O
Onyx88
Guest
AMEN
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
**Serious question: **what would change in this mess if Mexico became part of the United States and perhaps came in as 5-10 additional states?
F
fish90
Guest
Irishpatrick, who knows? If Mexico joined the U.S., I could see massive economic and political problems. Who’s is to say that illegals would not come from South America?
Also, here are some different points to consider. After thinking about the bishops response and hearing the news, I have to start agreeing that this measure may not be the best. I bet nearly all American Catholics posting in this forum are from immigrant families whether it be first, second or tenth generation. We were at one point faced discrimination against us due to our skin color, accent or the religion we follow. The fact of the matter is this bill does racially discriminate. Let me ask you this, how many Irish, Germans or Polish Americans (among all other immigrant groups) will be subjected to this kind of treatment? This bill may be a start, but it certainly not the best.
Also, think about all the racial discrimination lawsuits that will be brought against Arizona. Will they really be shoring up the budget problem or be adding to it?
Finally, this will do much harm to the Republicans politically as well.
Here’s my solution and I find it to be more in line with the Church’s teaching.
1.) Work to improve the economy of nations where the source of illegal immigrants come from. This may include helping the Mexican government rid itself of corruption among others.
2.) Rework the 14th amendment to include the necessity of two parents who are citizens. I find that this was originally instituted for Post Civil War America and since all African Americans are granted citizenship, this amendment is unnecessary for that part only.
3.) Large interest free fines ($5000) per family to those families who wish to assimilate properly (learn English, pay taxes, etc.) I find this beats assimilation.
4.) E-verify must be enforced and penalties will be given to the businesses only who hire these illegal immigrants.
5.) Closed borders.
After a period of time, I would find that deportation would then be a viable method, because there would be no “anchor” babies.
Also, here are some different points to consider. After thinking about the bishops response and hearing the news, I have to start agreeing that this measure may not be the best. I bet nearly all American Catholics posting in this forum are from immigrant families whether it be first, second or tenth generation. We were at one point faced discrimination against us due to our skin color, accent or the religion we follow. The fact of the matter is this bill does racially discriminate. Let me ask you this, how many Irish, Germans or Polish Americans (among all other immigrant groups) will be subjected to this kind of treatment? This bill may be a start, but it certainly not the best.
Also, think about all the racial discrimination lawsuits that will be brought against Arizona. Will they really be shoring up the budget problem or be adding to it?
Finally, this will do much harm to the Republicans politically as well.
Here’s my solution and I find it to be more in line with the Church’s teaching.
1.) Work to improve the economy of nations where the source of illegal immigrants come from. This may include helping the Mexican government rid itself of corruption among others.
2.) Rework the 14th amendment to include the necessity of two parents who are citizens. I find that this was originally instituted for Post Civil War America and since all African Americans are granted citizenship, this amendment is unnecessary for that part only.
3.) Large interest free fines ($5000) per family to those families who wish to assimilate properly (learn English, pay taxes, etc.) I find this beats assimilation.
4.) E-verify must be enforced and penalties will be given to the businesses only who hire these illegal immigrants.
5.) Closed borders.
After a period of time, I would find that deportation would then be a viable method, because there would be no “anchor” babies.
M
Malkin71
Guest
You would have 10 or 20 U.S. Senators who will be Democratic. Also Depending on the population of Mexico The U.S. Congress will be a Democratic majority. Health care would be a mess with Mexico added to the mix. How will Social Security fit into this? How will Mexico react to our laws and How will we react to Mexico’s laws? You will have a serious Language problem and a currency problem.**Serious question: **what would change in this mess if Mexico became part of the United States and perhaps came in as 5-10 additional states?
It would be a MAJOR MESS!
M
Malkin71
Guest
The Bishops want to fill the Pews!!!Can anybody explain why the bishops are against this measure? The only point that I can think of is the tearing apart of families, but why can immigration officials not deport entire families?
Is a layperson sinning when they disagree with the bishops’ stance on illegal immigration?
Best,
fish90
catholicnewsagency.com/news/religious_leaders_urge_arizona_governor_to_veto_anti-immigrant_bill/
Illegal Immigration is debatable issue. This is not like Abortion where it is a “MORTAL SIN”! There is a Vatican Document that was written between 1930 - 1960 that taks about when Immigration affects the Soverignty of a State it is wrong. I had it and I am in the mists of trying to find it.
The Bishops are trying to make it seem that you can not disagree with them on “Illegal Immigration”. They should be worrying about correcting “Liturgical Abuses”, “Reverent Masses”, Promoting the E.F. Mass and restoring Tradition.
Amazing, the Bishops will smother Latin but will promote and encourage Spanish?
The Bishops should be on Jury Duty on trials that have murder, rape, kidnapping cases that were committed by Illeagals and see what is going on. Maybe they will see what is going on.
The Bishops should see how Illegal Immigration Bankrupts and closes Hospitals! How can the Hospitals stay operational if the Illegals can not pay for their treatment!
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Huh? This makes no sense.Amazing, the Bishops will smother Latin but will promote and encourage Spanish?
All those crimes are commited by legals and citizens as well.The Bishops should be on Jury Duty on trials that have murder, rape, kidnapping cases that were committed by Illeagals and see what is going on. Maybe they will see what is going on.
F
fish90
Guest
That’s a little rash, no?The Bishops want to fill the Pews!!!
!
The refusal of the government paying the full share of Medicare and Medicaid is, I would argue, more serious than 10 million illegal immigrants.
Just a thought.
Best,
fish90
C
catharina
Guest
Wow. So very glad you’re not a bishop.The Bishops want to fill the Pews!!!
Illegal Immigration is debatable issue. This is not like Abortion where it is a “MORTAL SIN”! There is a Vatican Document that was written between 1930 - 1960 that taks about when Immigration affects the Soverignty of a State it is wrong. I had it and I am in the mists of trying to find it.
The Bishops are trying to make it seem that you can not disagree with them on “Illegal Immigration”. They should be worrying about correcting “Liturgical Abuses”, “Reverent Masses”, Promoting the E.F. Mass and restoring Tradition.
Amazing, the Bishops will smother Latin but will promote and encourage Spanish?
The Bishops should be on Jury Duty on trials that have murder, rape, kidnapping cases that were committed by Illeagals and see what is going on. Maybe they will see what is going on.
The Bishops should see how Illegal Immigration Bankrupts and closes Hospitals! How can the Hospitals stay operational if the Illegals can not pay for their treatment!
The new state law in AZ is indefensible on many counts.
First and foremost, to deny that racial profiling will be used in enforcing law is absurd.
To say so, as “Jan” did is beyond the pale.
To act in this regard is legalized prejudice, without a doubt.
With no room for mercy, families will be pulled apart.
U
UnworthyApostle
Guest
This law seems to be on the harsh side. I am a very Conservative person, politically and personally, but the answer to the problem is not a Salem Witch hunt. This law may break apart families, set neighbors against eachother, and pit the police against anyone of brown color. I know we need an immigration reform of some type, but going out after all the Hispanics is not the proper way of doing so. Sanctions need to be placed on bussiness that hire the illegal immigrants, so that there will be no reason for the illegals to come over in the first place. That is where we should begin to enact reform, not on the people. The country must treat the problem, business taking advantage of immigrants, and not the symptom, the immigrants themselves. Without treating the problem, any law passed to combat illegal immigration is akin to a bandage placed on a large wound. It may stop the bleeding for awhile, but it can not close the wound itself. That is when the stitches must be used to close the wound. We just need to remember that we are Christians first, and U.S. citizens secondly. For what we do to the least of our neighbors, we do to Christ.
C
catharina
Guest
A thousand times: YES!This law seems to be on the harsh side. I am a very Conservative person, politically and personally, but the answer to the problem is not a Salem Witch hunt.
**This law may break apart families, set neighbors against each other, and pit the police against anyone of brown color. I know we need an immigration reform of some type, but going out after all the Hispanics is not the proper way of doing so. Sanctions need to be placed on bussiness that hire the illegal immigrants, so that there will be no reason for the illegals to come over in the first place. That is where we should begin to enact reform, not on the people. The country must treat the problem, business taking advantage of immigrants, and not the symptom, the immigrants themselves. **
Without treating the problem, any law passed to combat illegal immigration is akin to a bandage placed on a large wound. It may stop the bleeding for awhile, but it can not close the wound itself. That is when the stitches must be used to close the wound. We just need to remember that we are Christians first, and U.S. citizens secondly. For what we do to the least of our neighbors, we do to Christ.
I
ishii
Guest
You are right. Many able bodied Americans would seem to opt for foodstamps or government assistance rather than work. I recently saw a few 12-14 year old suburban children basically pan-handling at a stop sign in their neighborhood with a sign asking for money. I can only wonder what my parents would have done to me had I and my friends tried pull that off. We live in a different kind of country now, where more and more people think they are owed something by the government or others. And this is why menial type of jobs are no longer done by average everyday teenagers, but rather illegal immigrants who are more than happy to work. My heart goes out to them - the illegals trying to find work to support their families - but that doesn’t mean that we should’t be enforcing our laws. As I mentioned on a different thread on this story, the problem is more complex than simply enforcement of our borders. It involves consumer demand for cheap goods and services that come from cheap labor, the unwillingness of our youth to do menial labor, our businesses’ demand for high profits from cheap labor, and as someone mentioned previously, the fact that the illegal aliens have little or no opportunity in their home countries due to corruption and unwise economic policies. And enforcing our borders and immigration laws.Yes because of the economy we are seeing more legals looking for anywhere to get a job.
But lets be frank (i have friends who do this), they believe certain jobs are “beneath them” hence these jobs positions stay open (janitors, bust boys, diswashers etc) . My intial point is people can’t claim that they are stealing “Americans jobs” if American’s don’t want to do the jobs. The economy may be forcing people to find new avenues of employment but that doesn’t mean they are going to want to do all jobs out there.
Ishii
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
How are the jobs you are referring to being filled in states that have very few illegal aliens?Yes because of the economy we are seeing more legals looking for anywhere to get a job.
But lets be frank (i have friends who do this), they believe certain jobs are “beneath them” hence these jobs positions stay open (janitors, bust boys, diswashers etc) . My intial point is people can’t claim that they are stealing “Americans jobs” if American’s don’t want to do the jobs. The economy may be forcing people to find new avenues of employment but that doesn’t mean they are going to want to do all jobs out there.
C
csuliman
Guest
When the left criticizes the Bishops, they are labelled as dissenters and that they should toe the Church line. But when the conservative do it then its all okay and its the bishops that should change their opinion. Who is the Cafeteria Catholic?It’s a sin to disagree with the pope on matters of faith, not some bishops’ opinions on legitimate immigration legislation. To the best of my knowledge, no intrisic evils are committed by enacting these laws. The bishops would do best by concentrating a bit more on fighting abortion and modernism and a little less on “social justice” and kissing up to the Democratic party.
I am not saying that you do not have a right to your views, even though I completely disagree with this law. However, we should stop pretending that we are practicing the “real” or “proper” version of Catholicism and that everyone who is a progressive is a dissenter.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
On questions of dogma, there is no room for dissent. On the question of political stance, Catholics indeed do and even should disagree with their churchmen.
Hans Kung spoke of the difference between an authoritative Church and a Authoritism. Speaking the clear teachings of the Church with confidence is indeed a proper usage of Church authority. The authority is in the teaching and not the personality and opinions of this of that bishop or priest.
When delving into politics and away from authoritative Chruch teaching, it is an example of a Church of Authoritism to expect all Catholics to submit to one man’s opinion, even a bishop’s. As St Paul himself states in Gospel we are not a Church of Peter of a Church of Paul, but a Church of Christ.
We are wedded to the teachings of Christ, not the opinions of any priest, however popular, or any bishop however esteemed he may be.
In general, when conservatives assert a bishop’s teaching, it pertains to the authoritative teaching of the Church, on abortion maybe or homosexual marriage, or women priest or other matters of authoritative eternal dogma. Often when liberals assert the teaching, as is the case here, the authoritative teaching is not even the issue.
To be compelled to submit to such opinion would be to promote a Catholic Authoritism. This is something that even liberals like Kung agree that we ought to be moving away from.
Hans Kung spoke of the difference between an authoritative Church and a Authoritism. Speaking the clear teachings of the Church with confidence is indeed a proper usage of Church authority. The authority is in the teaching and not the personality and opinions of this of that bishop or priest.
When delving into politics and away from authoritative Chruch teaching, it is an example of a Church of Authoritism to expect all Catholics to submit to one man’s opinion, even a bishop’s. As St Paul himself states in Gospel we are not a Church of Peter of a Church of Paul, but a Church of Christ.
We are wedded to the teachings of Christ, not the opinions of any priest, however popular, or any bishop however esteemed he may be.
In general, when conservatives assert a bishop’s teaching, it pertains to the authoritative teaching of the Church, on abortion maybe or homosexual marriage, or women priest or other matters of authoritative eternal dogma. Often when liberals assert the teaching, as is the case here, the authoritative teaching is not even the issue.
To be compelled to submit to such opinion would be to promote a Catholic Authoritism. This is something that even liberals like Kung agree that we ought to be moving away from.
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
I agree with what you have written but it doesn’t feel right. These men are in positions of authority; in effect they represent the church when they speak. It troubles me every time I have to say – they don’t speak for me.On questions of dogma, there is no room for dissent. On the question of political stance, Catholics indeed do and even should disagree with their churchmen.
Hans Kung spoke of the difference between an authoritative Church and a Authoritism. Speaking the clear teachings of the Church with confidence is indeed a proper usage of Church authority. The authority is in the teaching and not the personality and opinions of this of that bishop or priest.
When delving into politics and away from authoritative Chruch teaching, it is an example of a Church of Authoritism to expect all Catholics to submit to one man’s opinion, even a bishop’s. As St Paul himself states in Gospel we are not a Church of Peter of a Church of Paul, but a Church of Christ.
We are wedded to the teachings of Christ, not the opinions of any priest, however popular, or any bishop however esteemed he may be.
In general, when conservatives assert a bishop’s teaching, it pertains to the authoritative teaching of the Church, on abortion maybe or homosexual marriage, or women priest or other matters of authoritative eternal dogma. Often when liberals assert the teaching, as is the case here, the authoritative teaching is not even the issue.
To be compelled to submit to such opinion would be to promote a Catholic Authoritism. This is something that even liberals like Kung agree that we ought to be moving away from.
There is a crime wave in Arizona, people are dying because we can’t control our border. The bishops seem to support those that are breaking the law. I feel that once you have attained a certain level in any organization you have a responsibility to consider and speak for you entire constituency. It doesn’t appear that the bishops are doing that.
C
catharina
Guest
You seem to be suffereing from the most common delusion among American Catholics.I agree with what you have written but it doesn’t feel right. These men are in positions of authority; in effect they represent the church when they speak. It troubles me every time I have to say – they don’t speak for me.
There is a crime wave in Arizona, people are dying because we can’t control our border. The bishops seem to support those that are breaking the law. I feel that once you have attained a certain level in any organization you have a responsibility to consider and speak for you entire constituency. It doesn’t appear that the bishops are doing that.
You are suggesting that the bishops should act like elected representatives.
Elected politicians are to speak FOR their constituents.
They are to represent citizens.
BISHOPS are to speak TO those under their authority.
BISHOPS are to teach the teachings of the Church.
Apples.
Oranges.
C
catharina
Guest
Brief quote re Pope John Paul II:
74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:f6t5uafrZhcJ:www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm%3Fid%3D121+threshhold+of+hope,+buddhist+practices,+catholic+teachings&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Pope urges clemency for illegal immigrants
AP Online | October 9, 1998 | Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. This material is published under license from the Associated Press. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Associated Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
AP Online
10-09-1998
VATICAN CITY (AP) _
**Pope John Paul II on Friday urged a world amnesty for illegal immigrants in the year 2000, denouncing what he said was growing xenophobia.
There is nothing new about Bishops pleading for mercy for illegal immigrants.
There is nothing new about some folks hating that action by Bishops.
74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:f6t5uafrZhcJ:www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm%3Fid%3D121+threshhold+of+hope,+buddhist+practices,+catholic+teachings&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Pope urges clemency for illegal immigrants
AP Online | October 9, 1998 | Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. This material is published under license from the Associated Press. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Associated Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright
AP Online
10-09-1998
VATICAN CITY (AP) _
**Pope John Paul II on Friday urged a world amnesty for illegal immigrants in the year 2000, denouncing what he said was growing xenophobia.
Almost everywhere today there is a tendency to close the frontiers and return to rigorous controls,'' he told participants at a world congress on the issue at the Vatican. Migration is spoken of more than before and always in more alarmist tones.’’ **There is nothing new about Bishops pleading for mercy for illegal immigrants.
There is nothing new about some folks hating that action by Bishops.
C
csuliman
Guest
There is nothing new about Bishops pleading for mercy for illegal immigrants.Almost everywhere today there is a tendency to close the frontiers and return to rigorous controls,'' he told participants at a world congress on the issue at the Vatican.Migration is spoken of more than before and always in more alarmist tones.’’
There is nothing new about some folks hating that action by Bishops.
Bravo to the Bishops for this stance. I admit to being a dissident in many ways but the social justice teachings of the Church is something that always gets me to turn back when I am angry.
C
catharina
Guest
Thanks for the good word.Bravo to the Bishops for this stance. I admit to being a dissident in many ways but the social justice teachings of the Church is something that always gets me to turn back when I am angry.
I’m sure I’ll be kicked around plenty for my posts.
Yet, truth is truth. There’s no choice about that fact.
M
Malkin71
Guest
70% of Az supports the law!Wow. So very glad you’re not a bishop.
The new state law in AZ is indefensible on many counts.
First and foremost, to deny that racial profiling will be used in enforcing law is absurd.
To say so, as “Jan” did is beyond the pale.
To act in this regard is legalized prejudice, without a doubt.
With no room for mercy, families will be pulled apart.
How will they be pulled apart? They chose to leave their country and come here!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.