Catholic Bishops move to aid illegal aliens

[nordskoven]

I signed the postcard to my two state Senators given to me while attending a predominantly Mexican parish. The aim of Catholic Bishops is to aid in the reconciliation of families of illegal aliens. I did not at that time realize that Mexico is shielding criminals accused of heinous crimes in America. Here’s a sampling from “America’s Least Wanted.” I want fair extradition negotiated first, and an attentive INS, and open no-fault registration, biometric ID’s, and rational nation-wide standards instead of sanctuary, please God.
immigrationshumancost.org/text/criminals.html

 

[DihydrogenOxide]

This information has been out for decades. It’s despicable that these leaders do these things. The illegal aliens deserve nothing but extradition unless they are willing to go through the legal processes required of them. It’s sinful to make it okay for them to feed off the rest of us that abide by the rules.

 

[fish90]

The argument in favor of this goes by stating that the immigration law is unjust and so is not a law to follow. Catholic teaching tells that people have the right to migrate and to stay in their own place.

I have trouble accepting this. Good thing I am not a moral leader. Let’s pray that they make the correct decision, whatever it may be!

 

[d97c]

We are supposed to get the cards this next weekend…I am sending a letter to my Congressmen telling them NOT to do what this Bishop here wants. Here is the way to handle illegal immigration…

1. Stop the freebees at hospitals, welfare, schools
2. Mandate employers use e-verify to tell and then deny if illegals are aplying for jobs…No jobs…no illegals
   AMEN

 

[fish90]

We are supposed to get the cards this next weekend…I am sending a letter to my Congressmen telling them NOT to do what this Bishop here wants. Here is the way to handle illegal immigration…

1. Stop the freebees at hospitals, welfare, schools
2. Mandate employers use e-verify to tell and then deny if illegals are aplying for jobs…No jobs…no illegals
   AMEN

Maybe stop the freebees at schools, but do you seriously want immigrants dying?

Another good alternative is to look at the 14th amendment. Here, a statement which that states all citizens must have at least one parent as a citizen would be a good step. That way, you stop illegal immigrant mothers from making their children U.S. citizens because of some border. Also, deportation would be much easier.

 

[selylidne]

The argument in favor of this goes by stating that the immigration law is unjust and so is not a law to follow. Catholic teaching tells that people have the right to migrate and to stay in their own place.

I have trouble accepting this. Good thing I am not a moral leader. Let’s pray that they make the correct decision, whatever it may be!

Of course people have that right. I don’t understand where fervent border-control believers suppose the state gets a right to criminalize something so basic to human life as movement. That would be a common bad, not a common good. It can’t possibly be a just law, except perhaps in rare cases of quarantine or if we were genuinely so crowded we couldn’t accept one more person. Incidentally, having these unjust laws makes us less safe, since if migration were legal we could check those entering for disease or criminal backgrounds.

Of all the issues our bishops speak publicly on, this one makes me most proud to be Catholic in the U.S., as it stands so squarely for Christ against the nationalist inhumanity of men (and women) to our brothers (and sisters) who happen to live on the other side of a fictional line in the dirt.

 

[TEPO]

Of course people have that right. I don’t understand where fervent border-control believers suppose the state gets a right to criminalize something so basic to human life as movement. That would be a common bad, not a common good. It can’t possibly be a just law, except perhaps in rare cases of quarantine or if we were genuinely so crowded we couldn’t accept one more person. Incidentally, having these unjust laws makes us less safe, since if migration were legal we could check those entering for disease or criminal backgrounds.

Of all the issues our bishops speak publicly on, this one makes me most proud to be Catholic in the U.S., as it stands so squarely for Christ against the nationalist inhumanity of men (and women) to our brothers (and sisters) who happen to live on the other side of a fictional line in the dirt.

I know nothing about this issue… But I am confused when you say “if migration were legal”…

Is migration to the United States illegal?

 

[crazzeto]

The argument in favor of this goes by stating that the immigration law is unjust and so is not a law to follow. Catholic teaching tells that people have the right to migrate and to stay in their own place.

I have trouble accepting this. Good thing I am not a moral leader. Let’s pray that they make the correct decision, whatever it may be!

I applude this post for humility, and I have to say I feel stuck in the middle too. One might say that my family immegrated legally (in reality, it was easy for us b/c my dad was already a citizen who happened to be living in Peru his birth country when he married my mom). I have cousins who went through the whole process legally, and family friends who did the same thing. So on that note, reconcilling illegals feels like a slap in the face.

On the otherhand, I believe devoutly that the CC is infallible on matters of faith and morals. I also beleive devoutly that they’ve managed to infallibly prove their position each time. And in this case, the CC has a very strong argument.

So I guess like you, I’ll just pray that the right thing happens. It is worth noting though, immigration laws are in fact, rooted in eugenics. That fact alone makes me somewhat uneasy about them.

 

[tafan]

I know nothing about this issue… But I am confused when you say “if migration were legal”…

Is migration to the United States illegal?

For the group of people, mexican laborers, the answer is generally yes. There are very, very few legal means for them to immigrate to this country. A fact that anti-immigration folks will rarely acknowledge. They also do not ackknowledge that, while these undocumented workers most probably did, commit a misdemeanor when they came across the border, they are probably not breaking a law by being here. That only occurs when they ignore a deportation order or stay beyond the time of a valid visa.
So what people advocate, is that for the equivilent of a speeding ticket, people should be denied education and emergency medical care.

 

[d97c]

You pro illegal alien folks are unreal. Illegals are self deporting because there is no work here with all the unemployment. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE UNSKILLED LESS-THAN-HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATED IMMIGRANTS ! Hire an American who needs a job…
and is your real philosophy that if I cant get something legally, I can get it illegally??..because it is just tooooo tough to get it otherwise???

Great…thats a heck of a precedent ! So I can cut in front of another legal immigrant who is waiting because he or she followed the law? I can decide to steal someone’s identity or SS # and if i violate the law the good ol church will pay my may???
Catholics do NOT have to support the details of the Bishops solutions to illegal aliens.

cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[selylidne]

You pro illegal alien folks are unreal. Illegals are self deporting because there is no work here with all the unemployment. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE

The right to move freely and seek a better life isn’t about whether a person is “needed” or wanted. It’s that kind of thinking that leads people to justify abortion of undesired children. These are other humans we’re talking about, equally created in the image of God.

UNSKILLED LESS-THAN-HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATED IMMIGRANTS !

Characterizing all illegal immigrants as unskilled and uneducated is to deny them human and individual dignity and to heap scorn on them as scapegoats and so encourage violence against them. Getting rid of the scapegoat will not help anything. They are not the cause of our economic troubles; it was the spendthrift ways of the U.S. itself, governmentally and individually, that lead to our situation.

Hire an American who needs a job…

I am called to love my neighbor as myself. When Christ was asked who counted as a neighbor, the parable he told explicity used a traveling non-countryman.

and is your real philosophy that if I cant get something legally, I can get it illegally??..because it is just tooooo tough to get it otherwise???

Not in general. But when what is illegal is freedom of movement and the ability to make a living to support one’s family, then Yes, it is appropriate to do so illegally.

Great…thats a heck of a precedent ! So I can cut in front of another legal immigrant who is waiting because he or she followed the law?

This particular law is not just and so has no claim to being followed as a matter of fairness. What would be fair is if all who are healthy, without criminal backgrounds or serious suspicion, and who have a place to stay (i.e. not on the street) could simply enter and depart as desired. What would be even more fair is if we strongly encouraged the governments in their homelands to cease their corrupt oppression so that the people can prosper without breaking up their families and communities to seek a better life here.

I can decide to steal someone’s identity or SS # and if i violate the law the good ol church will pay my may???

Stealing someone’s IDs is damaging to them and cannot be condoned. Although it does not wholly exculpate the thieves, it remains an important factor that we drive them to crime by unjustly preventing them from working legally. The just and peaceable solution is to remove the barriers to working safely and legally.

Catholics do NOT have to support the details of the Bishops solutions to illegal aliens.

cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

That’s true, we don’t have to support the details of the Bishop’s solutions. What we must support is hospitality to the stranger, kindness to the suffering, generosity to the poor, good will toward all, and the steadfast upholding of the human dignity of all persons whatever their country of origin.

 

[d97c]

You said–>“The right to move freely and seek a better life isn’t about whether a person is “needed” or wanted. It’s that kind of thinking that leads people to justify abortion of undesired children. These are other humans we’re talking about, equally created in the image of God.”

Look…Illegal aliens are God’s children too. I agree, but please do not equate innocent abortion victims with illegal aliens. The right to move is hardly equal to the right to be born ! The catechism states the following:

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.

I’ve highlighted three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

This is a very different picture of how immigration should work than is presently being advocated by some.

Of course, what the Catechism has to say cannot in such a brief space represent all that moral theology would have to say about this topic.

For example, this passage of the Catechism does not mention another humanitarian endeavor that is incumbent on prosperous nations, which is teaching underdeveloped nations how to grow economically so that all of their citizens may benefit and not just the lucky few who can immigrate.

Since the latter humanitarian endeavor cures the problem at the source, it is the one that would be preferred by moral theology. Orderly, regulated immigration is a stopgap for cases in which this doesn’t work, but the goal must be primarily to help other nations shake off the problems (such as corruption and legal barriers to starting and maintaining businesses) that keep their populations in poverty.

You will note in this that I haven’t said anything about whether the U.S. has or has not absorbed all the immigrants it can or what the requirements on immigrants to the U.S. should be or what should be done with people who are present in the United States illegally.

I’m simply trying to point to certain parameters of the discussion as they are articulated in the Catechism.

 

[fish90]

So what people advocate, is that for the equivilent of a speeding ticket, people should be denied education and emergency medical care.

Maybe education and social security but not emergency medical care nor other types of welfare (food, water, warm shelter, etc.) Education can be denied, because these people will not die from a lack of education. I thought that the Catholic Church prohibits stealing. Is not paying taxes and then expecting the reward of education and social security a form of stealing? These are just my thoughts.

Best,
fish90

 

[tafan]

Maybe education and social security but not emergency medical care nor other types of welfare (food, water, warm shelter, etc.) Education can be denied, because these people will not die from a lack of education. I thought that the Catholic Church prohibits stealing. Is not paying taxes and then expecting the reward of education and social security a form of stealing? These are just my thoughts.

Best,
fish90

I agree about social security, for different reasons, but nevertheless.
As for education, seems short sighted. Their kids, if they are here, are often US citizens. They will be here for their life. Seems awful shortsighted to have a group of peole uneducated for life seems short sighted.
And I don’t think the government owes them emergency food or shelter. That is for other charitable orgizations and besides. Besides.if they get to the point of starvation, they have long since gone back to Mexico. If they are at such a low level of poverty that they can’t eat, it is cheaper for them to live in Mexico.
As for water, I hope we haven’t gotten to the point that people have to follow the law to get drinking water
Medical care: at least around here, county hospitals cannot turn down anyone for emergency care. Not the most efficient solution for a lot of folks (legal and non-legal), but nevertheless not as bad as some make it out to be. I think we should continue to provide that to everyone.

 

[tafan]

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

I would like to point out, one more time, that those of us who are pro-immigration do NOT a) think (or speak) that catholic reaching requires an open border and B) do not advocate an open border.
The bishops acknowledge the right of the government to limit immigration and control borders at least 4 times in their primary document on the issue. It is one thing to reject the bishop’s teaching on these matters, it is another thing to continueally misrepresent it.

We do not advocate uncontrolled immigration, we just happen not to be followers of Malthusian economics. We believe that a steady increase in population does not imply that our economy is doomed. As such, it is very possible for us to share our country with many new immigrants.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I would like to point out, one more time, that those of us who are pro-immigration do NOT a) think (or speak) that catholic reaching requires an open border and B) do not advocate an open border.
The bishops acknowledge the right of the government to limit immigration and control borders at least 4 times in their primary document on the issue. It is one thing to reject the bishop’s teaching on these matters, it is another thing to continueally misrepresent it.

We do not advocate uncontrolled immigration, we just happen not to be followers of Malthusian economics. We believe that a steady increase in population does not imply that our economy is doomed. As such, it is very possible for us to share our country with many new immigrants.

I think that many of the people who post here are pro-immigration; believe in government’s right to control our borders and limit immigration. I know that our immigration laws support an orderly flow of more than 1 million new immigrants each year into our country. This does not include the hundreds of thousands of people who legally cross our borders each day to work and return home each evening. Given the state of our economy we may need to cut that number back while we recover and help our current citizens.

Speaking for myself only, I do not support illegal immigration. Those found to be here illegally should be politely escorted to the most convenient point of entry for their country and returned. Those who attack border patrol agents should be criminally prosecuted, under military law not civil, as should those who are smuggling drugs.