Catholic Position on Immigration for Non Catholics

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Many non-Catholic Amerians have mistaken views about the Church’s position on immigration. This is understandable.

The liberal media consistently quotes leftist Catholics and gives the impression that these leftists speak for the Church. This is particularly the case in recent weeks regarding Arizona’s new immigration law.

The position of the Church seems to be rational and humane, but it is not well know by the American public.

This ignorance is detrimental to both the Church and to the nation. The following quotes from the Catechism and from the VP of the USCCB(US Council of Catholic Bishops) will help set the record straight.

Catholic Catechism:

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.”

Statement from USCCB:

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable,” he said. “As our testimony points out, comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”

usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-134.shtml

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The USCCB has outlined my exact beliefs about immigration reform. I think that we, as a wealthy nation, should welcome those who are coming to our country to legitimately find work, support their families, and leave behind oppression.

I also think, that in light of protecting Americans, that certain rules need to govern immigration. We can only take on so many outsiders (what with jobs already being as scarce as they are) and certain measures need to be in place to protect american livelihood. I firmly believe that with the influx of non-english speakers, a national language needs to be declared.

Bascailly, Cesar Chavez was an amazing guy. He took a stand against illegal immigration because it invalidated people who fought so hard and so long to come here for honest work, but undercutting minimum wage, and lessening the rights for workers.

 

[PAboy57]

thanks for the great info. i just knew their had to be a proper perspective on all of this.

seems we always go to the right or the left to get the opinion somebody wants to hear.

thanks

 

[Rightlydivide]

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today

cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

 

[tomarin]

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable,” he said. “As our testimony points out, comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”

First of all, many of the bishops are actually liberal, socially at least. Remember how we like to say that Catholicism is not a political party and some Catholic positions will sound liberal and others will sound conservative to the politically-minded? Is that not true anymore?

Secondly, while this language you quoted sounds a bit tough, it’s not clear whether the immigration reform they recommend involves deporting the illegal immigrants to Mexico where they will wait at the back of the line. My impression is that conservatives regard any immigration “reform” that doesn’t involve deportation as amnesty (which they have reason to do – it is amnesty). Does the USCCB support amnesty? I suspect that’s exactly what they mean by “immigration reform”. Everyone who talks about “immigration reform” is talking about amnesty; it’s a euphemism.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

First of all, many of the bishops are actually liberal, socially at least. Remember how we like to say that Catholicism is not a political party and some Catholic positions will sound liberal and others will sound conservative to the politically-minded? Is that not true anymore?

Secondly, while this language you quoted sounds a bit tough, it’s not clear whether the immigration reform they recommend involves deporting the illegal immigrants to Mexico where they will wait at the back of the line. My impression is that conservatives regard any immigration “reform” that doesn’t involve deportation as amnesty (which they have reason to do – it is amnesty). Does the USCCB support amnesty? I suspect that’s exactly what they mean by “immigration reform”. Everyone who talks about “immigration reform” is talking about amnesty; it’s a euphemism.

I think your impression of conservatives is flawed. Conversatives, like Catholics, hold a variety of views on many issues.

The position of the Catholic Church is nearly identical to that of George Bush.

I support it as well. Those who want to participate in our society as legal citizens should be welcomed. The circumstances that led to many illegal immigrants coming to America are relevant, but not primary. Those already here who want to integrate and become productive Americans should be given that opportunity, IMO.

Those involved in crime or who want to damage our nation and its culture should be deported.

For the record, I hope that the future of the Catholic Church is one without any liberal bishops!

 

[havana1]

Statement from USCCB:

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable,” he said. “As our testimony points out, comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”

usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-134.shtml

And how many Catholic churches require proof of citizenship before registering with the parish? That is, in essence, what you’re suggesting: that proof of citizenship must be submitted when registering with a parish, and that priests will have to check for green cards before they administer any sacraments to anybody who “looks” like they might be here illegally. (i.e., Hispanic, of course, since Canadians with expired visas don’t “look” like they’re here illegally.)

Getting “back in line” costs thousands of dollars in most cases, with no guarantee of admittance. Sounds like the phrase “no salvation outside of the Catholic church” should be replaced with “no salvation for anyone who’s here illegally.” The rock upon which Jesus founded his church knows no borders.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

And how many Catholic churches require proof of citizenship before registering with the parish? That is, in essence, what you’re suggesting: that proof of citizenship must be submitted when registering with a parish, and that priests will have to check for green cards before they administer any sacraments to anybody who “looks” like they might be here illegally. (i.e., Hispanic, of course, since Canadians with expired visas don’t “look” like they’re here illegally.)

Getting “back in line” costs thousands of dollars in most cases, with no guarantee of admittance. Sounds like the phrase “no salvation outside of the Catholic church” should be replaced with “no salvation for anyone who’s here illegally.” The rock upon which Jesus founded his church knows no borders.

This has nothing to do with Church membership.

The issue is the law. The Church is advocating that individuals follow the laws of the countries where they live.

It’s not that complicated.

 

[kimmielittle]

And how many Catholic churches require proof of citizenship before registering with the parish? That is, in essence, what you’re suggesting: that proof of citizenship must be submitted when registering with a parish, and that priests will have to check for green cards before they administer any sacraments to anybody who “looks” like they might be here illegally.

IMHO this is absolute nonsense.

You can’t contort what the Bishops said about Illegal Immigration to fit your statement, no matter how hard you try.

(i.e., Hispanic, of course, since Canadians with expired visas don’t “look” like they’re here illegally.)

This remark IMHO is racist. Maybe, we should check our own racist attitudes before we accuse others?

Getting “back in line” costs thousands of dollars in most cases, with no guarantee of admittance.

Could you please give reference for this statement?

The rock upon which Jesus founded his church knows no borders.

ABSOLUTELY, but it isn’t for the Church that people Immigrate - otherwise, they would apply for asylum status. They don t come to USA for the benefit of its Catholic Churches…Those Catholic Churches ] can be found in their own countries They come here for economic benefits offered by the USA. If they are benefiting by the very LAWS that allow economic benefits to LAW abiding citizens…Then they should also abide by those very LAWS

 

[KathleenGee]

The news reported yesterday that those who are working in border security are asking for the resignation of Mr. Morton, who heads ICE.

Their concern comes from dealing with the criminals coming across the borders. These criminals say that they will be back in a few days to commit crimes that if Americans committed them, they would be put into prison.

These criminals are held in detention centers where they can play bingo, play ball, and hang planters.

As I stated previously in another similar thread, the South American Marxists were preparing criminal gangs to come into the USA to do just what they are doing, and that it would become apparent by 2005. This article was written in the Mindzenty Report in the mid 90’s, the same time banks were being ordered by Fannie Mae to bring down lending standards through ideology…knowing full well people would not be able to pay back these loans.

I read a recent poll that Catholics tend to be independent and do not want ideology, but concrete solutions to our economy and society. It is an unjustice that a small amount of people control and squander wealth without any sense of humanity to those without. The gap between rich and poor is great. Salaries are going down. Businesses are sitting on alot of money but do not trust this extreme far left government and the future heavy taxation that will hurt the worker.

How this will affect illegal immigration, I don’t know. But I truly believe what is happening to our borders, our rule of law is being subverted by appointees who are idealogues and hate the common American people.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I just read something that caused me to wonder about my position on immigration. First, truth be told, I am the daughter of a legal immigrant. My Father came here as a child with his parents, legally ~ that is, through the regular immigration process. I am the first in my immediate family to be born in the US.

My recent reading has disclosed some interesting information, something I haven’t seen discussed ANYWHERE. I read it in a book and will see if I can find the citation, which may or may not have an internet link. I’ll do my best. I can’t print the book here! This is what I learned:

Beyond “illegal immigration”, in our country we have 2 processes that serve to increase the number of immigrants ~

1. 
   *]“Anchor” Babies
   *]Chain Migration
   
   “Anchor Babies” are the babies of illegal immigrants that, as long as they are considered US Citizens (something that some legal scholars dispute) can petition for their parents and other relatives to be legal residents or citizens. Usually “Anchor Babies” are also citizens of the country of their parents, just as the child of US persons who have a baby elsewhere would have US citizenship, by virtue of the citizenship of their parents.
   
   Anyone who thinks “Anchor Babies” only have US Citizenship are wrong.
   
   “Chain Migration” is the law, already in effect, that allows legal immigrants to sponsor other family members to obtain legal residency and/or citizenship. This process allows “anchor babies” to sponsor various family members and anyone who has US citizenship to sponsor family members.
   
   The thing that no one is talking about is a study that shows that, were we to give the current group of “illegal aliens” amnesty or citizenship (the number of these persons is estimated to be at least 12 million people) the combination of "anchor babies (who are not counted in the “illegal immigrant” numbers) and “chain migration” will produce** over 100 million potential additional immigrants.** That’s a number that is nearly 1/3 of our current population. That’s a HUGE number of people for our country to try to absorb. In fact, to absorb that number of people would no doubt be de-stabilizing to our country.
   
   I submit we need to consider the full effect of “amnesty” or “path to citizenship” before we make any decision about it. Unfortunately, I have not seen any media source providing the full information about the combined effect of amnesty, anchor babies & chain migration . The last round of amnesty didn’t fix the issue of illegal immigration, it simply led to the situation we have today. Shouldn’t we learn from that and do better?
   
   In saying this, I am not trying to deny anyone anything. Every person living in another country has a reasonable right to expect their government to act positively on their behalf. Yes, the US has acted as a recipient for those who were seeking a better life, but that ability to absorb is not infinite. The US cannot INFINITELY act as an escape valve for the problems of other countries. YES, we are the recipients of the “tired, poor, hungry and those ‘yearning to breathe free’” but we can’t absorb the entire world!
   
   In making our decisions about immigration, we have to consider the effect of absorbing the citizens of other countries into our population has on our current population. If we can’t take everyone, because we can’t take care of everyone, then we have to figure out the best way to absorb the additional residents/citizens.