P
pnewton
Guest
Except for the first to come to the New World who forced their way into America. Only some of our ancestors followed existing laws.
- Status
N
neum334
Guest
Tqualey, your sarcasm is sickening. I must apologize for my own sarcastic comment to Ender about the charter bus to China. Anyway, here are a few links to the stance of Catholic bishops on this topic:
usccb.org/mrs/legal.shtml
ncronline.org/news/immigration-and-church/italys-immigration-puts-church-teaching-test
cjd.org/paper/deport.html
usccb.org/mrs/legal.shtml
ncronline.org/news/immigration-and-church/italys-immigration-puts-church-teaching-test
cjd.org/paper/deport.html
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, AntalKalonky,
You are aware that there are agricultural programs that the US government sponsors with US employers (agricultural programs and the like). Naturally, these are advertised.
The problem is in people taking it upon themselves to come to the US without benefit of complying with the existing laws of the land.
God bless
You are aware that there are agricultural programs that the US government sponsors with US employers (agricultural programs and the like). Naturally, these are advertised.
The problem is in people taking it upon themselves to come to the US without benefit of complying with the existing laws of the land.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Neum334,
Thanks for the first link - the other two would not exactly qualify as an unbiased sources would they… but, good try…
You appear to be holding up very well …rooting out sarcasm is demanding work … publicly apologizing for one’s own sarcasm is usually the last hurdle…
God bless
Thanks for the first link - the other two would not exactly qualify as an unbiased sources would they… but, good try…
You appear to be holding up very well …rooting out sarcasm is demanding work … publicly apologizing for one’s own sarcasm is usually the last hurdle…
God bless
E
Ender
Guest
Get your facts right. Mexico is an upper middle class nation and most of the illegals here are from Mexico.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, that was my point, but a lot of immigrants (by no means all) take the very jobs that the poor and unskilled in this country take so there is a cost to our poor to let in someone elses poor. We should at least be willing to recognize that increasing immigration has some negative impact on people already hurting in this country.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Then you recognize the bishops’ statements for what they are: their personal opinions. As I’ve said many times before, Catholics may take whatever positions they believe strike the best balance between competing needs. They may support or oppose a border fence, support or oppose the Arizona law, and support or oppose deportation or amnesty. There is no Catholic position on these specific proposals despite various comments from the bishops and what their letters may imply.
Ender
P
pnewton
Guest
Yes. The impact needs to be considered. I guess I am of the old school that people who do not want to work should not be supported by the government. It is my opinion that the greatest problem with poverty in America is more political than actual, namely, that we have taught too many people it is easier to do nothing and let the government take care of them. I have not found this particular problem among immigrants. When I said earlier that I am for open immigration, it is because I think a population that is willing to work hard, and is taxed for the services used, is of far more benefit to a country than non-workers that pay no taxes and yet receive benefits.
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t really mind sarcasm, except that you used it to deflect my question without answering it. Everyone recognizes that there are limits on the number of immigrants the country can absorb; the poor of the world cannot all come here. That your limit is higher than mine doesn’t mean that you are more compassionate, it just means that we disagree on where to draw a line we both recognize must be drawn. Regarding your citations, find a single comment in any of them that cites Catholic doctrine about the resolution of any specific problem. You won’t because there aren’t any. The bishops are no different than you and I, they have their own preferred approaches to resolving the problems we face. What they have done, and what I object to, is to imply an obligation on our part to agree with their prudential opinions when no such obligation exists. They speak in generalities but imply specifics. They let their opinion be known without actually claiming that what they are saying really is Church doctrine. They rely on people like yourself to connect the dots - and make assumptions about what the Church does and does not demand.
Ender
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wow. You are the only person I’ve ever heard, outside of extremely reactionary and sheltered people (I’m presuming you’re not one of those) who has apparently never heard of the phrase, “the working poor.” That was a phrase that was in the general lexicon long before illegal immigration of impoverished people became as massive a reality in the modern immigration phase (late 20th/early 21st centruies) as it is now. The working poor now of course include those who have migrated from other countries with little to no income, usually unskilled and menial labor, often from rural locations in their countries of origin. But do you really think that most non-immigrant minorities do not work their tails off? I need to inform you that they do, in case you believe otherwise. Long hours, back-breaking or mind-numbing work, multiple jobs sometimes, minimum wage – just like immigrants both legal and illegal.
Lots of non-immigrant poor refuse hand-outs from the government; it’s a form of pride with them. Others realized long ago that the trade-off between work experience and free gov’t hand-outs is sooner or later a lose/lose, because no advancement in that situation is possible. Thus, poor whites and poor people of color who are legal residents mostly prefer to earn slightly more on low wages than not work at all – for meager gov’t benefits. At least working provides opportunity, and even some form of Unemployment Benefits should layoffs ensue.
Finally, there’s no need to glorify an entire group of people inappropriately & unrealistically, nor condemn another group (non-immigrants) out of the same need to create a romantic myth. For your information, not all immigrants (legal or not) are hard-working, just as not all non-immigrants are welfare kings and queens, or lazy, unproductive employees. Some immigrants (several regions, not just one) are here because of criminal opportunism, which flourishes in a country which values civil liberties and has a lax deportation policy. Others are here because of a sincere work-ethic, but the father disappears, and the sons, left without a father-figure, join gangs due to the need for male bonding and male leadership, feed violently like parasites off of innocent public citizens, and cost money due to local justice departments – revenue and service that would otherwise go to honest, hardworking immigrants and non-immigrants.
Nevertheless, the fact that not 100% of legal immigrants are live saints, and that not 100% of illegal immigrants are live saints, is not what should determine U.S. immigration policy, not from either a secular or Catholic viewpoint. The moral principles of immigration should be based on economic and political justice (Gospel values, as noted in Church statements), but never where a related economic or political justice for poor non-immigrants is compromised. Justice for the poor cannot be morally supported when injustice for other poor results. And such compromises occur in regions in the U.S. where the immigration of impoverished, uneducated, unskilled workers is massive & profound – affecting poor residents in those regions. It has to do with concrete numbers, not with abstract principles. In the abstract, migration “shouldn’t” be an issue in a relatively rich country, but we are rich nationally, not locally. Unfortunately, migration in large numbers, in areas where there is already pre-existing poverty, creates injustice to legal residents without the resources to move themselves. It has affected independent construction companies owned by legal residents. It has affected public education to the point where native English speakers are not receiving instruction in English, but in a foreign language they do not understand, and those students have no funds and no options to go elsewhere. (I know because these are my students.) It has resulted in hospital closures which serve poor communities because illegal immigrants have used emergency rooms for non-emergencies and have been the group largely responsible for the closing of dozens of hospitals in several states.
K
karebear92
Guest
I am fine with most of your comment, though I disagree with some of it. What is in bold, however, seems to be a bit of a contradiction. I am sure you didn’t mean for it to come off the way it did, but it seems you are against stereotypes in the first bolded comment, but then create one in the lower bolded comment. Single-parenting is not just an issue among illegal immigrants. Do you hold that stereotype for all single moms or just ones that happen to be illegal immigrants. Either way, your statement is not valid in my opinion.
Are you saying that you are a teacher that teaches in Spanish and that your native speaking students are struggling because of it? Also, do you have an article or something for the part about illegal immigrants closing hospitals? I have never heard of that before. I am being sincere. I only say this because this thread has quite a bit of sarcasm and that is not my intention.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
No. That is not what my comments imply. They are directed toward pnewton, who implied that non-immigrants are far less productive than immigrants. Both of his implied stereotypes are inaccurate. So your claim that my comments are invalid is based on an inaccurate reading of my earlier Reply.
My students are poor blacks (native English speakers, yes) who are “taught” (not) in schools overrun by undocumented students with illiterate parents (illiterate in their own langage even). When I say overrun, I mean an enrollment of 90+% undocumented, non-English-speaking immigrants from Latin America. To cope, Spanish-speaking “teachers” (many not credentialed, some of them just parents
) come into these (usually charter public) schools, struggle to try unsuccessfully to teach the students English curriculum, in Spanish only. (The illiterate teaching the illiterate.) My role is to rescue the poor black students, who often miss as much as a year or two of school – stalled in this circus which poses for education, and as a result I homeschool them with public funds, when those public funds are available. But they cannot use me much, as the funds cover very little of my time, and usually then these poor black families have to rely on their own parents to try to teach them, which in turn throws these families into greater poverty, as no parent can really have a full-time job and be a full-time schoolteacher of their children (especially of more than one).
K
karebear92
Guest
Okay, I am sorry if I missed something.
That is very unfortunate. I did not know that our government had such programs. We have an area here that has a Latino majority, but they generally fill the classrooms, particularly the lower grade levels, with certified, bi-lingual teachers.My students are poor blacks (native English speakers, yes) who are “taught” (not) in schools overrun by undocumented students with illiterate parents (illiterate in their own langage even). When I say overrun, I mean an enrollment of 90+% undocumented, non-English-speaking immigrants from Latin America. To cope, Spanish-speaking “teachers” (many not credentialed, some of them just parents
P
pnewton
Guest
Of course I have. It is not germaine to the question I was addressing.
I hate to say this here, but, “Duh!” You are reading more in my answer to another poster than I said. There is not need for exaggeration of what I said or wild rhetoric. If you do not agree with my opinion, that is your perogative. I have can only comment based on those I know. Please do not let your assumptions of me and what I know, wrong as they are, cause you such angst. I am glad my post is nearby so what I actually said can be easily contrasted with what you think I mean.
The reason why the working poor would not be those to whom I was referring to should be obvious. Those who are working are not those whose job has been taken, as they are still working.
A good rule of thumb: The more you have to use the word “imply” the more likely is that you are reading something in error. I gave a specific answer to a specific question and any further implication from this is only in the mind of the reader.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Elizabeth502,
This was a profoundly moving post …
I was not aware of English speakers being taught in a foreign language in US schools. That is truly a very sad arrangement.
As a nation we have made it very difficult for many to join the ‘melting pot’ - actually, such a concept is hopelessly outdated and shows a desire for unity of peoples as it forms a national unity. Here we celebrate in ‘diversity’ in ways that are acting as a wedge to us coming together as a people to address what would usually be considered national goals and solving national problems.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
God bless
This was a profoundly moving post …
I was not aware of English speakers being taught in a foreign language in US schools. That is truly a very sad arrangement.
As a nation we have made it very difficult for many to join the ‘melting pot’ - actually, such a concept is hopelessly outdated and shows a desire for unity of peoples as it forms a national unity. Here we celebrate in ‘diversity’ in ways that are acting as a wedge to us coming together as a people to address what would usually be considered national goals and solving national problems.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts.
God bless
E
exnihilo
Guest
We have to consider the reality not what would be ideal. The reality is we have a giant welfare state that pays people not to work. The reality is this system is not going away. As long as this system exists unchecked immigration of common laborers is economic suicide.
I would have very little objection to open immigration laws if there was not a giant social welfare state.
C
Captain_America
Guest
With respect to Mexico, it’s a sad situation.
By acting as a political pressure-relief valve, we enable the Mexican few to dominate and exploit the nation.
It would be far more in Mexico’s long term interest to resolve its long-standing economic injustice of income disparity. Much better for people all around than having to live a makeshift life in the US.
By acting as a political pressure-relief valve, we enable the Mexican few to dominate and exploit the nation.
It would be far more in Mexico’s long term interest to resolve its long-standing economic injustice of income disparity. Much better for people all around than having to live a makeshift life in the US.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pnewton,
I think you captured the flavor of your own post with the ‘Duh!’ comment.
There was neither exaggeration or wild rhetoric in Elizabeth’s post - but, instead of responding to her comments you have evaded them with these anecdotal tales and biased but generalized glorifications of immigrants and equally biased and misguided criticisms of US Nationals. At the risk of being ‘sickeningly sarcastic’ … may I suggest that a wee bit more objectivity would go a long way to making for a mature dialogue.
Now on to the thread and the material link you provided. Here are three comments:
1.) Even though stated, “The right to immigrate is a therefore a qualified, rather than an absolute right”, the document does much to undermine this basic principle.
2.) I was amazed that with only two principles listed - they confused the order in which they are to be applied: charity to others before justice to one’s own people. The first duty is to provide for the common good of the citizens who elected the lawmakers. We are not allowed to do evil so as to bring about a good - that is the basis for the moral law.
3.) The earlies law quoted in the document was from 2007 and this was a springboard for how they see the progression of immigration law. No mention of the amnesty given in 1986 and its apparent failure.
It really is possible for the bishops to get something wrong in principle and to misapply an idea in practice. While there are several statements about countries doing what they can do, “… to the greatest extent possible…” No one can argue that the US has not tried and continues to try to accommodate immigrants - the issue is that there are those who see injustice in other countries as apparently inevitable - and expanding US Immigration Law as the solution. “Moreover, the stagnant Mexican economy makes it difficult (and often, impossible) for such persons to make a living and provide for their families.” It appears to me that addressing the root issue (a long standing stagnant economy) has simply been accepted as status quo - and others must rise to make up for this apparent intentional failing. As I see it, such a policy (put still another band-aid on the infected wound rather than treating the infection) is similar to requiring more buckts to removing the rushing water from the boat rather than repairing the hole.
Broowing from Immanuel Kant’s concept of The Categorical Imperative, I think we are looking at why calling out for 'More band-aids!" or “More buckets!” …( or allow more immigrants into the country because they come from such countries where their own problems are impossible to cure there) is flaws: it can not act as a universal principle. It is not and can never become and end in itself. This is totally ignored in the Bishops approach to immigration - and this is a major shortcoming.
God bless
I think you captured the flavor of your own post with the ‘Duh!’ comment.
There was neither exaggeration or wild rhetoric in Elizabeth’s post - but, instead of responding to her comments you have evaded them with these anecdotal tales and biased but generalized glorifications of immigrants and equally biased and misguided criticisms of US Nationals. At the risk of being ‘sickeningly sarcastic’ … may I suggest that a wee bit more objectivity would go a long way to making for a mature dialogue.
Now on to the thread and the material link you provided. Here are three comments:
1.) Even though stated, “The right to immigrate is a therefore a qualified, rather than an absolute right”, the document does much to undermine this basic principle.
2.) I was amazed that with only two principles listed - they confused the order in which they are to be applied: charity to others before justice to one’s own people. The first duty is to provide for the common good of the citizens who elected the lawmakers. We are not allowed to do evil so as to bring about a good - that is the basis for the moral law.
3.) The earlies law quoted in the document was from 2007 and this was a springboard for how they see the progression of immigration law. No mention of the amnesty given in 1986 and its apparent failure.
It really is possible for the bishops to get something wrong in principle and to misapply an idea in practice. While there are several statements about countries doing what they can do, “… to the greatest extent possible…” No one can argue that the US has not tried and continues to try to accommodate immigrants - the issue is that there are those who see injustice in other countries as apparently inevitable - and expanding US Immigration Law as the solution. “Moreover, the stagnant Mexican economy makes it difficult (and often, impossible) for such persons to make a living and provide for their families.” It appears to me that addressing the root issue (a long standing stagnant economy) has simply been accepted as status quo - and others must rise to make up for this apparent intentional failing. As I see it, such a policy (put still another band-aid on the infected wound rather than treating the infection) is similar to requiring more buckts to removing the rushing water from the boat rather than repairing the hole.
Broowing from Immanuel Kant’s concept of The Categorical Imperative, I think we are looking at why calling out for 'More band-aids!" or “More buckets!” …( or allow more immigrants into the country because they come from such countries where their own problems are impossible to cure there) is flaws: it can not act as a universal principle. It is not and can never become and end in itself. This is totally ignored in the Bishops approach to immigration - and this is a major shortcoming.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Captain America,
An excellent observation!
To use an analogy, in the ‘world’ of chemical addiction we have the addict but we also have the enabeler.Here is a link: asktheinternettherapist.com/articles/enabler-definition/
From what I have seen, the US Bishops are criticial of US Immagration Law because it does not enable enough! While the Bishops letter only addresses Mexico, I think it would not be a mischaracterization to say that Central and South America have profoundly flawed economic systems that thwart healthy economic activity enabling their own citizens to earn a decent living - and encouraging them to remain in the country and continue the process of economic progress.
God bless
An excellent observation!
To use an analogy, in the ‘world’ of chemical addiction we have the addict but we also have the enabeler.Here is a link: asktheinternettherapist.com/articles/enabler-definition/
From what I have seen, the US Bishops are criticial of US Immagration Law because it does not enable enough! While the Bishops letter only addresses Mexico, I think it would not be a mischaracterization to say that Central and South America have profoundly flawed economic systems that thwart healthy economic activity enabling their own citizens to earn a decent living - and encouraging them to remain in the country and continue the process of economic progress.
God bless
N
neum334
Guest
tqualey,
You claim to be objective, but admit you don’t know all the facts, which should include anecdotes of real people this affects. That’s why I found your sarcasm sickening. The links you posted from FoxNews and FAIR weren’t exactly unbiased outlets either, even with the misleading statistics they offer.
That said, many laws were made in the interest of public safety after the horrible actions of a relative few, be it banning private residences from blowing up fireworks, late night curfews, the speed limit, and so on. The majority of people who are apprehended for disobeying them may not feel they did something wrong as long as they didn’t hurt anybody, but at least the punishment, unlike deportation, is not life-shattering.
Illegal immigration is still a civil offense, so I wasn’t surprised to read about campaigns to make it a crime by considering it a form of criminal trespassing. That just goes to prove that the punishment currently seen as disproportionate to the offense, and the solution for some is to raise the rating of the offense rather than mitigate the punishment.
You claim to be objective, but admit you don’t know all the facts, which should include anecdotes of real people this affects. That’s why I found your sarcasm sickening. The links you posted from FoxNews and FAIR weren’t exactly unbiased outlets either, even with the misleading statistics they offer.
That said, many laws were made in the interest of public safety after the horrible actions of a relative few, be it banning private residences from blowing up fireworks, late night curfews, the speed limit, and so on. The majority of people who are apprehended for disobeying them may not feel they did something wrong as long as they didn’t hurt anybody, but at least the punishment, unlike deportation, is not life-shattering.
Illegal immigration is still a civil offense, so I wasn’t surprised to read about campaigns to make it a crime by considering it a form of criminal trespassing. That just goes to prove that the punishment currently seen as disproportionate to the offense, and the solution for some is to raise the rating of the offense rather than mitigate the punishment.
Hi, Pnewton,
I think you captured the flavor of your own post with the ‘Duh!’ comment.
There was neither exaggeration or wild rhetoric in Elizabeth’s post - but, instead of responding to her comments you have evaded them with these anecdotal tales and biased but generalized glorifications of immigrants and equally biased and misguided criticisms of US Nationals. At the risk of being ‘sickeningly sarcastic’ … may I suggest that a wee bit more objectivity would go a long way to making for a mature dialogue.
- Status