Catholic Teaching on Immigration Policy and Universal Heathcare?

[Elizium23]

Point Two, I quoted you also a poster who suggested that supporting this particular DREAM Act was a matter of binding Catholic doctrine, which is, of course, nonsense.

I said no such thing and implied nothing of the sort, so you are now putting words in my mouth.

The poster further reinforced the false connection of a certain political proposal with “doctrine” by suggesting that anyone who did not support that legislation had a poorly formed conscience. Of course what was conveniently and simplistically neglected by that poster was whether anyone who was perhaps more intellectually sophisticated in the whole area of immigration might in fact have stronger and more enlightened proposals than the slipshod one developed by secular politicians and which is being presented as “Catholic doctrine.” I quoted that poster as well. Not straw men.

I mentioned both the DREAM Act and Arizona’s SB 1070, the latter of which is oppressive fascist legislation, largely struck down by the Supreme Court, that no conservative or liberal can rightly support in good conscience due to its unconstitutionality, and it is only a poorly-formed conscience that could support unconstitutional oppressive legislation.

I would also like to bring up the fact that it is in the Church’s best interest to support immigration from Latin America, whether legal or illegal, due to the high concentrations of Catholics from those countries. Latino immigration bolsters the numbers of the American Church and brings young working families who are more likely than Anglophones to bear large numbers of children who will also be Catholic. The DREAM Act supports the opportunities for those same children to find a pathway to citizenship in the USA and stay here, which is good for the United States and good for the Catholic Church.

 

[Bill_7154]

Elizabeth,

I did not say that I did not believe in SOVERIGNTY.

Please show me where in the New Testament it says I must as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ support Soverign Nations. And if you would be so kind, while your at it, please show me where it says WHAT KIND of soverign nations I should support and should not support (or does it say I should support them all, and therefore all of their policies and actions?)

If not in the bible, then in Church Doctrines maybe? How am I to know that the policies and practices of one nation are superior to the policies and practices of another?

And am I expected to believe, as a follower of Jesus Christ, that some laws, created by man, are superior to the laws of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I’m confused why your quoting me. I believe in the soverignity of the individual, as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Am I in error in this belief? Is there a superior belief I should hold over that belief? Over following the laws of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ?

I believe that I am a brother to all, under one God, and that it is my job and duty to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. And I hold that as Soverign. Soverign above any nation, any law made by man, any fence, any rule made by man, any action of man.

Please point me where I am astray here in these beliefs as it is my intention to be the best man I can be as a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

 

[Nate13]

@pnewton

You posted this:

Yes, they were at one point, before it was amended. While their specific current immigration beliefs vary, they do not vary that much. For example, none hold a position of major deportations or a massive border fence being acceptable.

Please explain why a “massive border fence” is immoral in the bishops eyes. Also, please explain how a country can have sovereignty if its not allowed to establish borders that mean anything.

 

[pnewton]

I said no such thing and implied nothing of the sort, so you are now putting words in my mouth.

Elizabeth,

I did not say that I did not believe in SOVERIGNTY.

You know, it is easy sometimes to misunderstand someone’s position. God only knows I have had it happen to me often enough. I find a good rule of thumb is that if one must use words like “imply” and “suggests” this is a good indication that some assuming is going on that may or may not be right. Thank you both for clarifying.

 

[pnewton]

@pnewton

Please explain why a “massive border fence” is immoral in the bishops eyes. Also, please explain how a country can have sovereignty if its not allowed to establish borders that mean anything.

I only know what was written:

*…In our estimation, the erection of a border fence would force immigrants, desperate to find employment to support their families, to seek alternative and more dangerous ways to enter the country, *

*We also feel strongly that the erection of a 700-mile border fence would send a signal to Mexico and other countries in the hemisphere that the United States is not willing to work cooperatively to address the problem of illegal immigration. It could harm our relations with these countries and inhibit bilateral progress on mutual interests. As the world’s greatest democracy and lone superpower, our nation should be able to address the issue of illegal immigration without resorting to the construction of fences and barriers. *

 

[Nate13]

I only know what was written:

*…In our estimation, the erection of a border fence would force immigrants, desperate to find employment to support their families, to seek alternative and more dangerous ways to enter the country, *

*We also feel strongly that the erection of a 700-mile border fence would send a signal to Mexico and other countries in the hemisphere that the United States is not willing to work cooperatively to address the problem of illegal immigration. It could harm our relations with these countries and inhibit bilateral progress on mutual interests. As the world’s greatest democracy and lone superpower, our nation should be able to address the issue of illegal immigration without resorting to the construction of fences and barriers. *

Uh throw a fence up and open up the doors of legal immigration wide open. This really isn’t an incredibly novel solution… I in principle have no problem allowing as many Mexican people as want, to legally immigrate to this country. I’d like to prevent as many drug runners and terrorists from getting in as possible though.

As I asked earlier though as well, does the United States have a responsibility to accept as many immigrants as want to come? What about if 90% of the Mexican people wished to immigrate to America? Is that really good for us or them?

If only we had as nice and kind of an immigration policy as Mexico did…
dailycaller.com/2010/05/21/lets-adopt-mexicos-fair-and-respectful-immigration-policy/

 

[pnewton]

Uh throw a fence up and open up the doors of legal immigration wide open. This really isn’t an incredibly novel solution… I in principle have no problem allowing as many Mexican people as want, to legally immigrate to this country. I’d like to prevent as many drug runners and terrorists from getting in as possible though.

That’s kind of where I am.

As I asked earlier though as well, does the United States have a responsibility to accept as many immigrants as want to come?

No, they do not. The Catholic Church states plainly that nations have the right to regulate immigration.

 

[Nate13]

That’s kind of where I am.

No, they do not. The Catholic Church states plainly that nations have the right to regulate immigration.

Ok then is there an immoral rate of immigration? If the U.S says we can only allow 250,000 Mexican immigrants a year and 500,000 immigrants would like to come in, doesn’t that mean we are still (using the rhetoric of the liberals) “leaving 250,000 women and children to die and denying men the opportunity to provide for their families?”.

This all really doesn’t make a bit of sense to me. On the one hand you have the bishops saying its our Christian duty to not deny these illegal immigrants the ability to provide for their families here. And then on the other your saying its ok for us to regulate immigration and tell some of them tough luck you have to stay in Mexico and starve?

There seems to me to be inconsistencies here. Also, assuming you read the comments of Mexico’s former president do you believe the bishops would decry Mexico’s immigration policies as they have Arizona’s new law?

 

[Bill_7154]

You know, it is easy sometimes to misunderstand someone’s position. God only knows I have had it happen to me often enough. I find a good rule of thumb is that if one must use words like “imply” and “suggests” this is a good indication that some assuming is going on that may or may not be right. Thank you both for clarifying.

I agree. And earlier in this thread I believe I pointed out that this person was making assumptions IMO and asked for quotes/clarification. If this kind of thing is ongoing, what am I to do? In the first post I attempted to clarify I spent a great deal of time and energy explaining myself. I am here to be a positive and helpful member of the community but I am also subject to human frailty and weakness and when my positions continue to be mischaracterized what am I to do? Of course I could just ignore the misquote but I care about my reputation.

I believe that I am willing and able to meet everyone here at least half way in discussions. And I believe that I have demonstrated my willingness to do so since joining this community, while over and over again thanking people for their help and support.

Here is what I was responding to specifically:

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton
No one has said sovereignty is immoral or that it should not be respected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill 7154
Also, I do not believe in the concept of a Soverign Nation.

I do not see the words imply or suggest there. If it were somewhere else and I missed it and it applied to my post I apologize, but the quote by pnewton was directly followed by the quote by me. No mention of imply or suggest there. I’ll be the first one to admit I am far less than perfect but it also might be helpful for individuals to learn not to assume (this is not addressed to you).

If I am doing something wrong please explain it to me. Feel free to do so publicly or privately. I am here to participate in a helpful manner, not to create tension or disruption.

Thank you and Peace to you all.

 

[pnewton]

There seems to me to be inconsistencies here.

It is a difficult issue, to be sure, but it is not inconsistent. If we bring workers here, either legally or through practical economics, then we should provide a legal means for them to come. In addition, they should be responsible to their host country.

My point of view is that people are always a resource, not a burden. Each and everyone has dignity and value. There is no reason we can not legally tap that value for the common good of this country and the good of the worker. But this is something that we can disagree on, as long as we uphold the dignity and the value of the individual.

 

[Nate13]

It is a difficult issue, to be sure, but it is not inconsistent. If we bring workers here, either legally or through practical economics, then we should provide a legal means for them to come. In addition, they should be responsible to their host country.

My point of view is that people are always a resource, not a burden. Each and everyone has dignity and value. There is no reason we can not legally tap that value for the common good of this country and the good of the worker. But this is something that we can disagree on, as long as we uphold the dignity and the value of the individual.

I agree, but this issue is even much more complicated than that. If people are as great a resource as you say (which I agree with) are we not doing harm to Mexico and the people that are left there when we take this resource away from them? Its actually interesting to look back in history and see the the Catholic Church in Mexico believed exactly this for a long while and took great steps to persuade Mexican people not to leave their country. They only stopped talking along this track when they realized they were having very little luck in persuading people to stay, and decided to spend their time doing what they could to protect and defend families as they crossed the border.

I think the easy answer is to say we are doing the Mexican people a favor when we let waves and waves of them immigrate here, but when the issue is looked into deeper I think the realistic answer is to see it does as much harm as it does good if not more harm.

 

[Bill_7154]

I agree, but this issue is even much more complicated than that. If people are as great a resource as you say (which I agree with) are we not doing harm to Mexico and the people that are left there when we take this resource away from them? Its actually interesting to look back in history and see the the Catholic Church in Mexico believed exactly this for a long while and took great steps to persuade Mexican people not to leave their country. They only stopped talking along this track when they realized they were having very little luck in persuading people to stay, and decided to spend their time doing what they could to protect and defend families as they crossed the border.

I think the easy answer is to say we are doing the Mexican people a favor when we let waves and waves of them immigrate here, but when the issue is looked into deeper I think the realistic answer is to see it does as much harm as it does good if not more harm.

Maybe none of us, either individually, or collectively, have the ‘correct’ answer to this issue? It certainly seems complicated to me.

 

[Romney4Prez]

What makes me angry about the topic of immigration is that too many people mush together two totally different iassues:

1. Immigration
2. People crossing the border illegally

I love immigration. Most of us are the descendents of immigrants. Thats not a problem.

But I also believe in the rule of law, and people who sneak accross the border are breaking Federal law. It is illegal to sneak accross the border. Guess what: What do we call people who break the law? Criminals. Just look in a dictionary.

So let us not confuse lawbreakers with legitimate immigrants. okay?

 

[Elizium23]

But I also believe in the rule of law, and people who sneak accross the border are breaking Federal law. It is illegal to sneak accross the border. Guess what: What do we call people who break the law? Criminals. Just look in a dictionary.

So let us not confuse lawbreakers with legitimate immigrants. okay?

How do you categorize children such as those targeted by the DREAM Act, who were of a young age and still minors when brought across the border, perhaps against their will, certainly unable to consent, and members of a family who has immigrated illegally? Are they criminals by association?

The issue is complex and nuanced, more so than any one political party would have us believe, which is why I am glad for the unfailing guidance of the Catholic bishops to help us see the way in all the controversy.

 

[Bill_7154]

What makes me angry about the topic of immigration is that too many people mush together two totally different iassues:

1. Immigration
2. People crossing the border illegally

I love immigration. Most of us are the descendents of immigrants. Thats not a problem.

But I also believe in the rule of law, and people who sneak accross the border are breaking Federal law. It is illegal to sneak accross the border. Guess what: What do we call people who break the law? Criminals. Just look in a dictionary.

So let us not confuse lawbreakers with legitimate immigrants. okay?

There are different degree’s of harm when it comes to the notion of crime. To lump every single individual who has ever broken a law that exists on the law books into the same catagory is absolutely wrong IMO. There is law made by man (fallible, often outright obviously immoral) and there is law made by God.

I would be characterized (by others) more closely as concervative than liberal, I have no doubt about this. However I am not a believer in, nor am I a supporter of ‘the rule of law’. I do not blindly follow each and every law made by a select priviliged rich group of people. I am fairly certain just about every member here, if not every member, has broken a law on the books at one point or another in their life.

In fact, there are so many, with new ones being created daily (with no end in sight), I suspect it is next to impossible to live one’s life without ever breaking a law. How many laws are enough? Do you realize that with most every law that is passed, what happens is people’s freedoms are taken away? Of course the gov’t PR spins it so that it’s about ‘safety’, etc but when choice is removed freedom is removed.

I am probably for 100% of the laws that 98% of the population supports. You know, the really IMPORTANT laws.

But are not all people who say they support and strongly advocate for ‘the rule of law’, if they happen to break laws themselves from time to time (jaywalking, speeding, whatever) hyppocrites?

Do we point at jaywalkers and yell out “That person is ILLEGAL” because they happen to be breaking a law about how and when they can cross the street?

I think we have too many sheep in this society and not enough individual critical thinkers. I have heard it posed, by the man from Ruby Ridge "If the government passed a new law that required people to have a walking license, the next week 1/2 the population would be down at city hall, money in hand, ready to sign up and pay for their walking license.

 

[Nate13]

How do you categorize children such as those targeted by the DREAM Act, who were of a young age and still minors when brought across the border, perhaps against their will, certainly unable to consent, and members of a family who has immigrated illegally? Are they criminals by association?

The issue is complex and nuanced, more so than any one political party would have us believe, which is why I am glad for the unfailing guidance of the Catholic bishops to help us see the way in all the controversy.

Actually you will find a lot of support among many people for doing something of this sort. The problem is not in giving a faster path to citizenship for some of these people, but rather the order in which all this is being done. We need a closed off border and a fixed immigration policy before we start offering solutions for how to handle the illegal immigrants that are here. If we start offering an amnesty of a sort and say a fence will be built later, your going to cause a flood of immigrants to cross the border and a whole lot of chaos. A lot of us in all honesty don’t trust the government’s word either. We don’t want an i owe you, we want a fence.

 

[Bill_7154]

Actually you will find a lot of support among many people for doing something of this sort. The problem is not in giving a faster path to citizenship for some of these people, but rather the order in which all this is being done. We need a closed off border and a fixed immigration policy before we start offering solutions for how to handle the illegal immigrants that are here. If we start offering an amnesty of a sort and say a fence will be built later, your going to cause a flood of immigrants to cross the border and a whole lot of chaos. A lot of us in all honesty don’t trust the government’s word either. We don’t want an i owe you, we want a fence.

A fence will not work, people will come by sea (actually they already do more now since boarder patrol is more active on land). Unless your going to start cutting off the heads of illegal immigrants, and/or those who harbor them and/or employ them illegal immigration will not stop.

It is supply and demand. The laws of economics are like the laws of physics. Ideas about fences and this and that will not work. We have a class of non working poor who are paid to not work. So we have a group of people who come here and take the jobs the citizens are paid to stay home and not take.

What one wants (as an individaul, or for their group, or their community, or their country, or whatever) IMO needs to be realistically evaluated as to whether or not it is possible. And also what the costs will really be, all costs associated, on both sides of the collum. It’s a nice notion to think: step A build a fence which will stop illegal immigration, step B deal with the illegals here one way or another.

But all a fence will do is cost me more money and put more money into the pockets of the human trafficers as they increase their fees since smuggling poeple will cost more since there is a fence.

So building a fence will most definitely put more money in the pockets of human trafficers, that is for certain. The beefing of security post 9/11 along the Mexican border has already done that. And that cost me more money.

I don’t like forcibly paying money to government, especially when they are spending it on programs that are not effective and in turn put more money in the hands of criminals and corrupt government workers (who are also criminals).

I like my money to be used responsibly. Be it by myself, or whoever I choose to give it to. Government is not responsible, it chases it’s own tail while using PR to convince poeple it is addressing problems.

The ’ illegal immigration’ issue actually came out of thin air overnight in a way. For years no one was talking about it, then about 4-5 years ago it was all over the news day and night for months and months. And then all of a sudden it was important to everyone.

It perplexes me as to why poeple have the TV decide for them what is important. How many people who are concerned about illegal immigration where typing their concerns and talking about their concerns 9 years ago? I bet it was a very, very tiny fraction of those who now consider it to be an important issue.

 

[Nate13]

A fence will not work, people will come by sea (actually they already do more now since boarder patrol is more active on land). Unless your going to start cutting off the heads of illegal immigrants, and/or those who harbor them and/or employ them illegal immigration will not stop.

It is supply and demand. The laws of economics are like the laws of physics. Ideas about fences and this and that will not work. We have a class of non working poor who are paid to not work. So we have a group of people who come here and take the jobs the citizens are paid to stay home and not take.

What one wants (as an individaul, or for their group, or their community, or their country, or whatever) IMO needs to be realistically evaluated as to whether or not it is possible. And also what the costs will really be, all costs associated, on both sides of the collum. It’s a nice notion to think: step A build a fence which will stop illegal immigration, step B deal with the illegals here one way or another.

But all a fence will do is cost me more money and put more money into the pockets of the human trafficers as they increase their fees since smuggling poeple will cost more since there is a fence.

So building a fence will most definitely put more money in the pockets of human trafficers, that is for certain. The beefing of security post 9/11 along the Mexican border has already done that. And that cost me more money.

I don’t like forcibly paying money to government, especially when they are spending it on programs that are not effective and in turn put more money in the hands of criminals and corrupt government workers (who are also criminals).

I like my money to be used responsibly. Be it by myself, or whoever I choose to give it to. Government is not responsible, it chases it’s own tail while using PR to convince poeple it is addressing problems.

The ’ illegal immigration’ issue actually came out of thin air overnight in a way. For years no one was talking about it, then about 4-5 years ago it was all over the news day and night for months and months. And then all of a sudden it was important to everyone.

The first role of the government is national defense. Just because they have been slacking in this role in the past does not mean they should in the future. If you open up legal immigration enough, it will also lower the likelihood people will pay the much higher cost and danger to come over illegally. Jumping on a piece of wood and trying to get to the U.S via the water is a lot more dangerous than crossing via land with an open border… Liberals should not want people to be crossing illegally anyways, because its incredibly dangerous and is a human rights problem in and of itself. If they are going to cross lets have them cross legally so everyone is accounted for.

It perplexes me as to why poeple have the TV decide for them what is important. How many people who are concerned about illegal immigration where typing their concerns and talking about their concerns 9 years ago? I bet it was a very, very tiny fraction of those who now consider it to be an important issue.

Uh I think its always an issue the question each year is just how important is that issue compared to the other challenges of the day. Most polls are showing illegal immigration is the 6th most important issue or less this year actually. Jobs, the deficit, healthcare, and social security, and terrorism all surpass the immigration issue.

 

[Bill_7154]

The first role of the government is national defense. Just because they have been slacking in this role in the past does not mean they should in the future. If you open up legal immigration enough, it will also lower the likelihood people will pay the much higher cost and danger to come over illegally. Jumping on a piece of wood and trying to get to the U.S via the water is a lot more dangerous than crossing via land with an open border… Liberals should not want people to be crossing illegally anyways, because its incredibly dangerous and is a human rights problem in and of itself. If they are going to cross lets have them cross legally so everyone is accounted for…

I agree with all of this I think. But the current ‘legal’ immigration policy doesn’t really allow for people without high skillsets to immigrate legally. People who are hard workers but without degree’s dont’ really have the opportunity to immigrate legally. Heck, why would someone from Brazil, with the average annual earnings being something like $3,000 USD pay $15,000 USD to be smuggled here when they have no criminal background and are simply seeking employment? Woudln’t they willingly pay $10,000 USD if they could fly to Mexico and present the US gov’t with documentation proving they are not criminals to be granted some type of permit to live and work in the US legally? Wouldn’ they do this rather than pay 15K to human trafficers to walk them across the desert, knowing full well if they fall behind they get left and can die?

The US gov’t obviously doesn’t care about setting up programs for US able bodied citizens to push them to work instead of handing them money and an apartment and medical care and food, etc, everything they need to live absoultly free? And they live better than someone working full time at McDonalds. The people paying 15K to be smuggled here take 2 full time jobs at McDonalds. Do people who do that have the mindset of gaming the system? Do they seek to spend their days sitting in an emergency room because they have the sniffles? No, they don’t. Would they be willing to pay into a medical insurance program given the chance? I think they would.

Uh I think its always an issue the question each year is just how important is that issue compared to the other challenges of the day. Most polls are showing illegal immigration is the 6th most important issue or less this year actually. Jobs, the deficit, healthcare, and social security, and terrorism all surpass the immigration issue.

Maybe so, but what I said about it being effectively a non issue one day and then being a major issue day in and day out on the news the next day, day after, etc, etc is absoutely true. I know this because I have a lot of friends from Brazil who are here illegally so became aware of when it became news and prior to that it was not news. It might have been of concern to the people living on border states where drugs are smuggled and more immigrants seek to not work hard. But it was not national news. Then, virtually overnight, it became prime time regular news. It went from getting no coverage on TV to getting hours and hours of news coverage every day virtually overnight.

And THEN people started talking about it, etc. Looking back, it was absoultely ridiculous how the media shaped public views about illegal immigration, actuallly more than shaped it, even put it in their mind as an issue of importance, when prior to it being blasted all over the news day and night it was NOT an issue of importance to what I would venture to guess is/was a significant % of the people who have since become concerned about it and now have it as an issue of concern of some significance.

I watched the news and how that unfolded. But other than that time and with other rare exceptions I have not paid attention to the news or watched the news as a conscious choice in 20 years. It makes me wonder how many other ‘issues’ were non issues to the masses until the media decided to blast everyones homes via TV coverage of the issue.

 

[Nate13]

I think you would agree though that there is a limit to how many new immigrants America can take in and provide for each year. We are taking in on average a million new immigrants a year, most of which are immigrating because of family ties. We can’t save every Latin and South American by having the immigrate here and at the end of the day a vast majority of these peoples are only going to achieve the American dream if they make it a reality in their own country.