Catholics and illegal immigration

[karebear92]

‘Unathorized’ is obviously deliberately chosen. Illegal is the proper word. Would they call someone who takes up residence in your home an ‘unathorized roommate’?

That’s what I call mine.

exnihilo:

Do they not understand that cheap immigrant labor increases supply of labor and lowers the wage for all workers? That is just basic economics.

This I could agree with in an idealistic world, or in an economics class, but I do not believe this is necessarily the case in the U.S. By the way, are we talking about legal immigrants that take up jobs or illegal immigrants that take up jobs illegally? (I believe many illegal immigrants should be legal, so the job issue would remain the same). Can a company or small business that is paying minimum wage to an immigrant afford to pay above minimum wage and still make a profit? I know that is not the case in the construction business. My Dad owns a construction company (his employees are all legal citizens), but if he paid everyone what he wishes he could he would lose money on every house he builds. He just would. He would like to pay them what he feels they deserve, but he can’t. Many immigrants will accept that and are just happy to have a job making much more than minimum wage. They work hard for their money and take pride in their work. They will do the work necessary for a paycheck that might not be ideal, but is all that is possible. Many unemployed Americans will not do the work for the wage that will allow the company to make money. That is not greed, that is simply real life.

Are they aware of our current unemployment rate? We dont have excess jobs. In addition we pay people not to work who claim they cant find work. This is highly illogical.

I agree with this. My mom owns two daycares. And I see everyday those that abuse the system. THe state pays for their children to go to daycare for at least six, but no more than ten hours a day. Why? I don’t honestly know. They are supposed to go and find work, but then they talk about how they had a lazy day. So my mom reports that they aren’t doing whatever they are supposed to be doing, and the government says that they can not prove it. Its a huge Catch-22.
“My kids were at daycare because I was looking for work.”
“How did it go.”
“Not too well.”
“Where did you look?”
“Online”
“You looked for 10 hours online?”
“Yep.”
“Did you call any of them?”
“I couldn’t.”
“Why?”
“My internet wouldn’t work.”
“Then why were your kids here?”
“Because I was looking for work.”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

Just how many places do you think you can vote in. To the best of my knowledge, you must be a citizen to vote in a country. If you are a citizen of country ‘a’ and chose to register to vote in country ‘b’ - unless there is some kind of unique arrangement - you have effectively voided your citizenship in country ‘a’.

I can write to my elected officials and tell them what I think the US policy should be for countries like Germany, France, Africia, etc - but, this is not voting in those countries. This is expressing an opinion about the US’s relationship with other countreis.

Now, if we are concerned about the historical impact of policies on a particular ethnic group - like the Irish, and see how discrimination played a major role in immagration efforts especially with politicians belonging to the ‘Know Nothings’ we can read (and learn) how this group of foreign nationals overcame great obstacles and helped to unify the country into a strong nation (notice that none of the signs were in American and Galic).

Claiming Hispaic-Americans are affected by voting laws is a curious claim. There should be no voting discrimination toward citizens. If you know of such illegal discrimination against a citizen, then you really should report it to the Justice Department - and here is the link: voting.section@usdoj.gov Conversely, if you know of non-citizens voting in an election - this, too, is a crime and should be reported to the same government agency.

Well, you may think it is not ‘ludicrous’ to vote in a language you do not understand - but, how do you think votes are bought - because they are ‘sold’ by people who do not hold the ballot dear, or understand what is going or simply do not care what happens. The idea of an informed electorate is NOT someone telling someone else how to vote.

Candidly, I am not going to try and match your hard-luck stories about what is fair or not fair when it comes to illegal immigration. The idea you must first address is the ILLEGAL part of this term. How to make the transition from having citizenship in one country to having citizenship in another is not an easy process in any country that I know of - do you know of any country that is basically saying, “Come on in - no (or maybe just a couple) questions asked, no real delays - in fact, you can do this as you process off of the plane or ship!”

Again, this is a complex issue - and anecdotal stories of people having difficulties is not going to the heart of the issue. Focus on what can be changed and start to seriously work on it - if that is what you want to do. But, really whining about difficulties and a preceived lack of being ‘fair’ is not the answer.

God bless

Really? So you can not have an opinion or make an informed vote about what happens in Germany, France, Africa, China, Japan, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. I just don’t think that is the case. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that we should vote in those places because it does not affect us, but the elections most certainly do affect the Hispanic-Americans that are voting. To say you can not make an informed vote simply because you do not speak the language of the majority is ludicrous. For example, my friend is hispanic. Her mother does not speak English, but she, who was born in America, speaks English as well as I do. Can she not inform her mother? There is no reason why we can not learn two languages just as they are expected to. I do not condone illegal immigration, believe me I don’t, but there are many examples that people just don’t take into consideration. For example, another friend of mine was an illegal immigrant and I did not even know until a few weeks ago. She moved here with her parents when she was a toddler. She speaks fluent English and nobody would ever assume that she is an illegal immigrant, but still she married her high school sweetheart before they probably should have to prevent deportation. Is this right? No. She deserves to be an American citizen just as much as I do. I am not saying that what she or her family did was right, but it is not as if they came over illegally because they wanted to avoid paying taxes. It was because they were not able to do it legally and they wanted a better life.

Is illegal immigration wrong? Yes. Is the current path to legal immigration wrong? Yes. I propose that if we make legal immigration easier, it will solve the problem to a great degree.

 

[karebear92]

Hi, Karebear92,

You have set upon the true center of the argument, with the near deafing whine of, “That’s not fair!” Well, I got news for you pilgirm - life is not fair. From birth to death, none of have exactly the same cards dealt to us - and this is fromt he Divine Dealer. The issue that each country has is how can we make equal opportunities for each our citizens - for the mentally retarded to the the genius, from the men on one side and the women on the other, from children on one side and adolescents on another and still a side for adults.

We as a society consciously - and legally - discriminate against (and for) items, causes and persons we have assessed. Look around you … with your family in the car, would you pick up a lone hitchhiker? Would you offer money to someone panhandling outside of a liquor store? Would you march in a parade proclaiming same-sex marriage? Don’t dismiss these as ‘straw men’ … simply identify a person, group or idea that you do not support and actively discriminate against. Each member of the group you have discriminated against can say you have discriminated agaist them - and that would be true. They can say you gave to group ‘x’ but not them - and that would be true. And, finally, they can say, “That’s not fair!”: And, I submit to you, fairness has nothing to do with it. We are obligated to justice first and then to mercy.

Each country sets up the standards where people from other countries are legally allowed to enter. I traveled to England - and on my passport the Officer stamped that I could not work there OR apply for public assistance. Those are the conditions under which I entered the country. I abided by them - but, I am sure there are those who would say, “That is not fair”. Well, if I took a local citizen’s job - breaking the conditions under which I entered the country - they could say, “That’s not fair”. If I, as a foreign national, applied for public assistance I am taking out funds that I have made no contribution to - and I have reduced the amount of those funds for those who have made contribuitons. Truly, just who is it we are trying to be fair to? If we violate justice in order to provide mercy at the expense of the rights of others - what kind of respect for law are we providing?

If you do not believe the immigration laws are ‘fair’ - there are two major options open to you:

1- Legal: work withing the system, hold meetings, sign petitions, work the election of people who agree with what you think is correct (or, run for office yourself) write your elected officials and vote for the candidates you think will make a real difference in getting the changes you want to see enacted.

2- Illegal: work to help others break the law, break the law yourself, promote illegal immigration and claim you are being 'fair because the current system is ‘unfai’. and ‘difficult’.

Those are the only two choices. We have a legal set of laws that try and respect the rights of the citizens who voted for the men and women who are in office and enacted those laws. This is what a representative democracy is all about. We are not talking about reporting Jews to Nazi authorities so they could be arrested, deported and murdered.

This is not an easy topic - all kinds of people falling short of various marks that we in society have set to determining what is just. This however is the real world - and you still have only the two choices I presented above to choose from. But, let me ask you … if you choose the second - which laws will come up next to be trampled under the foot of ‘fairness’ and ‘lack of difficulty’?

God bless

I don’t have time to address this now. I will be back in about two hours. But before we go any further, I am an American citizen of French heritage. My family has roots dating back to the early 1700s in Louisiana. I still do not believe that the current policy is fair.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Birdpreacher,

I really do not know. Do you have an insight into this matter?

Let me respond with something that may nudge this topic forward just a bit. In Acts 16 we have an interesting story about Paul’s Roman citizenship having an impact on the behavior of others. There is a story in Acts 16 when Paul goes to Philippi Here is a link: usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts16.htm The operative verse is 38.

I have no idea how Paul made a convincing demonstration about his Roman citizenship - but, whatever he did, the magistrates were scared to death. They knew full well the penalty for beating a Roman citizen without a trial was death! I have always thought that it would have been so easy for these magistrates to claim Paul was not a Roman citizen and demand proof from him. If they did, it was not recorded. These people did not have passports like we normally consider them today - so, I really do not know how Paul did what he did.

The Holy Family had no special governmental status - like Paul did. Since common people rarely move more than 25 miles from their birth place - I just do not think that there were not long lines for immigrantion. But, my guess is that it would probably not be that productive to contrast immigrantion events of a 3-person family in the 1st Century with what we are working with today. But, maybe I missed something here - so tell me, how do you see this matter?

God bless

Did The Holy Family have papers when they moved to Egypt?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

Take your time - I am interested in a good response.

I am 3rd generation Irish, and my family roots date back to New Jersey in the 1880’s. That and a couple of dollars will get you a coffee at Starbuck’s.

Laws are to be uniformly applied - and that means they will have more of an impact on some people than on others. In my opinion you need to move on from this ‘fairness’ hang up… it will stop ALL efforts at action because there will be something in every law that is UNFAIR to someone. We will become paralyzed by straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Honest. Current law has a lot of problems - and, the reality is that they need to be fixed. But, ignoring them only inspires contempt for law - and beraking them does not solve anything.

Let’s come up with some rational and doable actions.

God bless

I don’t have time to address this now. I will be back in about two hours. But before we go any further, I am an American citizen of French heritage. My family has roots dating back to the early 1700s in Louisiana. I still do not believe that the current policy is fair.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As a Catholic, you can listen to what the bishops say, then listen to what those that argue against our bishops say. Which side sounds to you more like Jesus?

Nope. False dichotomy. You can listen to what the bishops say about immigration as well as what they (and other orthodox Church sources) say about Jesus’ teaching in total, as well as what the bishops say, and the Vatican says, about forming the Catholic conscience. The well-formed Catholic conscience looks at the entire Catholic response, not a single document, but the whole of Catholic teaching as applied to current economics, demographics, politics, and social realities. The well-formed Catholic conscience is especially concerned about trading injustice for justice whenever the latter affects equally poor people. In Catholic moral theology, the means are never justified by the end. There is no bishops’ declaration, for example, that approves of blanket preference for illegal immigrants in situations & locations where injustice to poor residents results.

That is why the well-formed Catholic conscience does not irresponsibly & selectively choose one document to validate a political position, pro or con.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JackyB,

I think you have presented an excellent post!

What we all basically demand from government (and, I think this is pretty much a universal aspiration) is that we have equal justice under law. If you are going to impose a set of conditions on people in one group, then it must be uniformly applied. Those, who through political connections and the payment of bribes get special attention draw everyone’s wrath - and with cause.

If the system for obtaining a UK Passport is x, y. and z along with the payment of established fees then so be it. If you want the item, this is what you must do … or have been born wherever it is you wanted the passport from!

The argument that the immigration laws: don’t make sense, are not clear, are difficult and (of course) are unfair mean nothing to me! Are they unjust is the real question. Are these laws in need of reform, modfication or even repeal… well, there are ways for we the citizenry to work on that - but, that does not give us the authority to break them at our pleasure or leisure or because we feel they are ‘unfair’.

The concept of civil disobedience is real, valid and requires that those who practice it pay the price - not run and hide. This is not a mere incidental detail. If you are going to throw sand in the gears of the laws of representative democracy, then you must stand up and not only be counted but be arrested and face trial. This is truly a rough way to go about getting one’s point across - but, it is the only other way civilized society can function (ah, going throgh the process of petitioning, holding meetings, running for office and working to change such laws through the system is the other way).

God bless

My husband does not have a Uk Passport and as a result for him to remain with his wife and children we had to pay thousands of pounds, money which I worked 2 jobs to raise. I might not agree with the law but I had to abide by it. That others feel they don’t have to go to the same legal lengths to obtain what I worked so hard for should be immediately booted out the country, either that or return my money.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Nice car!

Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees to ‘…render unto Caesar…’ (Mark 12:17) - in short they are to abide by civil law. How we define good for others so that it appears to disenfrnachise citizens for non-citizens has honestly confused me to no end… Our first responsibility is to justice and then we move to mercy. I think when you look at the policies of the US (bankrolled by the US taxpayer) we are a most generous nation. Maybe not the MOST generous of ALL nations - but, considering what we have done to improve the standards of living for most of the world is worth some consideration.

Were these actions motivated by the purest of motives … of course not, they were 100% political in some way - but, do not cancel them out for that reason. People can give for pure motives while their government scheme for every advantage there is or that can be created.

How the we as a people had handled all immigration (from Plymouth Rock to today…) has been a mixed bag of confusion, opportunism, racism, benovalence - you name it, such elements and dozens more can be found in our laws. Oh, and let’s not forget the Native Americans we have displaced so that we can not make room for others!

No doubt about it - our immigration laws leave a lot to be desired. But, one of the elements of a representative democracy is that everyone has a chance to have an imput into the ultimate legislation. This is different from Plato’s idea and ideal of a Philosopher King - or to use another term, he was a ‘nice dictator’. While it may be a warming thought to have St. Francis of Assisi run the country - when we look back, we find that there are not that many elected officials who are also canonized saints. Maybe there is a reason for this…

Do you have any workable ideas on how to improve our existing laws?

God bless

As a Catholic, you can listen to what the bishops say, then listen to what those that argue against our bishops say. Which side sounds to you more like Jesus? Which side is motivated more by the good for others and which side is motivated by what is good for themselves?

AB Dolan said there was a new document in the works that he is co-writing with AB Gomez. I think it is something to look forward to. I doubt it will please either side that puts a high priority on political affiliation.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

Nice car!

Jesus told the Scribes and Pharisees to ‘…render unto Caesar…’ (Mark 12:17) …and unto God the things that are God. That is always the question. Where does one end and the other start? What we owe Caesar is respect and obedience to the law. What we owe God, among other things is seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan, to be His hands and feet in this world. So we obey God first and Caesar second.

Do you have any workable ideas on how to improve our existing laws?

God bless

I have done that before and without another long post, I am in favor of a tightly regulated border that lets everyone in, excepting only those with a serious criminal record or other identifiable security threat. I am still of the belief, but I see people as a resource, not a problem, especially working people. I also think all should pay some tax and citizenship should be open to all, as long as they are willing to contribute and take a reasonable path.

 

[karebear92]

tqualey,

Sorry, based on your post it seemed you thought I was some form of immigrant or illegal immigrant or something. I was just trying to point out that that wasn’t the case.

I will address the one about my voting in other countries first. I addressed that the first time. I am not saying I should vote or that illegal immigrants should vote or that legal immigrants are being discriminated against. I was responding to the claim that they should be required to speak our language to be able to vote, and that they must know our language to make an informed vote. If they are voting, they live in our country and are legal citizens, and, therefore, are affected by our laws. To say that one must be able to speak the language of the majority to make an educated decision is ludicrous. I don’t speak Arabic, but I still can form an educated opinion about what happens in the Middle East. Should I vote there? No, because I don’t live there. If I was a citizen there and knew broken Arabic could I vote there, absolutely. That was my point, it had nothing to do with voting laws. I was just saying that one does not need to know the language of the majority to make an educated vote.

 

[neum334]

Yes, we could get rid of the 10-year bar enacted during the Clinton administration on illegal immigrants who voluntarily deport themselves. Currently the policy leaves illegal immigrants who try to legalize their status in a difficult situation where they are barred from returning legally to the US for at least 10 years if they return to their native country to wait several years for a visa (those that are fortunate enough to have family to sponsor them).

For example, a 19-year-old living illegally in the country since he was a toddler (on the outside as American as apple pie), self deports and cannot return to his friends and family until he is 30. Faced with getting stuck for 10 years minimum in a third world country they may not even know well if they left as toddlers, most of them choose to stay illegally and keep a low profile, work off the books and take public transportation since they can’t get driver’s licenses.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Yes that is a big question - and one that I think can be reasonably applied in a representative democracy rather than the dictatorship of Caesar.

You sort of lost me with the ‘…tightly regulated borders…’ that let everyone in!

Somewhere along the line we need to see how are actions are in keeping with justice to the people we owe a first obligation to - our own citizens. People are indeed an asset - but, we need to get a number of elements in place before opening all gates. For example, would the newly arrived be elegible for public welfare? If so, who really underwrites this and are we at risk for not having enough for the citizens. (Please note that most states are having trouble paying unemployment benefits and many social services have had to retrench because the varous state governments can not fund all that they used to fund. We will see what the Feds do with this problem ($14.2 trillion dollars worth of debt) in 5 days!.

I honestly do not see this as selfish or un-Christlike or anything else that is negative for people to take care of their own before taking care of others. Now, it could be argued that there would be all this ‘extra’ money if we stopped waging foreigh wars - just arm ourselves to the teeth when it comes to terrorism - and see what happens. But, that is one of the challenges with a representative democracy. Just how do we want to be secure in our own borders?

God bless

…and unto God the things that are God. That is always the question. Where does one end and the other start? What we owe Caesar is respect and obedience to the law. What we owe God, among other things is seen in the parable of the Good Samaritan, to be His hands and feet in this world. So we obey God first and Caesar second.

I have done that before and without another long post, I am in favor of a tightly regulated border that lets everyone in, excepting only those with a serious criminal record or other identifiable security threat. I am still of the belief, but I see people as a resource, not a problem, especially working people. I also think all should pay some tax and citizenship should be open to all, as long as they are willing to contribute and take a reasonable path.

 

[neum334]

Only US citizens are eligible for welfare. The confusion comes when a baby is born in the United States (thus a natural born citizen) to parents in the country illegally. There are plenty of “mixed-status” households where a child is a citizen, another member illegal, and the rest are legal residents.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Neum334,

While these may seem like valid concerns to you - they really fall short of the goal of developing a realistic immigration policy for the US.

There will always be stories of hardships and those who say they want to live in this country and simply break as many laws as it takes for them to hold onto their dream. They have children (born in the US, of course) and then claim they can not now be deported because it would be separating their family.

This sort of reminds me of the classis example used to describe chutzpah: the young man kills his father and mother and then pleads for mercy from the courts becasue he is an orphan! At some point someone will simply say, “Enough!” Play be the rules becasue it is making fools out of those who have sacrificed to actually do as they were told to do and not make a mockery of the legal system we have.

You know, the argument about leaving one’s country to make one’s fortunate here in the US is the stuff of heroic stories - but, it says nothing of how their own country could have been improved had they stayed and actually worked THERE to make things better! I admit this is not a question with an easy answer - but, it does have a simple one: if you do not like the existing laws, work to get them changed - and until then, follow what you have in front of you.

God bless

Yes, we could get rid of the 10-year bar enacted during the Clinton administration on illegal immigrants who voluntary deport themselves. Currently the policy leaves illegal immigrants who try to legalize their status in a difficult situation where they are barred from returning legally to the US for at least 10 years if they return to their native country to wait several years for a visa (those that are fortunate enough to have family to sponsor them).

For example, a 19-year-old living illegally in the country since he was a toddler (on the outside as American as apple pie), self deports and cannot return to his friends and family until he is 30. Faced with getting stuck for 10 years minimum in a third world country they may not even know well if they left as toddlers, most of them choose to stay illegally and keep a low profile, work off the books and take public transportation since they can’t get driver’s licenses.

 

[neum334]

My proposal was just to return to the immigration policy of the US before 1996. Just sayin’.

Hi, Neum334,

While these may seem like valid concerns to you - they really fall short of the goal of developing a realistic immigration policy for the US.

There will always be stories of hardships and those who say they want to live in this country and simply break as many laws as it takes for them to hold onto their dream. They have children (born in the US, of course) and then claim they can not now be deported because it would be separating their family.

This sort of reminds me of the classis example used to describe chutzpah: the young man kills his father and mother and then pleads for mercy from the courts becasue he is an orphan! At some point someone will simply say, “Enough!” Play be the rules becasue it is making fools out of those who have sacrificed to actually do as they were told to do and not make a mockery of the legal system we have.

You know, the argument about leaving one’s country to make one’s fortunate here in the US is the stuff of heroic stories - but, it says nothing of how their own country could have been improved had they stayed and actually worked THERE to make things better! I admit this is not a question with an easy answer - but, it does have a simple one: if you do not like the existing laws, work to get them changed - and until then, follow what you have in front of you.

God bless

 

[karebear92]

tqualey,

Now I will address the one that I did not have time to before.

With liberty and justice for all. You may say that this only goes for citizens of the United States in the United States, but that is rather hypocritical. All laws should be made justly. Creating laws that are unreasonable is not just and that goes for immigration laws as well. The current immigration laws are not just. One can not expect an immigrant willing to come to this country to work for minimum wage or below to pay around 10,000 dollars and often more if they decide that they would like their family to come with them. They can not expect them to pass a test that almost all Americans would fail. That is not just.

I do not discriminate against anyone. I would pick up a homeless person just as quickly as I would pick up a white collared man. I do not discriminate against gays, but I do not support the changing of a law that would unjustly affect Catholics. But your examples, aside from the gay-marriage on, all deal with safety. To put immigrants on the same level is just not right. They are nice, hard-working people. They do not put me in danger. I do not unjustly discriminate against anyone.

I have repeatedly stated that illegal immigration is not right. My “hard-luck stories” are not to express that illegal immigration is just. One was about a legal immigrant who does not speak English and her ability to vote. The other was about a girl who is considered a legal despite the fact that she has no memory of Mexico. To uproot her and place her into a foreign country, yes it would be foreign to her, is not right. These are the type of laws that need to change. Is uprooting a family that has lived in the U.S. for 15 years, albeit illegally, the right thing to do? No. One must look for what is best for the person not the economy or any other issue. My other point is that they are not illegal because they refuse to follow the laws, they are illegal because they can’t follow the laws. Those currently living in America should be granted citizenship, especially if they have families living here. Also, they pay taxes. Maybe not social security and medicare, but sales taxes they do. I am not saying illegal immigration should be allowed or tolerated, but one must consider the well being of the person and their family.

Now that I have had time to read this post more clearly, I would like to apologize for the comment I made about my heritage. I read the last part of your post completely wrong.
The only difference is we are not murdering them. We are arresting them and deporting them. It often breaks up families and can lead to children being put in a foreign environment for something they did not do.

I do not condone illegal immigration, but I believe the problem is a result of our poor policies rather than the immigrants.

I propose that we simplify the process so that an immigration attorney is not needed. We should allow those without a criminal record to come into our country to work. We should grant those who have lived free from crime in the U.S. to remain here and grant them citizenship. I believe that those wanting to come to America to work should be given a conditional citizenship and so long as they don’t commit a felony within the first three to five tears they should gain full citizenship. I also propose that we teach a bilingual education.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Neum334,

When I read your post, I had my doubts … and, then I did some checking on the net. This is a rather mixed bag - and one that does not simply allow a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response that actually terminates debate because the facts are so clear and undisputed.

I was only able to find one source that supported your position. I found multiple sources with documentation that says just the opposite. Ultimately, it comes down to how do you define public assistance and who is eligible. For example children born in this country (US Nationals) to illegal immigrant parents are eligible for public assistance. While the argument could be made that the parents that the check is not going to the parents but to the children - I think the larger issue would be are these parents benefitting from US public assistnace in addition to their children?

Then we have state laws (as opposed to federal laws) that are apparently being circumvented … and then there is hospitalization that someone (not usually the Feds) is having to pay for when illegal immigrants show up at the Emergency Department.

Truly, your response seems to shut down debate because it clearly rejects the idea of illegal immigrants getting public assistnace - but, this is simply not the case. Look at it this way: if the illegal immigrants were not here in the US would they be getting public assistance? Of course not - but, what happens when they arrive in the US … we see a real increase in public expenses.

From what I have read, it would appear to me that billions of dollars are going directly and indirectly to support illegal immigrants - and this is money coming directly from US Taxpayers. I think before any argument can be made that illegal immigrants do not receive public assistnace, the reference links I provided stating that they do will need to be addressed.

God bless

////////////// Illegal Immigrants DO RECEIVE public assistance:
fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16985&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1017

cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

ihatethemedia.com/70-percent-of-illegal-aliens-in-texas-receive-welfare

foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79013,00.html

/////////// ** Illegal Immigrans DO NOT RECEIVE public assistnace**.

blog.chron.com/immigration/2008/01/illegal-immigrants-on-welfare-fact-or-fiction/

Only US citizens are eligible for welfare. The confusion comes when a baby is born in the United States (thus a natural born citizen) to parents in the country illegally. There are plenty of “mixed-status” households where a child is a citizen, another member illegal, and the rest are legal residents.

 

[karebear92]

Hi, Karebear92,

Well, I got news for you pilgirm - life is not fair. From birth to death, none of have exactly the same cards dealt to us - and this is fromt he Divine Dealer.

Sorry, I forgot to address this in my last post an just now realized. God is perfectly just. Human laws are not. There is a difference.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

You have provided a lot of material here … let me see if I can respond to at least some of it. In the interest in concerving on the 6000 character limit, I have taken the liberty of editing some of your comments:

With liberty and justice for all. You may say that this only goes for citizens of the United States in the United States, but that is rather hypocritical.

Actually, Karebear92, I never said or implied this. Anyone exploiting, assaulting or defrauding anyone (illegal immigrant or US National) is liable to the full weight of the Law. These illegal immigrants should in no way be exploited by anyone in this country - and our Laws, intended to protect everyone, should be a safeguard for all. The issue is the illegals breaking the Law.

All laws should be made justly. Creating laws that are unreasonable is not just and that goes for immigration laws as well. The current immigration laws are not just. One can not expect an immigrant willing to come to this country to work for minimum wage or below to pay around 10,000 dollars and often more if they decide that they would like their family to come with them. They can not expect them to pass a test that almost all Americans would fail. That is not just.

You have really mixed apples and grapes in this bag - and they really need to be sorted out. You just can not make a statement that the laws are ‘unjust’ without some evidence - the burden of proof falls on you to substantiate this statement. We live in a representative democracy where all 3 brances of government get into the act when it comes to the ultimate justice of a Law. Some laws have been found to be invalid by the courts - and thrown out! These immigration laws have really withstood judicial examination - and, I have every confidence in telling you that they are ‘just’.

Now, if you want reasonable laws - that is another story. Every law has some aspects that someone made sure waas put into it - that is the nature of our government (and chances are every other government that is not run by a dictator). Claiming a law should be thrown out because you do not think it is reasonable or creates a hardship sounds like the basis for a court challenge to the Law. Will a judge see things your way or not? There is no way to tell until it goes to trial and a decision is made.

Claiming that someone paid $10,000+ to get their family over here (Illegally) and this is unjust - is probably valid. But, the complaint is not with US or its Laws, but rather the bandits doing this illegal work. Actually, from what I have read, if they get over here alive and to their destination without being beaten, raped, or robbed - they probably did better then many of their countrymen. But, again, this is not a US Law - this is the work of those willing to break the Law and those willing to pay for it to be borken.

I have repeatedly stated that illegal immigration is not right.

It is an established principle of the moral law that one can not do evil to bring about a good. There is an issue that every illegal immigrant that made the decision to come over to the US must ultimately answer. In addition to the problems they have created for themselves - their children who traveled with them are intimately involved in their parent’s illegal acts. While not morally culpable themselves, they nontheless suffer the consequences.

I do not discriminate against anyone. I would pick up a homeless person just as quickly as I would pick up a white collared man.

What you probably mean is that you do not illegally discriminate against anyone. If you are given a choice between two or more items, and you discriminate in favor one, you discriminated against the others (as they say in the marriage ceremony, “…forsaking all others…” Well, those other gals have been discriminated against!

I do not condone illegal immigration, but I believe the problem is a result of our poor policies rather than the immigrants.

I totally agree. The illegal immigrant had no hand in the development of falwed policies, difficult laws or harsh penalties.

I propose that we simplify the process so that an immigration attorney is not needed.

Stand in line, Karebear92, let them write clear tax laws so we do not need an accountant and maybe a tax attorney to simply pay what we owe! Yeah, the same guys who write complicated tax laws also write complicated immigration laws. Why? Laws are written by attorneys. In many aspects we are not that far apart.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Neum334,

OK, I am ignorant here. What are the BIG differences between existing immigration laws and whatever was in existence in 1996?

And, if possible, keep it simple…

God bless

My proposal was just to return to the immigration policy of the US before 1996. Just sayin’.