Breaking Point [Immigration]

[Vaclav]

Wouldn’t a better solution be to provide a way for the Mexican and American governments to educate, train, and employ these people, rather than the current system of Mexico allowing them to shift for themselves, and America giving them free handouts and below-subsistance jobs?

That is a valid point and I’d love to see this nation do something along those lines. Yet, part of this problem is our own making. One example is NAFTA. It is great for some, don’t get me wrong. Yet, for Mexican corn and wheat farmers, who suddenly faced the prospect of competing with United States farm subsidies - it was an immediate nightmare. So there were probably thousands of farm workers suddenly without a job and yes, they are probably uneducated and without the skills necessary to find another job in Mexico’s under-developed market.

So I don’t think we can sit back and say poor Mexico it is all your fault, deal with it. We (and I mean we the United States) should do something about it. Yet, what politician is going to stand up and argue for an infusion of cash to help Mexico develop a solid economy? Especially now that we are paying to rebuild one third-world country in Iraq?

I agree and wish it could be done. I just disagree that the meantime solution is to disparage those who choose to flee to the United States.

 

[TarAshly]

No I have presented the feelings of a group of people whom I know first hand, I failed to mention that I was a ranch hand and most of my team mates were illegals, coming here for the work and the money. None of them trusted La Migra or Los Gringos de plata. they only trusted those who they knew, me, my bossman, his family, each other and the Church, the rest of them? forget about it. I am heavily involved in the hispanic community, as an ESL teacher in training, I also teach English to spanish speakers and vis versa, I live in a prodominately hispanic neighborhood, I have lived in Mexico, I have worked with them through my church through various organizations, as a CCE teacher, I can tell you I had several kids, whose parents weren’t exactly native born. The kids dont trust them, the parents dont trust them and it creates such a negative legacy. To be honest I have to worry about what I am within the legal limits to do. But, as someone pointed out on another thread, we have a moral obligation that trumps civil law.

Geldain:

So you’ve created a stereotype based on one person’s feelings and experience and your personal experience relating to that person? Hmmmm, isn’t there a term for that?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

MikeWM:

As always, it is worth seeing what the Church actually does think.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-069.shtml

That sounds fair and in line with Catholic social teaching to me.

Mike

The problem is, this is not what is being advocated by many here. It is what people like me are advocating.

 

[MikeWM]

LCMS_No_More:

The problem is, this is not what is being advocated by many here. It is what people like me are advocating.

Agreed - though I would rather be close to what the Church advocates than what people here advocate, if there is a conflict.

Mike

 

[Wolseley]

Vaclav:

That is a valid point and I’d love to see this nation do something along those lines. Yet, part of this problem is our own making. One example is NAFTA. It is great for some, don’t get me wrong. Yet, for Mexican corn and wheat farmers, who suddenly faced the prospect of competing with United States farm subsidies - it was an immediate nightmare. So there were probably thousands of farm workers suddenly without a job and yes, they are probably uneducated and without the skills necessary to find another job in Mexico’s under-developed market.

I personally happen to think (my opinion only) that these large regional trade blocs are detrimental in the long run. Economies should be small and local; when they get to the point where they’re as huge as NAFTA and the Common Market, they tend to create problems that have no need to exist if things had been left alone.

Examples: Manufacturing jobs leaving America and going to Mexico, which displaced American workers, and benefitted the Mexican workers for only a short period of time, until those same jobs went to China. Or the small agricultural industries on islands off Ireland; they couldn’t compete with surpluses of the same products being produced elsewhere in the EU, so the Irish farmers were displaced and the islands now produce nothing.

So I don’t think we can sit back and say poor Mexico it is all your fault, deal with it. We (and I mean we the United States) should do something about it. Yet, what politician is going to stand up and argue for an infusion of cash to help Mexico develop a solid economy? Especially now that we are paying to rebuild one third-world country in Iraq?

I agree; but let’s face it: this is the way the world has always been, and it always will be. Jesus Himself said “The poor you will always have with you.”

I agree and wish it could be done. I just disagree that the meantime solution is to disparage those who choose to flee to the United States.

I don’t think we should disparage them, either. I think they should be made to obey American law, and I think that the strident reconquista rhetoric shown by both American Hispanics and by the Mexican government should cease.

 

[Geldain]

TarAshly:

No I have presented the feelings of a group of people whom I know first hand, I failed to mention that I was a ranch hand and most of my team mates were illegals, coming here for the work and the money. None of them trusted La Migra or Los Gringos de plata. they only trusted those who they knew, me, my bossman, his family, each other and the Church, the rest of them? forget about it. I am heavily involved in the hispanic community, as an ESL teacher in training, I also teach English to spanish speakers and vis versa, I live in a prodominately hispanic neighborhood, I have lived in Mexico, I have worked with them through my church through various organizations, as a CCE teacher, I can tell you I had several kids, whose parents weren’t exactly native born. The kids dont trust them, the parents dont trust them and it creates such a negative legacy. To be honest I have to worry about what I am within the legal limits to do. But, as someone pointed out on another thread, we have a moral obligation that trumps civil law.

A)One does not have to break US immigration laws in order to live the life Goid has granted. Billions of people manage to live daily without breaking a single US immigration law

B)Please work to teach all Mexicans how to catch their own fish in their own waters.

D)We have a moral obligation to obey they teachings of the Church. However, breaking civil law needlessly is not a teaching of the Church, from where I sit.

E) the problem of poverty in Mexico will never be resolved by allowing illegal immigration to America.

F)From where I sit, expending the effort to effect change in Mexico is the answer to this issue.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

MikeWM:

Agreed - though I would rather be close to what the Church advocates than what people here advocate, if there is a conflict.

Mike

As would I, in every situation.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Just a side note:

I agree; but let’s face it: this is the way the world has always been, and it always will be. Jesus Himself said “The poor you will always have with you.”

I wish people would stop using that as an excuse, or worse yet, a promise that Jesus was making, as though poverty were a good thing, and get the context of what Jesus was saying there.

John 12 RSV
1: Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Laz’arus was, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.

2: There they made him a supper; Martha served, and Laz’arus was one of those at table with him.

3: Mary took a pound of costly ointment of pure nard and anointed the feet of Jesus and wiped his feet with her hair; and the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

4: But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (he who was to betray him), said,

5: “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

6: This he said, not that he cared for the poor but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it.

7: Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial.

8: The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

Note verse 8 and read it all together. Big difference, no?

Seems like Jesus was saying, look, “yes, it could have been used for the poor, but My time is coming. The poor will be with you after I’ve gone.”

(Of course, He’s not gone because He’s in the Eucharist, but I think you know what I’m trying to say…I hope).

 

[TarAshly]

So are you saying Jesus put himself before the poor? I dont think so! I would check that interpretation!

LCMS_No_More:

Just a side note:

I wish people would stop using that as an excuse, or worse yet, a promise that Jesus was making, as though poverty were a good thing, and get the context of what Jesus was saying there.

Note verse 8 and read it all together. Big difference, no?

Seems like Jesus was saying, look, “yes, it could have been used for the poor, but My time is coming. The poor will be with you after I’ve gone.”

(Of course, He’s not gone because He’s in the Eucharist, but I think you know what I’m trying to say…I hope).

 

[davy39]

Vaclav:

Why should we not take them in? A church in a community very near to where I work holds a Spanish Mass, which is likely the most well-attended mass in the area. Some of them may well be illegal immigrants, but are they not human beings, with needs?

I frankly do not see the problem. They speak Spanish? That isn’t much of a reason to call them “invaders.”

I never called them"invaders" because they speak Spanish. They are invaders because they are here illegally. They do not recognize the borders of the US. And nobody has the back bone to enforce our immigration laws. The key word here is ILLEGAL. A few people on this forum fail to understand the meaning of the word. Without laws and the enforcement of them, we have chaos.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

TarAshly:

So are you saying Jesus put himself before the poor? I dont think so! I would check that interpretation!

No, that’s not what I’m saying.

Reread the passage all the way through and note the context. Jesus isn’t necessarily promising that there will always be poverty and that’s it. The story is a whole package and verse 8 is key, “The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.” In other words: After I’m gone, the poor will still be there for you to serve.

If Jesus agreed with Judas (it should have been given to the poor…at least that’s what Judas said), He would have said, “Lady, what are you doing!? Sell it and give it to the poor!” No, instead, He let her do what she needed to do for Him because afterward, the poor would still be among us.

See what I’m saying?

Anyway, I don’t want to drag this off topic. It’s just something I hear all the time taken out of context and I wanted to put it back.

 

[koda]

davy39:

I never called them"invaders" because they speak Spanish. They are invaders because they are here illegally. They do not recognize the borders of the US. And nobody has the back bone to enforce our immigration laws. The key word here is ILLEGAL. A few people on this forum fail to understand the meaning of the word. Without laws and the enforcement of them, we have chaos.

I think what Vaclav and I are trying to say is that God’s law trumps man’s law.

 

[Wolseley]

LCMS_No_More:

I wish people would stop using that as an excuse, or worse yet, a promise that Jesus was making, as though poverty were a good thing, and get the context of what Jesus was saying there.

Note verse 8 and read it all together. Big difference, no?

Seems like Jesus was saying, look, “yes, it could have been used for the poor, but My time is coming. The poor will be with you after I’ve gone.”

(Of course, He’s not gone because He’s in the Eucharist, but I think you know what I’m trying to say…I hope).

Yes, I understand perfectly. But just to clarify what I was trying to say, I wasn’t using this quote as an excuse to not help poor people; I was quoting it as a reflection of the reality that there will always be poor people to help.

Does that make better sense? I will attempt to be more clear if I can.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Wolseley:

Yes, I understand perfectly. But just to clarify what I was trying to say, I wasn’t using this quote as an excuse to not help poor people; I was quoting it as a reflection of the reality that there will always be poor people to help.

Does that make better sense? I will attempt to be more clear if I can.

Perfectly. I just saw it and had to mention what I did because a lot of people take it out of context and it drives me nuts. Just one of those pet peeve things.

 

[mary_bobo]

LCMS_No_More:

False. They cannot vote.

Are you sure that they don’t?

They cannot travel by air. They cannot obtain health insurance or driver licenses.

They can get a license in some states or if not a license, another form of identification.And if they appear at an ER, treatment is required.
They pay taxes (albeit with false documentation…which would be solved through a normalization process) and social security and will never, ever benefit from it.

You are assuming that none of them work under the table, right? They are reviled and blamed for all the social problems in the country…

Wanna try again?

I am not heartless but we do have laws and they should be obeyed. Don’t think we can pick and choose which laws we will obey. I will be the first one to say let’s help those who need help, but as far as I am concerned, that does not mean those who are here illegally. IMO, it is funny how many liberals are so impractible and willing to spend money that is not theirs.

 

[Vaclav]

I am not heartless but we do have laws and they should be obeyed. Don’t think we can pick and choose which laws we will obey. I will be the first one to say let’s help those who need help, but as far as I am concerned, that does not mean those who are here illegally. IMO, it is funny how many liberals are so impractible and willing to spend money that is not theirs.

I don’t believe that anyone here is advocating a complete breakdown of the legal system. An individual can certainly choose to disobey laws that they find unacceptable or immoral.

So people that need help should be helped, unless they are here illegally? Then they should not be helped, although they need to be helped. That doesn’t sound very reasonable.

I assume that by “impractible” you mean either “impractical” or the lesser used “impracticable.” The willingness to spend money is irrelevant. The government is already spending a fortune of money rebuilding Iraq, why is it impractical to ask that some money be spent on helping the poor, whether they are illegal or legal residents? It isn’t as though I’m not a citizen and a taxpayer as well. There are a litany of things you likely support that cost Federal money that I’d rather not have tax dollars go to fund.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

sadie2723:

It is a problem when you work here and reap all of the benefits of citizenship without paying taxes and making a proper contribution. It is also a problem that they are breaking the law to get here.

Brad

Which was part of the implication of Jesus words “… and give to Caesar what is Caesars.”

There is an obligation of Christians to uphild the laws of their society, so long as they do not conflict with their religious obiligations.

Why not go vigilante and break all laws you disgaree with? The Church has NEVER supported that notion.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I wonder, if as an extension, Americans citizens who stole because they were poor (think Robin Hood) would get the same support as the poor who break current laws…

Is it okay to assume anyone can do whatever they want so long as they “need” to? Where do we draw the line, I am curious.

 

[Vaclav]

Should the blacks in Montgomery have sat on the back of the bus? Or were they right to start breaking those laws?

I think it has to be looked at in individual instances, but surely not every law is to be followed without question. If that were the case then the Catholics who hid Jews in Nazi Germany should have instead turned them in to the government, correct?

I realise the situation is not the same, but certainly there are areas where a responsible Catholic does not have to follow secular authority. (I know, a thread for another forum - but an itneresting tangent).

 

[TarAshly]

In my opinion and in the opinion of many Bishops, Cardinals and Priests alike, this law breaks the rules and Catholics also have a right to uphold moral law which trumps civil law everytime. I wish the Pope would say something on this, I would be very interested to know His opinion.

HappyCatholic01:

Which was part of the implication of Jesus words “… and give to Caesar what is Caesars.”

There is an obligation of Christians to uphild the laws of their society, so long as they do not conflict with their religious obiligations.

Why not go vigilante and break all laws you disgaree with? The Church has NEVER supported that notion.