Archbishop Gomez: Detentions and Deportations are a ‘Humanitarian Tragedy”

[Tigg]

Who do you think Jesus at with – those that society abandoned. Today that would be the immigrant.

I don’t know about you — but I certainly wish to be at that banquet table.

             Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity, 
             Statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:2001

This is what really gets me going on this issue. The rash judgment upon those of us who oppose illegal immigration that we are somehow not worthy of the kingdom! Would welcoming the stranger include ignoring the law of the land and the obvious fact that government corruption is allowing the over-run of illegal immigrants and creating the problems? Would it include the imposition of an unfair tax burden on this society during an economy that is making it difficult for even Americans to feed their families while documented reports state illegal foreign workers are leaving jobs in Mexico to come and work here at a higher wage and take advantage of free social programs? Would it include the closing of medical facilities due to bankruptcy and the billions of taxpayer dollars poured into bi-lingual programs? How about fraudulent I.D.’s and stolen work histories? Would it include drug trafficking, and human trafficking? I somehow think this problem is more complex than “welcoming the stranger.”

 

[Tigg]

Catholic social teaching is by no means limited to the issue of immigration – legal, illegal, both. This broad moral category includes economic justice and other facts of life globally & locally. What is important for sincerely moral Catholics is to ensure that a victory in one area of social justice does not end up jeopardizing a different element of social justice. To have a balanced view in no way is an indictment of a Catholic, implying or stating, as was done above, that such a Catholic (in this case myself) must be hostile to social justice, ambivalent about it, or uncommitted to it.

I absolutely agree! No one is disputing that immigrants should be treated with respect, but charity without justice and a regard for the common good is destructive to society. The bishop’s statement is rather general and the distinctions of the complexity are left unaddressed. While he notes, “that the current policies of enforcement, detentions and deportations are a ‘humanitarian tragedy,” the root causes are not explored which would impact the common good. The entire human family is the basis of society, not just immigrants. The common good is what we all share, both the poor or not. It is for the sake of the common good that laws are supposed to be established and respected. The influx of illegal immigrants is enormous and our communities are being impacted culturally, economically, socially, and even environmentally. (I really wish the bishops would address the issue of solidarity.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

The bishop’s statement is rather general and the distinctions of the complexity are left unaddressed. While he notes, “that the current policies of enforcement, detentions and deportations are a ‘humanitarian tragedy,” the root causes are not explored which would impact the common good.

I could have pasted the entire post, but the portion above is what I wished to highlight, because to me, it’s not just the root causes that are not explored (a subject I have also brought up on different threads), but the solutions are not explored – solutions which speak to social justice. What solutions are socially just solutions? Even the most ardent supporters of unchecked immigration in the Latino community do not believe that the current system is just. They believe (rightly) that it (a) exploits migrants, (b) rewards unscrupulous employers, (c) requires migrants to ‘stay in the shadows’ – i.e., contribute to the economy in certain essential ways, such as taxes when they are employees, but not benefit in other ways because of their shrouded status (d) does not adequately mainstream and assimilate immigrants without status who have been in the country for a long time.

And the point is that statements such as this bishop’s imply that changing the system is bad (“unjust”), and the status quo is good (“just”). That is not even close to the views of immigration activists. The statement implies that the system should remain in place, with the exception of enforcement. But even without enforcement, the system, according to immigration advocates, is unjust.

 

[Tigg]

And the point is that statements such as this bishop’s imply that changing the system is bad (“unjust”), and the status quo is good (“just”). That is not even close to the views of immigration activists. The statement implies that the system should remain in place, with the exception of enforcement. But even without enforcement, the system, according to immigration advocates, is unjust.

And the obvious unsaid and undefended catechetical statements of a sovereign nation having the right to defend its borders always disturbs me.

I just received this in an e-mail and will confirm just one area of a huge injustice. This very serious infraction nationwide is un-noticed by our churchmen and gives credence to the possible political motivations of our government if they wish to dissolve our sovereignty.

Republicans on the House Administration Committee want to shore up voter registration rules in the wake of a Colorado study that found as many as 5,000 non-citizens in the state took part in last year’s election.

thehill.com/homenews/house/153079-gop-says-5000-non-citizens-voting-in-colorado-a-wake-up-call-for-states

It shouldn’t be hard for anyone to be able to determine the possible dire consequences of this in our nation, in our families and our very lives! This evil is chipping away at our core…now that I’d call a tragedy!

 

[pnewton]

Wow. I deeply resent such an unfounded implication. I said nothing to indicate disapproval of any aspect of Catholic social teaching. In fact, here’s what I said, so I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent that on this thread.

And I would apprecitate it if you would dial your “assume” meter back a notch. I did not misrepresent you. You are taking “implied” things and making assumptions about them that no one intends. I looked back over your posts and I think "implied appears in most of them. For example, you say:

And the point is that statements such as this bishop’s imply that changing the system is bad (“unjust”), and the status quo is good (“just”). That is not even close to the views of immigration activists. The statement implies that the system should remain in place, with the exception of enforcement.

This is said despite the fact that AB Gomez says.

“We need to muster the political will to fix our broken immigration system.”

You see implied in his statements the opposite of what he is saying. I think one should question thei assumptions before they think the worse of others, lest the do the very thing you accused me of doing in the post above, as in, pot, meet kettle.

 

[pnewton]

This is what really gets me going on this issue. The rash judgment upon those of us who oppose illegal immigration that we are somehow not worthy of the kingdom! … I somehow think this problem is more complex than “welcoming the stranger.”

Absolutely, it is more complex. However, I do not think you should take offense where none is given. After all, charity toward the poor and welcoming the stranger are one part of the equation. There is no doubt that we must always balance our economic views with mercy. There really are some who view all political opinions on how it affects them. Machiavelli was not the first or last of his kind. He is well know precisely because his message ressonates with so many. So the message of mercy to the immigrant does need to be proclaimed.

On the other hand, in the fuller article of the Archbishop’s speech, we see that he did address the roots of immigration problem, both here and in Mexico. He never treated the issue as if we should just capitualte our sovereignty or open our borders. No doubt there are some pro-immigrant groups that fail to balance the needs of immigrants with their responsibility to the host nation, security concerns and economic realities.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

1. Build a fence and take any other measures needed to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border.
2. Make English the national language.
3. If we arrest anybody, we check to see whether that person is a legal resident.
4. Make sure illegal aliens do not recieve welfare.
5. If we find an illegal alien we do these 2 things

a. Give him 25 lashes.

b. Use his assets to pay for any public services he has used and his trip out of the US. If he doesn’t have enough money, he can help build and mantain the border fence or work on other public projects.

1. If a deported illegal alien tries to apply for citizenship, his application is rejected immediately.
2. Anchor babies are sent back with their parents.
3. Those who aid, harbor, or employ illegal aliens should face fines, flogging, or prison.

Um…wow. That whole thing called the Constitution really isn’t all that important to you, is it?

 

[tafan]

I could have pasted the entire post, but the portion above is what I wished to highlight, because to me, it’s not just the root causes that are not explored (a subject I have also brought up on different threads), but the solutions are not explored – solutions which speak to social justice. What solutions are socially just solutions? Even the most ardent supporters of unchecked immigration in the Latino community do not believe that the current system is just. They believe (rightly) that it (a) exploits migrants, (b) rewards unscrupulous employers, (c) requires migrants to ‘stay in the shadows’ – i.e., contribute to the economy in certain essential ways, such as taxes when they are employees, but not benefit in other ways because of their shrouded status (d) does not adequately mainstream and assimilate immigrants without status who have been in the country for a long time.

And the point is that statements such as this bishop’s imply that changing the system is bad (“unjust”), and the status quo is good (“just”). That is not even close to the views of immigration activists. The statement implies that the system should remain in place, with the exception of enforcement. But even without enforcement, the system, according to immigration advocates, is unjust.

There is nothing in Bishop’s Gomez statement that implies the current system is just, quite the opposite. The current system is leading to the activities which he considers a tragedy. And it is safe to assume, Bishop Gomez supports the USCCB’s documents on the matter which certainly explores the root causes AND solutions. Statements to the contrary, ie, that the Bishop’s want the current system maintained, are simply falsehoods and misrepresentations of fact.

If anyone is keeping the current system in place, it is the anti-immigration forces who insist on just securing the border and enforcing our laws and refuse to even consider any type of comprehensive immigration reform. Twice under the Bush administration, there were fairly decent comprehensive plans put forward by Bush and bipartisan leaders of the Senate. The conservatives derailed both of these plans and left us with the current approach, ie just secure the border first.

 

[Ender]

If anyone is keeping the current system in place, it is the anti-immigration forces who insist on just securing the border and enforcing our laws and refuse to even consider any type of comprehensive immigration reform.

So, you want those who oppose illegal immigration to make a deal with those who won’t even enforce the current laws? I mean, how much debate is needed over whether the government should enforce the laws it passes? Do you blame those who are trying to dry up the flood of illegals from doubting the sincerity of those who seem quite content with the status quo? There seem to be a lot of people who are quite comfortable with the existing situation and are in no hurry to change it - and that group does not include those on the anti-illegal immigration side.

Twice under the Bush administration, there were fairly decent comprehensive plans put forward by Bush and bipartisan leaders of the Senate. The conservatives derailed both of these plans and left us with the current approach, ie just secure the border first.

Hey, the Democrats had a lock on both houses of Congress and the presidency and what solutions did they put forth? Nada. There’s your “status quo” crowd. The plans you refer to include the one Kennedy fashioned so the fact that you consider it “decent” says a lot more about you than about the plan. I certainly never considered it appropriate.

Ender

 

[tafan]

Ender:

So, you want those who oppose illegal immigration to make a deal with those who won’t even enforce the current laws? I mean, how much debate is needed over whether the government should enforce the laws it passes? Do you blame those who are trying to dry up the flood of illegals from doubting the sincerity of those who seem quite content with the status quo? There seem to be a lot of people who are quite comfortable with the existing situation and are in no hurry to change it - and that group does not include those on the anti-illegal immigration side

We have been spending more and more on enforcing the laws for the last 10 years. We have 10 times as many border agents as 10 years ago. The border patrol is now the largest law enforcement body in the United States. I posted graphs a few days ago on how the expenses and personnel for border patrol is growing exponentially. How’s that working for you? You don’t seem satisfied with the results so far.

I am guessing that you, like me, are a political conservative. Why do you support a larger and larger federal law enforcement in this instance? Why do you think the government can stem market forces? Why do you want to abandon the principal in subsidiarity for this issue? It is a peculiar stance so called conservatives have adopted in the last few years.
If a law does not work, is difficult to enforce, it is time to think maybe we need to make some changes.

Maybe something needs a little reform if you want to successfully secure the borders. Perhaps you could consider that our immigration laws are structured such that they just can’t be enforced, short of totalitarian like measures implemented between east and west Germany or between North and South Korea. That’s what it takes for a government to truly stem strong market forces. Conservatives should realize that.

Ender:

Hey, the Democrats had a lock on both houses of Congress and the presidency and what solutions did they put forth? Nada. There’s your “status quo” crowd. The plans you refer to include the one Kennedy fashioned so the fact that you consider it “decent” says a lot more about you than about the plan. I certainly never considered it appropriate

I would not trust the democrats under Pelosi and Reid to get anything right. But Bush had a very good plan he ran on in 2000, it was sabotaged by his own party (Phil Graham’s exact words were “over my dead body”). Again there was a good plan the McCain and Lindsey Grahm came up with, it could have worked. GOP political pressure forced them to abandon it.

 

[zdon011]

1. Build a fence and take any other measures needed to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border.
2. Make English the national language.
3. If we arrest anybody, we check to see whether that person is a legal resident.
4. Make sure illegal aliens do not recieve welfare.
5. If we find an illegal alien we do these 2 things

a. Give him 25 lashes.

b. Use his assets to pay for any public services he has used and his trip out of the US. If he doesn’t have enough money, he can help build and mantain the border fence or work on other public projects.

1. If a deported illegal alien tries to apply for citizenship, his application is rejected immediately.
2. Anchor babies are sent back with their parents.
3. Those who aid, harbor, or employ illegal aliens should face fines, flogging, or prison.

I agree. Does that make me a bad person???

 

[praxising]

I just read through this thread. I have a question: what did Jesus say? I see a lot of posters sharing their opinions, even offering those opinions as some sort of absolute truth. But, we are first Christians; the Lord’s Light illuminates all things. What did Jesus say?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Um…wow. That whole thing called the Constitution really isn’t all that important to you, is it?

Where does my proposed plan contradict the Constitution?
@zdon011 Who are you agreeing with?

 

[zdon011]

Where does my proposed plan contradict the Constitution?
@zdon011 Who are you agreeing with?

I’m agreeing with your proposals…though they seem a tad harsh.

 

[praxising]

Where does my proposed plan contradict the Constitution?

Let me ask you directly: what did Jesus say? What do you think He feels about all this flogging you have in mind? If He were posting on this forum, what do you believe He would be writing here? Can you find anything in the Gospels about Jesus and something we would consider being an alien?

 

[Ender]

I am guessing that you, like me, are a political conservative. Why do you support a larger and larger federal law enforcement in this instance? Why do you think the government can stem market forces? Why do you want to abandon the principal in subsidiarity for this issue?

I am, I support whatever is necessary, I don’t, and I don’t.

Again there was a good plan the McCain and Lindsey Grahm came up with, it could have worked. GOP political pressure forced them to abandon it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. My real point in this discussion is that the debate over how to solve these problems does not involve the Church. There is nothing in her social doctrine that specifies whether we should or should not support any particular action; she takes neither my side, your side, nor anyone’s side. So, to praxising, who asked “What would Jesus say?”, I suspect he would probably remind us that:

It is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life. This task is part of the vocation of the lay faithful (CCC 2242)

Ender

 

[markomalley]

The cited article does not cover all of Archbishop Gomez’ comments.

He also said:The Church’s third principle is that governments have the right to control migration into their countries and to defend their borders. This is important. It means that nations must look at their security and their economic interests in making decisions about who and how many people they allow into their countries. It means that immigrants must respect the laws of the countries they emigrate to.

But the Church also teaches that national sovereignty should never be used as an excuse to deny the rights of needy and decent people who are seeking their livelihood. No country can deny this basic human right to migrate out of exaggerated fears for national security or selfish concerns about threats to domestic jobs or standards of living.
He goes on to say:It is true that many immigrants are in our country illegally. That bothers me. I don’t like it when our rule of law is flouted. And I support just and appropriate punishments. But right now, we are imposing penalties that leave wives without husbands, children without parents. We are deporting fathers and leaving single mothers to raise children on little to no income.
You can read the entire address for yourself here (PDF file).

This is not a new position for Archbishop Gomez. Even as far back as 2008, he has said the same exact thing:The fact is that millions of immigrants are here in blatant violation of U.S. law. This makes law-abiding Americans angry. And it should. Why should they obey the laws if others aren’t punished for breaking them? As advocates, we can’t ignore this fact or somehow argue that our immigration laws don’t matter.

We have to make sure that our laws are fair and understandable. At the same time, we have to insist that our laws be respected and enforced. Those who violate our laws have to be punished.

The question is how? What punishments are proper and just? I think, from a moral standpoint, we’re forced to conclude that deporting immigrants who break our laws is too severe a penalty. It’s a punishment that’s disproportionate to the crime. It’s a punishment that doesn’t account for the complex circumstances of how and why people enter this country illegally.

What’s most troubling to me as a pastor is that these deportations are breaking up families. Leaving wives without husbands, children without parents. A fundamental dimension of Catholic social teaching on immigration is that our policies should be aimed at reuniting and strengthening families—not tearing them apart. As we all know, a policy that breaks families apart can only lead to greater sufferings and social problems.
I, for one, think that Archbishop Gomez has a very realistic and positive attitude toward the subject. And I am hardly pro-illegal immigration. In fact, there are certain prelates in the American hierarchy who would probably group me among the “nativists”, “know nothings”… or those who would characterize me as a Nazi for being in favor of AZ SB1070.

Before reflexively slamming Gomez, you may wish to contrast him with some of the statements made by some of his peers. At least he acknowledges that illegal immigration is…well…illegal and that there should be some sort of punishment for breaking the law.

 

[tafan]

It is true that many immigrants are in our country illegally. That bothers me. I don’t like it when our rule of law is flouted. And I support just and appropriate punishments. But right now, we are imposing penalties that leave wives without husbands, children without parents. We are deporting fathers and leaving single mothers to raise children on little to no income.

Why is this a problem, any measures needed to enforce our laws are ok, lashings, executions, etc. Anything, doesn’t matter how powerful our federal police forces become. Heck splitting up a few families seems quite innocent compared to the stuff advocated around this forum.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Let me ask you directly: what did Jesus say?

I don’t recall Jesus ever setting a policy on how we should treat illegal aliens.

What do you think He feels about all this flogging you have in mind?

I don’t recall Christ ever setting a policy on how we should punish criminals.

If He were posting on this forum, what do you believe He would be writing here?

He would say that we should be just.

Can you find anything in the Gospels about Jesus and something we would consider being an alien?

I couldn’t find anything relevant to this discussion.

Why is this a problem,

Illegal aliens break our laws, steal welfare dollars, use our social services, take our jobs, and lower our wages.

any measures needed to enforce our laws are ok, lashings, executions, etc. Anything, doesn’t matter how powerful our federal police forces become.

If we enforced tough laws consistently, we would not need a large police force.

Heck splitting up a few families seems quite innocent compared to the stuff advocated around this forum.

The family should stay together. So, we should send the kids back over the border with their parents.

 

[Ender]

Heck splitting up a few families seems quite innocent compared to the stuff advocated around this forum.

Is this new approach to be generically applied: felons with children shouldn’t go to jail because it breaks up families? I understand this is a hardship but it isn’t exactly clear why a problem someone else has created becomes an obligation for me to resolve. Are we to punish criminals or let them go if their punishment affects others? I wonder, do we apply this standard today for Americans who’s imprisonment would create a hardship for their families or do we let them all off with warnings?

Ender