M
Malkin71
Guest
What if a illegal immigrant is a MS13 gang member, Drug dealer, Murder, Molester, Rapist, Thief, Kidnapper, or a Islam radical should we welcome them with open arms?
Our Lord told us to Obey the Laws!
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.
Our Lord told us to Obey the Laws!
E
Ender
Guest
I think the confusion lies with those suffering from a hardness of head. In regard to all those Scripture quotes, personal interpretation is fine for Protestants but as a Catholic you would be better served by knowing what the Church teaches on the subject. Like these, for example:For people who profess to be followers of Christ the hardness of heart thoughout this thread is quite disturbing.
*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. (CCC 2241)
*
*Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. *(JPII, Undocumented Migrants - Message for World Migration Day, 1996)
The Church recognizes the right of States to control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory – to guarantee security, basic human rights and freedoms – considering it in line with the protection of the common good (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2006)
*The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. **Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. ***(JPII, Message of the Holy Father for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001)
Ender
M
Malkin71
Guest
I agree!I think the confusion lies with those suffering from a hardness of head. In regard to all those Scripture quotes, personal interpretation is fine for Protestants but as a Catholic you would be better served by knowing what the Church teaches on the subject. Like these, for example:
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. (CCC 2241)*
*
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII, Undocumented Migrants - Message for World Migration Day, 1996)
The Church recognizes the right of States to control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory – to guarantee security, basic human rights and freedoms – considering it in line with the protection of the common good (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2006)
*The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. **Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. ***(JPII, Message of the Holy Father for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001)
Ender
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Very well put!I think the confusion lies with those suffering from a hardness of head. In regard to all those Scripture quotes, personal interpretation is fine for Protestants but as a Catholic you would be better served by knowing what the Church teaches on the subject. Like these, for example:
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. (CCC 2241)*
*
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII, Undocumented Migrants - Message for World Migration Day, 1996)
The Church recognizes the right of States to control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory – to guarantee security, basic human rights and freedoms – considering it in line with the protection of the common good (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2006)
*The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. **Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. ***(JPII, Message of the Holy Father for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001)
Ender
T
TMC
Guest
But the same Church that you say has the sole authority to interpret Scripture also tells us that this legislation is immoral. So which is it? Does the Church have the moral authority to speak on this issue or not?I think the confusion lies with those suffering from a hardness of head. In regard to all those Scripture quotes, personal interpretation is fine for Protestants but as a Catholic you would be better served by knowing what the Church teaches on the subject. Like these, for example:
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. (CCC 2241)*
*
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII, Undocumented Migrants - Message for World Migration Day, 1996)
The Church recognizes the right of States to control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory – to guarantee security, basic human rights and freedoms – considering it in line with the protection of the common good (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2006)
*The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. **Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. ***(JPII, Message of the Holy Father for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001)
Ender
C
catharina
Guest
**Am I grateful to be an American?CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME!!!
Hope you don’t imagine that you’re quoting Scripture. You’re not.
What happened to being Patriotic and American Pride?
When did PRIDE become a Virtue? It didn’t.
Yes - this is the nation that promises, in law, freedom of religion.
Am I “proud” of America’s choices? NO.
You ever hear of legalized abortion? **
M
Melvin
Guest
I am so thankful that in the United States, we do not (ostensibly) live under an oligarchy, but we have a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People.” This means (ostensibly) that the “People” have the right to determine what is in their “common good,” and the “good of” (their) “community that receives the migrant,” as well as the right to “control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory.”I think the confusion lies with those suffering from a hardness of head. In regard to all those Scripture quotes, personal interpretation is fine for Protestants but as a Catholic you would be better served by knowing what the Church teaches on the subject. Like these, for example:
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. (CCC 2241)*
*
Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII, Undocumented Migrants - Message for World Migration Day, 1996)
The Church recognizes the right of States to control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory – to guarantee security, basic human rights and freedoms – considering it in line with the protection of the common good (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2006)
*The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. **Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. ***(JPII, Message of the Holy Father for the 87th World Day of Migration, 2001)
Ender
Or would others advocate that perhaps it would be better if the People of the United States were deprived of the right to govern themselves?
C
catharina
Guest
Fascinating.I am so thankful that in the United States, we do not (ostensibly) live under an oligarchy, but we have a government “of the People, by the People, and for the People.” This means (ostensibly) that the “People” have the right to determine what is in their “common good,” and the “good of” (their) “community that receives the migrant,” as well as the right to “control their borders and the entry of persons in their territory.”
Or would others advocate that perhaps it would be better if the People of the United States were deprived of the right to govern themselves?
EXCEPT:
The right to determine laws involving immigration are reserved to the FEDERAL govt.
Arizona is in violation of the limitations assigned to the rights of any STATE govt.
M
mlund
Guest
That is incorrect.Fascinating.
EXCEPT:
The right to determine laws involving immigration are reserved to the FEDERAL govt.
Arizona is in violation of the limitations assigned to the rights of any STATE govt.
The right to determine who can and can not immigrate and under what process they can received citizenship is reserved to the Federal Government.
Arizona is fully within its rights and sovereignty as a State to police its own interior for trespassers - those who have not gained the privileges of visitation or residency through the legal processes of the Federal government.
- Marty Lund
C
catharina
Guest
FYI -That is incorrect.
The right to determine who can and can not immigrate and under what process they can received citizenship is reserved to the Federal Government.
Arizona is fully within its rights and sovereignty as a State to police its own interior for trespassers - those who have not gained the privileges of visitation or residency through the legal processes of the Federal government.
- Marty Lund
California passed a similar series of laws based on Prop 187.
These were overturned by federal courts.
M
mlund
Guest
Again, you misrepresent the information.FYI -
California passed a similar series of laws based on Prop 187.
These were overturned by federal courts.
One Federal Judge, shopped for by the challenging attorneys, ruled against the law at the lowest level of the federal system.
California’s infamous Government Gray Davis then killed the appeals process for the law before it could be heard in the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court.
Thus CA Prop 187 presents no valid legal precedent on the matter at all, paying no mind to the fact that the substance and the language of the two bills is vastly different.
- Marty Lund
C
catharina
Guest
We shall see.Again, you misrepresent the information.
One Federal Judge, shopped for by the challenging attorneys, ruled against the law at the lowest level of the federal system.
California’s infamous Government Gray Davis then killed the appeals process for the law before it could be heard in the 9th Circuit or Supreme Court.
Thus CA Prop 187 presents no valid legal precedent on the matter at all, paying no mind to the fact that the substance and the language of the two bills is vastly different.
- Marty Lund
A
adv1sor
Guest
Do we really want to be one of those countries where the authorities can stop you on the street and demand to see your papers? Do you think that this law only applies to them?
Those who would give up a little freedom in exchange for a little temporary security, deserve neither. B. Franklin
M
mlund
Guest
We can certainly see how the legal process shakes out, but we need not wait to see with regards to whether the Prop 187 provides valid precedent. The facts are recorded in history. There was no appeals process and thus there is no valid / ruling precedent on the matter of Constitutional Authority.We shall see.
No one could validly cite Pfaelzer’s ruling as governing precedent in a case on AZ SB1070 in a court of law.
Obviously we don’t, which is why the law in question does not establish such a broad power for the authorities. Reading the bill is so much better than running around parroting what the La Raza bigots and their friends tell you to think.Do we really want to be one of those countries where the authorities can stop you on the street and demand to see your papers? Do you think that this law only applies to them?
This no more empowers the authorities to stop you on the street and “demand your papers” than our existing laws on loitering, soliciting, and public intoxication do. The law specifically requires that a police officer be engaged in a separate act of his duty (such as a traffic violating stop) before he can inquire as to your citizenship, passport, or visa status.
The idea that the Federal Law is OK but the AZ law (which mirrors it) is oppressive just because it is easy to avoid the small number of Federal Agents instead of the large number of local and state police officers is just sad.
- Marty Lund
M
Melvin
Guest
Reserved, hmmm…by whom? Really? Ah…that is the logic that the Obama administration is using to allege that Arizona is outside its purview…Fascinating.
EXCEPT:
The right to determine laws involving immigration are reserved to the FEDERAL govt.
Arizona is in violation of the limitations assigned to the rights of any STATE govt.
Arizona, on the other hand, uses the logic that the People of the State have the primary right to provide for their own protection and welfare…
This provides a good example. As I said in another post…“subsidiarity” is a fool’s errand. It is simply a way to grab power while making the weaker believe that their voices still count.
Sorry, I side with Arizona. When the Feds fail to protect the citizens of the United States, it is incumbent upon the governments of the several states to step in to do so. And from a moral point of view, I don’t see anything in JPII’s earlier quoted statement, or in the quote on the Care of Migrants, limiting a local government authority, especially that of a republican form, from making such decisions.
C
Califman831
Guest
don’t worry too much about illegal immigrants entering the united states, because under obama’s rule the tide will reverse itself and many will seek to escape to less oppressing nations.
C
catharina
Guest
Surely hope you don’t mean “subsidiarity” as defined in the Catechism.Reserved, hmmm…by whom? Really? Ah…that is the logic that the Obama administration is using to allege that Arizona is outside its purview…
Arizona, on the other hand, uses the logic that the People of the State have the primary right to provide for their own protection and welfare…
As I said in another post…“subsidiarity” is a fool’s errand. It is simply a way to grab power while making the weaker believe that their voices still count.
Sorry, I side with Arizona. When the Feds fail to protect the citizens of the United States, it is incumbent upon the governments of the several states to step in to do so.
M
Malkin71
Guest
Did you hear of the Health care bill? The Bishops were pushing for it! They did not due their homework! Abortion funding is in the Bill! The majority of the Nation was against the Health care bill. Do the Bishops speak out against the Pro Choice Catholics who are U.S. Congresman and U.S. Senators? Do the Bishops enforce Cannon 915 against them? NO THEY DON"T!!!**Am I grateful to be an American?
Yes - this is the nation that promises, in law, freedom of religion.
Am I “proud” of America’s choices? NO.
You ever hear of legalized abortion? **
A State Funeral to one of the most Pro Abortion Senators. Did the U.S. Bishops speak out against it???
Comparing Abortion to Illegal Immigration is Appels and Oranges.
M
Malkin71
Guest
Maybe you should clink on this link and watch as the police are being hit by rocks and waterbottles!My sympathy that you hold such rage.
humanevents.com/article.php?id=36703
C
catharina
Guest
Did you hear of the healthcare bill?Did you hear of the Health care bill? The Bishops were pushing for it! They did not due their homework! Abortion funding is in the Bill! The majority of the Nation was against the Health care bill. Do the Bishops speak out against the Pro Choice Catholics who are U.S. Congresman and U.S. Senators? Do the Bishops enforce Cannon 915 against them? NO THEY DON"T!!!
A State Funeral to one of the most Pro Abortion Senators. Did the U.S. Bishops speak out against it???
Comparing Abortion to Illegal Immigration is Appels and Oranges.
The Bishops CONDEMNED it.
Are you living in some bubble?
Code:
As for the canon:
Canon 915 of the Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law states:
"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
Feel free to advise the Bishops re this.
The Church is slow to act with grave consequences.
It's called an act of patience and mercy.
Even excommunication itself exists as a call to REPENTANCE.
For example,
how long the leash, how long the time before Lefebvre chose his own excommunication?
He was clergy, not random laity. A bishop, in fact.- Status
- Not open for further replies.