Catholic Church Position on Immigration

[dianaiad]

Yes, but I’ve already shown that breaking a law is not intrinsically sinful; if the law is unjust then breaking it could be a good or obligatory thing. Hiding Anne Frank from the German police was a good thing, but it broke the law.

However, there is nothing at all unjust about US immigration policies. For instance, were you aware that Mexican immigration policies insist that if you are ill…for instance, if you are diabetic or disabled in any way, or are blind, deaf or might in any other way be a charge on the state, they won’t let you in?

True, all immigrants to the USA must have medical exams to get a green card, but that’s to make sure all immunizations are up to date, and that your HIV, TB or STD’s are addressed, and stabilized before you get to walk in. These conditions don’t keep you OUT unless you are an active carrier and aren’t willing to do what you need to do to fix it.

So, do please go ahead; what is there about American immigration law that is unjust to you…other than you think that nobody should be required to obey them?

I think the real disagreement between you and I is whether the immigration policy we have now is just or not. But you haven’t shown that it’s just, you just keep repeating it’s wrong to break the law, illegals are criminals, etc. There’s no consideration on your part that economic hardship may drive them to break our laws in order to survive. That’s impossible for you to imagine for some reason.

Also, keep in mind that I’m the one who is seriously considering what the Catholic bishops have said on this matter and you’re the one who summarily rejects their advice on the Christian thing to do, on spurious grounds in my opinion. So I don’t know why you would feel the need to instruct me on the catechism’s definition of sin. Do you think the Catholic bishops also don’t know their catechism?

Actually, I’m the only person in here who has addressed the issue of the justice of current US immigration laws at all. I have a theory behind why pretty much nobody on the other side of this argument DOES that—it’s because they would look like complete and total idiots if they tried. US immigration laws are among the most lenient, if not THE most lenient, immigration laws on the planet.

You are the one claiming that they are not just. So it’s up to you to show us how they aren’t.

Good luck with that.

 

[tomarin]

TRUE…but Mexicans coming here Illegally, aren’t being persecuted by Mexico, for the most part. Not 11 -20 million people worth…AND if they were being persecuted…they get asylum protection…EVEN easier to get.

That’s not my point at all. My point is that just because a law is a law doesn’t make it sacrosanct. Therefore breaking a law is in some circumstances justified. It may or may not be in this case but if there’s one thing I wish you would take away from this exchange it’s that a law is not worth following if it’s a bad law. Just because something is lawful doesn’t make it moral or above human criticism.

When Ghandi was leading the Indian independence movement he made a point of breaking the laws of the British colonial government in order to illustrate that the colonial government had no legitimate authority over Indians. He was therefore a criminal in the eyes of the colonial government. Nevetheless most people today think he was right to do so.

Can you prove that it’s unjust or amoral? You stated it was but failed to give evidence.

I’m not entirely convinced that it is unjust but I think we need to take the Catholic bishops’ arguments seriously and not dismiss them as “false compassion” or ethnic pandering. As successors of the apostles their opinion should have a certain weight, even (dare I say especially since I consider myself a conservative believe it or not) when it contradicts conservative ideology. The evidence would simply be the imbalance between the need for labor on the parts of American employers and the need for jobs on the part of would-be immigrants – the conclusion is that it would be wrong to deny them jobs that they desperately need, if our economy has a surplus of them.

 

[tomarin]

You are the one claiming that they are not just. So it’s up to you to show us how they aren’t.

They’re not realistic. There’s obviously many more employers here willing to hire Mexicans and obviously more Mexicans willing to risk any number of dangers to get here and work, than there are visas being issued. That’s just the reality on the ground.

I do think people should obey the law including immigration laws but the Church is saying that some consideration has to be given for people who are doing it out of economic desperation. Which conforms to the Christian ideal as expressed in the Gospels, I think.

 

[dianaiad]

That’s not my point at all. My point is that just because a law is a law doesn’t make it sacrosanct. Therefore breaking a law is in some circumstances justified. It may or may not be in this case but if there’s one thing I wish you would take away from this exchange it’s that a law is not worth following if it’s a bad law. Just because something is lawful doesn’t make it moral or above human criticism.

However, if it IS a just law, as US immigration policies are, then what’s your problem? Honestly, I don’t think you have even looked at US immigration requirements. Before you decide that a law ‘must be’ unjust and thus appropriate to protest and break, it would be a good idea to find out what it is.

I had this same problem with SB 1070…all the objections and handwringing, the accusations and outrage—by people who didn’t bother to READ it.

When Ghandi was leading the Indian independence movement he made a point of breaking the laws of the British colonial government in order to illustrate that the colonial government had no legitimate authority over Indians. He was therefore a criminal in the eyes of the colonial government. Nevetheless most people today think he was right to do so.

Well, that was a rather different situation, y’know. If you carry the comparison to it’s proper conclusion, it is the illegal aliens who are acting the part of the British here.

I’m not entirely convinced that it is unjust but I think we need to take the Catholic bishops’ arguments seriously and not dismiss them as “false compassion” or ethnic pandering.

I think you should find out if those laws are truly unjust first, and then look at those statements in that light.

As successors of the apostles their opinion should have a certain weight, even (dare I say especially since I consider myself a conservative believe it or not) when it contradicts conservative ideology. The evidence would simply be the imbalance between the need for labor on the parts of American employers and the need for jobs on the part of would-be immigrants – the conclusion is that it would be wrong to deny them jobs that they desperately need, if our economy has a surplus of them.

Lessee…WHAT is the national unemployment rate right now? Oh, never mind the national rate. Let’s just look at two of the states that have the highest percentages of illegal aliens…California and Arizona. California’s unemployment rate RIGHT NOW is over 12%. in general, and in the areas that have the largest percentage of unemployed, it goes up to 16%.

In Arizona, RIGHT NOW, the state unemployment rate is at a little over 9%, and in the cities with the largest illegal alien population, it goes as high as 26% (Yuma)

Does that sound like we have plenty of jobs to go around to you?

I’m looking at the latest (just this morning, actually) Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers.

There are very, very few places in the USA today that have an unemployment rate below 9%. Those few are not exactly known as places where you will find illegal immigrants. I rather doubt, for instance, that there are many illegals in Bismark, North Dakota (3.1% unemployment, the lowest in the nation.)

Remember, these numbers count only those who haven’t given up, but are still looking, Most analysts figure that we need to add between 5 to 10% to those numbers to account for those who have run out of unemployment, and are simply trying to survive until the economy picks up. In other words, a ‘real’ estimate of unemployment would hover around 20%. You know, depression numbers.

From what I see of these tables, where the unemployment is low vs. high, I can see a pretty good corelation between populations of illegal aliens and unemployment. They ARE taking our jobs, jobs that, if they are available to American citizens, and those here legally, we do indeed 'want to do." The American work ethic still remains pretty strong.

 

[kimmielittle]

That’s not my point at all. My point is that just because a law is a law doesn’t make it sacrosanct. Therefore breaking a law is in some circumstances justified. It may or may not be in this case but if there’s one thing I wish you would take away from this exchange it’s that a law is not worth following if it’s a bad law. Just because something is lawful doesn’t make it moral or above human criticism.

When Ghandi was leading the Indian independence movement he made a point of breaking the laws of the British colonial government in order to illustrate that the colonial government had no legitimate authority over Indians. He was therefore a criminal in the eyes of the colonial government. Nevetheless most people today think he was right to do so.

Believe it or not I do not disagree here with you.

BUT my contention is , and always has been…it is not unjust or amoral in this instance, to expect the same from immigrants that we do for citizens. That we don’t grant the same “balance” in “Social Justice” to a selected group of the population. In this case Illegal immigrants.

People who know the immigration laws…but purposely make a conscious effort to disregard them. Using “Immigration Laws” are unjust" as an excuse. Denying Hundreds Of Millions of Mexican Immigrants seem to be able to live with them.

I’m not entirely convinced that it is unjust but I think we need to take the Catholic bishops’ arguments seriously and not dismiss them as “false compassion” or ethnic pandering.

The only Illegal Immigrants being addressed by the Church are Mexican - That IS pandering to a selected population.

As successors of the apostles their opinion should have a certain weight, even (dare I say especially since I consider myself a conservative believe it or not) when it contradicts conservative ideology.

ABSOLUTELY …BUT **if **they are saying that it’s alright to overlook…help…promote…hide…aid…Illegal Immigrants…then IMHO…They are missing that Social Justice demands Balanced Scales. Should we not also apply the same scales to ** citizen ** poor?

The evidence would simply be the imbalance between the need for labor on the parts of American employers and the need for jobs on the part of would-be immigrants – the conclusion is that it would be wrong to deny them jobs that they desperately need, if our economy has a surplus of them.

Would it not benefit more LEGAL Immigrants, who take on individual responsibility…by freeing up resources used to teat feed ILLEGALS…who do not wish / or strive… to be legal? People who suck from the teat but refuse to contribute as citizens.

Why hide and aid ILLEGALS when we can issue “Work Permits” to Legals?

 

[dianaiad]

They’re not realistic. There’s obviously many more employers here willing to hire Mexicans and obviously more Mexicans willing to risk any number of dangers to get here and work, than there are visas being issued. That’s just the reality on the ground.

Of course there are. If you were an employer and could hire a serf for a third what you would have to pay someone here legally, and knew that they could not protest ill treatment or demand benefits…and you were all about the ‘bottom line,’ wouldn’t YOU prefer an illegal alien to someone here legally–who could and would report you to the proper authorities and make sure you obeyed employment laws?

If you knew that you could get away with paying someone below minimum wages, under the table so that you didn’t have to pay social security or other taxes, wouldn’t you do that instead?

Many of these employers do just that.

Which is why, by the way, I haven’t heard anything but a Spanish accent coming out of a McDonalds speaker in years, and why all advertisements for construction foremen require that they be bilingual. It’s why jobs that used to pay $25 per hour plus benefits now pay $7.50…under the table. No benefits. It’s not that they 'do jobs Americans don’t want to do." It’s that they take jobs we WOULD do–but would insist that the employer obeyed the law regarding pay and working conditions. They have brought a third world culture here, and employers are quite willing to take advantage of that.

I do think people should obey the law including immigration laws but the Church is saying that some consideration has to be given for people who are doing it out of economic desperation. Which conforms to the Christian ideal as expressed in the Gospels, I think.

Of course. They are, however, suggesting the wrong things. They are telling US that WE have to do their jobs for them. Compassion means that…you do it yourself. Get programs going that will enable these folks to become legal BY FOLLOWING THE LAWS AS THEY EXIST. Do you have ANY idea how easy it is to get a green card if you have family here in the USA? It’s a slam dunk! SHEESH.

 

[tomarin]

However, if it IS a just law, as US immigration policies are, then what’s your problem?

It’s an open question to me. I take the opinion of the bishops seriously, because I take Christianity seriously and I want to support just policies. I think there may be something seriously wrong with our immigration policy (namely that it keeps the number of legal Mexican immigrants artificially low) in part because it troubles the conscience of the bishops.

Well, that was a rather different situation, y’know. If you carry the comparison to it’s proper conclusion, it is the illegal aliens who are acting the part of the British here.

Maybe so, but it illustrates nicely a principle that I’m trying to get across, that in some circumstances breaking a bad law is the right thing to do. Being a criminal in one situation is morally laudatory in another.

I think you should find out if those laws are truly unjust first, and then look at those statements in that light.

I lean toward a more generous immigration policy, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise. These are weighty matters, you know.

Lessee…WHAT is the national unemployment rate right now?

And I think I read that the rate of illegal immigration from south of the border has slowed since the economy imploded. Which suggests that they come here out of economic necessity to find work. If there’s no work, they don’t come. It’s not just for the perverse pleasure of flaunting our laws.

I have considered the possible damage more immigration would do to native workers, and also the fact that illegal immigrants in the labor pool may drive workers’ wages down. That’s one of the reasons that I’m not entirely convinced one way or the other. However my impression is that for whatever reason Americans don’t want to do the jobs that Mexicans take when they come here, or at least they’re not willing to do the jobs at the rate that Mexicans are. Around this area I see a lot of Mexicans working in construction and renovation jobs. And if they’re not Mexicans they’re Albanians. For some reason native American construction workers are scarce around here. They tend to be foremen.

There’s also the question of what happens when you legalize previously illegal workers. When they come out of the shadows they too tend to ask for more money and refuse unpleasant tasks. So if the answer to the question is amnesty, you may be creating a situation in which these new workers will compete with native workers and will not do “jobs Americans won’t do.” Sometimes I think the status quo has its advantages.

 

[kimmielittle]

It’s an open question to me. I take the opinion of the bishops seriously, because I take Christianity seriously and I want to support just policies. I think there may be something seriously wrong with our immigration policy (namely that it keeps the number of legal Mexican immigrants artificially low) in part because it troubles the conscience of the bishops.

Maybe so, but it illustrates nicely a principle that I’m trying to get across, that in some circumstances breaking a bad law is the right thing to do. Being a criminal in one situation is morally laudatory in another.

I lean toward a more generous immigration policy, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise. These are weighty matters, you know.

And I think I read that the rate of illegal immigration from south of the border has slowed since the economy imploded. Which suggests that they come here out of economic necessity to find work. If there’s no work, they don’t come. It’s not just for the perverse pleasure of flaunting our laws.

I have considered the possible damage more immigration would do to native workers, and also the fact that illegal immigrants in the labor pool may drive workers’ wages down. That’s one of the reasons that I’m not entirely convinced one way or the other. However my impression is that for whatever reason Americans don’t want to do the jobs that Mexicans take when they come here, or at least they’re not willing to do the jobs at the rate that Mexicans are. Around this area I see a lot of Mexicans working in construction and renovation jobs. And if they’re not Mexicans they’re Albanians. For some reason native American construction workers are scarce around here. They tend to be foremen.

There’s also the question of what happens when you legalize previously illegal workers. When they come out of the shadows they too tend to ask for more money and refuse unpleasant tasks. So if the answer to the question is amnesty, you may be creating a situation in which these new workers will compete with native workers and will not do “jobs Americans won’t do.” Sometimes I think the status quo has its advantages.

You are aware aren’t you that in 1986 Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants was passed?

Here is what happened:

** Failed Amnesty Legislation of 1986 Haunts the Current Immigration Bills in Congress **

 By [RACHEL L. SWARNS](http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/rachel_l_swarns/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Published: May 23, 2006
WASHINGTON, May 22 — Day in and day out, as the immigration debate boils, the halls of Congress are haunted by the specter of Senate Bill 1200, the failed amnesty legislation of 1986.
Skip to next paragraph**

**

President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.

HERE

 

[tomarin]

You are aware aren’t you that in 1986 Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants was passed?

Here is what happened:

Hence the final sentence of my last post: “sometimes I think the status quo has its advantages.”

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This whole thread has been rendered moot, sadly, by the liberal activist judge on the take for Obama today who ruled against the Arizona immigrant law. Looks like business as usual! Turn the other cheek and pretend everyone’s legal, let 'em keep flowing in here en masse sucking up our social services to the brink as we spend ourselves into oblivion with a deficit that is beyond our comprehension…good times! Cardinal Mahoney and his social justice hippie cronies should be in heaven with today’s ruling…

 

[dianaiad]

It’s an open question to me. I take the opinion of the bishops seriously, because I take Christianity seriously and I want to support just policies. I think there may be something seriously wrong with our immigration policy (namely that it keeps the number of legal Mexican immigrants artificially low) in part because it troubles the conscience of the bishops.

They do NOT keep Mexican immigrants ‘artificially low,’ actually. The proportion of legal Mexican immigrants far outweigh the relative population of the country.

Maybe so, but it illustrates nicely a principle that I’m trying to get across, that in some circumstances breaking a bad law is the right thing to do. Being a criminal in one situation is morally laudatory in another.

That’s fine, but irrelevant to THIS discussion.

I lean toward a more generous immigration policy, but I’m open to being convinced otherwise. These are weighty matters, you know.

The problem is, if the USA gets more generous, we may as well take down the borders, period.

And I think I read that the rate of illegal immigration from south of the border has slowed since the economy imploded. Which suggests that they come here out of economic necessity to find work. If there’s no work, they don’t come. It’s not just for the perverse pleasure of flaunting our laws.

Nobody breaks a law just to be breaking them. (with the possible exception of Ghandhi, and even then he had a different motive…) They break them because for some reason they think that what they want to do is more important than the law against doing what they want to do.

I have considered the possible damage more immigration would do to native workers, and also the fact that illegal immigrants in the labor pool may drive workers’ wages down. That’s one of the reasons that I’m not entirely convinced one way or the other. However my impression is that for whatever reason Americans don’t want to do the jobs that Mexicans take when they come here, or at least they’re not willing to do the jobs at the rate that Mexicans are. Around this area I see a lot of Mexicans working in construction and renovation jobs. And if they’re not Mexicans they’re Albanians. For some reason native American construction workers are scarce around here. They tend to be foremen.

That isn’t by choice. As I mentioned, illegal aliens drive the pay scale down. If they are willing to work for less than minimum wage, then why WOULD people who used to do those jobs for $20 + an hour, plus benefits, want to do that?

There’s also the question of what happens when you legalize previously illegal workers. When they come out of the shadows they too tend to ask for more money and refuse unpleasant tasks. So if the answer to the question is amnesty, you may be creating a situation in which these new workers will compete with native workers and will not do “jobs Americans won’t do.” Sometimes I think the status quo has its advantages.

yes. To those who exploit these people.

 

[KathleenGee]

Gurney,

Yes Catholic teaching upholds the sovereignty of a nation and its people have rights to protect their borders, especially ours that are being exploited…as the phrase used…false compassion.

 

[tomarin]

Gurney,

Yes Catholic teaching upholds the sovereignty of a nation and its people have rights to protect their borders, especially ours that are being exploited…as the phrase used…false compassion.

I still think it’s presumptous to call other people’s concern for others “false” compassion. Wouldn’t it be more charitable to regard the compassion as true and sincere but misguided? Especially in the case of the Catholic bishops?

Could it be that they have to answer to a higher authority than the American people? And that that is a good check on our own (understandable) tendency to place our needs above others?

 

[dianaiad]

I still think it’s presumptous to call other people’s concern for others “false” compassion. Wouldn’t it be more charitable to regard the compassion as true and sincere but misguided? Especially in the case of the Catholic bishops?

Could it be that they have to answer to a higher authority than the American people? And that that is a good check on our own (understandable) tendency to place our needs above others?

“true” compassion absolutely requires putting the needs of others above your own…but not completely abrogating your own needs in return. That serves no-one.

My humble suggestion, given that the Catholic church is so very large…and collectively so very wealthy (and yes, you are, if only in sheer numbers of people who can and should be volunteering and helping each other!) is that you aid your people WHERE THEY ARE. If we are going to talk specifically about Hispanics, the place they are coming FROM is a place of great natural resources–agricultural, mineral, tourist attractions, natural beauty…there is no reason that the people there should be so desperate that they can see the desert of Arizona and a permanent underclass as a step UP.

So you want to show true compassion? Go THERE and fix things!

 

[KathleenGee]

Tomarin,

When I was young, I worked with Italian missionaries in Mozambique. There is a book I am waiting for that was written by a Protestant minister, and the book is entitled, more or less, ‘The Killing Fields of Mozambique’. It was a Portuguese colony. When I was there, it became Marxist over night, and anti-American.

The day of independence’s national paper had headlines proclaiming, ‘America is the Enemy of the World’. And this mindset is on our president’s non-vetted executive council. America is to be blamed for all the world’s problems. It is the mantra said around the world.

Interestingly enough in my travels, the poorest countries, even in Europe, had the rudest and most self-centered people. The more prosperous and generous the country, the more polite and considerate the local people.

I just spoke with a non-denominational missionary at a private home the other night. We both agreed that you can pour all the money you want into these poor countries. But the help will either be stolen, as was the case of the Russian spy who stole $500 billion dollars of Food for Oil program, – or there won’t be the infrastructure to distribute aid properly to those in need.

And if those in need do get the help, it is consumed, and you are back to zero. What we are dealing with in rich vs poor nations is the local mentality. The missionary told me of one country in the Sub Sahara where they were mining for ore, and the company intended to also work to bring profit back to the country. They were losing ore. So they began videotaping at night. Out of the dark came thousands, not 5 or 100, but several thousand local men who went in to steal, and then cover the area with poison. I went to the Zambezi River with my priest when I first got there. He told me they repeatedly told the natives to move away from the river before the Cabora Basa dam was opened. They refused and drowned. The missionary told me of blood that was being collected in a native hospital. One day the medical person came into see an African dip his finger into the batch, thus contaminating it. He said it was OK because he washed his hands beforehand. I instructed natives not to drink water without boiling, and one said she would not serve her husband a drink with a frog in it. I am hearing of conditions of Africa going back just a year or so, and there has been no change since I was there in the mid 70’s.

One thing that was tantamount in helping these people was not to give them hand outs. You give them hand outs, you cripple them. You teach them agriculture, you teach them hygiene, and good water systems. Most of all, you share with them the Lord. The Marxists destroyed the Catholic infrastructure, along with the South African based rebel group. But there are simple Christian communities intact, of peace and goodness, who have basic education. For them, it is worth it. And the Italian missionaries are still supporting and visiting them. They now have African bishops. But it is slow. And AIDS came after I left. Both women and men have multiple partners in the general population. Only Christianity and teaching people to better care for themselves can help.

You only have a certain segment of the population, that is capable of going overseas to get an education, to work to develop a global economic infrastructure. It is a constant struggle for them as they are dealing with so many forces against them.

We have the poor because if not, we would be greedy and self centered. We will always have the poor. But the greater issue is what is truly helping them? And with the militancy we are witnessing here at our borders, it is contrived and destructive and deliberate. There are segments in these populations that have no other intent but to come in and take over, to cause mayhem, plundering and murder.

In the mid '90’s, I read the Mindzenty Report. It was already exposing the Marxists organizations in South America who were preparing Central American thugs to violate our borders, to come in to commit crimes as we are seeing. Mexico is also allowing s sex criminals to pass our borders. My own daughters were stalked by Central American men. The school had to call the police on a gardener across the street from the school.

You have to separate who is victim and who is militant. And I am seeing militancy and ‘take over’ attitude by a professional minister. I am intending now to go to the Hispanic priests in the parish. It is an American parish. It is not Hispanic. Most of all it is Catholic. We cannot excuse illegals because we think they are Catholic. Many don’t go to church and the Hispanic priests, who are foreign born, are working on church unity and working out these issues.

 

[tomarin]

So you want to show true compassion? Go THERE and fix things!

I would say compassion is helping people in need wherever you find them. But I understand your point.

 

[tomarin]

One thing that was tantamount in helping these people was not to give them hand outs. You give them hand outs, you cripple them. You teach them agriculture, you teach them hygiene, and good water systems. Most of all, you share with them the Lord. The Marxists destroyed the Catholic infrastructure, along with the South African based rebel group. But there are simple Christian communities intact, of peace and goodness, who have basic education. For them, it is worth it. And the Italian missionaries are still supporting and visiting them. They now have African bishops. But it is slow. And AIDS came after I left. Both women and men have multiple partners in the general population. Only Christianity and teaching people to better care for themselves can help.

I have a hard time distinguishing between Christian charity and handouts.

The things we have don’t really belong to us, they are entrusted to us by God. So we should be willing to share them with people who are in need. That’s how I read charity, anyway.

 

[tomarin]

That’s fine, but irrelevant to THIS discussion.

If people make the argument that we shouldn’t help Mexicans here illegally because they broke our laws then I think it’s entirely relevant.

 

[Nicea325]

If people make the argument that we shouldn’t help Mexicans here illegally because they broke our laws then I think it’s entirely relevant.

And the problem I see is that these so-called laws seem to focus on Hispanics.What about white people from Europe? I know thre has to be illegal Europeans here,but are overlooked because they are white.

 

[KathleenGee]

Again, the movement is ideaologically contrived and it is to take back the SW to the Hispanics…if the area was impoverished like what they have down south, of course, the people wouldn’t want it.

I see Christ as the Good Shepherd Who goes out to find the Lost Sheep…we are all the Lost Sheep…and the Lord says if someone steals your jacket, let him have it. If he strikes you, turn the cheek. Righteous in Jesus Christ is gained one step at a time.

True charity develops the human person and teaches that person morality, particularly the living reality of Christ.

I read recently that independent male voters have a recognizable number of Catholic voters. They want concrete, not ideology.