Catholic Teaching on Immigration Policy and Universal Heathcare?

[Ender]

I am speaking specifically about the group of illegal immigrants I KNOW…

This is all interesting and your opinions about what should or should not be done might in fact be accurate but all of this misses the point of the thread. This is about what the Church teaches, not about what you personally believe and, on all of the points you raised, the Church has no position. You don’t want a fence built but the Church does not forbid it. You don’t think employers should be fined for hiring illegals but the Church does not forbid it. You want aliens to be able to pay a fee and obtain a work permit but the Church does not require it.

The question the OP asked was a very simple one: “Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?” The answer is no.

Ender

 

[Bill_7154]

This is all interesting and your opinions about what should or should not be done might in fact be accurate but all of this misses the point of the thread. This is about what the Church teaches, not about what you personally believe and, on all of the points you raised, the Church has no position. You don’t want a fence built but the Church does not forbid it. You don’t think employers should be fined for hiring illegals but the Church does not forbid it. You want aliens to be able to pay a fee and obtain a work permit but the Church does not require it.

The question the OP asked was a very simple one: “Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?” The answer is no.

Ender

So then the thread should end and should never have went anywhere in the first place. The answer to the question is ‘no’. /end thread? I am new to this forum. Is it forbidden/against the rules for people to share their views and opinions related to a thread topic in said thread or are the rules to very strictly adhere to addressing the original question in a new thread without any other commentary from anyone?

Please help me understand both the official rules regarding how to contirubute to threads and also accepted/tolerated practices as I am a little confused. In most all other forums I have ever been a part of posts in threads drift in and out of content related to the thread topic, including people stating their opinions and views of the topics and sometimes topics that are related to the topic but not specifically on the topic itself.

Are only strict and rigid responses that specifically answer a question the only type of responses allowed? Are people allowed to answer questions and then expand on their answers?

I’m confused becuase I am not sure if you are simply trying to educate me on the rules regarding how to participate in the forum, on accepted practices with respect to participating in the forum. I’m also wondering if my post offended you personally and you choose to respond the way you did for whatever reasons you may have.

In any event, I apologize for offering personal views on the topic if that has offended anyone and also apologize if it is against the rules to do so.
Peace

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am speaking specifically about the group of illegal immigrants I KNOW, …Plus, I know a very large group of them PERSONALLY. …

Curious that you assume that I also do not personally KNOW PERSONALLY the community I work with (from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala). I do.

Maybe someone else has watched that TV show ‘gangland’ that features different gangs around the country,

No sir I am not talking about television, but real life. Also, Brazilians are not the majroity of illegal immigrants in this country. Families do not “come here” “in order to” make sure their children join gangs. Of course not. What a concept. Gangs are not the only but one of the main results of fragmented families who cannot always arrive together for reasons of danger & practicality; and they also result when fathers, for economic reasons, need to virtually abandon their children in this country because the cost of living, relative to their skill level, education level, and the market for their services, is so very negative.

I will assume that you believe my personal reports of my personal knowledge of the people I speak of to be true and that you do not assume I am making up fabrications unless you tell me different.

Bill, I always assume that people are telling the truth. It’s the respectful and charitable thing to do.

But I am suggesting they would serve as excellent role models for inner city youth. Heck, they have served, and continue to serve, as excellent role models for ME.

Hard workers from any walk of life, and any personal origin, serve as excellent role models for me as well, and for any U.S. citizen. (I agree.) But the majority of illegal immigrants are not Brazilian, first of all. Second of all, the differentiation of cultures, including in this country, is complex. There is observation, admiration, on the one hand, and antagonism, suspicion, competition on the other. (Subculture to subculture, both legally and illegally here.) I do believe, nevertheless, that the population you earlier spoke of (poor urban blacks living within generational poverty) is aware of the hard work of other cultures. In fact, in the neighborhoods in which I work, very often there are poor urban youth in school with, and living next to, poor Asian youth. Nothing to do with Brazil or any country from Latin America. Poor Southeast Asian youth and poor Chinese-American youth from rural China. Yes, it is observed how hard they work, and the mixture of emotions that results from that observation includes the following: respect, envy, resentment, and rejection.

The Brazilians you are talking about and the Asian immigrants (more often legal than illegal) that I am talking about are more reflective of the dominant culture in the U.S. than are reflective of the culture you are describing in urban poor neighborhoods. And that’s the source of the conflict. Those poor families already know about the dominant culture; they’ve known about it for decades. Simply assuming they’ll be “good role models,” while a noble thought, does not work that way. Otherwise, the best role models of all – the poor who have “made it” outside the neighborhood and returned to be role models – wouldn’t be so often rejected as “sell-outs” by the remaining poor families.

In any case, that is off-topic, because the Church is not talking about Brazilian illegal immigrants or Asian legal immigrants “being role models” for the massive numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico (especially). Different culture, different expectations, different needs. The Church, in issuing principles for us to guide our approaches, is discussing poverty and survival, not role-modeling.

And I would rather see them be able to come here and pay a fee for entry into the USA in exchange for a work permit than pay human smugglers $15,000 each.

That’s legal immigration. Legal immigration is barely a controversy. Very few people oppose legal immigration, although many think the terms or the policies should be different. Illegal immigration is inhumane, and perpetrating it is inhumane, and supporting it is inhumane, and encouraging it is inhumane, i.m.o. And assuming that “the solution” to the poverty of another nation is to import those residents here in massive numbers, illegally, is inhumane. It’s draconian.

The people I know do not have criminal histories and are not criminals.

Nor are the people I know. That has nothing to do with the issue of a compromised economic future when you lack what is needed to make it in a rapidly changing society, and cannot make that differential up in enough time to improve your life over what you left.

With regards to illegal immigration in general: there is NO WAY to stop it. It comes down to the laws of supply and demand,

So you acknowledge that it’s a result of supply and demand. It is also a result of opportunity. So if supply and opportunity were available in Mexico (which has the wealth and resources, abundantly, to do that), then the demand to seek a compromised “solution” would vanish. It is entirely possible to divert the supply, the demand, and the opportunity, to Mexico. And the other inhumane thing about illegal immigration is that Mexicans, overwhelmingly, do not want to leave Mexico. They want to survive and have a good life in Mexico. It is inhumane to assume that the only way, or even the best way, to a better economic life is to remove them from their homeland. That’s sick, in fact.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Also, I do not believe in the concept of a Soverign Nation. I believe in the concept of Soverign Individuals.

In which case, you oppose what the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges about the concept of sovereign nations and the rights and responsibilities of sovereign nations. That’s nice, Bill, but you would be considered a radical in that case. The Magisterium of the Church requires us to abide by the doctrines of the Church, not to be radicals and come up with our own extreme doctines, or extreme interpretations of how the hierarchy has already interpreted their own doctrine.

I do not believe that people born on one side of a line drawn in the sand are of any more worth than people born on the other side of some other line drawn in the sand.

Immigration – legal and illegal – has absolutely nothing to do with personal worth. Opposing illegal immigration does not imply devaluing any individual from any other country. So your statement is a straw man.

Lots of us despise the entire inhumanity of illegal iimmigration – its effect on the immigrants themselves – the whole process of getting here, the rapes which occur to women and to men during the journey, the corrupt coyotes, the deaths which occur, and the conditions and exploitation which follow that immigration. That’s why we want to reduce the incentive to come here illegally. That’s why we want to augment the incentives to governments to improve conditions within their countries. That’s why we want to encourage pathways to legal immigration, such as national incentives to educate Mexicans so that they will have more options to migrate legally here with skills which the U.S. government and business sector perceives it needs.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is all interesting and your opinions about what should or should not be done might in fact be accurate but all of this misses the point of the thread. This is about what the Church teaches, not about what you personally believe and, on all of the points you raised, the Church has no position. You don’t want a fence built but the Church does not forbid it. You don’t think employers should be fined for hiring illegals but the Church does not forbid it. You want aliens to be able to pay a fee and obtain a work permit but the Church does not require it.

The question the OP asked was a very simple one: “Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?” The answer is no.

Ender

I agree with Ender on this point, that to answer the question of this thread we should not launch into our own individual justifications for this policy or that policy, citing statistics and anecdotes. The question really centers around what is Catholic teaching. Where I disagree with Ender is whether the “opinions” of the various bishops should be treated with the same or even lower respect as those of “experts” in the areas of immigration and health care. Remember, secular experts may know more about secular facts, but when it comes to using those facts to conclude what “should” be done there is no guarantee that they are striving toward the same goals as those set out by our Catholic teaching. So when they come up with an “optimum” solution, we need to ask “optimum with respect to what”? Pope JPII identified “an inordinate preoccupation with efficiency” as associated with the culture of death. This should cause us to distrust secular optimization even more. No, I think I will lean toward accepting what the bishops say even when it is “just their opinion”. I know I am not bound to give assent to these opinions the same as when the bishops teach formal doctrine, but out of humility I will try very hard to see things their way before I reluctantly go my own way.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi, Leaf. I’m glad you replied. Let me say first of all that I launched into diversionary discussions only in response to another poster, and I did so to reinforce what I’m about to say.

(a) The poster to whom I replied is sincere, but his response is also typical of many who address the issue of illegal immigration (pro or con, by the way): it is too often an emotional response, based on personal experience which is often limited, and/or based on friends/family associates who are here illegally.

(b) Far too many people who offer opinions on illegal immigration do so from incomplete information (and/or from an emotional basis). It is my conclusion, based on many, many statements and documents I have read from bishops individually and collectively, that the majority of US bishops are (today) operating on non-current information regarding illegal immigration, as well as narrow information, as well as idealistic assumptions.

Like you, Leaf, I am inclined to listen carefully to members of the clergy regarding the application of Church doctrine. However, when the database is simply not there, then the application is also compromised. I will contrast that with social justice statements on certain issues, coming from some of my own local clergy, particularly my local bishop. He is clearly far better informed on some key social justice issues of the day (including criminal justice and some other matters) than many of his brother bishops are. I not only listen carefully, I take his guidance to heart, because it is based on current information.

Social justice is valuable as a response to concrete realities, not idealized situations which are not occurring in today’s harsh economy. In order to arrive at a more ideal solution for the poor, disenfranchised, or whomever, one first has to examine the facts, and to be conversant with those.

 

[Ender]

Are only strict and rigid responses that specifically answer a question the only type of responses allowed? Are people allowed to answer questions and then expand on their answers?

I’m confused becuase I am not sure if you are simply trying to educate me on the rules regarding how to participate in the forum, on accepted practices with respect to participating in the forum. I’m also wondering if my post offended you personally and you choose to respond the way you did for whatever reasons you may have.

Bill, regardless of the specifics of any OP’s statement, once a discussion is begun it is almost inevitable that it will spin off on tangents not related to the original question. Every once in a while it’s useful to try to get it back on track, if only so the administrators don’t close the thread.

There are two major discussions regarding illegal immigration: what should we do to resolve it and what does the Church teach about it? The significance of the latter question (which is the topic of this thread) is that people often cite the opinions of this or that bishop to fortify their own position with the assumption that “the Church has spoken, end of discussion.”

And no, I was not offended at all by any of your comments. I simply wanted to get the discussion back on the relevant topic.

Ender

 

[iloveangels]

No. The Church has principles that should guide our behavior but she provides no specificity as to how the general objectives - feed the hungry, heal the sick - should be accomplished. The best means of providing health care and dealing with immigration issues are not for the Church to specify; they are problems the laity is charged with resolving.

Ender

Correct.

 

[Ender]

Where I disagree with Ender is whether the “opinions” of the various bishops should be treated with the same or even lower respect as those of “experts” in the areas of immigration and health care.

Do you agree that what the bishops are expressing are in fact prudential opinions? I think their comments would have to be either opinions or doctrine; what else could they be?

Remember, secular experts may know more about secular facts, but when it comes to using those facts to conclude what “should” be done there is no guarantee that they are striving toward the same goals as those set out by our Catholic teaching.

It is my position of course that secular experts in fact do know more about the various secular topics than the bishops and the laity therefore has the responsibility to design the solutions. Moreover, how would you determine that someone had a non-Catholic goal in mind? This is where I think such debates go off the rails: in order to condemn a person’s practical solution you would have to (and others regularly do) judge his intent … and judge it uncharitably.

This should cause us to distrust secular optimization even more. No, I think I will lean toward accepting what the bishops say even when it is “just their opinion”. I know I am not bound to give assent to these opinions the same as when the bishops teach formal doctrine, but out of humility I will try very hard to see things their way before I reluctantly go my own way.

You may certainly trust who you will … as may I. So long as the argument is not made that when a bishop proposes a solution to illegal immigration the Church has spoken and that no one condemns another’s proposal as being against Church teaching, we have no argument.

Ender

 

[Elizium23]

The trouble with reducing the USCCB’s word on these issues to merely “someone’s opinion” is that the bishops **are **the Church. So yes, the Church has spoken when it comes to taking positions on these highly relevant political issues of our place and time. Now, hardcore Republicans may not like what the Church has to say on issues of immigration and social justice, just as hardcore Democrats will not like what the Church has to say on abortion and contraception, and that is totally up to your conscience when you get into the voting booth, but the fact is that the bishops are the Church, the bishops are the ones invested with the authority and responsibility for teaching their flocks, and the bishops are the ones who have worked hard on positional statements, based firmly in Church doctrine and teaching, responding to the relevant political issues of our time. If you would rather reject the DREAM Act, and welcome oppressive legislation like Arizona’s SB 1070, that is up to your poorly-formed conscience to go right along with the Republican party line.

If it were not for the non-negotiables and the horrific attacks on religious liberty that the Democrats are perpetrating these days, I would be voting firmly Democrat because I have always believed in other planks of their platform. It is unfortunate that I have to hold my nose and vote for Republicans because they will supposedly fight for the right to life (even though I know they won’t) but one of the reasons I am holding my nose is because of Republicans’ supreme disregard for any mercy or compassion for the immigrant, legal or illegal. I can see this happening in stark relief in Republican-controlled Arizona, with the governor digging in her heels against Obama’s executive order and Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s institutionalized racism and xenophobia trying to sweep up all the wetbacks he can. It’s truly a disgrace of a border state. The brave bishops are among the few with any power or authority there who are willing to stand up against the conservative tide of opinion and call for mercy. I salute them and I support them in their efforts to temper the needs and desires of residents with those of the whole Church. Let us not forget that Latinos are overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and their presence in an area should be regarded as vital and life-giving to our dwindling numbers in a persecuted institution here in the USA.

 

[pnewton]

Does the Church have a stance on recent issues such as Universal Healthcare and the Immigration Policy?

Here are the USCCB resources on these issues:

• [Immigration (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/)
• [Health Care (http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/health-care/)

This is your answer. Yes, the Church does have a stance on these issues. Now you will find those that will come here and argue this stance and point out the limitation of these teachings, and rightly so. But it is inaccurate to say that there is no Church position. Yes, these positions are limited in that they are not dogma, but judgment based on Church teaching. Unfortunately, I see too many times those that want to use their own judgment do not base this judgment on our duty to the poor and needy, as does the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If you would rather reject the DREAM Act, and welcome oppressive legislation like Arizona’s SB 1070, that is up to your poorly-formed conscience to go right along with the Republican party line.

I challenge you to present the Church document which states that it is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that not supporting this particular “DREAM” Act proposed by the Democrats (instead of different proposals to assimilate children of undocumented residents and their parents) is evidence of “a poorly formed conscience.”

Your post is one of many examples of the tendency of some Catholics to convert either general statements of bishops, or particular enthusiasm of particular bishops for certain proposed legislation, to “doctrine” and demanding that the rest of the Catholic laity submit to it.

You wouldn’t know how strictly my conscience is formed, so I suggest you not try that approach with me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you agree that what the bishops are expressing are in fact prudential opinions? I think their comments would have to be either opinions or doctrine; what else could they be?

Yes, I agree the opinions are prudential, but even those prudential opinions are worthy of my great respect and consideration for the sake of their role in the Church. I do not think the only role for the bishops is as proclaimers of binding doctrine. And when it comes to comparing their prudential opinion with mine humility demands that I weight theirs a little more than my own.

It is my position of course that secular experts in fact do know more about the various secular topics than the bishops and the laity therefore has the responsibility to design the solutions. Moreover, how would you determine that someone had a non-Catholic goal in mind?

The first question is how do you know they do have a Catholic goal in kind? Do you apply the same level of “presumption of innocence” to every expert “solution” that comes out of the experts at HHS?

You may certainly trust who you will … as may I. So long as the argument is not made that when a bishop proposes a solution to illegal immigration the Church has spoken and that no one condemns another’s proposal as being against Church teaching, we have no argument.

Ender

Agreed.

 

[Ender]

The first question is how do you know they do have a Catholic goal in kind? Do you apply the same level of “presumption of innocence” to every expert “solution” that comes out of the experts at HHS?

I don’t make any presumption since it isn’t relevant. (But yes, I’m more likely to reflexively support something proposed by “my” side and oppose something proposed by “their” side.) Knowing why a person has made a specific proposal tells me nothing about whether in fact the proposal is good or bad. If I don’t know anything about the topic I would certainly be inclined to reject a solution from someone I knew was up to no good but the law of unintended consequences works against everyone, including those with bad intentions.

This is what I object to in these discussions: the twin assumptions that (1) if we know a person is evil we know everything he proposes is wrong and (2) we can know he’s evil. Neither is true.

Ender

 

[Elizium23]

I challenge you to present the Church document which states that it is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that not supporting this particular “DREAM” Act proposed by the Democrats (instead of different proposals to assimilate children of undocumented residents and their parents) is evidence of “a poorly formed conscience.”

You know as well as I do that there is no doctrinal statement from the Magisterium on the DREAM Act, because the DREAM Act, being an inconsequential bit of local legislation, is beneath the mention of infallible Church teaching, much like the pebble in my shoe does not require the attention of a podiatrist from the Mayo Clinic.

For those who are truly interested in what the Church has to say about the DREAM Act, here is the USCCB document expressing support for it, signed by Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, who has in his care as Metropolitian Archbishop millions of immigrants from all nations, particularly the Latinos of Southern California and many the children of people who crossed the border without authorization and therefore made “illegal” by no fault or choice of their own. +Gomez wrote this statement in consultation and with the implicit consent of all his American brother bishops, as he is the duly appointed Chairman of the Committee on Migration. Certainly not Church doctrine with the authority of the Magisterium, this is a political opinion of the men who have been consecrated as leaders of the local Church here in the USA, men who have vast experience in the ministry of shepherd of souls, men who know and want only what is best for the Church and her faithful citizens here.

Your post is one of many examples of the tendency of some Catholics to convert either general statements of bishops, or particular enthusiasm of particular bishops for certain proposed legislation, to “doctrine” and demanding that the rest of the Catholic laity submit to it.

I did nothing of the sort, I have always represented the bishops’ opinions as just that, and I have merely challenged you to please produce authoritative statements from reputable sources that will contradict the USCCB stance on issues, and instead of quoting anyone whose opinion might be valued over theirs, you have insisted that Obama and the Democrats are doing the wrong thing, which just sounds like the tired old Republican party line to me.

The Obama administration is in some ways like an infinite number of monkeys writing an infinite number of executive orders: by the end of four years they are bound to have written something coherent that is not morally evil. The episcopal conference in the United States does a lot of bipartisan lobbying to advance the truly Catholic position on political issues, and they don’t care who gets it right. If the Democrats can craft a compromise solution that has a chance at passing both houses then perhaps hard-core Republican Catholics should consider putting aside their differences and supporting things that are good for the Church as a whole, rather than simply a knee-jerk reaction of shooting down everything the Democrats do. And vice versa. Legislation in a government such as ours is never black and white. We can never have a perfect solution. The mere fact that the bishops support a particular candidate or bill or issue does not mean that it is perfect for both our nation and the Church. It means that they have selected a course which is preferable, which is palatable, which is in line with Catholic teaching on the issues.

Their opinions are not perfect, which we have seen in the recent past in the USCCB’s support for ObamaTax, which nobody appears to have read carefully and contains myriad gotchas for conservatives and people of faith. But truly the bishops did attempt to shape and conform the legislation to Catholic values before it was passed, and I for one truly appreciate their continual attention to detail and tireless advocation of the Catholic position on social justice issues, because unlike hard-core partisan voters, I don’t adhere to any one party’s views, I adhere to the Catholic view, and I try to use my head when voting that the interests of the Church are best served by the way I vote, whether it is Republican, Democrat, or some other party, and sometimes I have to mitigate the damage that will be caused when choosing between the lesser of two evils. The USCCB has been for me a reliable and faithful guide in the uncertain waters of American politics and I can’t understand any Catholic who would want to suppress or denigrate their participation in the public square.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions about particular political parties are not allowed on this forum. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Bill_7154]

Curious that you assume that I also do not personally KNOW PERSONALLY the community I work with (from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala). I do. .

Elizabeth, where did you get the notion that I assumed you do not personall know the community you work with? Maybe you inferred that but I do not believe I implied that, and I am fairly positive I did not state it.

No sir I am not talking about television, but real life. Also, Brazilians are not the majroity of illegal immigrants in this country. Families do not “come here” “in order to” make sure their children join gangs. Of course not. What a concept. Gangs are not the only but one of the main results of fragmented families who cannot always arrive together for reasons of danger & practicality; and they also result when fathers, for economic reasons, need to virtually abandon their children in this country because the cost of living, relative to their skill level, education level, and the market for their services, is so very negative…

Referecing TV as I did and assuming that I believe you are talking about TV are not the same thing. Did I say that families come here to join gangs? I assume you do some sort of social work, community work, or similar from the way you speak of the populations you ‘work with’, is that correct? I’m curious to know what you do for work, do you mind sharing?

I do believe, nevertheless, that the population you earlier spoke of (poor urban blacks living within generational poverty) is aware of the hard work of other cultures. In fact, in the neighborhoods in which I work, very often there are poor urban youth in school with, and living next to, poor Asian youth. Nothing to do with Brazil or any country from Latin America. Poor Southeast Asian youth and poor Chinese-American youth from rural China. Yes, it is observed how hard they work, and the mixture of emotions that results from that observation includes the following: respect, envy, resentment, and rejection…

In my experience, ‘being aware of’ and ‘existing in proximity to’ people who could potentially serve as role models is quite different that positive role models actually having a real influence on people. I believe that a personal connection, developed and built on dignity and respect, so that trust is gained, is a very important component on a potential role model actually having a positive impact on an individual and group. Would you agree or disagree?

The Brazilians you are talking about and the Asian immigrants (more often legal than illegal) that I am talking about are more reflective of the dominant culture in the U.S. than are reflective of the culture you are describing in urban poor neighborhoods. And that’s the source of the conflict. Those poor families already know about the dominant culture; they’ve known about it for decades. Simply assuming they’ll be “good role models,” while a noble thought, does not work that way. Otherwise, the best role models of all – the poor who have “made it” outside the neighborhood and returned to be role models – wouldn’t be so often rejected as “sell-outs” by the remaining poor families. …

As I mentioned above, I believe that a personal relationship, built on dignity and respect, so that trust may be developed, is essential. Years back I worked (and lived) in the ghetto’. I was the only white person who lived there. I worked as a live in house manager for a home designed to rehabilitate individuals with substance abuse problems who also were homeless and most often also were former inmates for prisons. I grew up in the suburbs. It took time for me to earn the trust and respect of the individuals who move into and out of that program. It takes a pesonal relationship where trust has to be earned. I have continued to work with minorities in the inner city. I have learned how to carry myself and conduct myself in such a way as to interact with individuals of different races who grew up in the inner city and earn their trust and respect. Not always of course. Some people, be they of any race, income, background, can be stuck in a place of anger and resentment and not looking for help, not ready for help. There was a time in my past I was not looking for or ready for help. But seeds can be planted with such individuals, even if it is as simple as not getting angry or upset at a complete stranger who yells at you. Change takes time, it takes a real investment. And I now not only work with the urban poor, but the urban poor with major mental illnesses. Change for them is much harder overall, IMO, than change for someone with all of the problems that come along with growing up in poverty in the inner city but not having a major mental illness such as Schizophrenia.

How many of the poor who return and are viewed as sell outs that you reference spend an hour a week for a couple of years spending one on one time with a young teenager? Do you think it’s more likely or less likely, if such a returning success story were to spend their time like that they would have a positive impact on such an individual? Personal relationships are key. Knowing of someone’s existance IMO is of little help to someone who has already given up and has no hope. I was such a boy at one time, abused, neglected, lived in a nightmare. I have personal experience changing from someone with no hope and envious and resentful at the whole world to a different person than that. I know what helped me along that path.

In any case, that is off-topic, because the Church is not talking about Brazilian illegal immigrants or Asian legal immigrants “being role models” for the massive numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico (especially). Different culture, different expectations, different needs. The Church, in issuing principles for us to guide our approaches, is discussing poverty and survival, not role-modeling. …

Is Jesus supposed to serve as a role model for us? I have recently returned to the church after being away for 2 decades. I am not up to speed with all of the facets of the rules and teachings of the church. I do remember some of what I learned about the life Jesus lived though. Is my understanding that Jesus is supposed to serve as a role model for me correct? What other things should I be focusing on as I strive to be a good Catholic?

That’s legal immigration. Legal immigration is barely a controversy. Very few people oppose legal immigration, although many think the terms or the policies should be different. Illegal immigration is inhumane, and perpetrating it is inhumane, and supporting it is inhumane, and encouraging it is inhumane, i.m.o. And assuming that “the solution” to the poverty of another nation is to import those residents here in massive numbers, illegally, is inhumane. It’s draconian. .

Illegal immigration being inhuman is an opinion, not a fact. I would be interested should you decide to open a thread explaining why illegal immigration is inhumane an to read the posts from others. I have a lot to learn in this life, but I am not convinced it is inhumane. I don’t know if there is ‘a solution’ to poverty. And I don’t know, should there be a solution, that it has anything to do with immigration, be it by abiding by jumping through some hoops that a tiny minority of very privileged people with a lot of wealth craft (i.e. ‘legal immigration’) or illegal immigration.

So you acknowledge that it’s a result of supply and demand. It is also a result of opportunity. So if supply and opportunity were available in Mexico (which has the wealth and resources, abundantly, to do that), then the demand to seek a compromised “solution” would vanish. It is entirely possible to divert the supply, the demand, and the opportunity, to Mexico. And the other inhumane thing about illegal immigration is that Mexicans, overwhelmingly, do not want to leave Mexico. They want to survive and have a good life in Mexico. It is inhumane to assume that the only way, or even the best way, to a better economic life is to remove them from their homeland. That’s sick, in fact.

It seems to me your speaking of this inhumanity as fact and not opinion and I do not think you have demonstrated that it is fact. Maybe you mean that it is your opinion and I am not understanding that. If so, I apologize. If not, I would again say that I am interested in reading and participating in a thread that’s objective is to demonstrate how and why illegal immigration is inhumane rather than something else. Inhumane is very strong language and simply stating something is so does not make it so. And I am not assuming that the only way, or the best way, to a better economic life is to leave one’s homeland and go to another place, be that by abiding legally by the rules set or not doing so in order to get to the other land. So please do not assume I believe that as I do not.

And who is ‘removing’ them from their homeland (other than kidnappers who enslave women to work as sex slaves, either with force or with trickery)?

Peace

 

[Bill_7154]

In which case, you oppose what the Roman Catholic Church acknowledges about the concept of sovereign nations and the rights and responsibilities of sovereign nations. That’s nice, Bill, but you would be considered a radical in that case. The Magisterium of the Church requires us to abide by the doctrines of the Church, not to be radicals and come up with our own extreme doctines, or extreme interpretations of how the hierarchy has already interpreted their own doctrine.

Immigration – legal and illegal – has absolutely nothing to do with personal worth. Opposing illegal immigration does not imply devaluing any individual from any other country. So your statement is a straw man.

Lots of us despise the entire inhumanity of illegal iimmigration – its effect on the immigrants themselves – the whole process of getting here, the rapes which occur to women and to men during the journey, the corrupt coyotes, the deaths which occur, and the conditions and exploitation which follow that immigration. That’s why we want to reduce the incentive to come here illegally. That’s why we want to augment the incentives to governments to improve conditions within their countries. That’s why we want to encourage pathways to legal immigration, such as national incentives to educate Mexicans so that they will have more options to migrate legally here with skills which the U.S. government and business sector perceives it needs.

I have a whole lot to learn about the teachings of the Catholic Church. I would venture to guess that I will never learn them all perfectly. I have just returned to the Catholic Church after being away for 2 decades. Where would you suggest I start as I have re-discovered my faith and invested myself in devoting myself to living the best I can according to the teachings of God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church? I have been going to Church, confession, receiving Holy Communion, praying, and reciting the rosery. I have joined this online forum as a way to connect with other Catholics. I welcome your and every other participants suggestions as to where and how I should focus my time and energies toward investing myself in learning how to be and live as Catholic as I have received a tremendous gift in being guided back to my faith.

I do not claim to have much knowledge at all as to what the teachings of the Church are. I seek to serve God and Jesus and have plans to begin reading the bible again, possibly joining a bible study group, and am also interested in finding mentors to help me along this path. If you have suggestions as to what and how I should prioritize my time and energies as I walk this journey I welcome them with open arms. I am extremely greatful for the gift I have been given to find my way back to opening my heart, my mind, my spirt, my soul to God and Jesus as my Lord and Savior once again.

And I do not believe that I stated or implied that “Opposing illegal immigration does not imply devaluing any individual from any other country.” If I did, please quote me. Perhaps you inferred that is what I meant from something I wrote. I do not believe that I have stated that because I do not believe that. I think that if someone wants to oppose illegal immigration that is fine and does not mean they think any less of anyone from any other country, be then someone who comes here illegally or whatever.

I can understand arguments against illegal immigration. I do not think badly of anyone who opposes illegal immigration. But I am a realist. I am also a poor person. I also believe that government and government officials are corrupt and do not have your or my best intersts at heart. I belive they work for the uber rich and tax the working poor, the working class, the lower middle class, the middle class, and upper middle classes to death and for all of those classes things are getting worse and worse regardless of whether republicans or democrats are in charge. The super rich are not impacted by ‘taxes’. The 99.9999% rest of us are and IMO things are getting worse and worse for us decade by decade and I do not have ANY faith at all in government or government solutions becaue governments are territorial monopolies. Competition is not allowed. Therefore, just like in any business, without competition, one can churn out an inferior product and we are stuck paying for it. Then we are stuck paying for the supposed ‘fix’ to the problem. And the ‘fix’ to the ‘fix’ to the ‘fix’.

It’s like Walmart having an army and shipping products to your door along with a bill whether or not you want or need or like the product. You must take it and pay for it. And Walmart has an army with men with guns who do not let anyone else compete with them so they can sell whatever bad products they want.

I do not believe that I live in the land of the ‘free’. The USA is NOT a democracy. It is a CONSTITUTIONAL republic. Yet everyone speaks of the USA as being a democracy. It was not founded as one and is not one. But it seems that most everyone believes that it is one. I believe that is a con perpetrated by the uber rich who actually control government. Who fund the candidates to get their faces on TV to be candidates, without rich people supporting them how can anyone get elected to a serous high level office in government? And should I believe they are not beholden to those masters of theirs who fund their campaigns, who get them elected?

Isn’t it said that one can not serve both God and money? I do not trust people who serve money and IMO the people who run the world serve money, be they actual government officials (of any nation) or the people behind the scenes who influence them and support them.

Does the Church have anything that is doctrine that addresses that? All I know about that with respect to the Church is what I have learned long ago about serving money and the rich man who asked Jesus what he should do and was told give away all your money… something about being more likely to fit through the eye of a needle than getting into heaven…

 

[Bill_7154]

Bill, regardless of the specifics of any OP’s statement, once a discussion is begun it is almost inevitable that it will spin off on tangents not related to the original question. Every once in a while it’s useful to try to get it back on track, if only so the administrators don’t close the thread.

There are two major discussions regarding illegal immigration: what should we do to resolve it and what does the Church teach about it? The significance of the latter question (which is the topic of this thread) is that people often cite the opinions of this or that bishop to fortify their own position with the assumption that “the Church has spoken, end of discussion.”

And no, I was not offended at all by any of your comments. I simply wanted to get the discussion back on the relevant topic.

Ender

Ender,
Thanks for your reply. So, where do I as someone who strives to live his life according to the teachings of God, Jesus Christ, and the Catholic Church get my information as to ‘what the church’ teaches about immigration (legal and illegal)? Are there teachings in the Bible that are applicible? Are there Higher teachings, teachings that are more important than those to be learned from the bible with respect to that issue? Where do they come from? Whose authority do they come from? Where do I find them in order to learn them? Is there any disagreement about them and what signficance, if any, does the disagreement hold?

I have recently learned from my father that there are Church Doctrines that are of importance. Do any of these doctrines address this matter? Where do I find Church Doctrines in order to learn them?

Thank you

 

[Bill_7154]

You know as well as I do that there is no doctrinal statement from the Magisterium on the DREAM Act, because the DREAM Act, being an inconsequential bit of local legislation, is beneath the mention of infallible Church teaching, much like the pebble in my shoe does not require the attention of a podiatrist from the Mayo Clinic.

This makes me wonder, if the dream act is beneath the mention of infallible Church teaching, much like the pebble in your shoe, couldn’t that mean that any law, or proposed law, made by man and not God be ‘beneath’ what I should be putting any faith in or taking with any degree of seriousness in comparison to the teachings of God and Jesus?

Laws are made by man. Man is fallible, every man, yes? So I am left to wonder what are God’s and Jesus’ laws and intentions with respect to me and my relationships to my neighbors (did Jesus or God define ‘neighbor’ with referencing nations or nations so called ‘leaders’? I want to be as sure as possible I am believing and doing the right things as a servant of God and Jesus on this earth. Where should I be getting my strongest guidence?

How is anyone, and in particular myself (as I seek to follow the laws of God and the teachings of Jesus) to know with absolute certainty, what laws are correct and what laws are incorrect? There must be millions of them. What would Jesus have to say about the state of the world today with respect to the way our government is run? Would Jesus have me bow down and follow all of the laws made by man? Especially since IMO (and I think I am correct) made by rich men who have their own interests of money and power over other men as priorities and not prioritizing what God and Jesus would have be as the state of the world today.