Catholic Church Position on Immigration

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Some liberal Catholics, like Washington Post writer Stevens-Arroyo, seem to misunderstand Catholic teaching regarding immigration.

For the record, here’s what the Catechism says:

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.

 

[diggerdomer]

Some liberal Catholics, like Washington Post writer Stevens-Arroyo, seem to misunderstand Catholic teaching regarding immigration.

For the record, here’s what the Catechism says:

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.

usccb.org/jfi/bishops-call.html

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

usccb.org/jfi/bishops-call.html

Do you have a point?

Are you suggesting that the Bishops are contradicting the Catechism? I don’t see it.

 

[diggerdomer]

Do you have a point?

Are you suggesting that the Bishops are contradicting the Catechism? I don’t see it.

I am saying the Bishops teach in accordance with the Catechism. If you see that the U.S. Bishops contradict the Catechism, please clarify. Thanks.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I am saying the Bishops teach in accordance with the Catechism. If you see that the U.S. Bishops contradict the Catechism, please clarify. Thanks.

I don’t.

You are are not addressing the point of this post, which is that many liberal “Catholics”, including this author, don’t even know what the position of the Church is on multiple issues.

Liberals don’t acknowledge the right of the US to regulate immigration.

 

[scipio337]

I am saying the Bishops teach in accordance with the Catechism. If you see that the U.S. Bishops contradict the Catechism, please clarify. Thanks.

I didn’t see anything in the letter contradicting the Catechism. It calls for reforms and changes to the current laws, not ignoring the ones already in place.

 

[KathleenGee]

What people are trying to say is that there are illegals coming into this country to plunder.

I was getting the Mindzenty Report in the mid 1990’s. It was a journal reporting on communist activities throughout the world. Using my memory, an article was written by them between 1994 to 5 or '6. It was discussing the activities of the Marxists in South America. It stated that they were preparing an invasion of gangs into our borders. By 2005, we would see the effects of robbery, rapes, murders. Five thousand innocent Americans have lost their lives to car accidents or actual murders involving robbery or rape to illegal aliens. They are being covered now by scores of illegals coming in for work. There are neo Marxist organizations at work in our country that are fomenting the old Spanish War between the USA and Mexico, land claims, racism, and entitlements.

The problem is that America is being branded as bad by being concerned about the overflow and its effect, besides the crimes, and outside of the drug cartels, nobody is addressing the bad in Mexico and why people want to flee. You see a photograph of the Mexico/USA border and it is like black and white. One side prosperity and the other side, same climate and terrain, a barren desert with a few houses. But it is America that is bad…this is Marxism. I was in a country that went Marxist and the first day of its existence, it showed no regard for its own people. Later when so much destruction came to the country, the Marxists refused international aid…anyway, the seized newspapers said, ‘America is the Enemy of the World’.

Innocent illegals are being motivated to come here not just by the Marxists, or the drug cartels, or the human trafficking, but other powers – I assume, governmental as well, due to an age old grudge against the gringos.

Shows how much the power of forgiveness has. I have met illegals and found them very good. But I read all the time what is happening across town by the others who are deliberately abusing us, people with criminal minds.

There needs to be more balance by the Church on addressing the entire issue.

 

[KathleenGee]

Two additional point --is that Mexico will imprison anyone for years for illegal entry, and what is it with Mexico that people want to flee it?

 

[diggerdomer]

I don’t.

You are are not addressing the point of this post, which is that many liberal “Catholics”, including this author, don’t even know what the position of the Church is on multiple issues.

Liberals don’t acknowledge the right of the US to regulate immigration.

You didn’t answer the question I raised that you quoted.

 

[Hesychios]

There is a lot of iniquity in this world.

I am in favor of raising opportunities for a good life to everyone. Some nations are rich and some are very poor, but when one examines this carefully the disparity is not always clearly natural.

Such a case might be made that colonial powers made much of their wealth off of the backs of foreign people and their nations whom they despoiled. In some parts of the world, there are devastating famines which are completely unnecessary, but happen because the economic ‘system’ is rigged in such a way.

There are just too many examples to even seriously start illustrating.

It is not clear to me what is the right approach. I would certainly be in favor of a much more open immigration policy for most nations, and the electorate examining them with a Christian heart for fairness. For instance, I can’t immigrate to New Zealand simply because I am too old! To me that is strange and saddening, but not a devastating blow in my case. Still, every nation absolutely must control it’s borders and they have the sole sovereign right to set the parameters of entry.

My most serious concern is that I fear for any good Christians, Catholic or otherwise, to come to the United States and lose their Faith. I think it is a very common problem.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

My most serious concern is that I fear for any good Christians, Catholic or otherwise, to come to the United States and lose their Faith. I think it is a very common problem.

That is a legitimate fear, but I think it is far less likely to occur in the US than in Europe.

 

[KathleenGee]

Sub Sahara Africa in some countries ended up the pawn in international power politics.

And I believe the two most impoverishing issues affecting the livelihood of this part of the continent are most lethal natural diseases in an oppressive climate, and the lack of monogamy among the people. You can pour all the money you want in the transfer of wealth, but it will be immediately consumed many times by the wrong people and those who really need it never the aid. You have to have the infrastructure and enough people to maintain and promote it.

With modern communications, there are foreigners who go to work finding out which areas find the most benefits and then go there…one nationality in our country was famous for that and only wanted to work parttime.

I think the big problem is the issue of entitlement…you owe me…and I will take whatever I want…that is what we have been seeing in this country the past 30 years, and a contempt for the native people.

The Catholic parishes work very hard to look the other way and help newcomers assimilate and be sensitive to their cultures. And some immigrants I met 25 years ago don’t have the same attitude they did then, and am sure good hearted Americans changed that opinion.

People also come here and hear how bad America is. Then when they get here, they realize how good it is…now we are having great difficulties as neo Marxism has promoted so much anti-Americanism throughout the world…we are noting the decline. I remember how clean everything used to be…there is crime coming in everywhere…and i don’t mean illegals in that…it is just happening all over.

 

[Contarini]

Some liberal Catholics, like Washington Post writer Stevens-Arroyo, seem to misunderstand Catholic teaching regarding immigration.

For the record, here’s what the Catechism says:

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 don’t think there’s any misunderstanding of this passage going on, just a genuine difference of opinion on how to apply it to the U.S. situation.

What I find most objectionable about the “anti-immigrant” stance is the insistence that we can’t possibly give “amnesty” to people who have broken positive law–this insistence seems contrary to Catholic teaching to me because it pays no attention whatever to the question of whether the law conformed to natural law in the first place.

I think few people support the simple abolition of borders. The question is whether the current situation is just, and whether immigrants who break the law in order to provide for their families (as natural law requires them to do) are really committing an evil act.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Innocent illegals are being motivated to come here not just by the Marxists, or the drug cartels, or the human trafficking, but other powers – I assume, governmental as well, due to an age old grudge against the gringos.

How about the age-old desire to feed your family?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Liberals don’t acknowledge the right of the US to regulate immigration.

You did not link to the article so that we might make up our own minds. However, I did find what appears to be the article that has upset you, and I did not find any such claim there. Perhaps some other “liberals” do not acknowledge the right of the U.S. to regulate immigration law, but Prof. Stevens-Arroyo clearly does acknowledge this right, given his call for comprehensive immigration reform. Indeed, nearly everyone I know of who opposes strict enforcement of current policy does so because they think the current situation is unjust and needs to be reformed, not because they don’t think the U.S. has the right to regulate immigration at all. You need to provide specific examples of these “liberals” denying the U.S. such a right. And even then it won’t be clear how that relates to Stevens-Arroyo, or how he “misunderstands” the Catholic position, since he clearly is not among the “liberals” of whom you speak.

If you are saying that the U.S. has an unlimited right to regulate immigration–that no immigration regulations can ever be considered unjust and thus invalid in terms of natural law–then I think you are the one who does not understand Catholic teaching.

Edwin

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I don’t think there’s any misunderstanding of this passage going on, just a genuine difference of opinion on how to apply it to the U.S. situation.

What I find most objectionable about the “anti-immigrant” stance is the insistence that we can’t possibly give “amnesty” to people who have broken positive law–this insistence seems contrary to Catholic teaching to me because it pays no attention whatever to the question of whether the law conformed to natural law in the first place.

I think few people support the simple abolition of borders. The question is whether the current situation is just, and whether immigrants who break the law in order to provide for their families (as natural law requires them to do) are really committing an evil act.

Edwin

I think most people who support a strong border policy have no problem with path to amnesty for those who have been hear for years. There are vocal exceptions, of course, but I don’t think they are the majority.

I agree with Dennis Prager that we need a high fence and a big gate.

However, until we secure the border, all other policies are irrelevant.

This doesn’t change the truth that those who intentionally break the laws of the United States by illegally immigrating are violating Catholic teaching.

In addition, they have a responsibility to assimilate and become productive citizens, not protestors demanding spanish language ballots.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

If you are saying that the U.S. has an unlimited right to regulate immigration–that no immigration regulations can ever be considered unjust and thus invalid in terms of natural law–then I think you are the one who does not understand Catholic teaching.

Edwin

What nation on earth has a more just immigration policy than the United States?

This statement if yours appears to be a veiled insult with no substance.

Edit: Upon closer inspection I conclude that it is a veiled insult with no substance!

 

[Contarini]

What nation on earth has a more just immigration policy than the United States?

This statement if yours appears to be a veiled insult with no substance.

Edit: Upon closer inspection I conclude that it is a veiled insult with no substance!

It’s not veiled, just conditional. I gave priority to the more charitable supposition that you do *not *think the U.S. has an unlimited right to regulate immigration (regardless of justice and natural law), but rather labor under the curious but common delusion that defenders of undocumented immigrants oppose all regulation.

As you yourself admit, there are a lot of vocal anti-immigration folks who denounce any kind of amnesty. This is hardly a marginal opinion in the Republican Party–Mitt Romney forced McCain (to the shame of both of them) to back away from his support for amnesty in the 2008 primary. And I have frequently seen arguments on this forum to the effect that violation of the law by immigrants (not talking about people who commit crimes while here, just the “crime” of immigration itself) must be punished because this is some kind of moral absolute. That position really does reflect an ignorance of classical Catholic moral thought. I am happy to see that you do not share it.

Clearly we are talking past each other, and each attacking more extreme proponents of the other’s point of view. The difference is that you began this discussion by falsely accusing one of your fellow Catholics of holding the extreme point of view you detest (namely, that immigration should be absolutely unregulated), and have yet to point to anyone who actually holds it.

Nearly everyone admits that governments have the right to control their borders, particularly with the aim of preventing criminals from infiltrating the country.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I think most people who support a strong border policy have no problem with path to amnesty for those who have been hear for years. There are vocal exceptions, of course, but I don’t think they are the majority.

I’d love to think you were right. However, the 2008 Republican presidential primary gave me quite the opposite impression.

However, until we secure the border, all other policies are irrelevant.

I don’t think your priorities are in line with Catholic moral teaching here: not because border security is illegitimate or unimportant, but because it does not take precedence of the needs of the poor and vulnerable.

This doesn’t change the truth that those who intentionally break the laws of the United States by illegally immigrating are violating Catholic teaching.

Only if those laws are just and no higher moral responsibility is involved. I would agree that someone who has a decent (but not luxurious) life in Mexico, and crosses the border illegally in order to gain a higher standard of living for purely selfish reasons, is sinning. But I think it’s highly uncharitable and unrealistic (yes, cynicism can sometimes be unrealistic) to assume that this is the norm.

In addition, they have a responsibility to assimilate

Why? I think you are reading too much into the language you quoted in the OP about respecting the traditions of the country, especially given the statement of your hero Mr. Chesterton about America being founded on a “creed” rather than a “character” like European nations. Plenty of American citizens see cultural diversity as one of the country’s strengths. You may disagree with your fellow citizens on this point, but you have no right to demand that new immigrants agree with you and not with those who value diversity.

and become productive citizens, not protestors demanding spanish language ballots.

You are assuming irrationally that being a protestor is incompatible with being a productive citizen.

And you are completely failing to deal with the fact that large sections of the U.S. were Spanish-speaking before they were English-speaking, and were conquered in an unjust war. Did the English-speaking immigrants to Texas and California respect the traditions of the people already there? (That’s before we raise the whole question of the European conquest of the Americas.)

Edwin

 

[Hesychios]

… large sections of the U.S. were Spanish-speaking before they were English-speaking, and were conquered in an unjust war. Did the English-speaking immigrants to Texas and California respect the traditions of the people already there? (That’s before we raise the whole question of the European conquest of the Americas.)

Edwin

Wow, I am glad you brought that up.

That was a real case of immigrants abusing the hospitality of the host nation.

The same thing happened to Hawaii.