Catholics and illegal immigration

[karebear92]

Sorry for ruining your formatting, but it was the easiest way.

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?

I agree to an extent, but you must also look at the historical aspect of this. Slavery wasn’t illegal in Egypt during this time period, so it would be an accepted (common is probably a better word) institution. To think that illegal immigrants aren’t taken advantage of is a bit naive. Although there are laws to protect them, to a degree, they are easy targets. They can be abused, yet won’t do anything in fear of deportation. There are laws and shelters to help them, but it won’t guarantee that they will be spared from deportation. For example, if they work for two weeks and an employer decides not to pay them, is there really anything they can do? They can report and even sue the employer and the employer may very well get in trouble and lose in court, but the immigrant may also face deportation or legal action. I personally have never heard of this happening with regards to wages, but there was a court case regarding lost wages with connection to a personal lawsuit injury. I know it isn’t the same thing as slavery, but the only difference is one is forced labor and the other free labor.

tqualey:

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?

No it does not, but you don’t think slavery or mistreatment would have been acceptable even if they had entered without informing the authorities, do you?

tqualey:

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.

I agree with this, but what is the difference between not offering those to them and placing them into a situation where those things are not given, a situation they most likely came here trying to escape? Actually, I think the fact that we grant these to them, but not give them a visa is a little silly. Its like saying: “We will support you here if you are an illegal immigrant, but we don’t allow illegal immigrants into our country. If you are an illegal immigrant we can’t recognize that you are here, but we provide means for you stay.” Does that make any sense whatsoever? It seems like a Catch-22 to me. Would you trust your life to a Catch-22?

tqualey:

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.

We agree on something!:thumbsup: I’m just kidding. I actually would say we agree on quite a bit; the only thing we seem to completely disagree on is how to handle illegal immigrants currently living in the U.S.

tqualey:

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

Thank you for the compliment!
No it was not to prove that it is okay to break the immigration laws. I have stated several times that I don’t condone their actions. The OP seemed to address the morality of deportation in his opening comment and wondered if any of us have the same conflict. The answer, though I guess I haven’t clearly stated it, is yes. I look at it from two angles: moral and legal. Morally I believe we should allow more immigrants into our country, simplify the process, and give visas to those living in our country. Legally I believe they should tighten the borders to prevent this issue altogether. As a Catholic, however, I believe my morality will always trump legality (at least in mind, though not always in actions, obviously), and thus I follow my Catholic morality and mercy much more than the legality of their actions.

 

[pnewton]

I have yet to hear how US laws are either unjust or lack compassion in view of existing immigration realities.

My reason for believing the current law to be unjust is that it is based on a tiered quota system in which professionals and well to-do are given a priority over the manual laborer. As Catholic social teaching allows only for a preferential option for the poor, and not a preferential option against the poor, it is my opinion that the current immigration law is not just in accord to Catholic teaching.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Karebear92,

Enjoyed your post - let me skip to the last paragraph…

No it was not to prove that it is okay to break the immigration laws. I have stated several times that I don’t condone their actions. The OP seemed to address the morality of deportation in his opening comment and wondered if any of us have the same conflict. The answer, though I guess I haven’t clearly stated it, is yes. I look at it from two angles: moral and legal. Morally I believe we should allow more immigrants into our country, simplify the process, and give visas to those living in our country. Legally I believe they should tighten the borders to prevent this issue altogether. As a Catholic, however, I believe my morality will always trump legality (at least in mind, though not always in actions, obviously), and thus I follow my Catholic morality and mercy much more than the legality of their actions.

[SIGN][SIGN][SIGN]Maybe it is just my imagination … but, while every one seems to be have a flag to wave that say, “I do not condone law breaking…” and no one that I recall has actually said, “Hey, break every immigration law you need to - but, get over to the US as soon as you can!” … this is the idea I walk away with!

I am sure the US has come up with more cumbersome laws - even laws that are turly dumb… and complicated to enforce - it just seems that all three impediments seem to the very substance of immigration laws. Ah, but, this does not mean they are unjust - only that our eloected officials could have certainly done a better job of legislaton and enforcement.

In the last analysis, it is our conscience that we must obey. Hopefully we will have a properly formed, instructed and enlightened conscience in conformity with the teachings of the Church founded by Christ on Peter. And, yes, that means that conscience trumps laws every time… at least in the Court that will be held by our Divine Judge.

Personally, we have had to wade through anecdotal stories about how difficult life is in the original country and how US laws are to those who decide to break them. And while ti may be 115F in the shade in AZ (if there were any shade) for illegals to work at jobs no one else wants to do - there are migrant farm worker programs to get people into the US - legally! I really do not think this thread is served well by trying to out-match hard luck stories (real or imagined). We as Catholics should be working at improving the quality of our laws while encouraging other governments to do a better jobs of making their own country more appealing to their own citizens. I am sure we could all agree to that!

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

From everything I have seen, Immigration Law is not only its own subspeciality but its own world. To condense and characterize this vast specialization as ‘unjust’ is a breath-taking leap of personal opinion.

As I understand it, avenues are opened to the ‘poor’ (you will need to define this if you take exception to how I am using the word) specific to farm labor specific to certain crops, areas to be harvested and the like. In my opinion, the US has genuine needs for labor - and that would be different types of labor. Your broad-side criticism of a tiered system at allowing everyone who wants to come to the US a chance lacks depth and understanding. At least, as I see it, foreign nationals have a chance to come to the USA - and that is saying a lot more for justice than the countries that these people are trying to leave.

So, spare some of the criticism that has been leveled at the US for these countries that these people want to leave. Yeah, really. I have a hunch that any law can by analyzed as being ‘unjust’ because of some section in it. Chance are, there are entire groups of people who are effected by laws that they consider ‘unjust’. Now, if there is anything to Civil Disobedience it means that people stand up and visibly break the law with the idea of being caught so that the law can be challenged and overturned. The US Civil Rights laws were a product of Civil Disobedience leading the people to question the laws and then make the moral good happen! With illegal immigrants we simply see how to ‘beat the system’ by braking the law and evading capture.

For those who tire of seeing diagrams of ‘how a bill becomes a law’ and yearn for open borders through illegal immigrants simply continuing to do what they have done - the outlook is not favorable.

God bless

My reason for believing the current law to be unjust is that it is based on a tiered quota system in which professionals and well to-do are given a priority over the manual laborer. As Catholic social teaching allows only for a preferential option for the poor, and not a preferential option against the poor, it is my opinion that the current immigration law is not just in accord to Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

So if we are called to be Christ-like and imitate the Good Samaritan’s example, we give generously as God allows us. Neither do we act like the son who admonished his father’s readiness to forgive his prodigal brother. Cain and Abel is another example. The point is…do we stick to the standard of the world or the higher standard of God?

These are the wrong terms; the debate is not between the Christ-like on one side and the selfish and cruel on the other. It is between those who have very different understandings of what the effects of this or that action will be. I have no problem with your arguments that immigrants are good for the economy and we should have more of them. What I object to are your implications that those of us who disagree with your conclusions are un-generous and somehow failing our Christian obligations. This is a debate about what will work and what won’t; it is not a discussion of good versus evil.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If your children were starving, if your town was overrun by drug cartels so badly that you risked getting shot - or your kids risked being shot - every time you stepped outside of your dirt floor shack, and you knew there was an opportunity for a better life, wouldn’t you take it? Or would you stand by and let your children starve or get shot?

Ten percent of the population of Mexico is currently in the US (somewhere around 10 million people), about half are here illegally. The picture you create of Mexico does not accord at all with the country that actually exists. They have the twelfth largest economy in the world and are a solidly upper middle class nation. More cars are built there than in the US. If your position really is based on support for the starving then you should support sending the Mexicans back home and replacing them with Haitians, Guatemalans, and Hondurans, but don’t believe for a moment that for Mexicans the choice is either sneak into the US or live in squalor.

What does it really harm us to show a little compassion?

It isn’t about compassion. But since you asked, let’s see how deep your compassion goes. Are we to be compassionate only toward those healthy enough to walk through the deserts to get into this country or should we extend our concerns to the old and weak as well? Why aren’t you advocating for us to send ships to every port in the world to load up all those who would like to come to the US? Wouldn’t that be the truly compassionate thing to do? I’m sure even compassion at some point recognizes that reality has to be accommodated. It is not so much that we differ in our levels of compassion but we surely differ in where we believe reality intrudes.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My reason for believing the current law to be unjust is that it is based on a tiered quota system in which professionals and well to-do are given a priority over the manual laborer. As Catholic social teaching allows only for a preferential option for the poor, and not a preferential option against the poor, it is my opinion that the current immigration law is not just in accord to Catholic teaching.

Which poor? Mexican poor or American poor? Unemployment in the US is over nine percent on average but that hides the reality of what’s going on in specific demographics. What jobs would the poor immigrant be likely to take? Probably unskilled, manual labor. Who else might be interested in that kind of work? Typically someone young and unskilled - so what are the employment statistics for the young?

Unemployment in the 16-19 age group is 25%; for those 20-24 it is 15%. But these are national statistics; let’s go deeper. Unemployment for blacks 16-19 is 43% and for those 20-24 is still an astounding 26%. If a bigot supported the immigration of Latinos because it devastated black communities you would rightly consider that despicable - so what do you call someone who opposes immigration because he believes the impact will be harmful? Oh right, someone who is failing his Catholic obligations. These accusations are really tiresome.

Ender

 

[neum334]

We are all sinners before God, so I agree that we should not paint with a broad brush and and take God’s job of sorting the sheep and the goats. I hope I’m wrong, but I got the impression that you thought illegal immigrants were morally inferior to citizens, as some would regarding homosexuals vs. heterosexuals. Illegal status is just one facet out of many. To somehow take leaps of logic assuming that this one violation is a gateway to more criminal violations is unfair, and that is precisely the fear people argue when creating policies that apply to all illegal immigrants, even if a small portion of them, as with the general population, are responsible for wreaking havoc on communities.

These are the wrong terms; the debate is not between the Christ-like on one side and the selfish and cruel on the other. It is between those who have very different understandings of what the effects of this or that action will be. I have no problem with your arguments that immigrants are good for the economy and we should have more of them. What I object to are your implications that those of us who disagree with your conclusions are un-generous and somehow failing our Christian obligations. This is a debate about what will work and what won’t; it is not a discussion of good versus evil.

Ender

 

[exnihilo]

I think the far worse threat to our economy is the outsourcing of “good” jobs to other countries, not the illegal immigrants who come here to tile roofs in 115 degree heat, work double shifts chopping onions at restaurants, or pulling the weeds out of our yards in the aforementioned heat. Ask anyone whether they’d rather have “job security” at less than minimum wage doing slave labor, or whether they’d rather get laid off and try to live off unemployment because their job got transferred to someone in India, and I’m guessing the majority would pick the latter.

What I dont get is how we can allow massive immigration for low wage jobs and at the same time pay natives to not work on the claim that they cant find work or work that pays enough for their ‘needs’. It should be obvious that adding people to the job pool will lower wages. That is basic supply and demand economics. It really cant be denied.

The immigrant is willing to work in part because he has no choice. If he does not work he will not eat. In fact the Bible advises us that this should be a rule. The poor in America can not work and still eat. They have been denied an incentive we are obliged to keep.

Where the work is done should not really matter. Work should be done where it most efficiently can be done. The free market uses cost to allocate resources. Work will be done where the total cost is less. When you create a massive socialist state and oblige businesses to provide costly benefits to employees you are necessarily making it more costly to do work in your country. Again, this is not deniable. To then be surprised that jobs are moving to somewhere else is to lack understanding of economics.

I look at this problem and when I hear the reasoning for what we are currently experiencing I am truly baffled. It is as if people believe they can legislate away the natural consequence of decisions. They cant. And their mistaken belief is costly. The US truly cant afford massive immigration. The country operates a tremendous deficit and places the burden of its proven mistakes (proven by the terrible economy) on their children.

The plain fact of the matter is, when we talk about illegal immigration, we are talking about PEOPLE. They are just the same as you and me. Were it not for God’s grace, we may be in the same boat. If your children were starving, if your town was overrun by drug cartels so badly that you risked getting shot - or your kids risked being shot - every time you stepped outside of your dirt floor shack, and you knew there was an opportunity for a better life, wouldn’t you take it? Or would you stand by and let your children starve or get shot? I’m guessing many would choose the former, and would do anything in their power to give their children a chance to live.

The crazy thing is our children would starve if it were not for the massive debt we are able to take on. The only reason the US carries on is the willingness of the current generation to put the cost of their lifestyle on their children and their children’s children and the willingness of some to bankroll that decision.

The drug cartels exists because of American drug policy. We have created a lucrative black market that exists in large part to fulfill our citizens demand for illegal drugs. If we simply decriminalized drugs the cartels would disappear. This very problem is one that we create and rather than take the easiest, least costly solution to it we allow our policy to destroy a foreign nation.

Beyond that, is it so difficult to forget that less than three centuries ago, we were all immigrants? Who has given us the right to judge others for doing what our great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, etc., did?

Many of my great-grandparents were immigrants. But they all followed the law. So the bulk of immigrants today are not at all like my ancestors.

My reason for believing the current law to be unjust is that it is based on a tiered quota system in which professionals and well to-do are given a priority over the manual laborer. As Catholic social teaching allows only for a preferential option for the poor, and not a preferential option against the poor, it is my opinion that the current immigration law is not just in accord to Catholic teaching.

The current law may be unjust. But the current law is ignored by both immigrants and the government. I would say the enforcement is unjust since it gives preference to the illegal doing manual labor by allowing them to ignore the law. Professionals who obey the law are made to truly follow the law.

A European professional in violation of immigration law will be held in jail until arrangements are made for deportation. Agents will then ensure the immigrant is transported out of the country. For laborers the government will simply issue a deportation order and allow the illegal to deport himself. Obviously this often does not happen.

 

[neum334]

The laws were different when your great grandparents immigrated. There were no quotas for Europeans, while many Asians were barred altogether after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. During WWI, because the Asian immigrant labor had dried up and many young American men were fighting overseas, Mexicans began to come in to fill the void as contract laborers. Following the Great War, fears of social unrest and nativism led to immigration quotas favoring Northern Europeans. The quotas were revised in 1965.

I personally know detainee officers for aliens in deportation proceedings, and I can attest to the fact that day laborers are among those under their supervision. One time some officers ordered Chinese food, and just for fun they asked the delivery guy for documentation (turned out he didn’t, so he was detained and deported). Many detainees had deportation orders from denied asylum cases, which is why it was easier for the ICE to track them down. Leaving it up the illegal to deport himself is a cost-saving measure. Otherwise, your taxes pay for the detention and plane ticket.

Many of my great-grandparents were immigrants. But they all followed the law. So the bulk of immigrants today are not at all like my ancestors.

The current law may be unjust. But the current law is ignored by both immigrants and the government. I would say the enforcement is unjust since it gives preference to the illegal doing manual labor by allowing them to ignore the law. Professionals who obey the law are made to truly follow the law.

A European professional in violation of immigration law will be held in jail until arrangements are made for deportation. Agents will then ensure the immigrant is transported out of the country. For laborers the government will simply issue a deportation order and allow the illegal to deport himself. Obviously this often does not happen.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

Hi, JStenfanow,

Welcome to CAF. I think you will find this an excellent list and one where you can discuss multiple topics and learn more about the Catholic Faith.

Now, on the topic … I do have a few comments…

Actually, the ‘little compassion’ argument is truly difficult to either qualify or quantify.

The US, like other countries, has an immigration policy based upon laws enacted by the country. There has been a lot of disucssion about ‘just’ laws and a lack of compassion concerning the laws that we currently have. These are the two major reasons for justifying the breaking of existing law.

Now I realize in your previous paragraph, you said this is not what you were trying to do - but, honestly, just look at what you have written. A fair summary may be: inhumane living conditions in the original courty forced people to flee and seek a better life. Unfortunately, inhumane US laws have made the US an unwelcoming place.

Now, we need to ignore the facts that the US does allow for immigration, does its best (at least compared to other countries) to enact just laws for the protection of its citizens and does (with varrying degrees of success and enthusiasm) enforce those laws.

No society can provide a safe environment for its own citizens if its laws are systematically violated because others claim the laws are unjustly keeping them out of another country. Honesly, if there is an agrument it is with their country of origin - for lacking both a just method of dealing with the needs of their own citizens and a profound lack of compassion.

I have yet to hear how US laws are either unjust or lack compassion in view of existing immigration realities. Please note, 1986 gave amnesty to those illegal immigrants living in this country. Yes, US employers who break the law by hiring people who are here illegally are subject to real penalties. How could it be any other way? If there is no penalty for hiring illegal immigrants, then the process will simply continue… with no logical end in sight. Not all of these employers are interested in the health and welfare of the illegals they hire - in fact, many have been arrested for essentially enslaving those who come to them.

There are many problems on all sides - but, I find it curious that justice of US law is questioned while no public efforts are made to get the countries of origin to actually make their laws just and compassionalte so their native citizens will willingly stay and contribute to the support of their homeland.

Again, welcome to CAF.

God bless

We’re ignoring Why the ‘illegal civilly’ workers come to the USA. Our USA Employers, beggining with Big Farms, Advertised and Wanted them Here:

• (1)  We  wanted Cheapest Labor,  Still  do.     We  pay  them  low  pay   to  even mow  our  yards. to  driving  trucks,  even  electrical   contracting now,  Construction  work.

 

[AntalKalnoky]

(2) (a) The Problem is Our USA Employers Violating Laws in Hiring, including local governments and Constractors, widelly. (b) and almost Never being Prosecuted, except a tiny few cases. in decades, especially the 1980’s and 2001-2009 < Never USA employers.

                                                                                                                     I'm  100%  pro-business,   and  100%   for  the  Responsibility,  now  desperate,  for Paying Just Taxes, including forwarding  FICA  withholdings To   SSA,  not   employer  pockets.   Just  Laws,  Justly  Uniformly, fairly    enforced.  Our Family  aere  all  WW  II   Displaced Person Refugees,  sponsored by  a   farm family  (We  are Top  White Collar Professionals)  in 1949, through Catholic Social Services)  for  entry.                                    :highprayer:    The   1.3  Billion  Catholic Church of Our Lord  Is the Church  that Lives the  Social Conscience  Our Lord  taught,  and the Bible Teaches.   The  RCC  Is the Biggest Charity  on the Globe,  and Largest Social Services,  Non-Profit.   

                                                                                                                         The  USCCB   Also  has established the ideal Moral  Standards    to  Immigrants;  I  respect  that idealism, opposite of political hatred and hype  and false blame. :thumbsup:

 

[exnihilo]

The laws were different when your great grandparents immigrated.

The laws are always changing. But my point stands that my ancestors obeyed the law and the mass of modern immigrants do not.

I personally know detainee officers for aliens in deportation proceedings, and I can attest to the fact that day laborers are among those under their supervision. One time some officers ordered Chinese food, and just for fun they asked the delivery guy for documentation (turned out he didn’t, so he was detained and deported). Many detainees had deportation orders from denied asylum cases, which is why it was easier for the ICE to track them down. Leaving it up the illegal to deport himself is a cost-saving measure. Otherwise, your taxes pay for the detention and plane ticket.

It is true that the government often releases illegals to let them self deport. I believe there is a bias in this from anecdotal evidence. I’ve heard lots of stories of how strict they are on European professionals and know of no leniency shown to them. I cant say it never happens but the stories we hear are of Obama’s relatives living on public assistance and not being deported not German university professors.

I have to question that story about the Chinese delivery guy. The federal government is suing Arizona to make sure they do not question people’s immigration status. Such actions by federal employees would be in violation of the claims the government is making in that case. Of course I’m not crazy enough to believe the government would in any way be consistent.

Regarding self deportation being cost effective I cant imagine how. Chartering a bus to carry the millions of illegals back to their home would be far cheaper than the cost of searching for them, arresting them, trying them only to do it all over again because they were left to find another fake identity to use until caught.

 

[Ender]

I hope I’m wrong, but I got the impression that you thought illegal immigrants were morally inferior to citizens, as some would regarding homosexuals vs. heterosexuals.

Nothing I have ever said on the subject justifies this perception.

Illegal status is just one facet out of many.

There is no justification for being here illegally. That may be one facet among others but it is the elephant in the living room. Beyond that, however, the issue of this thread is not immigration but “Catholics and illegal immigration.” On that subject, there is no Catholic position; we are individually free to choose whatever path we think is best.

Ender

 

[neum334]

St. Thomas Aquinas justified war, the death penalty, tyrannicide, and even stealing depending on the circumstances, but lets ignore all that for now. Let’s stick to your opinion that there is no justification for being here illegally. But is there forgiveness and temporal punishment for the sin of being illegal? To me, that temporal punishment would take the form of fines in earned legalization proposals, and more just than condemning the illegal alien to the hell of deportation to a third-world country.

There is no justification for being here illegally. That may be one facet among others but it is the elephant in the living room. Beyond that, however, the issue of this thread is not immigration but “Catholics and illegal immigration.” On that subject, there is no Catholic position; we are individually free to choose whatever path we think is best.

Ender

Oh, when you hear about a charter bus from here to China, let me know

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

From everything I have seen, Immigration Law is not only its own subspeciality but its own world. To condense and characterize this vast specialization as ‘unjust’ is a breath-taking leap of personal opinion.

If I had know you only wanted the opinions of others so you could insult that opinion, I would not have offered it. What I said was in concert with Catholic social teaching. The fact that thge bishops of the United States hold to the opinion that current immigration law is unjust ought to at bare minimum give pause to one who would blast that opinion. I have acknowledged in the past that there is a room for a variance of opinion on immigration. There is no reason to blast others that agree with our bishops on and issue to legitimize one’s own disagreement. It is already legitimate.

Which poor? Mexican poor or American poor?

As American poor are not immigrating to the country of their citizenship, I mean, of course, poor immigrants.

If a bigot supported the immigration of Latinos because it devastated black communities you would rightly consider that despicable - so what do you call someone who opposes immigration because he believes the impact will be harmful? Oh right, someone who is failing his Catholic obligations. These accusations are really tiresome.

I do not know what post you read, or who you are directing these comments at, but I made no accusations, nor would I. So I really have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I apologize for any insult - that was not the intent.

Maybe you can provide a reference where the US Bishops have declared US Immigrations laws to be unjust.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

If I had know you only wanted the opinions of others so you could insult that opinion, I would not have offered it. What I said was in concert with Catholic social teaching. The fact that thge bishops of the United States hold to the opinion that current immigration law is unjust ought to at bare minimum give pause to one who would blast that opinion. I have acknowledged in the past that there is a room for a variance of opinion on immigration. There is no reason to blast others that agree with our bishops on and issue to legitimize one’s own disagreement. It is already legitimate.

As American poor are not immigrating to the country of their citizenship, I mean, of course, poor immigrants.

I do not know what post you read, or who you are directing these comments at, but I made no accusations, nor would I. So I really have no idea what you are referring to.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ender,

Are you aware that the US Bishops have apparently declared US Immigration laws to be unjust. Prior to Pnewton’s post, I was not aware of this. Maybe you have some insights here. Actually, I am not aware of any gorup of Bishops condemning individulal immigrations laws of any country - so, I guess the US is singled out for special attention.

To be honest with you there is an abundance of ‘justification’ for people being here illegally. In the same context there is also similar ‘justification’ for speeding, public intoxication, petty theft and the like - all non-felonies. People break civil laws because they either do not know that it is illegal (“But, Officer, I did not know it was a School Zone and was only ding 35MPH.”) or they rationalize that their needs are more important than the laws designed to safeguard the general population. The problem here is that such ‘justifications’ do not hold much water.

Now, when it comes to people fleeing persecution - the US really does have asylum programs to help safeguard people who arrive on US soil. It may be that such programs are not really adequate - given the countries of Mexico, Central and South America where persecutions do take place.

God bless

Nothing I have ever said on the subject justifies this perception.
There is no justification for being here illegally. That may be one facet among others but it is the elephant in the living room. Beyond that, however, the issue of this thread is not immigration but “Catholics and illegal immigration.” On that subject, there is no Catholic position; we are individually free to choose whatever path we think is best.

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Exnihilo,

It appears that your concerns were simply dismissed. Foolish ancestors who actually obeyed laws are not the example that some on the list are interested in hearing about. Such mundane of law-abiding people do not produce the tons on anecdotal tales of abject poverty that justifies breaking the laws of another country.

For what it is worth, I am 3rd generation Irish - and, as a young child I recally my Grandparents telling me about how they left Ireland and what they needed to do to comply with the various laws that were in effect in the US.

I am really not sure what lesson my father and his siblings would have learned had he been instructed on how to beat a system with unjust laws that just cried out for breaking.

Here is to the courage of our ancestors who not only had the courage to find a new life in the New World, but the perseverance to follow the existing laws so that they became US Citizens.

God bless

The laws are always changing. But my point stands that my ancestors obeyed the law and the mass of modern immigrants do not.

It is true that the government often releases illegals to let them self deport. I believe there is a bias in this from anecdotal evidence. I’ve heard lots of stories of how strict they are on European professionals and know of no leniency shown to them. I cant say it never happens but the stories we hear are of Obama’s relatives living on public assistance and not being deported not German university professors.

I have to question that story about the Chinese delivery guy. The federal government is suing Arizona to make sure they do not question people’s immigration status. Such actions by federal employees would be in violation of the claims the government is making in that case. Of course I’m not crazy enough to believe the government would in any way be consistent.

Regarding self deportation being cost effective I cant imagine how. Chartering a bus to carry the millions of illegals back to their home would be far cheaper than the cost of searching for them, arresting them, trying them only to do it all over again because they were left to find another fake identity to use until caught.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe you can provide a reference where the US Bishops have declared US Immigrations laws to be unjust.

Here are the bishops as a whole:
usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml#5

1. In 1996, the U.S. Congress eviscerated due process rights for migrants with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which authorizes the detention and deportation of migrants for relatively minor offenses, even after they have served their sentences. IIRIRA has caused the unjust separation of untold numbers of immigrant families

There are many bishops that have made statements as individual bishops about the need for immigration reform. To my knowledge, not one bishop supports the current immigration laws, at least not that I have read. This by no means is an indication that a Catholic can not support the status quo.