Bishops' Conference Files Brief Opposing Arizona Immigration Law

[Catholic_Press]

The U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s judgment against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, in an amicus brief filed on March 26.

More…

 

[Ender]

The U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference asked the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s judgment against Arizona’s controversial immigration law, in an amicus brief filed on March 26.

Although the involvement of the USCCB in the Arizona controversy is unsurprising it is nonetheless a disappointment and it is frankly hard to take seriously complaints from their amicus brief like this one:

Different states, the brief observed, could give different interpretations to a prohibition on “harboring” illegal immigrants.

This amounts to claiming that the Arizona law should be invalidated because of the possibility that another state might pass a law with a stricter interpretation of harboring illegal immigrants that might affect the Church’s ability to carry out its ministry. Do we really want courts to have the authority to overrule another co-equal branch of government on such specious grounds?

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

No person, no company, no institution (church, school, etc.) should be in the business of harboring anyone breaking any kind of law…UNLESS such a law is demonstrably so unjust as to rise to the level of moral action. Such a level would include persecution of a political or religious nature or economic nature, depriving persons of universal human rights such as our Founding Documents and the Church’s own Faithful Citizenship general guidelines proclaim.

People outside of our sovereign borders have a universal light to migrate legally. There is no universal right to migrate in a way that directly violates statutes and processes. And I am uncomfortable with any position of individuals or institutions which consciously enables deceit, subterfuge, dishonesty in matters not rising to a righteous moral level.

No insititution or person can justify a private or subjective interpretation of migration laws and sovereign borders which creates a separate standard of morality not applicable to others, including others of similar circumstances.

There’s a reason that harboring other kinds of fugitives is a federal offense.

The Church’s business is the business of Jesus Himself: relief from poverty, practical aid for those in unfortunate circumstances, especially not of their own making. The enforcement of immigration law does not jeopardize or violate the Church’s mission to the poor. If the Church’s leaders believe immigration laws to be unjust, it is the Church’s right and requirement to craft different proposals and lobby for them, vigorously. “Giving sanctuary” for illegal immigrants (ie., harboring fugitives) is and should be a prosecutable offense, and Church leaders endanger the moral mission of the Church by so doing.

 

[Ender]

If the Church’s leaders believe immigration laws to be unjust, it is the Church’s right and requirement to craft different proposals and lobby for them, vigorously.

One small caveat - the Church’s bishops are free to offer their opinions about particular laws (although I believe they should involve themselves in political issues considerably less often than they do) but this should never be confused with something the Church is doing. The bishops may have positions on specific political solutions but the Church does not. I’m willing to accept the phrase “the bishops support this” but it is incorrect in most cases to assume this also means “the Church supports this.”

Ender

 

[Tigg]

People outside of our sovereign borders have a universal light to migrate legally. There is no universal right to migrate in a way that directly violates statutes and processes. **And I am uncomfortable with any position of individuals or institutions which consciously enables deceit, subterfuge, dishonesty in matters not rising to a righteous moral level. **

No insititution or person can justify a private or subjective interpretation of migration laws and sovereign borders which creates a separate standard of morality not applicable to others, including others of similar circumstances.

There’s a reason that harboring other kinds of fugitives is a federal offense…

Great points and illustrates the need for some moral clarity from our bishops. (For us as well as those here illegally.) Why do I so often get the sense that the underpinnings of this protest involve so much more than simple Christian charity?

 

[nightranger]

Just another example of the USCCB disconnect w/ reality. They are all for illegal immigrants entering and staying in this country, regardless of the fact that they are criminals. The fact that these illegal immigrants place an enormous drain on health care, economic and education resources here means nothing to the USCCB.
Then, they enthusiastically support the the president’s health care bill. Until they find out it includes mandatory coverage for birth control, even abortifacients. And then they’re “shocked.” What did they expect? How naive can they be?

 

[Dale_M]

Although the involvement of the USCCB in the Arizona controversy is unsurprising it is nonetheless a disappointment and it is frankly hard to take seriously complaints from their amicus brief like this one:

Different states, the brief observed, could give different interpretations to a prohibition on “harboring” illegal immigrants.

This amounts to claiming that the Arizona law should be invalidated because of the possibility that another state might pass a law with a stricter interpretation of harboring illegal immigrants that might affect the Church’s ability to carry out its ministry.r

Well, no that isn’t what the brief argues. The brief claims that SB 1070 interferes with the ability of religious bodies to provide charitable aid and that allowing SB 1070 to stand opens the door to further such legislation elsewhere. It mentions that similar legislation has already by adopted by some locales.
usccb.org/about/general-counsel/amicus-briefs/upload/state-of-arizona-v-united-states-of-america.pdf

 

[Dale_M]

No person, no company, no institution (church, school, etc.) should be in the business of harboring anyone breaking any kind of law…UNLESS such a law is demonstrably so unjust as to rise to the level of moral action.

But what constitutes harboring? The brief argues that federal law does not equate providing aid, including providing a place to stay, as equivalent to harboring. For backing it cites the previous federal court ruling of United States v. Costello, 666 F.3d 1040, 1050 (7th Cir. 2012); and also Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d at 1334.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But what constitutes harboring?

Literally being a sanctuary in such a way as to conspire with liars and lawbreakers, becoming a liar and lawbreaker oneself (as an agency or institution), and even to require those working for such an institution to join the conspiracy against the law – when circumstances do not rise to the level of a moral mandate.

No one’s talking about giving shelter, Dale. That has nothing to do with it. Neither the Church herself (or other religious entities), nor private individuals, are forbidden by statutes to aid those here illegally in the matter of personal needs. We are free to provide cash, to patronize their businesses, to provide personal services, to given counsel and practical assistance if any of us choose: ditto for the Church. Nor are we required to voluntarily “report” those whose illegal status we have personal knowledge of. (Unless we are an employer bound and sworn to comply with verification procedures for legal status.)

I’m talking about official policies of ‘safe havens’ which obstruct the government from its rightful role of determining the truth when it asks. I’m talking about policies which actually penalize individuals (threaten them with job loss) for reporting known immigration violations. None of that is morally supportable.

 

[Geist]

Is the Bishops Conference mandating I, as an American be allowed to own land in Mexico, which is illegal under their law?

Its not a straw man, but I must wonder why we Americans must concede everything (taxpayer funded healthcare and education for illegals), when the largest source of them, Mexico, would not even recognize my right to own property there that I would pay for?

The arrogance of the illegals and their backers/advocates is very irksome.

 

[Ender]

Well, no that isn’t what the brief argues. The brief claims that SB 1070 interferes with the ability of religious bodies to provide charitable aid and that allowing SB 1070 to stand opens the door to further such legislation elsewhere.

It makes a number of arguments, none of which are persuasive, but the most risible is the one that holds the law should be overturned because it might in the future lead to interpretations that would affect the Church. There is nothing in the current Arizona law that would prevent Church agencies from serving illegals.

What this is really all about is that Arizona wants to get rid of its illegal aliens and the bishops want to keep them. It is no more complicated than that.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

There is nothing in the current Arizona law that would prevent Church agencies from serving illegals.

Precisely. The arguments are without substance. They have nothing to do with the Church’s mission.

 

[thomasf]

Bishops need to butt out of this one.

 

[nightranger]

Is the Bishops Conference mandating I, as an American be allowed to own land in Mexico, which is illegal under their law?

Its not a straw man, but I must wonder why we Americans must concede everything (taxpayer funded healthcare and education for illegals), when the largest source of them, Mexico, would not even recognize my right to own property there that I would pay for?

The arrogance of the illegals and their backers/advocates is very irksome.

Exactly. Well stated. How long would any Americans last in Mexico if we were there illegally? Not long, I can tell you. If you don’t believe me, try it. You’ll end up in jail. Been there, done that.
Mexico “outsources” their poverty problem to the U.S. With the full blessing of the USCCB.

 

[FAB]

This is an issue that confuses the line of Americanism and the Church’s teaching on Social Doctrine. They are in fact aligned and in conflict at the same time.
The doctrines state that a country has the right it’s soverignty, at the same time it states that richer nations have a moral obligation to help raise the living conditions of poorer countries.
The bishops are calling fo there to be a true discussion of the moral obligatins this country has to Mexico. As Catholics, we are called to recognize the dignity of ALL the children of God, including those forced to cross our borders looking far a better way of life. Even if we could close our boarders completley, we as Catholics are still called to care for these our brothers and sisters. Love God and love thy neighbor.

 

[Ender]

This is an issue that confuses the line of Americanism and the Church’s teaching on Social Doctrine.

What is getting confused here is the distinction between the moral doctrines of the Church and the prudential opinions of her bishops. There is no conflict between saying both that countries have the right to protect their borders and an obligation to welcome the immigrant even though, at some point, limits have to be set. Just where those limits are to be drawn is not a matter of Church teaching and the statements of bishops or the USCCB don’t change the fact that we are free to reach our own conclusions about where to draw the line.

Ender

 

[FAB]

What is getting confused here is the distinction between the moral doctrines of the Church and the prudential opinions of her bishops. There is no conflict between saying both that countries have the right to protect their borders and an obligation to welcome the immigrant even though, at some point, limits have to be set. Just where those limits are to be drawn is not a matter of Church teaching and the statements of bishops or the USCCB don’t change the fact that we are free to reach our own conclusions about where to draw the line.

Ender

As a faithful catholic you know we are called to listen and follow our bishops. Imigration is a human rights issue. We ahve the right to have a developed conscience on issues. If our conclusion is still in opposition to Church teaching are are called to continue further examination.
I suggest to go to the USCCB site and see waht the bishops actually say on immagration, as well as true facts, not hot button falsehoods

 

[Geist]

This is an issue that confuses the line of Americanism and the Church’s teaching on Social Doctrine. They are in fact aligned and in conflict at the same time.
The doctrines state that a country has the right it’s soverignty, at the same time it states that richer nations have a moral obligation to help raise the living conditions of poorer countries.
The bishops are calling fo there to be a true discussion of the moral obligatins this country has to Mexico. As Catholics, we are called to recognize the dignity of ALL the children of God, including those forced to cross our borders looking far a better way of life. Even if we could close our boarders completley, we as Catholics are still called to care for these our brothers and sisters. Love God and love thy neighbor.

How are they forced and how is it my fault their country is a cesspool of misery and death? If they’re as honest and hard-working as they are stereotyped to be, Mexico should be awesome.

Instead its somehow our fault/problem.

 

[Holly3278]

I think this is great news. If you ask me, the Arizona immigration laws are rather barbaric. They just seem to be very racist in nature to me.

 

[FAB]

How are they forced and how is it my fault their country is a cesspool of misery and death? If they’re as honest and hard-working as they are stereotyped to be, Mexico should be awesome.

Instead its somehow our fault/problem.

They are part of the body of Christ, our brothers and sisters who live in poverty and pain. There is not fault, but by Christ himself we are called to be compassionate and the help them.
They are by the way a very industrious people who suffer from an class system were the poor are kept that way. It is true the much of the fault is on the Mexican Government and political systems, lack of welfare. That doesn’t mean we can turn our back on them.