The Church has not applied that verse to the problem of illegal aliens and neither do I. As Ender has pointed out, the Church has not set a specific policy for this problem.
No one supports irrational behavior and quite clearly we wouldn’t have an immigration problem if everyone was here legally. This example stands or falls on its own merits and has nothing whatever to do with the discussion of illegals flooding over the southern border.
The strange logic here is with your assuming that because someone supports the deportation of illegals who have broken our laws they would support “anything.” Perhaps if you had stronger arguments you wouldn’t need to exaggerate and mischaracterize the positions of others.
If you wish to evoke logic, begin by not making things up. First, I never said “do anything to a family”. Second, speeding tickets are not criminal, so they have no bearing on what I said. It is just an invented false analogy. Yes, you are right. There can be tragic injury to innocent parties when people commit crime. I can not comment on an individual situation about which I have not information. It might be a situation that is unjust, or it might be just and very difficult. People that drink and drive kill others and divide families much more permanently than deportation. Again, I do not know that all DWI violators should be deported, but certainly repeat offenders are dangerous, and second offense is still a misdemeanor.
Here is where the USCCB uses the story of Lazarus, in the context of migrant workers rights to seek work:
usccb.org/mrs/cst.shtml
Speeding tickets are criminal misdemeanors, as is illegal entry into the United States or staying in the United States after a visa expires. Seems like a good analogy to me. As to what you said, the Bishop used breaking up of families as a unjust response to these violations of law. I concurred, you said as a direct response:
If has everything to do with our illegal immigration problem. Our immigration laws are broken, period end of story. Yet everyone who is outspoken against illegal immigration, almost to a man, is opposed to any type of comprehensive immigration reform. They mantra is always: “secure the border and enforce our laws”. You guys refuse to admit that our laws are broken, as such any attempts at enforcement will inevitably lead to these situations. Our laws are unjust, unenforcable, economically unsound, bad for our national security, contradictory, confusing, bureaucratic nightmares. Why this should be hard for political conservatives to admit is beyond me. In every other instance they are willing to admit that federal government laws and regulations, after being patched together piecemeal for decades, need reform. Just not immigration. In is a peculiar position for my fellow conservatives to take.
I saw none, but I think the real point is that the topic of the thread is not anyone in the thread. Maybe avoiding personal comments will foster better dialogue.
It also won’t be: did you follow the letter of human made laws and vigorously persecute those who do not.
Do you know of any? I asked about this:
because you had said something about following the law. I guess I could go back and find your quote and review all the bidding here, but the point is, this was a pretty serious thing, had dire consequences for the brother, felony theft at the very least. I’m wondering if you do know how He responded?
I was asking about what Jesus said. The “verse” applies to humans. All humans.
THE POSITION THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE FLOGGED? Did someone exaggerate that? How about, ignoring the Constitution, which would make someone a traitor, by deporting a US citizen, as defined by that Constitution?
I agree with this. I’m not particularly conservative.
Well, the person that Ender was responding to didn’t say that. You grabbed Ender’s response to tafan where tafan was indeed “exaggerating and mischaracterizing the positions of others”.
I always think these forum debates are complex enough without people trying to explain what other people said or meant or whatever. Here are the two posts I was referring to:
“Silence gives consent.”
True enough, but you still haven’t grasped that on this issue the Church speaks in generalities and leaves the implementation of specific policies up to the laity.
Hold that thought; it’s the key to this debate.
Being charitable means treating immigrants fairly; it assuredly does not mandate their acceptance into this county. The Church has been rather clear on the point that countries have a right to control who crosses their borders. As I’ve said before, a reasonable debate can be held over whose solutions are better but no reasonable debate is possible over whose solutions are more moral since no question of morality is involved.
Silence conveys no information whatever. I’ll defend what I’ve said but I have neither the need nor the inclination to defend what I haven’t said or to comment on statements everyone else makes.
You are trying to take a few select pieces of scripture to tell us that we don’t understand the gospel message if we oppose illegal immigration. We really do get it! In searching our hearts and ardently praying, by using our discernment and studying Church teaching, we understand what we are mandated by Christ to follow…we know the need to uphold the human dignity for the immigrant; we understand that God’s children have the right to immigrate and emigrate, we understand that the commonwealth of nations do not belong solely to us and we really do get the true meaning of charity, and btw, also of justice which is an integral part, and appears to be sadly missing from your dialog.
As to the bishop’s statements, we can read and respect them due to his office, but immigration is not one of the non-negotiables, and as laity we may rightfully exercise our prudential judgment (with our informed conscience) as to the application and solution of this issue.
No I was not, there have been people on this thread who advocated flogging. When I brought up the scenario of totalitarian regimes who have successfutlly closed borders the response was “whatever it takes”. The issue of splitting up families, the response was in effect “they get what the deserve”. There have been no limits expressed by those opposed to Bishop Gomez’s statements and oppose to immigration as to what should be done. I have asked for a definition of amnesty, it was ignored.
I get it, you don’t like floggings. To advance this discussion, why don’t you tell us why you think a flogging would be wrong?
I take it you are referring to #7 of my plan which stated that anchor babies would be sent back with their parents. Well, what do you think we should do with anchor babies? The parents should be deported, that is the law. They should have thought about the consequences before illegally crossing the border.
I do, I wouldn’t be proposing a solution if I didn’t.
We just need to get out and vote. I remember reading that about 60% of the eligible voters voted in 2008. If this is true, it is very sad that 40% of the population does not execise the right our troops have fought and died for.
Why are we obliged to live with the situation? Why can’t we do something? Why should illegal aliens be allowed to continue breaking the law?
