Breaking Point [Immigration]

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Vaclav:
Should the blacks in Montgomery have sat on the back of the bus? Or were they right to start breaking those laws?
Apples and oranges.
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). 🙂
Are you familiar with our current Pope’s stance on moral relativism?
 
8-March-2006 – Catholic News Agency
VATICAN OFFICIAL EXPRESSES CONCERN ABOUT PROPOSED US IMMIGRATION REFORM

MEXICO CITY, March 28 (CNA) - The chancellor of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences, Msgr. Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, said this week that the Holy See is concerned about legislation on immigration reform currently before the US Senate which includes proposals to build a wall on the US/Mexican border and to make it a crime to help illegal aliens.

Speaking to reporters, Msgr. Sanchez said, “All peoples have been immigrants” and immigration is “one of the characteristics of globalization.” Likewise, he defended the right and freedom of movement of the 400 million immigrants around the world. He said that closing the doors to them goes “against the natural order (and) against the Christian order.”

He said he did not intend his comments to be “a statement against a law,” but emphasized that "man has the right to immigrate and communities and nations have the right to receive those who immigrate and the right to establish certain norms."

Msgr. Sanchez added warned against allowing immigration to “become clandestine” because that would mean a further trampling of human rights.

Works fine for me. We allow **legal **immigration. We do not have to allow illegal immigration.
 
40.png
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). 🙂
Therein lies the problem; how do we decide when it is morally okay for us to berak Caesar’s laws? As Geldain points out, seems slightly relativistic to me.
 
40.png
Vaclav:
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.

True, if, indeed, they are immoral but what you may find unacceptable, others will disagree.

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.

Again, I ask, at what point will you stop helping everyone who crosses the border illegally? Twenty million? Thirty million? How many?

I assume that by “impractible” you mean either “impractical” or the lesser used “impracticable.” The willingness to spend money is irrelevant.

Thanks for the correction. It does not pay to type too fast and not edit before sending. Sorry.

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.
This is your opinion. It is not mine, but I defend your right to say it.
 
Thanks for the correction. It does not pay to type too fast and not edit before sending. Sorry.
No, I want to apologise for being pedantic. You were fine and I understood what you meant. I apologise.

As is typical, I believe it comes down to priorities, which is what public budgeting is all about (I do it for a living, so I ought to know 😉 ). Allocating the limited resources of the government, at any level (local, state, national) is never an easy task and never pleases everyone.

For me, immigration of Mexicans just isn’t a huge issue. The Welfare Act and Immigration Act passed in the 1990’s severely restricts illegal aliens’ access to government welfare programs. I also think that referring to them as “invaders” or “dregs” doesn’t help further the discussion.

As for relativism, if faced with the choice between God’s law and man’s law, I’ll take God’s law every time. Call me a relativist all you want.
 
40.png
HappyCatholic01:
Therein lies the problem; how do we decide when it is morally okay for us to berak Caesar’s laws? As Geldain points out, seems slightly relativistic to me.
Not really. It’s the difference between laws and morals, once more. Laws may well be morally wrong (such as those that say abortion is ok). And morally correct things may be illegal (such as breaking the segregation laws 50 years ago). If you stick with the moral teaching of the Catholic church, that’s not relative.

Mike
 
Wolseley said:
" They view the reconquista with the relish with which they watch a Mexican soccer team beat the US."

US 2 – Mexico 0
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top