Catholics and illegal immigration

[karebear92]

First I would like to say that I wasn’t accusing you of saying that. I was trying to address what I thought you might say before you said it. I should have said " and after reading this you may say…"

Hi, Karebear92,

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 meant legally. I think we are talking about two different issues and I may have made it confusing. Sorry if that is the case. I am talking about legal immigration here, not illegal. I am saying that the cause for illegal immigration is because legal immigration is not an option for many. It is expensive. One can not expect an immigrant willing to work for minimum wage, or illegal immigrants willing to work for less, to have the means to pay all of the fees. It just does not make sense, in my opinion.

tqualey:

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.

What are you trying to say here? I don’t believe illegal immigration is evil. Period. And do you believe the second part is just? If my father kills someone, should I be held responsible despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it?

tqualey:

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 guess you are right. What I meant to say is I do not discriminate against anyone or anything unfairly.

tqualey:

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.

I completely agree. I think this is a huge problem. When the average American can not take care of their own affairs, then it needs to be simplified so they can. When the general population can’t figure out what is going on they are vulnerable. This is why people on Wall Street are able to take advantage of Americans without anyone noticing.

God bless!

 

[neum334]

Try reading this summary from a website: library.findlaw.com/1996/Dec/1/126303.html Some of the changes were needed, but others, especially the new grounds for inadmissibility, were overly restrictive and cause people to stay in the shadows rather than leave.

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

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

Let’s see if we can summarize

First I would like to say that I wasn’t accusing you of saying that. I was trying to address what I thought you might say before you said it. I should have said " and after reading this you may say…"

The best advice is not to jump too far ahead…

I meant legally. I think we are talking about two different issues and I may have made it confusing. Sorry if that is the case.

The second best advice is to stick with the posted thread - in this case ILLEGAL immigration.

I am saying that the cause for illegal immigration is because legal immigration is not an option for many. It is expensive. One can not expect an immigrant willing to work for minimum wage, or illegal immigrants willing to work for less, to have the means to pay all of the fees. It just does not make sense, in my opinion.

Let’s be clear about this - no one is talking about discount coupons for immegration. Going on vacation is expensive, too - adn because of the expense, some people simply can not go where they want to go. I am sure that there are a lot of people who live in Oralndo, Florida that have never been to Disney World.

You recall the ‘Pearl of great price’ parable? Well, it was true back then and it is true today - people will work hard and save their money to get what they really want. Do not use the excuse that it is expensive - neither of us set the fees for any aspect of someone relocating to the US. The real issue is, are the Laws we are using doing the job we want done? I am guessing that someone could try and get a formula for “2 + 2 = 4” that somehow contains the square root of pi!! That may be because a lawyer was told to come up with a formula and he had a soft spot in his heart for pi… The point is, most people can see what they like - but writing a law that satisfies all of the interests involved tends to make things needlessly complicated. “Needlessly” if one only looks at one aspect of the Law. While I may have a cynical view of attorneys (especially when they hold elected office) things are not necessary as simply as we would like to see them.

What are you trying to say here? I don’t believe illegal immigration is evil. Period. And do you believe the second part is just? If my father kills someone, should I be held responsible despite the fact that I had nothing to do with it?

Well, maybe these sources can say it better than I can … check our Romans 3:8… (usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans3.htm ) and then check out Veritatis Splendor by JP II (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html )
Dispensing or receiving perfect justice is not part of this ‘vale of tears’… demanding it is a non-starter.

While there are several ways to address the sins of the father being visited on the children (Adam and Eve come immediately to mind - and, yes, I know, “That’s not fair!”) you have already given several examples yourself. The high school girl who married her sweetheart so she could stay in this country. The parents brought her here illegally - and now she must make her own way as best she can without a genuine legal status (not sure what happens if they divorce…). Ultimately everyone who benefits from an illegal activity (theft, drugs, murder, etc) is eating from a poisoned tree. It is only a matter of time before the effects start to show up. Here’s another one … illegal immigrant working ‘off the books’ - gets permanently injured. Well, he may not get worker’s compensation … but, he certainly will not SS Disability. He can’t work, can’t earn money and has a life time of various limitations. It goes on and on - but, ultimately, there is generation after generation that has been taught it is OK to break the law because it is not convenient to obey it. So, we have now a group who claims entitlement to something they have not right to in the first place - except tenure in breaking the Law. Now, that is more then a legal problem - this is one of attitude - and that is what I am saying.

I guess you are right. What I meant to say is I do not discriminate against anyone or anything unfairly.

Now, don’t go and get all ‘mushy’ on me …

I completely agree. I think this is a huge problem. When the average American can not take care of their own affairs, then it needs to be simplified so they can. When the general population can’t figure out what is going on they are vulnerable. This is why people on Wall Street are able to take advantage of Americans without anyone noticing.

Now, do you want to open a thread on Wall Street?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi Neum334,

Hey, this was a very good site! Not only did it answer my questions, but gave me a lot more to think about.

Now, I am wondering, most laws were enacted with ‘good intentions’ and over time developed problems. The law Clinton signed was 200+ pages and covered a lot of ground. Do you know what problems they were trying to solve witht he solutions they came up with. This is really an unfamiliar area to me … but the new law certainly seemed to take an in-your-face approach to immigration.

God bless

Try reading this summary from a website: library.findlaw.com/1996/Dec/1/126303.html Some of the changes were needed, but others, especially the new grounds for inadmissibility, were overly restrictive and cause people to stay in the shadows rather than leave.

 

[karebear92]

Hi, Karebear92,

Let’s see if we can summarize

The best advice is not to jump too far ahead…

I am terribly, terribly sorry.

tqualey:

The second best advice is to stick with the posted thread - in this case ILLEGAL immigration.

I still don’t think you understand my position. Much of illegal immigration is a result of the current immigration laws. It requires resources that the majority can not afford. What I am saying is that it is impossible to for most immigrants to afford to pay the immigration fees. I wasn’t switching subjects. I was using both in the same example. My point is not that illegal immigration is okay, but that the reason immigrants choose to come here illegally isn’t because they want to,but it is there only way. They are coming over here willing to work very hard for minimum wage. That most likely means that they are leaving worse conditions. So what if it takes them 15 or even 20 years before they can begin the process due to lack of funds. That’s just illogical. That was my point. It’s not like (and forgive my youthful slang) they are bankin’ over there and Mexico and just want a change in scenery and can afford the price tag that comes with it. They want to come to the land of opportunity. It should be an opportunity open to all; not just those who really have no reason to leave their country. What I am saying is working hard and saving may not be enough. It just may not ever be enough, no matter how hard they work.

tqualey:

Let’s be clear about this - no one is talking about discount coupons for immegration. Going on vacation is expensive, too - adn because of the expense, some people simply can not go where they want to go. I am sure that there are a lot of people who live in Oralndo, Florida that have never been to Disney World.
Okay…
I don’t think comparing immigration and vacation is linear. Thats a bit of a jump in my opinion. (Do you want to start talking about Disney World now? Only kidding, of course.)
I am not condoning illegal immigration, nor am I promoting it. I believe the law is unjust and thus should be reformed and will vote as such.
qualey:

Well, maybe these sources can say it better than I can … check our Romans 3:8… (usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans3.htm

) and then check out Veritatis Splendor by JP II (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html )
Dispensing or receiving perfect justice is not part of this ‘vale of tears’… demanding it is a non-starter.
While there are several ways to address the sins of the father being visited on the children (Adam and Eve come immediately to mind - and, yes, I know, “That’s not fair!”) you have already given several examples yourself. The high school girl who married her sweetheart so she could stay in this country. The parents brought her here illegally - and now she must make her own way as best she can without a genuine legal status (not sure what happens if they divorce…). Ultimately everyone who benefits from an illegal activity (theft, drugs, murder, etc) is eating from a poisoned tree. It is only a matter of time before the effects start to show up. Here’s another one … illegal immigrant working ‘off the books’ - gets permanently injured. Well, he may not get worker’s compensation … but, he certainly will not SS Disability. He can’t work, can’t earn money and has a life time of various limitations. It goes on and on - but, ultimately, there is generation after generation that has been taught it is OK to break the law because it is not convenient to obey it. So, we have now a group who claims entitlement to something they have not right to in the first place - except tenure in breaking the Law. Now, that is more then a legal problem - this is one of attitude - and that is what I am saying.
We are not talking about God. God is just, although we may not always understand it. We are talking about laws humans have made. They may not be just. In this case they are not just, in my opinion. God can make decisions about punishment from generation to generation, but we are not capable of that as humans. We should never allow a child to be punished for the actions of their parents. It is that simple. If my dad killed a man, I should not be placed in jail. Similarly, if a parent comes to America illegally, their child should not pay the consequences.

tqualey:

I guess you are right. What I meant to say is I do not discriminate against anyone or anything unfairly.

Now, don’t go and get all ‘mushy’ on me …

I’m not getting mushy. .

tqualey:

Now, do you want to open a thread on Wall Street?

No, not really. I am just making a simple statement that it is the intentional complexity of things that can lead people to get taken advantage of. As in the current complexity of immigration allows immigrants to get taken advantage of.

 

[neum334]

I don’t know much about the reasons either, but it probably had more to do with addressing the problem of people gaming the system with fraud. I guess another intent was to remove as much incentives for future illegal immigrants, but it had the effect of causing more retention of those that made it in already. To put things in historical perspective, it could have been much worse, like the Immigration Act of 1924: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 Quotas didn’t exist before the Emergency Quota Act of 1921. Before that you either came from a country without any numerical limits (just be literate and healthy) or were barred altogether if from one of the excluded Asian countries.

Hi Neum334,

Hey, this was a very good site! Not only did it answer my questions, but gave me a lot more to think about.

Now, I am wondering, most laws were enacted with ‘good intentions’ and over time developed problems. The law Clinton signed was 200+ pages and covered a lot of ground. Do you know what problems they were trying to solve witht he solutions they came up with. This is really an unfamiliar area to me … but the new law certainly seemed to take an in-your-face approach to immigration.

God bless

 

[Ender]

I imagine my feelings are due in large part to my not being an active Christian for a couple of years. Perhaps as I continue to grow in faith those thoughts will change. But I can’t imagine I’m the only person with these conflicting thoughts.

There is no specifically Christian solution to the problem of illegal immigration. The difficulties we face in determining the best actions to take are entirely prudential; their are no moral dilemmas involved in selecting what will and will not work.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ad Altare Dei,

I read Edner’s post and thought it was good.

There was an item in your post, however, that I did want to mention, but somehow forgot… so, here goes…

Morally, however, I don’t like the idea of sending an honest, hard working person and his family back to a place of despair and poverty.

Addressing a moral issue is never easy - and one of the things we as humans do is complicate with a lot of extraneous emotions - that produce only a quicksand in which we try to stand our decisions on.

But, we are not machines that just process data and ‘crank out’ a coldly logical decision - there must be a human dimension or we will surely lose our humanity.

As I see it citizens of a country are bound to obey the just laws of that country. This means that there can be ‘unjust’ laws in this country that should not be obeyed - and we Americans can look to Henry David Thoreau for guidance here. ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau ) As Catholics, maybe this site will provide a good basis: ascensioncatholic.net/TOPICS/morality/ConscienceAndMoralDecisions.html

If we look at the citizens of Nazi German (1933 - 1945 ) we see a steady progressions of laws that were directed to discriminate against certain German citizens that Hitler and his government wanted to murder. These people, primarily Jews but other groups were also targeted, were prohibited from leaving their native country (Germany) so they coul be rounded up and murdered. By any standard, these wre unjust laws - and should not have been obeyed - that is why the penalty for disobedience was usually death! These German citizens had a whole series of moral decision making problems.

Unlike Nazi Germany, the US regularly throws one group of politicans out of office and elects another group - and we do tend to swing back and forth because of the very freedom we have to make such choices. Our elected representatives do their best to enact good legislation - and our Presidents have signed these legislative items into law - and yet our Courts have found that these laws do not meet the test for Constitutionality. The US is intended to be a society of law and not of popular men and their sometimes popular opinions. This system is not foolproof - and our 235 year history has revealed many fools along the way! The issue before each of us is: do we have just laws in the US when it comes to immigration. This is a different question from, "Do we have the best possible law… or … do our laws create hardships on those who want to come to the US … or … if our laws were better would fewer people try to come over illegally? I do not have a clue on who can answer those questions - but, in my opinion, the US laws on immigration are just. Things like enforcement of these laws has been poor - but, this is nto a function of the law, rather the people chosen to make these legal ideas real.

As I see it, we are to evaluate the entire scope of these issues that have come under the umbrella term of ‘immigration’ - and that would be mean developing our conscience in accordance with what the Catholic Church teaches. To the best of my knowedge there are as many immigration laws as there are countries - and, while I am totally ignorant of all of the other country’s laws, I am only substantially ignorant of the US laws in this area (it really is its own field of law). We like to think that if we latch onto an item and run with it we are carrying the law … but, really, only a small part of it.

Each country has the moral right, through its elected leaders, to make those decisions they think best and most prudent for maintaing the safety of its current citizens. We must first act justly to our own citizens before we can extend mercy to others. Those who wish to become citizens must obey the law in this area. Citizens are not allowed to pick and choose which laws they will follow - and this surely applies to citizen-want-to-be’s. Those who chose to break the law in this area can not claim to be honest - it is dishonest to violate just laws… EVEN IF they create a hardship for you. No one is forcing others to come to the US. It is at least thinking about for these people to stay in their own country and try to make it better rather then fleeing and allowing the crippling influeces of power and corruption to continue.

I hope this was helpful

God bless

 

[karebear92]

tqualey,

“You shall not violate the rights of the alien or of the orphan, nor take the clothing of a widow as a pledge.
18For, remember, you were once slaves in Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you from there; that is why I command you to observe this rule.
19"When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf there, you shall not go back to get it; let it be for the alien, the orphan or the widow, that the LORD, your God, may bless you in all your undertakings.
20When you knock down the fruit of your olive trees, you shall not go over the branches a second time; let what remains be for the alien, the orphan and the widow.
21When you pick your grapes, you shall not go over the vineyard a second time; let what remains be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.
22For remember that you were once slaves in Egypt; that is why I command you to observe this rule.” Deuteronomy 24:17-22

Also read Deuteronomy 26

This is what I am trying to say: If they close the borders more tightly, that I would be fine with, though I believe it should be easier to immigrate and that the current laws are unrealistic. But I do not believe in deporting people, especially families. Once they are here we should be merciful and accepting.

 

[neum334]

We can question how just a law is, or whether or not the penalties fit the offense, especially if the offender had no choice, like an illegal immigrant brought in as a baby. I’ve personally known people in this situation, so I may have emotional bias (aka compassion). It’s easy to talk about other people with whom you have no personal connection, but when it’s your family and friends, naturally you get defensive. Telling someone with strong ties to the US to go back to their native country is gambling with their lives at best and death sentence at worst. Foreign students are often well-connected middle to upper class and can do fine in their native countries, but the child of a cleaning lady would not be so lucky. Ultimately, the law of love is above all others. Remember the Good Samaritan helping the roadside beggar. The priest and Levite steered clear, more concerned with purity laws for touching the unclean man, but the Samaritan first and foremost saw someone in need. Of course, laws in general should be followed, but we cannot make an idol out of it and let it stop us from showing mercy and charity to our neighbor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

OK, you have provided an interesting quote here - but, honestly, it does not justify or exhonorate illegal immigration into the US.

First, there is no reference here to people coming into Israel without the knowledge of the Jewsih authorities. They must be know if their rights are not to be violated. Here in the US, if ANYONE (Illegal immigrant, illegal alien, or native born citizen) is robbed or beaten or forced into slavery - they can go to law enforcement and have those who so abused them pay the penalty of law. So, at least from that stand-point, I think we are safeguarding the rights of the alien. How do you see this?

Secondly, For virtually all of Israel’s existance they were either at war, preparing for war or having some sort of quiet spot between wars (sounds a lot like the US! ) The idea of having people coming in - and not making themselves know to the authority with jurisdiction simply makes no sense from a security standpoint, does it?

Thirdly, the rest of the verses seem to give acknowledge various actions so that these recognized non-citizens, orphans and widows can get food from the various harvests. Stop and think about this: various subsidies are provided both in money, in food stamps and in medical care (when they show up in the ER for care). Getting these services since the 1996 change in law signed by President Clinton has been more difficult - but, they are still available.

Believe me when I tell you that the immigration laws of the US - and their sporadic enforcement - have been an on-going source of grief and aggrevation for everyone. I honestly do not know who is benefitting from such laws (except the attorneys who have worked hard to carve out a niche to represent people as they attempt to get through this legal minefield.

If your point is that Israel was required to provide rights for aliens - (my guess is that widows and orphans were Isralie nationals) - fine. The idea being (I guess) it was not ‘open seasone’ on aliens. If the idea that this verse encourages or permits people to violate established laws to enter the country in frank defiance of these laws - well - in my opinion, you have not proven the point. And, yes, Deuteronomy 26 falls in the same area (by the way, that was a nice way to present a hyperlink… )

God bless
,

tqualey,

“You shall not violate the rights of the alien or of the orphan, nor take the clothing of a widow as a pledge.
18For, remember, you were once slaves in Egypt, and the LORD, your God, ransomed you from there; that is why I command you to observe this rule.
19"When you reap the harvest in your field and overlook a sheaf there, you shall not go back to get it; let it be for the alien, the orphan or the widow, that the LORD, your God, may bless you in all your undertakings.
20When you knock down the fruit of your olive trees, you shall not go over the branches a second time; let what remains be for the alien, the orphan and the widow.
21When you pick your grapes, you shall not go over the vineyard a second time; let what remains be for the alien, the orphan, and the widow.
22For remember that you were once slaves in Egypt; that is why I command you to observe this rule.” Deuteronomy 24:17-22

Also read Deuteronomy 26

This is what I am trying to say: If they close the borders more tightly, that I would be fine with, though I believe it should be easier to immigrate and that the current laws are unrealistic. But I do not believe in deporting people, especially families. Once they are here we should be merciful and accepting.

 

[Zhenia]

I’m coming back to my Catholic faith after a couple years of living in the darkness of habitual sin. One issue that has always bugged me and seemed a conflict between my faith and daily life is illegal immigrants. I know many of them sneak into our country in hopes of a better life for themselves and their families. Others sneak in to wreak havoc through crime, drug dealing, etc. The sheer number of illegal immigrants is draining the welfare resources and over-burdening hospitals, jails and such. Either way, it’s a crime that they are here, legally speaking, and all should be deported when discovered. I agree with this somewhat. Morally, however, I don’t like the idea of sending an honest, hard working person and his family back to a place of despair and poverty. Then there are lessons in the Old Testament about caring for the alien people in a tribe. I guess my conflict is between my concern for our country’s welfare as an American and loving my neighbor regardless of national allegiance. Spiritually, I know we are all God’s children regardless of where we were born or raised. Emotionally, I feel our country would be better off to deport all illegal immigrants and then let the hard workers in via a guest program.

I imagine my feelings are due in large part to my not being an active Christian for a couple of years. Perhaps as I continue to grow in faith those thoughts will change. But I can’t imagine I’m the only person with these conflicting thoughts.

If you have a similar conflict, how do you deal with it?

This is one of the big problems I also have with the modern Catholic church. Fortunately, because I have always stayed with the Traditional RCC, this issue didn’t come up.

Personally speaking, as someone who has been active in the movement to stop illegal aliens coming into this country, I have noticed many liberal Catholic clergy active in hiding these illegals. I suspect they do it for two reasons: One, because they’re liberals, and Two, because they see that the original Catholic stock (white Europeans) are dying off, and perhaps they see these illegals as the next wave of Catholic faithful, so they want to be nice to them in the hopes they will be active in and financially support the American Catholic church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Neum334,

We need to be clear about this - laws made in every country are for the benefit of the citizens of that country. If you know of ANY exception to this principle, please share it with the List. The purpose of all law is for the regulation of activities (commerce, travel, contracts, etc) that take place within the borders of that country so that a just and predictable set of actions can be seen.

Laws place both duties, obligations and responsibilites on everyone - hopefully there are a corresponding set of benefits that go along with this. What needs to be remembered is that our human laws usually fall short of the goal of being adequate - much less perfect.

I do not think that anyone has made a ‘god’ of any law. Grandstanding for ‘compassion’ while essentially saying that laws that are a burden or inconvenient can be ignored is the formula for anarchy.

For whatever reasons, persons in one country chose to violate the laws of this country by coming over illegally. Parents made decisions for infants - and now these infants have grown and must face the fact that they are here (and have been here) illegally almost all of their lives. If you want someone to blame - blame the parents who made this decision thaty they knew would eventually be made known to their children. Amnesty for illegal immigrants has been tried before in 1986 under President Reagan (npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672 ) and look, it did not work because it did not satisfy those who had not yet crossed over the US border!

Please, spare me the misplaced ‘compassion’ issue. Maybe instead of going north … these groups would consider going south. Really. The US is not the only country with borders that the host country would like to keep intact. I realize that is not what you had in mind - but, don’t dismiss it out of hand. It is hard to imagine that Mexico, Central and South America do not have some place that would welcome immigrants from other countries… or at least have porous enough borders like the US where entering without vaid paperwork is not taken seriously. You know, if your idea is so good … it should apply to every country (that would be a just approach) - and all of the slogans about opening up borders could be directed to these other countries.

God bless

We can question how just a law is, or whether or not the penalties fit the offense, especially if the offender had no choice, like an illegal immigrant brought in as a baby. I’ve personally known people in this situation, so I may have emotional bias (aka compassion). It’s easy to talk about other people with whom you have no personal connection, but when it’s your family and friends, naturally you get defensive. Telling someone with strong ties to the US to go back to their native country is gambling with their lives at best and death sentence at worst. Foreign students are often well-connected middle to upper class and can do fine in their native countries, but the child of a cleaning lady would not be so lucky. Ultimately, the law of love is above all others. Remember the Good Samaritan helping the roadside beggar. The priest and Levite steered clear, more concerned with purity laws for touching the unclean man, but the Samaritan first and foremost saw someone in need. Of course, laws in general should be followed, but we cannot make an idol out of it and let it stop us from showing mercy and charity to our neighbor.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Zhenia,

I realize you were giving a personal opinion, but… as a general rule, it is not appropriate to simply provide the motives for the actions of others without even a reference.

Do you have any reference(s) that could substantiate your two listed opinions?

God bless

This is one of the big problems I also have with the modern Catholic church. Fortunately, because I have always stayed with the Traditional RCC, this issue didn’t come up.

Personally speaking, as someone who has been active in the movement to stop illegal aliens coming into this country, I have noticed many liberal Catholic clergy active in hiding these illegals. I suspect they do it for two reasons: One, because they’re liberals, and Two, because they see that the original Catholic stock (white Europeans) are dying off, and perhaps they see these illegals as the next wave of Catholic faithful, so they want to be nice to them in the hopes they will be active in and financially support the American Catholic church.

 

[karebear92]

This is one of the big problems I also have with the modern Catholic church. Fortunately, because I have always stayed with the Traditional RCC, this issue didn’t come up.

Personally speaking, as someone who has been active in the movement to stop illegal aliens coming into this country, I have noticed many liberal Catholic clergy active in hiding these illegals. I suspect they do it for two reasons: One, because they’re liberals, and Two, because they see that the original Catholic stock (white Europeans) are dying off, and perhaps they see these illegals as the next wave of Catholic faithful, so they want to be nice to them in the hopes they will be active in and financially support the American Catholic church.

I don’t agree with your reasoning. Just because one takes a liberal stance on one issue, they are not necessarily a liberal. I go to Creighton University, a Jesuit School (well known for being among the more liberal Catholics), but they would not be liberal in the eyes of liberals. And why do you think that it is a scheme? Why do you think they do it because “the original Catholic stock” is dying off? Do you not think it is possible that they do it out of compassion for the immigrants that live here?

 

[Ender]

Of course, laws in general should be followed, but we cannot make an idol out of it and let it stop us from showing mercy and charity to our neighbor.

It is not merely a mistake to assume that people who oppose your preferred solutions do so for immoral reasons, such judgments are - and this shouldn’t come as a surprise - forbidden by the Church. Make your arguments based on why you think action X is the best solution but don’t suggest that those who oppose that action do so because they are less charitable than you. The choice is not between those who are brave, clean, and reverent on one side and the spawn of the devil on the other, but of determining which of several competing proposals will yield the best results.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is not merely a mistake to assume that people who oppose your preferred solutions do so for immoral reasons, such judgments are - and this shouldn’t come as a surprise - forbidden by the Church. Make your arguments based on why you think action X is the best solution but don’t suggest that those who oppose that action do so because they are less charitable than you. The choice is not between those who are brave, clean, and reverent on one side and the spawn of the devil on the other, but of determining which of several competing proposals will yield the best results.

I essentially agree with you, but I would only refine the last part of your statement to read, "will yield the results most in accordance with justice and compassion for all those impacted by migration.’ (Yes, I know, a mouthful. However, the pro-all-immigation-at-all-costs proponents are the ones, as your post suggests, who are claiming to own the high ground uniquely.) It’s not just the pragmatic solutions that are complex; it’s the application of the moral principles themselves that is complex.

 

[neum334]

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to demonize you. Neither did I say that those immigration restrictionists were less charitable in general, but only in this particular matter. Consider how the major lobbyists for the Immigration Act of 1924 were nativists, eugenicists, and groups like the KKK. They felt the Italian and Jewish immigrants of that time couldn’t assimilate (sound familiar?). I just want people to be aware where some of this sentiment comes from. What exactly is wrong with increasing the quotas of immigrants allowed each year or letting illegals already here for many years (with no option to try legal avenues) stay if they pay a substantial fine? They would increase the taxpayer base as legal residents, keep Social Security afloat with all the retiring baby boomers, and be a boon to the airline industry with ability to travel. Public charges will be a small number and laws can be enacted that reform welfare (I’d scrap it altogether as I’m not a fan of a nanny state). Also, the number of jobs in US is not a fixed amount. It’s directly proportional to the population of the country, both legal and illegal. Adding new residents to a country is not as some believe like inviting guests over your house with only one bathroom. First of all, this is a huge country with a lot of vacant real estate, and second, a worker is also a consumer of goods, which creates jobs. I realize we are still in a recession, but it’s not the fault of illegal immigrants, but greedy companies that outsource jobs. Actually, illegal immigrants have begun leaving on their own and are going to other countries like Canada and Australia (the ones that speak English) or Spain and Costa Rica if they speak Spanish. Some do try making in their native countries, but being a guinea pig set up against third world poverty and corruption can be depressing. Pray for them. Ugh, it’s getting late and I’ve rambled on too much. By the way, I attend a Extraordinary Form Mass too! Here’s to more generous availability of the Latin Mass!

It is not merely a mistake to assume that people who oppose your preferred solutions do so for immoral reasons, such judgments are - and this shouldn’t come as a surprise - forbidden by the Church. Make your arguments based on why you think action X is the best solution but don’t suggest that those who oppose that action do so because they are less charitable than you. The choice is not between those who are brave, clean, and reverent on one side and the spawn of the devil on the other, but of determining which of several competing proposals will yield the best results.

Ender

 

[AntalKalnoky]

There is no specifically Christian solution to the problem of illegal immigration. The difficulties we face in determining the best actions to take are entirely prudential; their are no moral dilemmas involved in selecting what will and will not work.

Ender

The Church and the USCCB have taken a very Moral and firm stand: always help Immigrants, especially the Impoverished ones; Criminal violators are for Law enforcement. We arrived with Only One family silver spoon and the clothes on our backs in Nov 1949, WW II Displaced Persons Refugees (Both Family castles behind the Iron Curtain); sponsors were Catholic Social Services and a Farm Family.
Let’s never forget that it was Blessed John Paul II the Great pastoral visits to Poland that soon resulted in the Collapse of Communism, not a couple of politiscians, one a lifertime Actor.
We forget that our needs for cheap Labor, our Business’ advertising for ‘needed labor’ is what brought the flood here: Our selfishness for cheap labor; My and our nearby Catholic Parishes have volunteer language classes, and donated food/clothing for their Families.

If we stop to think, the “problems” we complain about are caused by “Us”, or our Businesses or Political Representatives we continue to vote for: The actual ‘bankruptcy’ of the USA’s jobs and future by alien 'Policies" 1980’s, 2000’s we voted into office. Those policies of enriching the Richest 5% are only “In the USA”. No other Nation tolrates such attitudes, at least the developed Nations.

Aren’t All of our ancestors poor refugees, depised by the then-locals ( new immigrants Irish, Italians, Catholics, etc., etc), except the original Native Americans who always helped us, until we took their lands?

 

[tqualey]

Hold on, Neum334, I took the liberty of shortening your comments because of the 6,000 character limitation.

Have you noticed how your positions are swinging all over the place…? Now, I realize that this is a complex issue - but, let’s stay consistent for this thread - and just launch out into others as needed.

While not being demonized is a good start… we need to make progress and stay focused with the issues before us. I have every confidence that there were many mistakes made in the Immigration Act of 1924. But, please - our current discussion is not based on this law or these long dead nativists, eugenicists and hooded wonders from the KKK. Take a serious look at the amnesty granted by President Reagan in 1986 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 - this did what most people are talking about now … but, no one is talking about how or why it failed… even during its ‘Silver Anniversary’! Coming up with demonstrated failure as a vehicle for success is going to take a lot of effort - and merely waving the ‘compassion’ flag is not to open that door.

So you want to increase the quota? Let’s take a look at the heart of this idea: it means immigrants must submit to the law of the land - and not simply do as they have been doing and sneak across the border because the law obviously will lack ‘compassion’. The government really can not count what they do not know about. But, not to be outdone with such a mechanical barrier - the Census Department developed a formula for ‘counting’ those who do not want to be counted - and that is then put into our legal census figures.

Unless people stop their illegal activity (crossing into the US without proper authorization) then such arguments as to legalizing them becaue of tenure is simply smoke and mirrors. There really is no valid way to make this process work and I think you know that.

Previously, the analogy of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) was used. Maybe we should revisit that parable again and then try to fit it into the Catholic position of illegal immigration. Here’s a starter: none of the three owed a duty in justice to the wounded traveler. All we are talking about is duty based on obligation - not compassion or mercy or any other virtue. The highway was not strewn with bodies of multiple wounded travelers - only one. I bring this up to identify that the three travelers were not confronted with the problem of triage or who would they help first based on some criteria. And, thirdly, the Good Samaritan distinguished himself not only by stopping and rendering aid, but by transporting, securing accomodations and paying for his current and future care. These were all acts of charity that truly went beyond what anyone was expecting (let alone that no duty existed).

Note, the Good Samaritan (GS) took the time to do what he did - but, there are no other variables like he did not really have the time to give. He tried to minister to the injured traveler - but note, he may not have been doing what the man really wanted done for him - we do not know the wishes of the wounded traveler. The assumption is that he would like to stop hurting and get out of that area - but, this is just an assumption. Finally, after transporting the wounded man, the GS took money out of his own pocket to pay for current and future medical expenses. Again, we have to assume the GS had this money to give away and did not deprive others who he owed a duty to of these funds. (e.g., if the GS had a wife and kids and this money was needed for food and shelter - and he gave it away, we would have a quite different story.

One of the main issues with illegal immigration is that it is very complex: there are multiple players, a lot of issues and not a whole lot of guidance. Anyone trying to fit the current illegal immigration issue intothe story of the GS is going to find that either a whole lot has to be overlooked or we are going to have to add to the story. Since this is God’s story to us - I would not recommend adding to it… But this does not necessarily give us any real guidance on how to handle this matter.

I am not aware of any objection by the CC concerning the Immigration Act of 1986. This does not mean it was a good law or even a workable one (it looks like the amnesty provision was used but closing the borders failed) just that there were no morally objectionalbe elements in it. In my opinion, no one can advocate any type of immigration reform without knowing why what was previously put into place failed. I do not think anyone would take the idea seriously of offering a total amnesty every 25 years…

God bless
’

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I didn’t mean to demonize you. Neither did I say that those immigration restrictionists were less charitable in general, but only in this particular matter. Consider how the major lobbyists for the Immigration Act of 1924 were nativists, eugenicists, and groups like the KKK. They felt the Italian and Jewish immigrants of that time couldn’t assimilate (sound familiar?). I just want people to be aware where some of this sentiment comes from. What exactly is wrong with increasing the quotas of immigrants allowed each year or letting illegals already here for many years (with no option to try legal avenues) stay if they pay a substantial fine?