficult of a concept. There are many here that are deliberately obtuse on this concept and love to lump all who have committed any crime in the same category. Thus all illegal immigrants are the same as dope dealing criminals. To this I advise that it would be best to guard your soul. Jesus (remember Him in this debate?) told us that we will be judged by the measure we judge others. Do you want to be lumped together with murders and child molesters based on your sin?

Remaining after that illegal entry is continued participation in a crime; it is itself a crime to remain illegally, separate from the crime of crossing the border. They are criminals actively participating in a crime: staying where they don’t belong.

A few illegal immigrants entered legally and stayed past their visa, who commit an ongoing crime by staying. I’ve less problem with them than border-crossers, who commit two crimes at once, one of which is an ongoing one.

 

[JReducation]

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

 

[Ender]

GET THE CHURCH OUT OF POLITICS, I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANOTHER POLITICAL THING COME OUT OF THIS CHURCH!!

I’m with you.

One of the reasons the comment from Archbishop Dolan is so offensive, aside from the sheer inappropriateness of his words, is the very fact that he felt it was somehow within his realm of competence to comment at all. What is the moral issue he is addressing? What sin is committed by those who support the Arizona law? For if there is no sin involved then how can it be appropriate for him to interject his political opinion and imply that his prudential opinion is moral and ours is not?

I too am more than a little vexed that our bishops can’t seem to distinguish political problems from a moral ones. They need to stop acting as if they’re running their own private political action committees.

Ender