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

[Ridgerunner]

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.

It is my understanding that the standard of living in Norway is higher than here. If I wanted to go to Norway and enjoy every benefit Norwegians have just because it’s higher, do Norwegians have a moral obligation to let me do that? Do I have a moral right to make that claim on them?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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 have a problem trying to prioritize Christ’s commands to us. All are important and He did not say love all you feel you can, or limit that love in anyway. It was very clear, love one another as He loves us. That is every single person, from conception to natural death. Those who prioritize seem only to do so for political reasons. God is not political. His kingdom is not a democracy.

I have another thread going about defining proportionate reasons, since Pope Benedict has not specifically given a definition of what he meant, or a correction that some have perceived it as wrong… If you’d like to add to that topic, please do, I only ask that you read through so many things don’t have to be repeated. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=590396

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”?

You may not be a ‘spokesperson’, but this is not about any particular administration, political party as some are trying to make it to be. The topic of this thread is happening under the current administration, but I certainly wouldn’t give a single individual credit for such a policy change. If a majority was against it, I don’t see any politician going against a great majority of opinions.

I believe the men of the Church would praise any partisan that proceeded with this new policy. My point being, this is not about partisan politics, it’s about doing the right thing with Christ and our Church guiding us.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is my understanding that the standard of living in Norway is higher than here. If I wanted to go to Norway and enjoy every benefit Norwegians have just because it’s higher, do Norwegians have a moral obligation to let me do that? Do I have a moral right to make that claim on them?

What the Norwegians would do, I do not know. I am speaking about the nation that I live in, and calls itself a ‘Christian’ nation. If I lived in Norway, I would feel the same way. God created the earth. Man has divided it up and seems to seek ‘segregation’. That’s not what I get from Christ’s teachings.

Number two, is your situation comparable to those seeking employment in the US? If not, I see the analogy as an over exaggeration of the situation we’re discussing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What the Norwegians would do, I do not know. I am speaking about the nation that I live in, and calls itself a ‘Christian’ nation. If I lived in Norway, I would feel the same way. God created the earth. Man has divided it up and seems to seek ‘segregation’. That’s not what I get from Christ’s teachings.

Number two, is your situation comparable to those seeking employment in the US? If not, I see the analogy as an over exaggeration of the situation we’re discussing.

Evasion does not persuade. I take the lack of response as acknowledgement that your position is that economic equality has some cutoff point, as a moral imperative. It’s not an absolute. Will you at least respond to that?

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have a problem trying to prioritize Christ’s commands to us. All are important and He did not say love all you feel you can, or limit that love in anyway. It was very clear, love one another as He loves us. That is every single person, from conception to natural death. Those who prioritize seem only to do so for political reasons. God is not political. His kingdom is not a democracy.

I have another thread going about defining proportionate reasons, since Pope Benedict has not specifically given a definition of what he meant, or a correction that some have perceived it as wrong… If you’d like to add to that topic, please do, I only ask that you read through so many things don’t have to be repeated. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=590396

You may not be a ‘spokesperson’, but this is not about any particular administration, political party as some are trying to make it to be. The topic of this thread is happening under the current administration, but I certainly wouldn’t give a single individual credit for such a policy change. If a majority was against it, I don’t see any politician going against a great majority of opinions.

I believe the men of the Church would praise any partisan that proceeded with this new policy. My point being, this is not about partisan politics, it’s about doing the right thing with Christ and our Church guiding us.

I did not bring “proportionality” up in this thread. I was inquiring about your use of the word here. My question stands. What “quality of life” improvement within the U.S. would you think worthy of supporting abortion to achieve it, if any?

I take it you do not wish to answer, but perhaps you will surprise me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Evasion does not persuade. I take the lack of response as acknowledgement that your position is that economic equality has some cutoff point, as a moral imperative. It’s not an absolute. Will you at least respond to that?

It’s not an evasion. It was an explanation as best as I could provide from my perspective in another country. I asked you, ‘is your situation comparable to those seeking employment in the US?’ I do believe your example is an exaggeration of the topic and find that if you situation is not comparable, it is not an imperative to make one merely more wealthy. Would you be going with only the clothes on your back? Would you be going from a state of poverty?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did not bring “proportionality” up in this thread. I was inquiring about your use of the word here. My question stands. What “quality of life” improvement within the U.S. would you think worthy of supporting abortion to achieve it, if any?

I take it you do not wish to answer, but perhaps you will surprise me.

The men of the Church have said that all have a right to a quality of life, from conception to natural death.

Again, you’re changing the topic of the discussion; however, it is my opinion that the Church guides us in forming our consciences and teaches no one should go against, or be forced against, their conscience without realizing they bring condemnation upon themselves. This teaching in no way forces anyone to separate the issues. They are all important. Since it’s evident you want to take a political lean to the discussion, the Church does not teach to pick a political candidate you find unworthy, if your conscience tells you that candidate is pandering to a bloc of voters. Not one Catholic that I’ve seen has expressly said they voted specifically to support abortion. That is a spin some insist on using as a coercion to sway others to a particular political party.

Again, on separating issues, does the Church allow venial sins, because proportionately they are not as bad as moral sins. That is how I view your separation of issues the Church teaches us to be concerned with.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

These are good questions and very legitimate. To be very blunt, formulating the answers is not always easy for those of us who are not moral theologians. Most of us who went through the seminary have two-years of Moral Theology and one-year of Ecclesiology under our belts, that’s it. Remember, we’re expected to cover the basics of every branch of theology in a four-year master’s program. It sounds like a lot, but it’s not. It’s like medicine. You don’t become an expert until you go out and do more specific work in one area. But I’ll give it a shot with the little knowledge that I have. I just wanted to add the disclaimer that I’m nowhere near as proficient as most bishops are in Moral Theology and Ecclesiology. Those guys are experts on the matter. Otherwise, they can’t be selected to be bishops. Academics is one of several requirements for the position. I’m certainly not their peer in this branch of theology.

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.

We (not just you) must examine the response, especially, if we’re not too clear on it or the statement is opaque, which often happens when intellectuals speak. They tend to forget that most people don’t know how to do the mental gymnastics that they do. Part of examining the question is asking more questions of those in authority. One may never act on a doubtful conscience.

Disagreement is tricky. One can certainly disagree. If the matter is not morally binding, one need not comply. Here is the tricky part. The Pontiff shares his authority to bind and unbind with the bishops and some issues. In other words, he allows them bind and unbind in some areas. If the bishop binds the people of his diocese, they have a moral obligation to comply, even if they disagree.

This rarely happens. Most bishops try to avoid this, because it sets people up to sin. There are always going to be those who disagree and will not comply. They reserve this card for when they have no other choice. A bishop can bind those under his jurisdiction not only on moral matters, but also in prudential matters. He is binding them to obedience, which is a moral matter.

Let’s have a little fun with this. The bishop may bind the people in his diocese to wear red to mass on Sunday. In and of itself, this is neutral. Once he binds, he has made it law for his diocese. A very good example that is not so silly is CITH. The law says that the bishop can allow it. Those who challenge it are stepping on a slippery slope, because they have raised the bar. From the hierarchy’s point of view, there is an issue of infidelity to the authority of the bishop. The military calls it insubordination. One is challenging that which the bishop has a right to do. However, you can point out that the order is illegal.

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.

Whenever we express an opinion on a serious matter and it deviates from that of the person in authority, we have a duty to the person in authority and to others to support our position. From that point forward, we’re not responsible for what the other person decides. He can choose to follow us or the bishop. Fidelity requires that we be honest and as clear as possible. Otherwise, we come across as antagonistic toward the authority that makes us Catholic. Apostolic Succession is essential to Catholicism. Without it, there is no Church. We must be very careful to say things in a manner that puts Apostolic Succession ahead of our opinions. I’ve always tried to make comments such as, “The bishop says that we cannot support the division of families through deportation. He and I are not looking at this the same way. However, he is the bishop, not I.” Then I can proceed to explain how I’m looking at it, without having falling into the sin of detraction against a bishop and without questioning his right to speak authoritatively.

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?

They’re not as separate as we think. We have the moral duty to form our consciences according to the mind of the Church. When the Church says that something is a matter of conscience, we have a duty to pay attention, try to understand, and to assent.

The issue for some people is that they think of the Church as the Holy Father or an Ecumenical Council. They reduce the Church. In fact, Ecclesiology teaches us that the front line of the Church is the bishop and that the highest authority in the particular Church is the bishop. The pope is the highest authority over the universal Church. Ecclesiology also teaches us that bishops must teach, govern and sanctify in union with the pope and with each other. The latter is part of the whole principle of collegiality. Here again, things get tricky. To teach in union with the pope and other bishops has two expressions. Expression 1: The bishop must teach what the pope and his brother-bishops hold. Expression 2: He can also teach or command something that is not taught or commanded by the pope or the other bishops as long as it’s not contrary to Church teaching and not dangerous to the soul or the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

These are good questions and very legitimate. To be very blunt, formulating the answers is not always easy for those of us who are not moral theologians. Most of us who went through the seminary have two-years of Moral Theology and one-year of Ecclesiology under our belts, that’s it. Remember, we’re expected to cover the basics of every branch of theology in a four-year master’s program. It sounds like a lot, but it’s not. It’s like medicine. You don’t become an expert until you go out and do more specific work in one area. But I’ll give it a shot with the little knowledge that I have. I just wanted to add the disclaimer that I’m nowhere near as proficient as most bishops are in Moral Theology and Ecclesiology. Those guys are experts on the matter. Otherwise, they can’t be selected to be bishops. Academics is one of several requirements for the position. I’m certainly not their peer in this branch of theology.

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner
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.

We (not just you) must examine the response, especially, if we’re not too clear on it or the statement is opaque, which often happens when intellectuals speak. They tend to forget that most people don’t know how to do the mental gymnastics that they do. Part of examining the question is asking more questions of those in authority. One may never act on a doubtful conscience.

Disagreement is tricky. One can certainly disagree. If the matter is not morally binding, one need not comply. Here is the tricky part. The Pontiff shares his authority to bind and unbind with the bishops and some issues. In other words, he allows them bind and unbind in some areas. If the bishop binds the people of his diocese, they have a moral obligation to comply, even if they disagree.

This rarely happens. Most bishops try to avoid this, because it sets people up to sin. There are always going to be those who disagree and will not comply. They reserve this card for when they have no other choice. A bishop can bind those under his jurisdiction not only on moral matters, but also in prudential matters. He is binding them to obedience, which is a moral matter.

Let’s have a little fun with this. The bishop may bind the people in his diocese to wear grass skirts to mass on Sunday. In and of itself, this is neutral. Once he binds, he has made it law for his diocese. A very good example that is not so silly is CITH. The law says that the bishop can allow it. Those who challenge it are stepping on a slippery slope, because they have raised the bar. From the hierarchy’s point of view, there is an issue of infidelity to the authority of the bishop. The military calls it insubordination. One is challenging that which the bishop has a right to do. However, you can point out that the order is illegal.

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.

Whenever we express an opinion on a serious matter and it deviates from that of the person in authority, we have a duty to the person in authority and to others to support our position. From that point forward, we’re not responsible for what the other person decides. He can choose to follow us or the bishop. Fidelity requires that we be honest and as clear as possible. Otherwise, we come across as antagonistic toward the authority that makes us Catholic. Apostolic Succession is essential to Catholicism. Without it, there is no Church. We must be very careful to say things in a manner that puts Apostolic Succession ahead of our opinions. I’ve always tried to make comments such as, “The bishop says that we cannot support the division of families through deportation. He and I are not looking at this the same way. However, he is the bishop, not I.” Then I can proceed to explain how I’m looking at it, without having falling into the sin of detraction against a bishop and without questioning his right to speak authoritatively.

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?

They’re not always as separate as we think. We have the moral duty to form our consciences according to the mind of the Church. When the Church says that something is a matter of conscience, we have a duty to pay attention, try to understand, and to assent.

The issue for some people is that they think of the Church as the Holy Father or an Ecumenical Council. They reduce the Church. In fact, Ecclesiology teaches us that the front line of the Church is the bishop and that the highest authority in the particular Church is the bishop. The pope is the highest authority over the universal Church. Ecclesiology also teaches us that bishops must teach, govern and sanctify in union with the pope and with each other. The latter is part of the whole principle of collegiality. Here again, things get tricky. To teach in union with the pope and other bishops has two expressions. Expression 1: The bishop must teach what the pope and his brother-bishops hold. Expression 2: He can also teach or command something that is not taught or commanded by the pope or the other bishops as long as it’s not contrary to Church teaching and not dangerous to the soul or the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

Posts are to remain charitable at all times. Please discuss the issues, not each other

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not an evasion. It was an explanation as best as I could provide from my perspective in another country. I asked you, ‘is your situation comparable to those seeking employment in the US?’ I do believe your example is an exaggeration of the topic and find that if you situation is not comparable, it is not an imperative to make one merely more wealthy. Would you be going with only the clothes on your back? Would you be going from a state of poverty?

So, you would not equalize opportunity everywhere, but only if the economic level of the country to which he is going is greatly higher than the one he is leaving. So, Norwegians have no moral obligation to oblige my desire to enjoy their standard of living because theirs is not sufficiently greater, in your view, than my own in the U.S. I get that.

I assume you would say the same of, say, the moral right of a Frenchman, whose wages, on average, are about 40% below ours, to be allowed to come to the U.S. to enjoy the benefits of the better economy, and that’s because Frenchmen are not generally considered by us to be living in poverty, even so. Correct?

What, then, do you consider poverty; the kind of poverty you believe entitles not just individuals with known and specific needs, but a whole category, nation or region of people so deprived that we have no obligation to distinguish among them, to be morally entitled to come to the U.S. (or Norway or perhaps France) to enjoy the better economy?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The men of the Church have said that all have a right to a quality of life, from conception to natural death.

Again, you’re changing the topic of the discussion; however, it is my opinion that the Church guides us in forming our consciences and teaches no one should go against, or be forced against, their conscience without realizing they bring condemnation upon themselves. This teaching in no way forces anyone to separate the issues. They are all important. Since it’s evident you want to take a political lean to the discussion, the Church does not teach to pick a political candidate you find unworthy, if your conscience tells you that candidate is pandering to a bloc of voters. Not one Catholic that I’ve seen has expressly said they voted specifically to support abortion. That is a spin some insist on using as a coercion to sway others to a particular political party.

Again, on separating issues, does the Church allow venial sins, because proportionately they are not as bad as moral sins. That is how I view your separation of issues the Church teaches us to be concerned with.

Is it truly your position that one may vote for a candidate, knowing the candidate supports abortion, if the voter supports that candidate because of reasons that are a matter of prudential judgment?

Perhaps more concretely, is it your position that a candidate may vote for an abortion-supporting politician like Obama, knowing Obama is abortion-supporting, because he suspects the opposition candidate is not sincere in his opposition to abortion, or is perhaps sincere but emphasizes his prolife stand in order to woo a bloc of voters?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, you would not equalize opportunity everywhere, but only if the economic level of the country to which he is going is greatly higher than the one he is leaving. So, Norwegians have no moral obligation to oblige my desire to enjoy their standard of living because theirs is not sufficiently greater, in your view, than my own in the U.S. I get that.

It’s not a question of an economy of a country, it’s about the economic level of those migrating and the opportunities, or the unavailability of opportunities, in their home country. We have to also consider the living conditions; e.g. violence, sanitation, lack of utilities, etc.

The majority of ‘Hispanic’ immigrants are not middle class by their own countries standards, much less the standards of most Americans. When you reverse the way that is measured, poverty stricken in some countries is much worse than poverty stricken by American standards.

I assume you would say the same of, say, the moral right of a Frenchman, whose wages, on average, are about 40% below ours, to be allowed to come to the U.S. to enjoy the benefits of the better economy, and that’s because Frenchmen are not generally considered by us to be living in poverty, even so. Correct?

What, then, do you consider poverty; the kind of poverty you believe entitles not just individuals with known and specific needs, but a whole category, nation or region of people so deprived that we have no obligation to distinguish among them, to be morally entitled to come to the U.S. (or Norway or perhaps France) to enjoy the better economy?

Why not tell me what Christ considered as the ‘poor’? It would seem to me to be pretty easy to distinguish by Him telling us that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the sick, was the same as doing it for Him.

From my past career, and my present career, I had opportunity to see the differences of ‘immigrants’. When I was in real estate, I had two friends from Europe. Both received easy access to the US, and was able to well afford the costs involved in seeking citizenship. Both were able to buy nice homes, vehicles and start businesses. No one ever complained, that I know of, about them immigrating to the US and becoming citizens.

Now, I see ‘Hispanic’ immigrants, living in run down houses and mobile homes, walking where they need to go or riding bicycles, some have older vehicles, and working regular labor type jobs that require no skills. I’ve seen the lines at the grocery store, where the Western Union office is located, sending money home. I assume they are supporting family members with those money wires, and paying their way here.

One of the Europeans is a member of the finance committee at my Church and I see him regularly. I see many of the Hispanic community when I am forced to attend the ‘Spanish’ Mass due to work. I say ‘forced’, because my preference is to hear the Mass in a language I actually understand.

Why is one group more acceptable as ‘immigrants’ than the other? Their financial status? Their ethnicity?

In this area, I don’t hear people complain about the ‘immigrants’ or their legal status. It’s only in an anonymous form on forums, or anonymously represented by politicians. It’s hard for me to understand where those feelings come from, especially when weighed spiritually.

The US immigration policies are not fair, and are borderline discriminatory, in appearances. The people I see everyday, in my community, are the people I see others calling to be a part of a ‘mass deportation’. They are not hurting our small rural community, and they actually are not taking jobs anyone else wants. They are not criminals and they are not spreading diseases.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Is it truly your position that one may vote for a candidate, knowing the candidate supports abortion, if the voter supports that candidate because of reasons that are a matter of prudential judgment?

Perhaps more concretely, is it your position that a candidate may vote for an abortion-supporting politician like Obama, knowing Obama is abortion-supporting, because he suspects the opposition candidate is not sincere in his opposition to abortion, or is perhaps sincere but emphasizes his prolife stand in order to woo a bloc of voters?

Why not bring this to the thread I invited you too?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why not bring this to the thread I invited you too?

A simple “yes” or “no” would do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A simple “yes” or “no” would do.

The answer, with all the scenarios and explanations, are on that thread. It’s not a simple yes or no question, when you have different scenarios, then I can only speak for myself as I view that according to each individual’s well formed faith based conscience and what the Church speaks on concerning that topic, which I believe prevents me from ‘forcing’ or ‘coercing’ others against their consciences.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not a question of an economy of a country, it’s about the economic level of those migrating and the opportunities, or the unavailability of opportunities, in their home country. We have to also consider the living conditions; e.g. violence, sanitation, lack of utilities, etc.

The majority of ‘Hispanic’ immigrants are not middle class by their own countries standards, much less the standards of most Americans. When you reverse the way that is measured, poverty stricken in some countries is much worse than poverty stricken by American standards.

Why not tell me what Christ considered as the ‘poor’? It would seem to me to be pretty easy to distinguish by Him telling us that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, and caring for the sick, was the same as doing it for Him.

From my past career, and my present career, I had opportunity to see the differences of ‘immigrants’. When I was in real estate, I had two friends from Europe. Both received easy access to the US, and was able to well afford the costs involved in seeking citizenship. Both were able to buy nice homes, vehicles and start businesses. No one ever complained, that I know of, about them immigrating to the US and becoming citizens.

Now, I see ‘Hispanic’ immigrants, living in run down houses and mobile homes, walking where they need to go or riding bicycles, some have older vehicles, and working regular labor type jobs that require no skills. I’ve seen the lines at the grocery store, where the Western Union office is located, sending money home. I assume they are supporting family members with those money wires, and paying their way here.

One of the Europeans is a member of the finance committee at my Church and I see him regularly. I see many of the Hispanic community when I am forced to attend the ‘Spanish’ Mass due to work. I say ‘forced’, because my preference is to hear the Mass in a language I actually understand.

Why is one group more acceptable as ‘immigrants’ than the other? Their financial status? Their ethnicity?

In this area, I don’t hear people complain about the ‘immigrants’ or their legal status. It’s only in an anonymous form on forums, or anonymously represented by politicians. It’s hard for me to understand where those feelings come from, especially when weighed spiritually.

The US immigration policies are not fair, and are borderline discriminatory, in appearances. The people I see everyday, in my community, are the people I see others calling to be a part of a ‘mass deportation’. They are not hurting our small rural community, and they actually are not taking jobs anyone else wants. They are not criminals and they are not spreading diseases.

Let’s not romanticize this anymore. I personally am for immigration, including (perhaps most of all that’s actually possible) Hispanic immigration, but it really is exasperating when people paint “Little Nell” scenes without really knowing how widespread the sad stories are, or are not. Romanticizing leads to emotion-driven policies that politicians take advantage of to serve their own, different purposes.

The average wage in Mexico is about 1/3 that of the U.S. But so is the cost of living. Unemployment is lower in Mexico than in the U.S. Mexico is not facing budget deficits like the U.S. and does NOT have an illegal immigrant problem of its own. (Try working illegally in Mexico and see what happens to you.) Undoubtedly many immigrants to the U.S. are not “middle class” in their own countries, but then, neither are many Americans. Many send money home, not to stave off starvation, but to buy houses, vehicles, land and commercial enterprises. That money does allow many to live above the level of their peers, just as would be the case if I could work in Lichtenstein or Quater, where the average income is three times what it is in the U.S, and send buckets of money home so my relatives could buy houses, vehicles, land and commercial enterprises.

I don’t know what illegals live like where you live, but they sure don’t live in squalor here, unless you call it squalor when ten or fifteen strapping young men live in one house to save money so they or their relatives can buy houses or land or stores in Mexico with their earnings. I have seen that.

And there is not a Mexican immigrant I know, legal or illegal, who does not have a store of prescription medications, including the most powerful antibiotics, bought across the counter in Mexico, which they take according to their own notion of things. Do you really not think some of the “superinfection” bugs around now like TB and MRSA are not affected by that? Or are the doctors here all wrong when they are reluctant to hand out prescriptions for antibiotics upon demand because of the concern about generating antibiotic resistant strains. Creating those is practically an industry in Mexico.

And yes, there is discrimination. There is “Hispanic preference” discrimination. This country has let millions of Hispanics into the country, then amnestied them, then allowed them to legally bring in relatives, then allowed more millions in and are now fixing to amnesty them, and probably will, whereupon they will bring their relatives here as well. And a lot of those relatives are going to go onto the public welfare system, and we all know it.

(continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued)

And it’s ignored almost totally. No people on earth has that privilege other than Hispanics; chiefly Mexicans, and some, I guess, have a knee-jerk reaction that it’s “discrimination”, when the only reason they could possibly say that is because they think somehow anyone with brown skin is automatically the object of it. And the reason Hispanics have that privilege is because they don’t have to cross an ocean to get here, this country wants the laborers (needs them probably) and we can pretend we’re not doing it because we don’t guard the border. It’s not only “discrimination” it’s profoundly dishonest. And do we think for a minute that those immigrants do not pick up on our dishonesty? Do we not think we are teaching them to emulate it? They are not as simple-minded as many seem to think. They know exactly what we’re doing, and they know why.

Try getting a work permit here as an unskilled or semi-skilled Pole or Estonian or Malawian. And keep in mind that Poles, Estonians and certainly Malawians make LESS in their home countries than do Mexicans in Mexico. Quite a bit less. Not a single Eastern European country has a per capita income as high as Mexico’s. Not one. Not a single Middle Eastern country either, except for the oil states.

I say all of that as a person who suspects deep down that just maybe the “Hispanic preference” is the only way this country has of preventing a “demographic winter” down the road like the one facing Europe. I think George Bush feared it too, and that’s why he pretended they weren’t here. Why do you think I know so many illegals? It’s because I rather like most of them. I sponsored a Salvadoran family myself, which is a very hazardous thing to do, financially. Thankfully, they were as good as their word and the liability period has now expired. But it was a white-knuckle experience for a long time.
But in taking on the potential burden of that family, I did NOT impose their costs on somebody else, not taxpayers or anyone else, and believe in my heart that it would have been wrong for me to do it.

We should be clear-eyed about all this, and stop romanticizing it, and stop pretending we don’t know any of this or allowing ourselves to be sold a bill of goods about it to make ourselves feel all virtuous in discriminating and burdening others with the costs of illegal immigration, which we absolutely are doing. And above all, it’s time we stopped preaching at each other about it as if somehow our “good intentions”, which cost others, represent the teachings of Jesus.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We should be clear-eyed about all this, and stop romanticizing it, and stop pretending we don’t know any of this or allowing ourselves to be sold a bill of goods about it to make ourselves feel all virtuous in discriminating and burdening others with the costs of illegal immigration, which we absolutely are doing. And above all, it’s time we stopped preaching at each other about it as if somehow our “good intentions”, which cost others, represent the teachings of Jesus.

It most certainly is the teaching of Jesus, in my honest opinion.

What others are going to suffer the cost that we are concerned with?

 

[Ridgerunner]

In this area, I don’t hear people complain about the ‘immigrants’ or their legal status. It’s only in an anonymous form on forums, or anonymously represented by politicians. It’s hard for me to understand where those feelings come from, especially when weighed spiritually.

??? If one knows many hillbillies or blacks, and if they trust one and don’t think one will go all righteous on them if they speak plainly, then one will hear plenty of complaints about illegals. Plenty. And not just about illegal immigrants, either.