Catechism Explicitly Opposes Illegal Immigration

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I don’t know how so many Catholics get away with supporting and facilitating illegal immigration.

We should try to help immigrants follow the laws, not help them break the laws.

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. **Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens. **

 

[Newbie2]

Perhaps it’s a pragmatic approach, since our Federal Government seems incapable of immigration reform?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Perhaps it’s a pragmatic approach, since our Federal Government seems incapable of immigration reform?

Breaking the law is wrong and it leads to social consequences for the illegal immigrants and our nation that are negative.

Those who favor immigration reform should look for ways to improve the laws, not ways to break the laws.

 

[Micholos]

It seems to me like the Catechism says to welcome the foreigner who does not have resources to live in their own country, and we are obliged to so long as we are wealthy.

This issue isn’t about laws, its about hospitality, loving thy neighbor as thyself.

Its funny that in Costa Rica they have the same issue with the Nicaraguans, people migrate over time, bodies of people shift and its just the way things are. I say if we are good citizens we can overcome and help these people also become good citizens. The whole of America is a melting pot.

But ultimately just I pray that Gods will be done.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It seems to me like the Catechism says to welcome the foreigner who does not have resources to live in their own country, and we are obliged to so long as we are wealthy.

This issue isn’t about laws, its about hospitality, loving thy neighbor as thyself.

Its funny that in Costa Rica they have the same issue with the Nicaraguans, people migrate over time, bodies of people shift and its just the way things are. I say if we are good citizens we can overcome and help these people also become good citizens. The whole of America is a melting pot.

But ultimately just I pray that Gods will be done.

Actually, it is about laws.

The legal or illegal status of immigrants has a tremendous impact on the quality of their lives and the quality of the lives of Americans in general.

Poor people are all over the world are waiting in line for the chance to legally emigrate to America. Their opportunities are diminished by illegal immigration.

The catechism is clear that migrants “are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them,** to obey its laws **and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

 

[Newbie2]

Breaking the law is wrong and it leads to social consequences for the illegal immigrants and our nation that are negative.

Those who favor immigration reform should look for ways to improve the laws, not ways to break the laws.

In principle, yes, definitely. In practice…that may be a different story. The mexican immigrant who is looking to feed his family doesn’t have much to lose by coming across the border and finding work as things now stand. So what is the overriding moral imperative? Helping to assist him and his family, or waiting for our Federal government to get it’s act together?

I’m not suggesting it’s an either/or situation or that we hide illegal immigrants from the law, but the question is what do we do while we wait for reform that may or may not be coming.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

In principle, yes, definitely. In practice…that may be a different story. The mexican immigrant who is looking to feed his family doesn’t have much to lose by coming across the border and finding work as things now stand. So what is the overriding moral imperative? Helping to assist him and his family, or waiting for our Federal government to get it’s act together?

I’m not suggesting it’s an either/or situation or that we hide illegal immigrants from the law, but the question is what do we do while we wait for reform that may or may not be coming.

My view is that we need strict border enforcement and a pathway to citizenship for those already here.

Illegal immigrants should be given an opportunity to pursuelegal residency, but we should deport anyone who fails to comply with the process.

 

[Newbie2]

That sounds reasonable to me.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, it is about laws.

The legal or illegal status of immigrants has a tremendous impact on the quality of their lives and the quality of the lives of Americans in general.

Poor people are all over the world are waiting in line for the chance to legally emigrate to America. Their opportunities are diminished by illegal immigration.

The catechism is clear that migrants “are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them,** to obey its laws **and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

As I recall, the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt rather suddenly - would you begrudge them the fact that in doing so they doubtless hampered the opportunities of people who were seeking legitimately to migrate? Call them queuejumpers and lawbreakers and insist that they be sent back to Israel? Chastise them for taking jobs and resources from law-abiding Egyptians when they could probably have stayed in Israel in hiding?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

As I recall, the Holy Family had to flee to Egypt rather suddenly - would you begrudge them the fact that in doing so they doubtless hampered the opportunities of people who were seeking legitimately to migrate? Call them queuejumpers and lawbreakers and insist that they be sent back to Israel? Chastise them for taking jobs and resources from law-abiding Egyptians when they could probably have stayed in Israel in hiding?

Is that your best argument?

Why should illegal immigrants to America get to take the jobs and opportunities of those who are taking the legal route?

 

[LilyM]

Is that your best argument?

Why should illegal immigrants to America get to take the jobs and opportunities of those who are taking the legal route?

I work in immigration in Australia, so I know somewhat whereof I speak.

Illegal immigrants for the most part take jobs that no legal immigrant (since those who pursue legal migration for the most part have a great deal more time and money, as both are required by the process) or citizen would do. And the economy functions on the basis that they do so, and would be inoperable if they weren’t there to do those jobs.

Then again, why should people be allowed to LEGALLY migrate, absent urgent humanitarian need, since legal migrants are equally taking jobs and opportunities from native-born citizens?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I work in immigration in Australia, so I know somewhat whereof I speak.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Right on the button!

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;5738961:

Not necessarily!

At least as much as you do, put it that way.

Illegal immigrants take jobs from legal immigrants because they work for less money and they don’t pay taxes.

Because they take cash-in-hand jobs, as do a lot of legal immigrants and born citizens. Your point being? Businesses couldn’t run without 'em regardless.

Because they are following the law, not breaking it.

So do abortionists - does that mean people who have a legal abortion are somehow in a different moral position to those who have an illegal one, simply because in the one case their immoral behaviour was permitted by law?

Nations have a right and responsibility to control their borders. America and Australia have both been very open to immigrants. However, until recently, this immigration was made up of legal entrants.

Says who? I can’t imagine that there’s anything like accurate statistics available about illegal immigration, and in terms of so-called ‘boat people’ (the biggest problem in Australia) were way more of a problem in the '70s and '80s - the aftermath of the Vietnam War - than they are now.

Illegal immigration creates problems for everyone, including the immigrant who is easily exploited and abused.

It creates opportunities. Believe it or not, illegal immigrants do patronise supermarkets, banks, clothes shops and restaurants, pay rent on apartments and the like, just like the rest of us. And oddly enough they pay exactly the same for these services as the rest of us. If not more because they don’t know any better.

And legal immigrants have plenty of problems of their own, believe you me. I wouldn’t have a job if they didn’t.

Put it another way. My parents came to Australia having been offered jobs as doctors. After a certain number of years working here, they were able to become citizens, have stayed for nearly 40 years and been great contributors to Australian society. Under today’s law there is virtually no way they would get even permanent residency let alone citizenship.

Most overseas doctors today come as temporary migrants, as they probably did then. Difference being now we are so scared of these very necessary foreign doctors somehow taking jobs and resources (like there are SOOOO many unemployed Australian medical graduates with bread being taken from their mouths ) that they are kept in immigration limbo status on temporary visas (renewed every couple of years). In the majority of cases with no hope of permanent residency or citizenship.

Point being, immigration law in times gone by was much MUCH more relaxed than it is now. Society was not demonstrably any worse off, financially or otherwise.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

CHESTERTONRULES;5739090:

Point being, immigration law in times gone by was much MUCH more relaxed than it is now. Society was not demonstrably any worse off, financially or otherwise.

In the US, we have major problems with drug crime related to illegal immigration and open borders.

I support a policy that facilitates legal immigration but completely eliminates illegal immigration.

 

[LilyM]

In the US, we have major problems with drug crime related to illegal immigration and open borders.

I support a policy that facilitates legal immigration but completely eliminates illegal immigration.

Uh huh. You really think a country with completely closed borders and no illegal immigrants wouldn’t have problems with drugs? What’s your evidence to support that particular proposition?

China had very little immigration of any kind for centuries. In fact it still doesn’t, to my knowledge. Didn’t and doesn’t stop them having problems with opium or other drugs. The poorer people of any country, be they natural-born citizens or not, would always be happy to pick up the slack as far as that goes.

Facilitates legal immigration? Depends on the degree and type of facilitation we’re talking about, I guess.

I don’t think we should be, as Australia has done, incarcerating them in detention centres that are prisons in all but name, for example. Very few countries have a policy of detention. And our new government’s relaxing of the policy of detention hasn’t resulted in the influx of illegals that was used as a bogeyman by the previous hardline government.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Uh huh. You really think a country with completely closed borders and no illegal immigrants wouldn’t have problems with drugs? What’s your evidence to support that particular proposition?

 

[Mark77]

Breaking the law is wrong and it leads to social consequences for the illegal immigrants and our nation that are negative.

Those who favor immigration reform should look for ways to improve the laws, not ways to break the laws.

**Breaking God’s laws is wrong, breaking immoral the laws that corrupt politicians enact and corrupt Court Justices enforce or even create themselves is not necessarily wrong, and is probably called for by Jesus Himself!

Many “laws” are immoral and violate God’s teachings! Slavery was legal in the US and supported by the Supreme Court until the late 1800’s. Women in the US could not vote until the early 1900’s and Abortion (the murder of innocent babies!) is “legal” today???

We are called upon by Jesus Christ to protect all of the innocent and defenseless among us;

“but Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven’.” (Mt 19:14) **

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

**Breaking God’s laws is wrong, breaking immoral the laws that corrupt politicians enact and corrupt Court Justices enforce or even create themselves is not necessarily wrong, and is probably called for by Jesus Himself!

Many “laws” are immoral and violate God’s teachings! Slavery was legal in the US and supported by the Supreme Court until the late 1800’s. Women in the US could not vote until the early 1900’s and Abortion (the murder of innocent babies!) is “legal” today???

We are called upon by Jesus Christ to protect all of the innocent and defenseless among us;

“but Jesus said, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven’.” (Mt 19:14) **

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

Are you against punishing criminals?

Do you think illegal immigrants should be permitted to displace legal immigrants?

 

[LilyM]

LilyM;5740606:

Completely irrelevant. Are you trying to deny that illegal immigration increases crime in America? If so, please make your case.

How is it irrelevant? You’re presenting your opinion that immigration increases crime, for example, drug-related crime. I’m pointing out that drug-related crime seems to be pretty much entrenched in societies like China regardless of their attitudes to legal or illegal immigration.

I’m pointing out again, that illegal immigration is much less of a problem today than it has been in past decades, when Australia had more people trying to enter illegally than we do today. Since the '70s or early '80s when it was a particular concern, we have had ups and downs in our crime rates, sure, but none relatable to corresponding increases or decreases in illegal immigration over that period.

We can conclude from that that an influx of illegal immigrantsdoes not produce a surge upward in crime rates, and that on the contrary toughening up on illegal migration as Australia has done for the last 15 years, does NOT produce, as it should by your logic, a statistically significant drop in crime rates across most or all areas of crime.

I believe we should help the illegals already here who want to live and work in America legally do so. Those who are here illegally should be deported.

Why should we help those who are already here illegally? They’ve already broken the law, why are they worth helping according to you?