Bishops' immigration expert calls new policy a step in the right direction

[Elizabeth502]

I think you are totally correct with this, I just do not see this as an “us or them” issue. Unfortunately, I know that others sometimes do and in the name of justice to illegal immigrants that injustice is visited upon others. After you have explained some of the things you have dealt with, I understand this. Those unjust situations too need to be corrected. I think one can do that and still have legitimate immigration reform.

Thank you so much, brother. God bless you. And I totally agree that it’s **both/and **rather than either/or. (It has to be.)

 

[JReducation]

I’m sorry. You’ve lost me there, Brother. Which “people” are you talking about? Do you mean priests who make up doctrine as they go (defying settled doctrine)? Lay people? Of whom – by type of example – are we speaking, or of what controversial activities are we speaking?

(Same question. Which people?)

Agreed! More important to me, it’s irrelevant. (And because parents have failings, that does not eviscerate their authority to instruct their children morally, either.)

There are lay people, clerics and religious who are being banned from public diocesan activities and diocesan facilities, other than passive participants. In other words, they may not speak, engage in ministries, be visible in any way other than as members of the congregation.

For example, let’s say that John Doe says or does something that the bishop does not like. The bishop sends out a letter saying that John Doe may not speak, lead, or participate in any ministry in his diocese. John Doe can still participate in the dialy life of the diocese. He cannot do anything public, such as give a talk to the Catholic Ladies Association at St. X Parish.

John Doe can be a cleric, religious or lay person. This is not a secret. I’m not revealing any secrets here. These letters are public, often posted on the Internet or circulated in memos around a diocese.

Usually, it begins with a private conversation with John Doe. It does not have to be that way. Some bishops proceed directly to censoring, no warnings. The law does not require such conversations. To the best of my knowledge, you can correct me if I’m mistaken, the only issue where I’ve seen it explicitly said that a private conversation is required is abortion. I have not seen that requirement for anything else.

Remember, the bishop only has authority to bar someone from diocesan activities and diocesan facilities, not other. If the Trappists want to host John Doe at their abbey, the bishop has no jurisdiction or if St. X University wants to host him, the bishop has not jurisdiction, unless the diocese owns the university. If it’s an autonomous group or an autonomous institution, the bishop can strip it of the name, Catholic, but he can’t close supress it. However, he can censor indiiduals.

This is starting to happen. I know someone who was asked to leave the parish CCD program because of his antagonism toward his bishop on this very issue. The bishop was willing to entertain disagreement. He was not willing to be told that he should not speak. This person is not allowed to teach the faith anywhere in his home diocese. This is why I keep telling people that such a statement is like stepping on a slippery slope. It’s not one that the faithful are going to win. It’s better not to make such comments. They can come back to haunt you if your bishop hears about it and you’re involved in any kind of ministry. They tolerate disagreement. They’re not tolerating challenges to their authority. There is a whole generation of bishops that I call the John Paul II bishops, since most were appointed by Bl. John Paul, who are very determined that they will not be bullied by the faithful.

Archbishop Chaput explained it very well in his address to the K of C. A lot of this rhetoric is based on arrogance, pride, resentment, desire to control and a desire to silence the Church, not on a real desire to help the Church. I understand that he does not tolerate it. I know a few others who don’t either. They are willing to hear you out, if you want to sit down and talk, but not if you want to silence them.

My take is that saying “I wish the bishops would stay out of politics,” is not about the content of the bishop’s statement, but about the authority of the bishop. It’s not a good idea to question the authority of bishops unless you have Church law on your side.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I think you are totally correct with this, I just do not see this as an “us or them” issue. Unfortunately, I know that others sometimes do and in the name of justice to illegal immigrants that injustice is visited upon others. After you have explained some of the things you have dealt with, I understand this. Those unjust situations too need to be corrected. I think one can do that and still have legitimate immigration reform.

Thank you so much, brother. God bless you. And I totally agree that it’s **both/and **rather than either/or. (It has to be.)

I agree with both of you. We need to revisit our immigration system. It’s broken. It is appropriate for the lay faithful who know about law and other social sciences necessary to fix it to give the bishops information and ideas. The bishops can then assess which ideas are morally safe and which are not . That’s the dialogue that should be taking place between the laity and the hierarchy.

It’s not an issue of us vs illegal immigrants or lay vs clergy. It’s an issue of all of us looking for solutions that are legal, moral and effective.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GraceSofia]

First, illegal aliens are ineligible for welfare benefits, by law. . . .
The healthcare issue I will look into and respond on later…

BUT illegal aliens who present with emergency cases at hospitals must be given care under the law. This is a well-known fact about the U.S. by foreigners. Many hospitals on the southwestern border have a huge problem with illegal immigrants using the maternity services for free.

Here is one case. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5395387

In 2004, Congress appropriated $1 billion in emergency aid to hospitals like the Copper Queen, in Bisbee. The hospital spent so much on things like emergency aid for border crossers it had to close its skilled nursing and maternity wards.

Forcing the citizens who lived there to have to drive to another town when they needed to give birth.

See also articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/20/nation/na-hospital20

There is loads of information out there for the searching.

Regarding anchor babies: 60k Texas anchor babies get US citizenship every year An anchor baby is a citizen, entitled to benefits.

 

[Blacksword]

BUT illegal aliens who present with emergency cases at hospitals must be given care under the law. This is a well-known fact about the U.S. by foreigners. Many hospitals on the southwestern border have a huge problem with illegal immigrants using the maternity services for free.

Here is one case. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5395387

Forcing the citizens who lived there to have to drive to another town when they needed to give birth.

See also articles.latimes.com/2004/jun/20/nation/na-hospital20

There is loads of information out there for the searching.

Regarding anchor babies: 60k Texas anchor babies get US citizenship every year An anchor baby is a citizen, entitled to benefits.

I didn’t say they don’t use emergency rooms when in need of actual treatment. That wasn’t the topic at hand, it was whether they are getting welfare benefits from the state.

Also, again, “anchor baby” is an ugly pejorative term with no legal meaning. You mean “U.S. citizen child” when you use that term, because that’s what they ARE, under the 14th Amendment. The child, as I’ve detailed above, cannot really ever benefit the parents, the child’s citizenship does not help the parents in any way, so there is no basis for the application of this term to them. I would ask that posters stop using that term, it is an ugly term and really only meant to serve as a demeaning label against an innocent, defenseless infant. It shouldn’t be used anymore than racist names for other ethnic or political groups. Thank you.

 

[Ender]

I would refer you to Evangelium Vitae and to Light of the World where Bl. John Paul addresses the issue of deportation and Pope Benedict addresses the issue of splitting the immirgrant family.

The context in which JPII condemns deportation in Evangelium Vitae is very different from its meaning in this context. He was applying the term to the mass deportations of legal citizens from their homelands such as occurred during WWII; he was certainly not applying the term to the return to their own countries of people who had illegally entered another. Your Light of the World reference was insufficient for me to find the document.

Many people are imprudent. They make comments on the Internet or at meetings and events and think that the bishop or religious superiors are not going to find out.

I have taken these questions directly to my bishop and asked as clearly as I could whether I am morally bound to accept his views on immigration. Neither he nor his predecessor claimed that I have such an obligation.

Ender

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

I must say this is getting a little tiring. I am going to ask you to adopt a more respectful tone. … Your posts are insulting, arrogant, and personal. And they lack any imparting of actual knowledge of immigration law, or evidence for any of the baseless assertions you are making. …

I’ll tell you what , I will apologize if anything I wrote inspired you to choose to take offense .

Why do you think an appeal to authority ( fallacy ) , would work ? It won’t . Impress me with your arguments , not your CV !
Thank you for hoisting yourself on your own petard . So finally you admit that all of these 12 million illegal aliens are NOT in FACT actually working ( legally ) . Well we knew that , but it’s been your side that has claimed that they are ALL here working and serving society . Thank you for finally admitting the fallacy . But why do you make both claims ( they are all here to work , but they are not all actually working ) ?

" Estimating how much each undocumented worker individually pays in taxes is a useless
endeavor really , and not possible to do accurately " .--------Really , says who ? How convenient . The real story is that you don’t want the American people to know how much tax reveue is being lost . You know the furor it would cause . Why don’t you just claim they are not engaged in the underground economy while you’re at it . You thought you could get away with that ?

Proper documentation is required to enter the US and remain here legally . If a foreign national ( i.e. , Alien) lacks said documentation , he/she is here illegally . Hence , the term " illegal alien" is much more precise and accurate than , " undocumuented worker " , especially since you finally admitted thay are not all here working , even when some could work . So please , cease and desist in using the inaccurate and dishonest term , " und-
documented worker " .

Thanks for revealing your true colors . So illegal aliens are not engaged in theft , identity theft, theft of servive or not paying all due taxes , BUT it is the SSA that is stealing . Got it , the SSA is the problem . Swell !

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s still fruit. Non-negotiable moral issues are defined differently, and seems to be a matter of convenience for some. We’re not discussing ‘delayed amber’ stoplights, we’re discussing human beings, our brothers and sisters in Christ.

You’re much more well read than that and know what the quality of life is according to the men of the Church; feeding the poor, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, caring for the sick, employment, etc. etc. etc.

So, really, you’re saying that we must support “quality of life” improvements at some level, and that that issue is equivalent to opposing abortion?

As a secondary question, then, in what way to you believe Obama has improved the lot of the poor or opposed abortion, either one?

 

[Ridgerunner]

This you are allowed to do. You may disagree with him, until he uses the word “moral” or “immoral”. Outside of that, you can disagree. This is what Cardinal Dulles was trying to sort out. We have the obligation to listen, respect, and then we can agree or disagree, as long as we don’t disagree on a moral point. Once the bishop says, “This is immoral.” We have to prove that it’s not. He does not have to prove to us that it is. The Apostles and their successors always get the benefit of the doubt. Outside of that, you can disagree and that’s OK.

Br. JR, OSF

I’m not sure we disagree, but I want to plumb it just a bit further. Let’s say some bishop or group thereof say that the Federal Reserve’s QE2 policy is immoral because it threatens inflation, etc. Are you saying I must examine the question, and have an obligation to do that, but that I can disagree if I find the argument wanting? Seems you are.

But then, if I express my disagreement, here or elsewhere, are you saying I must support my argument at least reasonably or remain silent? Seems you are.

If so, then how is that different from expressing opposition to any political position EXCEPT that I am obliged to respect the bishop’s statement in the first instance, simply because he’s a bishop, and that obligation is greater than perhaps the lighter moral obligation I have to be diligent in forming any opinion I express to another?

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword;8291891:

On this we agree , you are tiresome . Why don’t you worry about the tree trunk in your eye & I’ll worry @ the splinter in mine . " Umm , what " ,If you demand respect why don’t you give respect to begin with ? How novel ? Interesting , by calling my assertions ," baseless" , you don’t have to address them . How convenient .And I think your recommendations deny Christian charity to US citizen taxpayers .
Why don’t you reference your post # 125 , your , umm what " reply . That’s the one where you leave the hyperbole undefined . Also , it’s “opposition” , not 'opinion ". Also , your post # 131 , my " misinformation " , was left undefined . So tell me ,why do you think your replies have not been dismissive and/or disrespectful to me ? Why don’t you lobby the ref to call a foul ?

It just occurred to me, anything you can’t rebut you simply deny and then cast aspersions . It’s not working . Always remember , DENIAL is an acronym for: (D)on’t , (E), k(N)ow, (I)t’s,(A),(L)ie .

Since you have apparently provided services to immigrants , and I assume received some sort of compensation , why do you think you should be even engaged in this conversation . Why wouldn’t it be prudent for you to recuse yourself from this topic ?
Why should any of us think you are unbiased ? I mean , it does seem that you have a horse in this race . Doesn’t it ’ ?

It’s not going to work . I told you how illegal aliens engage in identity theft to obtain various forms of government ID , amd what do you do , deny . Reference 2 graphs above re: denial … You argue the law prohibits payment of such benefits so they don’t receive them . Nobody believes you . Why , they have seen it .Why don’t you deny illegal aliens enage in identity theft at all . Really , the law prohibits such payments , so they don’t happen , just like that ? Tell me why that preposterous assertion will pass the " laugh test " ? Why don’t you claim that illegals don’t fraduelently acquire drivers’s licenses either . Why don’t you claim they all carry in-force auto insurance while you’re at it . Yah , none of this is happening .

I’ll tell you what , I will apologize if anything I wrote inspired you to choose to take offense .

Why do you think an appeal to authority ( fallacy ) , would work ? It won’t . Impress me with your arguments , not your CV !
Thank you for hoisting yourself on your own petard . So finally you admit that all of these 12 million illegal aliens are NOT in FACT actually working ( legally ) . Well we knew that , but it’s been your side that has claimed that they are ALL here working and serving society . Thank you for finally admitting the fallacy . But why do you make both claims ( they are all here to work , but they are not all actually working ) ?

" Estimating how much each undocumented worker individually pays in taxes is a useless
endeavor really , and not possible to do accurately " .--------Really , says who ? How convenient . The real story is that you don’t want the American people to know how much tax reveue is being lost . You know the furor it would cause . Why don’t you just claim they are not engaged in the underground economy while you’re at it . You thought you could get away with that ?

Proper documentation is required to enter the US and remain here legally . If a foreign national ( i.e. , Alien) lacks said documentation , he/she is here illegally . Hence , the term " illegal alien" is much more precise and accurate than , " undocumuented worker " , especially since you finally admitted thay are not all here working , even when some could work . So please , cease and desist in using the inaccurate and dishonest term , " und-
documented worker " .

Thanks for revealing your true colors . So illegal aliens are not engaged in theft , identity theft, theft of servive or not paying all due taxes , BUT it is the SSA that is stealing . Got it , the SSA is the problem . Swell !

I’m not sure if there is anything in this post worth responding too, but I will make a few points I suppose. Please note, I have been respectful, so I don’t think there’s any “log in my eye”. It is not disrespectful to point out that an assertion is baseless, and most of the ones you have made are. Until you can provide a credible source, an academic peer-reviewed study or some similar research demonstrating the, apparently in your opinion, large percentage of undocumented persons in the U.S. fraudulently receiving welfare benefits, your assertion will remain without credible support, i.e., “baseless”.

I don’t think my specific legal proposals lack Christian charity to taxpayers. Rather, they would greatly repair and rationalize a broken and dysfunctional system, help protect U.S. worker interests, promote fair competition by ensuring that employment in the U.S. is legal and subject to proper wage and hour laws, worker protections, etc., which prevents U.S. workers from needing to compete with foreign workers who are being paid exploitatively low wages for unskilled labor. They promote and improve our border maintenance, as no longer would such persons have to attempt entry without inspection. This thereby lessens the burden on CBP officers to chase well-meaning immigrants, and frees up their resources and time to focus on those who would still attempt undocumented entry: drug traffickers and people with actual ill intent. And my proposals would help to ensure that valuable agricultural labor and other areas that these immigrants serve in the economy that are NOT going to be adequately filled by U.S. workers would be sufficiently served to meet our economic and labor needs. These are all things that are of great benefit to Americans, and would be realized with the legal measures I proposed.

 

[Blacksword]

Cont’d.

You claim I just deny anything I can’t rebut, but you haven’t provided any evidence for anything you’ve claimed. Whereas I’ve provided links to major news media, to government reports and statistics maintained by the agencies who administer the programs, laws, and rules at issue, academic studies, and legal citations. For instance, since you seem to imply I haven’t sufficiently established that unlawfully present persons are not eligible for welfare, please see below:

blog.chron.com/immigration/2008/01/illegal-immigrants-on-welfare-fact-or-fiction/

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 prohibited undocumented persons from receiving benefits. It’s codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1612. You can look it up, or read the federal circuit court case also discussing this Rodriguez v. U.S., 169 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999). I hope that is sufficient evidence for you on this. And as soon as you find that credible evidence of the percentage of aliens fraudulently circumventing this, we can address it. Please note I never denied that ANY undocumented persons have engaged in such fraud, I said its very much not the norm. There are no statistics on this matter, since of course of state offices KNEW who was fraudulently receiving welfare benefits, they would stop giving them to such persons! However, based on having counseled hundreds of undocumented persons, my professional dealings with other attorneys who have counseled thousands and thousands more of them, the documentation requirements for receiving such benefits, and the credible research into the known propensity for undocumented persons to be gainfully employed and working very hard, I would maintain that any such number of persons committing such fraud and receiving these benefits is VERY low.

As to why I should be engaged in this conversation, the answer is simple and obvious: Because I am an expert in our nation’s immigration laws, policy, and system. I, and attorneys like me who practice immigration law, have legal expertise in these complex and disjointed laws, experience and understanding of how the system functions, and therefore, we are FAR better equipped to assess its failures and advance appropriate solutions than are uninformed members of the public. Your question is tantamount to saying “Why should I listen to someone who is an expert in a complicated, advanced area of knowledge that I know almost nothing about?” If we were talking about the merits of nuclear energy production, I would be inclined to listen to Nuclear Physicists and Engineers…you know, people who KNOW what they’re talking about. Your implication that my “having a horse in this race” highlights how little you know about this area. I work mostly with the largest multi-national corporations in the world, universities, government research laboratories, and research firms in business immigration, bringing in highly educated scientists, researchers, and innovators under legal available avenues. Household names, research laboratories that conduct experimental physics in Large Hadron Colliders, energy and automotive companies as so forth. Chances are that the company who manufactured most of the cars posters on these forums drive is a client of mine, as is the company who made your refrigerator, television, stereo system, and most everything else you use on a day-to-day basis. So basically, I rarely see persons these days who are undocumented. So no, I don’t have a “horse” in the race in terms of any pecuniary interests in the matter. My interest is in the common welfare of America as a whole, and the promotion of Christian charity and mercy in our treatment of those who are weak and vulnerable.

Some of the remainder of your post borders on conspiracy theorist, and becomes pretty disjointed, so I’m not sure what else to say about it. I will say that the term “illegal alien” is NOT a proper term, no. It is not a legal term, it does not appear anywhere in the law, and that is why I refrain from using it. I think it is fairly apparent that that term is also, like “anchor baby” used essentially as a pejorative, dehumanizing label, it having no actual legal sense or meaning. The terms “unlawfully present alien” or “undocumented” DO appear in the law and are explicitly defined, so these terms are technically and legally accurate. That is why I try to always use them.

In closing, I would also point out that your punctuation makes your posts somewhat difficult to read. Proper punctuation is your friend!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, really, you’re saying that we must support “quality of life” improvements at some level, and that that issue is equivalent to opposing abortion?

I believe all are important. We cannot stand up for one and then ignore, or argue that we’re at liberty to disagree on others.

As a secondary question, then, in what way to you believe Obama has improved the lot of the poor or opposed abortion, either one?

Obama has not acted alone, or is totally responsible for the economic condition we find ourselves in. That’s just a partisan talking point, which ignores anything inherited from previous administrations.

We very well know his position on abortion.

Both political parties have had opportunities to make changes, but we’re still at the same point. With a two party system it’s convenient for the party in control to blame the other party and nothing gets done. It is political to pander to individual interests, to maintain a bloc of voters. Our mistake is to get caught up in the secularism of politics and create divides among ourselves.

Now, on the single issue which is the topic of this thread, we find during this time that the bishops view a new immigration policy as a step in the right direction. We’ve observed people speak against the bishops, deny the immigration issue as moral, and make statements of liberty to disagree. I believe we all are basing our views as Christians but, for me, I cannot agree with those anti-immigration sentiments being expressed. i also find irony in some using those reasons listed while maintaining many are mistaken on other issues.

In this discussion, we’ve also seen some pretty arrogant posts, which appears to lack charity towards an opposing view being expressed. The lack of charity is not going to sway anyone’s opinion to be the same, at least I know it will not work on me. If the message lacks the principles required of Christians, some will question the view simply based on the lack of principles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No innuendo , I am literally charging the illegal aliens who are guilty of it with stealing , fraud and/or identity theft .

I would imagine that some do commit crimes. All are imperfect, but it appears you generalize to include an entire group as responsible.

Can you be more specific , what is your point ?

Have you read the article? Have you read the statements provided by the Archbishop? They find the current policy as a relief to what they believe, and have expressed. It is through the expression from the men of the Church that we learn to amalgamate the secular world with the spiritual world.

Well , they are not in fact paying their legal and just tax burden . I never said they pay zero taxes .

What happens to their tax status under a work permit as being offered to those already here?

No foreign national has a " right " to be here .Even the bishops recognize a nation has to have prudential immigration law and enforce it . As someone else mentioned , there seems to be a built in preference for immigration from nations below our southern border . I object to this . Why shouldn’t someone from the Philippines , Cambodia , Angola , Liberia , Estonia or Ukraine have just as equal a chance to emigrate to the US as someone from Mexico or Guatemala ? But this can’t happen because illegal aliens from south of our border are taking unfair advantage of their proximity to the US . Your policy makes legal immigrants waiting in line out to be chumps

If no foreign national has a right to be here, we need to address the founding, building and growth of this country, which has been by the immigrant.

Our immigration policies has excluded the poorer of the immigrants. Those are the ones being made chumps, because of their economic status. They can’t get into this ‘imaginary’ line.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Your definition of justice seems to be a one way street . We have obligations to illegal aliens but they have no obligations to the US . That’s not justice . You seem to confer higher status to illegal aliens than you do US citizens .

Just as Christ opened heaven to all, I believe our ‘Christian’ nation has the same responsibilities. It’s that simple. Christ put no one above another. It’s man that wants to do that, and use man’s law as the excuse of righteousness.

I assume you mean " illegal " immigrants . Absolutely , I would deport as many as I could as quickly as I could . There would be a " pecking order " , Felons first , then those guilty of numerous misdemeanors , then rank and file .

I assume your view of a mass deportation would include splitting up families? Please show me the teachings of Christ, or His Church, that calls for such an action?

It’s that simple for me. I am trying to view this issue through a spiritual eye and not the secular eye.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Just as Christ opened heaven to all, I believe our ‘Christian’ nation has the same responsibilities.

I’m not sure: Are you arguing for open borders? (So, for example, if not only Mexico – which currently uses the U.S. as its immoral and selfish Escape Valve for “solving its poverty problems” – but if governments of other countries were to decide similarly that social justice for the poor within their own borders is just too bleepin’ inconvenient, and besides would trim their excessively lavish lifestyles, and if those governments were to provide the means of transport for those millions impoverished to invite themselves here, that would be fine?) You know, countries in Africa and other continents.

Just checking , because positions have to be tested to their logically stretched limits, if they are proposed as blanket, absolute statements.

The moral position of the Roman Church is that poverty can be, must be eradicated, given human ability to do so in the modern world. This social justice theology derives directly from Our Lord, of course, in the Gospels. How that poverty is eradicated and where it is eradicated is a completely different question. Immigration is one of many means of eradication, but not the only means or necessarily the best and most permanent solution.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m not sure: Are you arguing for open borders? (So, for example, if not only Mexico – which currently uses the U.S. as its immoral and selfish Escape Valve for “solving its poverty problems” – but if governments of other countries were to decide similarly that social justice for the poor within their own borders is just too bleepin’ inconvenient, and besides would trim their excessively lavish lifestyles, and if those governments were to provide the means of transport for those millions impoverished to invite themselves here, that would be fine?) You know, countries in Africa and other continents.

Just checking , because positions have to be tested to their logically stretched limits, if they are proposed as blanket, absolute statements.

The moral position of the Roman Church is that poverty can be, must be eradicated, given human ability to do so in the modern world. This social justice theology derives directly from Our Lord, of course, in the Gospels. How that poverty is eradicated and where it is eradicated is a completely different question. Immigration is one of many means of eradication, but not the only means or necessarily the best and most permanent solution.

In my honest opinion, Jesus would not have us turn anyone away that was seeking a better life for themselves, or their families. This is not our world. We did not create it.

If our policies had been different in the past, we might have affected changes in other countries to prevent a desire to immigrate to the US.

 

[Ender]

Just as Christ opened heaven to all, I believe our ‘Christian’ nation has the same responsibilities. It’s that simple. Christ put no one above another. It’s man that wants to do that, and use man’s law as the excuse of righteousness.

This may seem like the righteous approach but there is nothing particularly righteous about supporting what is impractical. Aquinas (and Augustine) had a more reasonable take on the matter (ST II/II 31):

*- (2) Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances.

•    (2 ad 1) Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one

•    (3) **On the contrary,** Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): "Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us."*

I assume your view of a mass deportation would include splitting up families? Please show me the teachings of Christ, or His Church, that calls for such an action?

The converse of this is: show us where the Church says this may not be done. It is not an intrinsic evil therefore there are circumstances where such an action would be permitted and our disagreement is not about whether it can be done but only in what circumstances is it appropriate.

It’s that simple for me. I am trying to view this issue through a spiritual eye and not the secular eye.

Seeing through a spiritual eye should not include having to close our eyes to reality.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This may seem like the righteous approach but there is nothing particularly righteous about supporting what is impractical. Aquinas (and Augustine) had a more reasonable take on the matter (ST II/II 31):

*- (2) Therefore, since the love of charity extends to all, beneficence also should extend to all, but according as time and place require: because all acts of virtue must be modified with a view to their due circumstances.

•    (2 ad 1) Absolutely speaking it is impossible to do good to every single one

•    (3) **On the contrary,*** Augustine says (De Doctr. Christ. i, 28): "Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us."

What is impractical about letting those already in this country receive work permits, as long as it’s determined they are not criminals?

I agree, we cannot reach every single one that needs help, but does this mean we should not try to reach everyone we can?

The converse of this is: show us where the Church says this may not be done. It is not an intrinsic evil therefore there are circumstances where such an action would be permitted and our disagreement is not about whether it can be done but only in what circumstances is it appropriate.
Seeing through a spiritual eye should not include having to close our eyes to reality.

Ender

Show us where the Church says this must be done. Neither is there explicitly, but we cannot close our eyes to that which the Church does say.

Words from His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, Regarding Immigration
During His Apostolic Journey to the United States
April 15-20 2008

In the same way, naturally, all that is possible must be done to work against the instability of the situations and against all the violations, and to help so that they can have a truly dignified life where they find themselves in this moment.

[L.A. Archbishop: Catholics can lead way in immigration debate
Archbishop: We are called to see all people as brothers and sisters in Christ

By Archbishop José H. Gomez - OSV Newsweekly, 8/28/2011](http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/8292/LA-Archbishop-Catholics-can-lead-way-in-immigra.aspx)

Our government has the duty to consider immigration’s impact on the domestic economy and our national security.

However, we must always make sure that we are not exaggerating these concerns in ways that deny the basic humanitarian needs of good people seeking refuge in our country.

These Catholic principles are consistent with America’s founding ideals. They are also consistent with America’s proud legacy as one nation under God made up from many peoples of all races and creeds.

Our duty and gift

Based on these principles, the American bishops support comprehensive immigration policy reform that protects the integrity of our national borders and provides undocumented immigrants the opportunity to earn permanent residency and eventual citizenship.

So, the political issue is basically this: How can we find a way to accept these newcomers and balance that with the need for our nation to protect our borders, to control the flow of immigrants and to keep track of who is living within our borders?

But the important thing for us is to approach these political issues — not as Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives — but as Catholics.

The Archbishop addresses your concerns, yet seeks to provide undocumented immigrants the opportunity to earn permanent residency and eventual citizenship. If you read what the Archbishop has to say, you will find a ‘balanced’ appeal for all concerned with this issue.

Granted the above statements are from only two men of the Church, however I have not seen anyone produce anything from men of the Church calling for a ‘mass deportation’. Would you care to provide some documentation for that view?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What is impractical about letting those already in this country receive work permits, as long as it’s determined they are not criminals?

You seem to say more than this, brother. You seem to say or imply in several posts that we should have open borders (“not turning anyone away”). The statement above is very different from that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I believe all are important. We cannot stand up for one and then ignore, or argue that we’re at liberty to disagree on others.

Obama has not acted alone, or is totally responsible for the economic condition we find ourselves in. That’s just a partisan talking point, which ignores anything inherited from previous administrations.

We very well know his position on abortion.

Both political parties have had opportunities to make changes, but we’re still at the same point. With a two party system it’s convenient for the party in control to blame the other party and nothing gets done. It is political to pander to individual interests, to maintain a bloc of voters. Our mistake is to get caught up in the secularism of politics and create divides among ourselves.

Now, on the single issue which is the topic of this thread, we find during this time that the bishops view a new immigration policy as a step in the right direction. We’ve observed people speak against the bishops, deny the immigration issue as moral, and make statements of liberty to disagree. I believe we all are basing our views as Christians but, for me, I cannot agree with those anti-immigration sentiments being expressed. i also find irony in some using those reasons listed while maintaining many are mistaken on other issues.

In this discussion, we’ve also seen some pretty arrogant posts, which appears to lack charity towards an opposing view being expressed. The lack of charity is not going to sway anyone’s opinion to be the same, at least I know it will not work on me. If the message lacks the principles required of Christians, some will question the view simply based on the lack of principles.

I see. To you, then, “quality of life” issues; specifically help for the poor within the context of the U.S., are proportionate to the issue of abortion. I’m a little surprised that you think it, but accept it that you do.

I am not a spokesperson for the previous administration, and it isn’t in office. Please answer the question posed: “What has the Obama administration done for the truly poor”?