P
pnewton
Guest
Edmontonian commits murder in Hawaii
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/04/18/13633806-qmi.html
If one death is too much and statistics do not matter, should we also ban immigration from Canada?
- Status
cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2010/04/18/13633806-qmi.html
If one death is too much and statistics do not matter, should we also ban immigration from Canada?
P
pnewton
Guest
Excellent thought, and example.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Today a committee of the USCCB referred to the Arizona law as *draconian. * That sort of rhetoric is unacceptable. This is even posturing. One reason why I think the body should dissolve. It has too many of the aspects of a political lobby.We have to look at two points here. First, we must look at the bishop’s letter. They are not objecting to the entire package. They raise questions about two specific points, which are morally questionable. If the law were to correc those two points, the legislators would not hear from the bishops again. They’re not asking the legislators to allow crime to run rampant. They are not asking legislators to allow illegal immigration. They are asking for two very specific points.
The second point is that the bishops are not alone in this request. They were joined by several Jewish and Protestant leaders. This whole thread has been bashing the bishops But no one has mentioned or even provided copies of the other letters written by Jewish and Protestan leaders.
As I have said, we must always remember that when a bishop speaks on a moral point, he need not be an expert in political science. He is an expert in theology. That’s what he’s doing. He’s doing theology. If we, as Catholics, do not understand the theological point, we can ask before we attack or cirticize. The same statements that we make about the bishops not knowing anyting about politics or economics, they can make about us not knowing anything about theology. But what good does all this finger-pointing do for the soul?
We have to remember that the most important thing in our lives is our soul. The State cannot save our soul, a bishop can. We save our souls through our communion with the Church. We cannot achieve communion with the Church unless we’re in communion with the local bishops. If we cannot be in communion with the local bishops, we may as well leave the Catholic Church. Because there is no such thing as membership in the Catholic Church while bypassing the local bishop. Where there’s the bishop, there’s the Church. No bishop, no Church. They are more essential to the union between our soul and God, than is civil law. They certainly know more theology than a politician. Just because we don’t understand the theological principle, does not mean that there is not one present.
The only time that we can ignore that principle is if it’s in conflict with the Magisterium. No one here has proven that the bishop’s theological principle is in conflict with the Magisterium. In fact, on poster admitted that these statements reflect those of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, bu then the poster went on to say how wrong John Paul and Benedict are on these points. Well that’s what Catherine of Siena would call spiritual audacity.
While she was the first to call bishops and popes to task, she was also the great defender of the dignity of the bishops and popes. She dearly loved the Church and showed her love for the Church in her manner of speaking to the bishops and popes about their failings. She communicated to them her love for them and her subservience to them. Her articulation was very balanced.
Most of us would consider ourselves much more sophisticated than Catherine. She was illiterate, never learned to read and write. She didn’t even speak Italian propertly. But look at her wisdom and her common sense. She called them to task on their faults, but always made sure that she mentioned her love for them and her great reverence for their position in the Church. She made it a point to tell anyone who complained about the bishops and popes about their importance in their salvation.
Catherine should be a great example for laity in a time of crisis. She was a lay woman and lived in a time of crisis, worse than our own today. She and Franics of Assis were both lay people, both lived in crisis. Both had to deal with difficult bishops and popes. Both were very clear on one thing. If you’re Catholic, you need the bishops. A non-Catholic is in a different position, because he or she is saved through the mercy of God that reaches out from the Church beyond her physical boundaries. But if you’re Catholic, you’re dependent on the bishop for your salvation. Only a bishop can teach faith and morals, absolve from sin, consecrate the Eucharist and keep the priesthood going. If you’re a Catholic, you have no way of saving your sould without this.
For this reason, we cannot take on an antagonistic attitude toward our bishops. It only poisons our souls. We must make use of the systems that the Church has put in place for these questions. Finally, I know for a fact that the Mexican bishops are deal with the migration problem from the other side, trying to get Latin American governments to hep their people survive in their homeland so they do not have to leave. Everyone has a right to live in his homeland.
As a Franciscan, I’m more concerned about the salvation of our souls, than about being right. As St. Clare told our order, “You can be right and be condemned to hell by your hatred and anger.”
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
pnewton
Guest
From the Apostle Paul, II Corinthians 5
Catholics believe in apostolic succession. He is in heaven. We do the work. The bishops are consecrated to walk in the steps of the apostles.
R
RobbyS
Guest
Don’t think that the bishops thought she was very respectful. They didn’t like to see her coming. Incidently there is a beautiful sculpture of her outside the Catholic Cathedral in Melbourne, Australia holding a crown of thorns.
A
Art321
Guest
I know for one thing that this is a very COMPLEX situation. But when it comes to Mexico, everything there is corrupt! And I mean CORRUPT! The Mexican people are left to stave at the end of the day, if not at least a certain amount of them. Almost all of them are poor, and it really shouldn’t surprise anyone since I like said it is corrupt.
Another thing that shouldn’t be a surprise why so many Mexicans are coming to the US. When your country is like that and in the north, you have the most richest country in the world of course people are going to come. But the thing is that they should be doing it legally. The law is the law at the end of the day. I do have much respect for Mexicans but not because they come here illegally. But because they try so hard to provide for their families in the end.
I think what needs to happen is to reform how people become citizens. I have heard that people wait years to become citizens, so maybe the government should speed up the process a bit.
Any thoughts?
Another thing that shouldn’t be a surprise why so many Mexicans are coming to the US. When your country is like that and in the north, you have the most richest country in the world of course people are going to come. But the thing is that they should be doing it legally. The law is the law at the end of the day. I do have much respect for Mexicans but not because they come here illegally. But because they try so hard to provide for their families in the end.
I think what needs to happen is to reform how people become citizens. I have heard that people wait years to become citizens, so maybe the government should speed up the process a bit.
Any thoughts?
M
mlund
Guest
Taking to heart the idea of the onus being upon myself as a member of the laity, I did some more checking on what my Bishop has said on this issue. It is too easy to confuse the bombastic opinions of activists, politicians, and reporters citing our bishops with the official positions of our bishops. It turns out the missive I was made familiar with was, as I suspected, related to an older version of the bill.
A later missive was dispatched in March of 2010 highlight two specific moral concerns with the bill:
“we are concerned that the present language of these bills does not clearly state that undocumented persons who become victims of crime can come forward without fear of deportation”
“However, the bill itself does not limit enforcement to persons suspected of criminal activity, thus leaving the possibility of criminalizing the presence of even children and young persons brought into our country by their parents.”
Those are both outcomes are valid moral concerns. The premise that the legislation will cause those outcomes is, however, speculation based on worldly disciplines, not theology.
I agree with my bishop’s moral concerns or judgment that it would be bad if victims of crimes could not report crimes without risking being deported. Likewise I reject the idea of minor children being charged with misdemeanors or felonies for being brought into the United States by their parents.
I simply don’t agree with the speculation that the language of the law provides for such outcomes. For example, I noticed language in the bill that specifically prohibited directing the first section against persons under 18 years of age. I’ve also observed protections for victims and witnesses in our other governing state statutes and policies.
But I respect the moral concerns my bishop has, and I’m happy to see initiatives in our state legislature already moving to amend or add to the law to provide greater explicit protections.
Then there is an April 21st missive, asking the governor to veto the bill. That horse has obviously left the barn, but my bishop’s moral concerns remain:
“The reason we raise these issues is based on testimony that occurred during legislative debate where it was noted that SB1070 may compel local police, far removed from the border, to ignore more serious crimes because of language requiring that they enforce federal immigration laws to the ‘full extent permitted by federal law.’”
“Additionally, we note that SB 1070 has been improved so that it is at least up to the police officer’s discretion as to whether crime victims and witnesses will be turned over on immigration charges. It would be much better, however, if victims and witnesses could come forward knowing for certain that they will not be deported.”
“Our concern is that this bill could make felons, not only out of dangerous criminals (as is warranted), but also the many undocumented immigrants who have come to this country at a very young age and have no familiarity with any other country but the United States. We are concerned for these children and for families that may have a mother and a father, one of whom is a citizen and the other of whom would now be considered a criminal.”
Issues #2 and #3 have already been addressed in part by my passages above. Issue #3 has been expanded on so I’ll address it further.
To the first issue, though, the outcome of police being compelled to ignore more serious crimes to enforce immigration law is a legitimate moral concern. The factual dependencies, however, are again rooted in speculation on possibility based on the worldly discipline of law. Again, the language in the bill specifies that, “A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE” and lawyers and lawmakers have made it clear that such language never requires an officer to pursue an immigration violation over a more serious police call.
To the third issue, though, I see a further concern that a legal adult my be effectively stranded in an unlawful state in Arizona due to the actions of their parents over a decade ago. Such cases are, however, for Federal ICE policy to resolve. Culpability in one’s criminal state is further subject to a judge or jury. The Federal law is what it is and needs to be addressed lawfully. The concern about citizen / non-citizen pairings and parentage, however, does not seem like an urgent concern as there are already special VISA provisions for families where one parent is a citizen.
My bishop’s moral concern, however, is of great importance to me. We should work towards Federal immigration reform that delivers just outcomes for those illegal residences who are demonstrated to have been unwillingly stranded in the United States unlawfully by their parents.
So I think we need to work towards further legal reforms and improvements that specifically address these moral concerns with practical and just responses. We can not afford to get side-tracked by side-tracked by bombastic and uncharitable rhetoric fueled by lobbies who reject any and all legislation that restricts or reverses illegal immigration.
A later missive was dispatched in March of 2010 highlight two specific moral concerns with the bill:
“we are concerned that the present language of these bills does not clearly state that undocumented persons who become victims of crime can come forward without fear of deportation”
“However, the bill itself does not limit enforcement to persons suspected of criminal activity, thus leaving the possibility of criminalizing the presence of even children and young persons brought into our country by their parents.”
Those are both outcomes are valid moral concerns. The premise that the legislation will cause those outcomes is, however, speculation based on worldly disciplines, not theology.
I agree with my bishop’s moral concerns or judgment that it would be bad if victims of crimes could not report crimes without risking being deported. Likewise I reject the idea of minor children being charged with misdemeanors or felonies for being brought into the United States by their parents.
I simply don’t agree with the speculation that the language of the law provides for such outcomes. For example, I noticed language in the bill that specifically prohibited directing the first section against persons under 18 years of age. I’ve also observed protections for victims and witnesses in our other governing state statutes and policies.
But I respect the moral concerns my bishop has, and I’m happy to see initiatives in our state legislature already moving to amend or add to the law to provide greater explicit protections.
Then there is an April 21st missive, asking the governor to veto the bill. That horse has obviously left the barn, but my bishop’s moral concerns remain:
“The reason we raise these issues is based on testimony that occurred during legislative debate where it was noted that SB1070 may compel local police, far removed from the border, to ignore more serious crimes because of language requiring that they enforce federal immigration laws to the ‘full extent permitted by federal law.’”
“Additionally, we note that SB 1070 has been improved so that it is at least up to the police officer’s discretion as to whether crime victims and witnesses will be turned over on immigration charges. It would be much better, however, if victims and witnesses could come forward knowing for certain that they will not be deported.”
“Our concern is that this bill could make felons, not only out of dangerous criminals (as is warranted), but also the many undocumented immigrants who have come to this country at a very young age and have no familiarity with any other country but the United States. We are concerned for these children and for families that may have a mother and a father, one of whom is a citizen and the other of whom would now be considered a criminal.”
Issues #2 and #3 have already been addressed in part by my passages above. Issue #3 has been expanded on so I’ll address it further.
To the first issue, though, the outcome of police being compelled to ignore more serious crimes to enforce immigration law is a legitimate moral concern. The factual dependencies, however, are again rooted in speculation on possibility based on the worldly discipline of law. Again, the language in the bill specifies that, “A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE” and lawyers and lawmakers have made it clear that such language never requires an officer to pursue an immigration violation over a more serious police call.
To the third issue, though, I see a further concern that a legal adult my be effectively stranded in an unlawful state in Arizona due to the actions of their parents over a decade ago. Such cases are, however, for Federal ICE policy to resolve. Culpability in one’s criminal state is further subject to a judge or jury. The Federal law is what it is and needs to be addressed lawfully. The concern about citizen / non-citizen pairings and parentage, however, does not seem like an urgent concern as there are already special VISA provisions for families where one parent is a citizen.
My bishop’s moral concern, however, is of great importance to me. We should work towards Federal immigration reform that delivers just outcomes for those illegal residences who are demonstrated to have been unwillingly stranded in the United States unlawfully by their parents.
So I think we need to work towards further legal reforms and improvements that specifically address these moral concerns with practical and just responses. We can not afford to get side-tracked by side-tracked by bombastic and uncharitable rhetoric fueled by lobbies who reject any and all legislation that restricts or reverses illegal immigration.
- Marty Lund
R
RobbyS
Guest
Thank you, but I must add that by competent I mean having special authority, which thy do in matters of faith and morals. If I read them rightly they are not claiming that the law itself is immoral, as they imply in their criticisms of the parts of Obama care that relate to abortion. What disturbs me is that they seem to be taking sides in a matter that is complicated by the fact that so many illegal immigrants have found safe harbor in the Mexican-American community.
P
pnewton
Guest
I really like this post of yours. It was, as Fox puts it, fair and balanced.
FYI - I am open to being shown that the concerns about this law are misplaced. I am probably one of the few here that have real life experience contacting ICE and having someone here illegally deported. I have done it dozens of times. I have also refrained from that action at times. I have dealt with hundreds, literally that have been awaiting deportation and that has probably affected my perspective.
F
fish90
Guest
Thank you JR for your insightful posts.
Reading these posts made me think about when Jesus would call people hypocrites. How many of us have broken a law in our lives? How many of us have to go to confession? We are not saints and have no authority or competency to judge the bishop.
Also, a selected quote from the web page comes from St. Cyprian of Carthage. It goes:
“It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop”
JR can you explain the theological and pastoral approach to the topic of illegal immigration. I know you do have insightful and beneficial comments.
I hope we can get away from attacking the bishops and become more charitable.
Best,
fish90
Reading these posts made me think about when Jesus would call people hypocrites. How many of us have broken a law in our lives? How many of us have to go to confession? We are not saints and have no authority or competency to judge the bishop.
Also, a selected quote from the web page comes from St. Cyprian of Carthage. It goes:
“It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop”
JR can you explain the theological and pastoral approach to the topic of illegal immigration. I know you do have insightful and beneficial comments.
I hope we can get away from attacking the bishops and become more charitable.
Best,
fish90
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
…and I must add that competence as regards public policy, of which social justice is naturally part and parcel from a Catholic perspective, depends, as some others have noted, on full information, a grasp of the economic, political, and educational complexities of the intersection of practicalities and theory, and a commitment to eradicating the perpetuation of any situation which promotes social injustice. I will argue that there are many lay people and non-Catholics in the U.S. who have actually a deeper, more comprehensive, more radical view of social justice than what to date I have heard from any particular bishop. There may be some bishops who are advocating such a comprehensive commitment to social justice from all sides of immigration, and who do understand the interdependence of factors affecting it, but in my extensive reading so far, I happen not to have seen it.
The issue is that there is a mandate for social justice in Catholic theology, not to mention scripture as well. Sincere inquirers and faithful Catholics can differ legitimately on the means to arrive at that universal social justice. And it’s not up to anyone on CAF to state who is and who is not a sincere & practicing Catholic from that or any other perspective, because that on its face violates TOS.
J
JReducation
Guest
The bishops of the United States are not alone on this issue. This is very important that we all understand this, because otherwise we will end up demonizing our American bishops. That would be a grave sin against justice, while trying to achieve justice. It would be a contradiction.
The Bishops of Spain had to deal with the problem between 1999 and 2002 when more than two million Ecuadorians arrived in Spain. The bishops of England have had to deal with this because more than five million Muslims have arrived in the UK. The bishops of Australia have had to face the same issue with the arrival of many Arabs. The bishops of South Africa had to deal with this problem with the arrival of Indians and Pakistani trying to get away from each other.
Many years ago the Church asked me to do some work in this field, because of my fluency in several languages. The common concern that the Church found is that most of these people are very poor. There are often many reasons why they have to leave their homeland and none of them are criminal. The most common reasons are poverty, war, natural disasters, and religious intolerance.
The last five popes: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have shared a concern with the nations of the world and the people of the Church. The concern is two-fold. The Church does believe in the sovereignty of nations and that nations need to protect themselves from harm, not just harm done by war and invasions, but many other moral harms too, such as drugs: prostitution, pornography, and so forth. In all of her social writings the Church has stressed two things that have not happened.
First, she has stressed the duty of nations to provide a just environment for their citizens. If this were happening, there would be less emigration from nations around the world. People don’t normally want to leave their home and what is familiar to them. But when you’re children are hungry, you don’t have good healthcare, you don’t have good education for your children, you are unemployed or employed and underpaid, and you live in a shack, you become desperate and you want to run. The Church has stressed that the nations of the world work together to improve the living conditions of all people and has insisted since Leo XIII on the importance of just wages for a day of work. She has not been heard or has been ignored. It’s not that the Church does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. She does, just as much as she acknowledges the sovereignty of Vatican City. Bishops in these nations have often been killed for speaking up against the wealthy and for the poor. They have suffered jail time, fines, expulsions from their countries and some have been killed. Mexican bishops have suffered the most in the Americas. Second are Vietnamese bishops.
The other concern of the Church has always been that the wealthy nations of the world have not used their resources wisely. For example, the USA and the Dutch are the most generous nations in the world. But the USA has not been a wise investor. It sends its foreign aid to politicians who are crooked. These trillions of dollars end up in Miami bank accounts owned by crooked politicians. The USA has also given large sums of money for immoral purposes, instead of moral ones, such as the Mexico City program reinstated by our current President. This money would have fed and clothed many people in the real Mexico City.
In 2000 I was stationed in Ecuador, South America. The Native Americans staged a coup and took out a corrupt government without shooting a single bullet. When President Mahuat called on the National Guard to take out the Natives, the Armed Forces refused to shoot on their fellow citizens. That night the President of Ecuador left the country with over 4 billion US dollars stashed in a Miami Bank Account. He now teaches Government and Fiscal Management at Harvard University, his alma mater. The day of the coup, the USA sent the American Ambassador, Peter Romero to Ecuador with a demand that they restore the political party that they had taken down or the USA would blockade the country. This was a country that was in financial crisis. They did not have to means to survive a US blockade. They caved. Millions of people emigrated illegally, mostly to Spain. The money that the President stole was not only from taxes, but also from US aid to the poor.
For years the bishops of these countries have asked the USA to donate the money directly to charity and have been ignored, because the US govt had to keep up the relations with these other govts even though everyone in Washington knows what happens to the money. The Dutch have complied with the bishops. They have even sent their own people to run programs in these countries and to work with Caritas International.
With all of this happening, the Church feels that she has to protect the immigrants, because no one protects them, neither in their homeland nor in the USA. The Church does not condone crime in any country. But she does demand that the wealthier nations of the world do two things: 1) unite to put pressure on the crooked nations that are exploiting their people and driving them out and 2) make their immigration system fair and easier to manage. It’s too unruly.
I would add to that, from my experience in this field and in the missions that we also demand that our embassies in these countries stop giving visas to the wealthy who have achieved their wealth by stealing from us what was meant for their poor. I saw how these people are treated by our embassies… No American that I know is that rude, that vulgar and that uncaring when someone comes in and says “I need help.” None of us would tell someone that we can’t help them unless they show us a bank account and that they have a job. If they did have these things, they wouldn’t need help.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The Bishops of Spain had to deal with the problem between 1999 and 2002 when more than two million Ecuadorians arrived in Spain. The bishops of England have had to deal with this because more than five million Muslims have arrived in the UK. The bishops of Australia have had to face the same issue with the arrival of many Arabs. The bishops of South Africa had to deal with this problem with the arrival of Indians and Pakistani trying to get away from each other.
Many years ago the Church asked me to do some work in this field, because of my fluency in several languages. The common concern that the Church found is that most of these people are very poor. There are often many reasons why they have to leave their homeland and none of them are criminal. The most common reasons are poverty, war, natural disasters, and religious intolerance.
The last five popes: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have shared a concern with the nations of the world and the people of the Church. The concern is two-fold. The Church does believe in the sovereignty of nations and that nations need to protect themselves from harm, not just harm done by war and invasions, but many other moral harms too, such as drugs: prostitution, pornography, and so forth. In all of her social writings the Church has stressed two things that have not happened.
First, she has stressed the duty of nations to provide a just environment for their citizens. If this were happening, there would be less emigration from nations around the world. People don’t normally want to leave their home and what is familiar to them. But when you’re children are hungry, you don’t have good healthcare, you don’t have good education for your children, you are unemployed or employed and underpaid, and you live in a shack, you become desperate and you want to run. The Church has stressed that the nations of the world work together to improve the living conditions of all people and has insisted since Leo XIII on the importance of just wages for a day of work. She has not been heard or has been ignored. It’s not that the Church does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. She does, just as much as she acknowledges the sovereignty of Vatican City. Bishops in these nations have often been killed for speaking up against the wealthy and for the poor. They have suffered jail time, fines, expulsions from their countries and some have been killed. Mexican bishops have suffered the most in the Americas. Second are Vietnamese bishops.
The other concern of the Church has always been that the wealthy nations of the world have not used their resources wisely. For example, the USA and the Dutch are the most generous nations in the world. But the USA has not been a wise investor. It sends its foreign aid to politicians who are crooked. These trillions of dollars end up in Miami bank accounts owned by crooked politicians. The USA has also given large sums of money for immoral purposes, instead of moral ones, such as the Mexico City program reinstated by our current President. This money would have fed and clothed many people in the real Mexico City.
In 2000 I was stationed in Ecuador, South America. The Native Americans staged a coup and took out a corrupt government without shooting a single bullet. When President Mahuat called on the National Guard to take out the Natives, the Armed Forces refused to shoot on their fellow citizens. That night the President of Ecuador left the country with over 4 billion US dollars stashed in a Miami Bank Account. He now teaches Government and Fiscal Management at Harvard University, his alma mater. The day of the coup, the USA sent the American Ambassador, Peter Romero to Ecuador with a demand that they restore the political party that they had taken down or the USA would blockade the country. This was a country that was in financial crisis. They did not have to means to survive a US blockade. They caved. Millions of people emigrated illegally, mostly to Spain. The money that the President stole was not only from taxes, but also from US aid to the poor.
For years the bishops of these countries have asked the USA to donate the money directly to charity and have been ignored, because the US govt had to keep up the relations with these other govts even though everyone in Washington knows what happens to the money. The Dutch have complied with the bishops. They have even sent their own people to run programs in these countries and to work with Caritas International.
With all of this happening, the Church feels that she has to protect the immigrants, because no one protects them, neither in their homeland nor in the USA. The Church does not condone crime in any country. But she does demand that the wealthier nations of the world do two things: 1) unite to put pressure on the crooked nations that are exploiting their people and driving them out and 2) make their immigration system fair and easier to manage. It’s too unruly.
I would add to that, from my experience in this field and in the missions that we also demand that our embassies in these countries stop giving visas to the wealthy who have achieved their wealth by stealing from us what was meant for their poor. I saw how these people are treated by our embassies… No American that I know is that rude, that vulgar and that uncaring when someone comes in and says “I need help.” None of us would tell someone that we can’t help them unless they show us a bank account and that they have a job. If they did have these things, they wouldn’t need help.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
So this is a duty of our country, to provide a just snd decent environment for its citizens. This is what people are trying to do, insure that their children are safe against the drug lords, against the kidnapping and against the criminal element which Americans are now experiencing from the criminal element from the border to the south. This is an excerpt from an article by the Roman Catholic and former candidate for the presidency of the United States - Patrick Buchanan:
“Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America’s immigration laws.
…The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in…Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk. …” More at: buchanan.org/blog/whose-country-is-this-3955
Here is what Tom Roeser has to say. By the way, in 1988 he and Mrs. Roeser was named by John Paul II as Knight and Lady of the Equestrian Order of the Holy Sepulcher of Jerusalem.
“Actually, the bill is well-crafted and definitely needed for many reasons.
These include the current tsunami of illegals and drug pushers streaming past the Arizona border and the failure to enforce its borders by a timid Obama administration as well as the failure of the Homeland Security department and Dem congress…some Republicans included…to act because of paralytic fear they will alienate the Hispanic vote—including building a
fence that would take care of most of the problem.”
see: blog.tomroeser.com/2010/04/personal-aside-raising-arizonaanatomy.html
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t advocate breaking any laws. I think we have a duty to promote good citizenship and support for the immigration laws of our country.
G
gakroeger
Guest
You believe that law enforcement should be selective? Some laws enforced and some not based on the decision of the law enforcement agency?
L
lelhajj
Guest
so, what do you mean by that, sidbrown? canadians and british are civilized and decent people, therefore, because i am not civilized and decent person, eventhough i have gone to the university and have gotten my masters and i am also indecent, just because i am a mexican/american? i certainly believe you are completely wrong and racist.
L
lelhajj
Guest
it is really a shame that politics can interfere with religion. I feel really offended by your comments.
A
Art321
Guest
Thank you for your post, JReducation. You are very wise indeed!
The Bishops of Spain had to deal with the problem between 1999 and 2002 when more than two million Ecuadorians arrived in Spain. The bishops of England have had to deal with this because more than five million Muslims have arrived in the UK. The bishops of Australia have had to face the same issue with the arrival of many Arabs. The bishops of South Africa had to deal with this problem with the arrival of Indians and Pakistani trying to get away from each other.
Many years ago the Church asked me to do some work in this field, because of my fluency in several languages. The common concern that the Church found is that most of these people are very poor. There are often many reasons why they have to leave their homeland and none of them are criminal. The most common reasons are poverty, war, natural disasters, and religious intolerance.
The last five popes: John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI have shared a concern with the nations of the world and the people of the Church. The concern is two-fold. The Church does believe in the sovereignty of nations and that nations need to protect themselves from harm, not just harm done by war and invasions, but many other moral harms too, such as drugs: prostitution, pornography, and so forth. In all of her social writings the Church has stressed two things that have not happened.
First, she has stressed the duty of nations to provide a just environment for their citizens. If this were happening, there would be less emigration from nations around the world. People don’t normally want to leave their home and what is familiar to them. But when you’re children are hungry, you don’t have good healthcare, you don’t have good education for your children, you are unemployed or employed and underpaid, and you live in a shack, you become desperate and you want to run. The Church has stressed that the nations of the world work together to improve the living conditions of all people and has insisted since Leo XIII on the importance of just wages for a day of work. She has not been heard or has been ignored. It’s not that the Church does not acknowledge the sovereignty of nations. She does, just as much as she acknowledges the sovereignty of Vatican City. Bishops in these nations have often been killed for speaking up against the wealthy and for the poor. They have suffered jail time, fines, expulsions from their countries and some have been killed. Mexican bishops have suffered the most in the Americas. Second are Vietnamese bishops.
The other concern of the Church has always been that the wealthy nations of the world have not used their resources wisely. For example, the USA and the Dutch are the most generous nations in the world. But the USA has not been a wise investor. It sends its foreign aid to politicians who are crooked. These trillions of dollars end up in Miami bank accounts owned by crooked politicians. The USA has also given large sums of money for immoral purposes, instead of moral ones, such as the Mexico City program reinstated by our current President. This money would have fed and clothed many people in the real Mexico City.
In 2000 I was stationed in Ecuador, South America. The Native Americans staged a coup and took out a corrupt government without shooting a single bullet. When President Mahuat called on the National Guard to take out the Natives, the Armed Forces refused to shoot on their fellow citizens. That night the President of Ecuador left the country with over 4 billion US dollars stashed in a Miami Bank Account. He now teaches Government and Fiscal Management at Harvard University, his alma mater. The day of the coup, the USA sent the American Ambassador, Peter Romero to Ecuador with a demand that they restore the political party that they had taken down or the USA would blockade the country. This was a country that was in financial crisis. They did not have to means to survive a US blockade. They caved. Millions of people emigrated illegally, mostly to Spain. The money that the President stole was not only from taxes, but also from US aid to the poor.
For years the bishops of these countries have asked the USA to donate the money directly to charity and have been ignored, because the US govt had to keep up the relations with these other govts even though everyone in Washington knows what happens to the money. The Dutch have complied with the bishops. They have even sent their own people to run programs in these countries and to work with Caritas International.
With all of this happening, the Church feels that she has to protect the immigrants, because no one protects them, neither in their homeland nor in the USA. The Church does not condone crime in any country. But she does demand that the wealthier nations of the world do two things: 1) unite to put pressure on the crooked nations that are exploiting their people and driving them out and 2) make their immigration system fair and easier to manage. It’s too unruly.
I would add to that, from my experience in this field and in the missions that we also demand that our embassies in these countries stop giving visas to the wealthy who have achieved their wealth by stealing from us what was meant for their poor. I saw how these people are treated by our embassies… No American that I know is that rude, that vulgar and that uncaring when someone comes in and says “I need help.” None of us would tell someone that we can’t help them unless they show us a bank account and that they have a job. If they did have these things, they wouldn’t need help.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
Art321
Guest
I do have to admit that his comment did scream racial profiling. How on earth is that right? Sidbrown, what did you really mean? That Canadians and British are civilized but Mexicans are not? You seem to condemn all Mexicans because of the drug lords when in REALITY, they are good hard working people. They are most certainly decent and civilized.
E
Ender
Guest
I am impressed with your contributions on this subject - perhaps because I agree with them - but I see this situation differently: I don’t believe the bishops’ concerns as expressed in their letter are in fact moral issues, for if they were then pretty much everything would be a moral issue. I think the reverse is true, that pretty much everything is a prudential issue and the moral issues are very few.
I don’t think this is a valid distinction. An outcome is simply a fact; it may be helpful or harmful but it cannot be moral or immoral. Those terms apply solely to people, not outcomes.
I think you can see that there is no moral side here. Your bishop thinks one result will occur, you believe it will not and while one opinion will be more accurate than the other, neither opinion is more moral than the other.
And I am extremely unhappy that even bishops don’t distinguish between moral issues and prudential ones. The concerns they expressed are entirely prudential - there is no moral component attached to them* whatever. *Think about it carefully: what is the moral concern? If I do something that is itself not intrinsically immoral, with good intent and reasonable expectation of achieving a good outcome then I cannot be committing a sin even if everything goes horribly wrong. This is what the Arizona legislators have done so unless we are going to hold that it is a sin to be mistaken there can be no question of immoral behavior on their part, and there is no moral concern on the part of the bishops.
Ender
- Status