Catholics and Immigration

[Ani_Ibi]

avelino:

Then again maybe here in Florida we should try to keep out-of-staters from entering Florida.

Or leaving.

avelino:

I mean after Ted Bundy and Danny Rollings. I just don’t trust those out-of-state people. They come here and commit murders and then we have to electrocute them.

avelino:

By the way don’t you just hate those Canadians.

avelino:

I mean look at Peter Jennings (RIP). Are you telling me that there wasn’t one American that could do the nightly news for that huge salary.

Um… yes.

We had to send down Carl Hanlon too. And a bunch of others we’re not telling you about.

 

[meeshy]

Thanks for the excellent information, Avelino. And I fully agree with you: there is a lot of hate toward illegals in this country, and it can sometimes be seen right here in this Catholic forum.

For those who wish to discuss dogma:

Remember when Pope John Paul II visited President Bush and strongly advised against the war in Iraq? We as Catholics were bound to follow his example, even if we disagreed with him.

However, I don’t recall that the Pope ever issued an official letter on this subject, did he? If I am wrong, by all means please correct me and provide the source.

What is my point? Just this: the Pope doesn’t have to issue official letters on every world issue. That’s why we have bishops. They are local, know their parishes, and can respond to the issues of the day. They abide by the teachings of the Church and lead us in the correct direction. The Pope cannot comment on every single world issue; that would be very very difficult.

When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a group, holds a particular position on an issue, we Catholics should take heed of their position. If we oppose it, we should make every effort to educate ourselves on the facts, talk to our priests, and change our minds so that we are conforming to the bishops’ position.

This is why we have a magesterium: to remind us of how we should respond to issues, based on the Gospel.

Again, I will restate that we must follow our bishops on the issue of immigration reform. And one of the things they have recommended is broad legalization. This is not a popular view, and to some of you this constitutes amnesty or pardon, but it is not amnesty or pardon. The bishops’ recommendation is this:

For those in this country without proper immigration documentation, opportunities should be provided for them to obtain legalization if they can demonstrate good moral character and have built up equities in this country. Such an “earned” legalization should be achievable and independently verifiable.

To see the full recommendation of the USCCB, go here:

Bishops’ Call for Immigration Reform

For those who are still confused by my posts, I’m sorry. Some of the posts have been pleas for change in attitude towards illegals, some of the posts have been quotes from the USCCB website, some of the posts have been quotes from the Catechism.

Sometimes I express my personal views, sometimes I express the views of the bishops. But in every post, I think I have made it clear when I am quoting from the USCCB website, and clear when I am expressing my own opinion.

At no time have I misrepresented anything the bishops have said or written.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Meeshy, I’m sorry but you are still not being clear to me.

Your anecdotal remark about JP disagreeing about the war in Iraq, and that we were ‘bound to support him’ means just what? That we are all ‘bound’ to disagree with the war in Iraq because the Pope, according to your interpretation, did so? Even though he in no way told us that we had to agree with him? And just 'how " are we bound? Must we ‘protest’ verbally? Storm Washington, DC with demands to end the war? What?

As for ‘legalization’, what I read in the links was ‘legalization’ which involved possibly paying fines, demonstrating character, etc. Not a blanket ‘amnesty’ or a simple, “you’re here, we’ll wave the wand and poof! you’re legal, now have fun”.

Would you kindly be specific about your ‘interpretation’ of what you say the bishops are saying so we are not talking at cross purposes?

Quite frankly, the posts you have given are not only not clear, they seem to be designed as a ‘bully pulpit’ whereby you pontificate on the ‘anger’ of people on the boards, and present your own ‘position’, in all its unclarity, as ‘that which we are bound to obey’.

Again I state: I support immigration reform and I support broad ‘legalization’ as the bishops have given directions and possibilities according to the link.

That does not mean that I support what you appear to advocate as ‘doctrine’–widespread ‘amnesty’ which would involve simply having those here become ‘citizens’ simply because they ARE here. The bishops do not support this either.

I think this thread should be closed. I feel it has been amply demonstrated that most Catholics are thoroughly for immigration reform, for helping the poor, and for justice for all persons. Those very few who would ‘lock out’ illegals forever are, however, no more culpable than those few who would give ‘carte blanche’ legalization with absolutely no penalty for prior wrongs. Both are extreme positions and neither is espoused by the bishops.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

meeshy:

Thanks for the excellent information, Avelino. And I fully agree with you: there is a lot of hate toward illegals in this country, and it can sometimes be seen right here in this Catholic forum.

Um… without providing an example, you deny us the opportunity to assess whether or not your claim is true. Love of the rule of law does not necessariily constitute “hate toward illegals.” Are you willing to provide an example or to retract the allegation?

meeshy:

For those who wish to discuss dogma:

Would you be kind enough to provide a definition of ‘dogma’?

meeshy:

Remember when Pope John Paul II visited President Bush and strongly advised against the war in Iraq? We as Catholics were bound to follow his example, even if we disagreed with him.

Wrong. Determing whether or not a conflict is a Just War is prudential. Immigration is also prudential.

meeshy:

When the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a group, holds a particular position on an issue, we Catholics should take heed of their position.

I agree. But taking heed doesn’t necessarily mean agreeing outright. Certain issues are prudential, not dogma.

meeshy:

If we oppose it, we should make every effort to educate ourselves on the facts, talk to our priests, and change our minds so that we are conforming to the bishops’ position.

Educate ourselves on the fact certainly. Ascertain whether or not the bishops are addressing prudential or dogmatic issues certainly.

meeshy:

Again, I will restate that we must follow our bishops on the issue of immigration reform.

You haven’t persuaded me.

meeshy:

And one of the things they have recommended is broad legalization. This is not a popular view, and to some of you this constitutes amnesty or pardon, but it is not amnesty or pardon.

It is amnesty or pardon if the illegal immigrants are breaking the law. And it is evident that they are breaking the law otherwise they wouldn’t be illegal immigrants.

Now there still remains the question of whether or not Mexican First Nations peoples who cross the border without clearing customs are illegal immigrants. Vern is the only one who has responded to this question.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think this thread should be closed. I feel it has been amply demonstrated that most Catholics are thoroughly for immigration reform, for helping the poor, and for justice for all persons.

Where do Catholics stand on the status of Mexican First Nations peoples crossing the border without clearing customs? When those positions have been clarified and discussed, then I will agree that the thread perhaps should be closed.

Otherwise I will feel that my points have been excluded. All I want to know is whether the status of Mexican First Nations people exempts them from being illegal immigrants when they cross the border without clearing customs. That’s all. I would appreciate some responses.

 

[Ferdinand_Mary]

As a gentle reminder to all posters, please keep your responses free from personal attacks and intentionally inflammatory wording.

Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary

 

[meeshy]

The bishops do not support amnesty and I have never intimated that they support amnesty, never, not once.

Please provide me with the quotes from my posts which you feel are misleading and I shall address them.

If anyone feels it is a bully pulpit to support the position of our bishops and to advise others to do the same… well, I can’t help you on that one. And if anyone feels that their opinion on an issue might be more doctrinally correct than the Pope’s opinion…

As I said before, that’s why we have a magesterium–so our opinions remain in line with the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

If the administrators want this post closed, they’ll close it.

However, the immigration issue is not yet closed in this country, so it is still relevant to discuss it in a forum.

Moreover, many people may still be unaware of the USCCB website on immigration reform, and may also be unaware of the bishops’ position.

I’m starting my novena tonight, in support of the bishops’ campaign for immigration reform.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[meeshy]

Regarding hatred in some of the past posts in this forum:

I have been reprimanded by the administrators for a certain response I made to the hatred revealed in several posts in the Catholic Answers Forum. Therefore, I do not feel I can provide any specific examples to demonstrate my assertion.

However, you are free to investigate all the past posts on this subject, including those which go back several months. They can be found in various forums on this site, not only in Social Justice.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[jc-servant]

I would also like to point out that the story one of you posted about the person that married a US citizen and the residency case has taken 10 years is a blatant lie. This is an absolute impossibility. This type of case takes only one year. If anybody is in this situation they need a new attorney.

Since this is the story of one of my own family members, I don’t appreciate being called a liar by someone who is not familiar with the actual case.

I’m also an attorney (although in a different area of practice). I must have missed the day in law school when they said to assume the facts of a case based on our own bias and then make false judgements and insults based in our ignorance.

 

[meeshy]

In defense of my assertion that there is hatred to be found in some of these posts, please see post #36, the ending paragraphs.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…
So if you are saying that, if a Catholic person says that an illegal immigrant is a law breaker and that breaking the law is wrong–that he or she is ‘going against the Catholic position on immigration and disobeying the bishops’–I disagree. Breaking the law is wrong. But the person doing so is still a person. I can acknowledge that “a person” does “a wrong thing” and still be humane, loving, and Christ-like. . .right?

I enjoy your post but in this particular comment I do not think it is 100% correct. If the person is living in reasonable conditions in the first country then it is as you state. However if people on one side of the imaginary line live in dire conditions which are not present on the other side of the line, I think the above is no longer correct. My understanding is the Bishops are calling on the countries to cooperate to eliminate the dire conditions. My understanding is the Bishops have been clear that some countries are not cooperating to the extent they should.

The issue here, when dire conditions exist, is whether the US has acted in proper morals to develop it laws, which is to say the US laws are in line with “Natural Moral Law” (NL) and thus just. Natural Law does not allow for people to starve or go without reasonable medical and hygiene conditions. NL also requires people are allowed reasonable freedom and opportunity. Since illegal immigration is from a wide variety of sources it is hard to imagine all illegal immigration qualify or disqualify from a Natural Law stand point.

 

[avelino]

Um… without providing an example, you deny us the opportunity to assess whether or not your claim is true. Love of the rule of law does not necessariily constitute “hate toward illegals.” Are you willing to provide an example or to retract the allegation?

1. On this thread there are a couple of posts that discuss how an illegal alien committed murder. What does this have to do with the issue? The reason these crimes were brought up is because of the hatred these posters feel. There is certainly no logical reason for making the post. These posts are clearly made for the purpose of implying that illegal aliens are horrible people. They also ignore the fact that the 911 aliens were here legally. Using there logic we should also hate legal aliens.
2. Some on this thread have made it clear that they don’t like the fact that these illegal immigrants have and are breaking the law. However, they also appear to be against any law that would create a possibility for them to be legal. In other words, they dislike these people for being law breakers but they don’t want a law these aliens can follow to become legal. If hate isn’t the motivation here then what is?

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. On this thread there are a couple of posts that discuss how an illegal alien committed murder. What does this have to do with the issue? The reason these crimes were brought up is because of the hatred these posters feel. There is certainly no logical reason for making the post. These posts are clearly made for the purpose of implying that illegal aliens are horrible people. They also ignore the fact that the 911 aliens were here legally. Using there logic we should also hate legal aliens.

That’s a rather unchristian view to take. Any examination of the problem must look at both the negative and positive aspects of immigration – and the crime rate is clearly both negative and significant.

1. Some on this thread have made it clear that they don’t like the fact that these illegal immigrants have and are breaking the law. However, they also appear to be against any law that would create a possibility for them to be legal. In other words, they dislike these people for being law breakers but they don’t want a law these aliens can follow to become legal. If hate isn’t the motivation here then what is?

hmmm . . . so we eliminate the crime by making it legal? That could work for bank robbery, too, you know.

 

[avelino]

That’s a rather unchristian view to take. Any examination of the problem must look at both the negative and positive aspects of immigration – and the crime rate is clearly both negative and significant.

hmmm . . . so we eliminate the crime by making it legal? That could work for bank robbery, too, you know.

1. The crime rate is not an issue. Aggravated Felons are forbidden from immigrating. They are not issued visas at embassies, they cannot become residents, and they cannot become citizens even if they marry a US Citizen. There is no bill that would permit this. So yes, to cloud the issue with something that is irrelevant is UnChristian.
2. No one is saying to eliminate the crime so your bank robber law argument doesn’t make any sense. The activity illegal immigration would continue to be a violation of the law. What I am saying is that we need to have a door that permits a qualified person to rectify their situation. Did you not read my case examples? You don’t think those cases deserve a way that would permit them to file their legitimate cases?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

meeshy:

And if anyone feels that their opinion on an issue might be more doctrinally correct than the Pope’s opinion…

Um… please do not try to slide away from my request which was politely put and quite legitimate: please define dogma.

meeshy:

Moreover, many people may still be unaware of the USCCB website on immigration reform, and may also be unaware of the bishops’ position.

I, for example, am aware of the bishops’ position. I am simply asking you to define dogma and in the light of that definition to state whether or not the bishops’ position is on a prudential issue or on a dogmatic issue.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’m also an attorney (although in a different area of practice). I must have missed the day in law school when they said to assume the facts of a case based on our own bias and then make false judgements and insults based in our ignorance.

Wow, this strikes me as needlessly harsh, confrontational, and inflammatory. Are you sure you don’t want to have another more charitable run at this?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Some on this thread have made it clear that they don’t like the fact that these illegal immigrants have and are breaking the law. However, they also appear to be against any law that would create a possibility for them to be legal. In other words, they dislike these people for being law breakers but they don’t want a law these aliens can follow to become legal. If hate isn’t the motivation here then what is?

I don’t think so.

What I personally would object to is a ‘law’ that does not take into account all the factors involved.

Yes, I want illegal aliens to have opportunity to be legal aliens. However in many cases, those illegal aliens did have opporunity to become legal aliens had they followed the procedures already in place. Instead, they freely chose to bypass the ‘law’, while others, with at least as much ‘right’ to immigrate, have managed to obey the law. I believe that simple justice demands that ‘wrong’ not be rewarded. As we are taught, one may never do ‘evil’ so that good may result.

Therefore, I argue, not that those who have chosen to come illegally should be banished, or indeed punished with things like jail time, or even a ‘hardship’ (if such it be) of a large monetary fine.

What I would find satisfactory in ‘legalization’ for these illegal aliens would be, by them, the simple acknowledgment that a wrong was done, no matter how good the ‘reason’ might have been. That they were sorry for the wrong done, acccepted that this was wrong behavior, and intend, given the chance to change their status, would in future follow the law of the land. I would be content with a fine of $10 at most (and not per person, at that–if it’s a family of 14, then it’s still just the one fine of $10). No need even for this to be ‘published’ in court records, etc. I don’t need ‘personal satisfaction’; I am not setting myself up as judge and jury.

But I think that we not only wrong those who ‘followed the law’ by waiving any sort of responsibility for illegal actions for huge groups of people. . .we are wronging every single one of those illegal aliens by treating them as though they were not as capable as anybody else of following the ‘rules’. That they have to be ‘excused’. It makes them, IMO, into second class citizens, and is far more damaging to them as people than the honorable actions which would restore justice to this question, as I proposed above, would be.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. The crime rate is not an issue. Aggravated Felons are forbidden from immigrating. They are not issued visas at embassies, they cannot become residents, and they cannot become citizens even if they marry a US Citizen. There is no bill that would permit this. So yes, to cloud the issue with something that is irrelevant is UnChristian.

The crime rate is an issue – unless you believe that the crimes committed by illegals are somehow “justified.”

1. No one is saying to eliminate the crime so your bank robber law argument doesn’t make any sense. The activity illegal immigration would continue to be a violation of the law. What I am saying is that we need to have a door that permits a qualified person to rectify their situation. Did you not read my case examples? You don’t think those cases deserve a way that would permit them to file their legitimate cases?

Some do, some don’t. The rule ought to be that illegal entry into the country renders one unqualified to attain legal status. If you want to be a legal resident, go through the proper procedures.

 

[avelino]

Since this is the story of one of my own family members, I don’t appreciate being called a liar by someone who is not familiar with the actual case.

I’m also an attorney (although in a different area of practice). I must have missed the day in law school when they said to assume the facts of a case based on our own bias and then make false judgements and insults based in our ignorance.

I certainly did not mean to call you a liar. I will admit that I did intend and do believe that you have been lied to.

Your joke about law school is amusing but does not apply here.

Your fact pattern was “I know someone who came here properly and has been waiting on his permanent status for about 10 years because of the backlog even though he is married to a US citizen. He has been unable to see his family in all of that time for fear of not being allowed back into the US and he is here legally.”

1. If he entered legally there is no reason he cannot file for permission to travel.
2. When an alien marries a US Citizen he is considered an Immediate Relative with an Immigrant Visa immediately available to him. There is no backlog.

Based on the fact pattern you presented, the 10 year delay is impossible. Unless the US Citizen is really only a US Resident. That would of course be a completely different fact pattern and there would be a backlog and depending on several factors could get very complicated and drawn out.

So I stand behind my statement about the case. But again, I did not call you a liar. I just meant that you were lied to. However, I understand how one could make that interpretation so I do apologize for any confusion I caused.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

avelino:

1. On this thread there are a couple of posts that discuss how an illegal alien committed murder.

I feel that those posts came down a little hard on the illegal immigrants as a class of people who committed violent crimes, particularly as **some **US citizens are doing quite nicely perpetrating violent crimes with no help at all from illegal immigrants.

avelino:

What does this have to do with the issue?

It is, however, relevant to the issue – just something I would challenge in the course of discussion. People after all can hold divergent points of view and still be in a discussion.

avelino:

The reason these crimes were brought up is because of the hatred these posters feel.

No you can’t say that with any justification at all. You can legitimately address the statements of other posters, but you can’t mindread and you can’t judge their motives with any degree of accuracy at all.

avelino:

They also ignore the fact that the 911 aliens were here legally.

Technically legally, but many had violated the law to meet those technical specifications, so in actual fact they were here illegally.

avelino:

Using there logic we should also hate legal aliens.

Who said they hate the 911 aliens? I don’t hate them. I just have very strong views as to where they should be housed, those that have survived. But I have no energy to throw away hating them. Life is too short for hatred.

avelino:

Some on this thread have made it clear that they don’t like the fact that these illegal immigrants have and are breaking the law. However, they also appear to be against any law that would create a possibility for them to be legal.

If they have already broken the law, then that has to be addressed first before granting them pardons.

Also some folks may be quite willing to entertain the notion that ways exist for some ‘illegal immigrants’ to be thought of as legal. For instance I have time and time again raised the question of whether or not Mexican First Nations peoples are ‘illegal immigrants’ in the first place. Yet Vern is the only person who has remotely attempted to respond to my question.

Frankly I am beginning to feel that my contribution to this question is unwelcome. And yet have no clue as of yet as to why.

I have also raised the question of whether border control is more effective than perimeter control. And whether isolationism is more effective than expanding the economic and therefore the political scope of NAFTA.

I have also raised the very serious question of how to effectively deal with folks who do not simply want to sneak across the border and make a living, but who want to sneak across the border, blow things up, and set up a theocracy in place of democracy.

And none of the questions I have raised have been addressed except by Vern.

avelino:

In other words, they dislike these people for being law breakers but they don’t want a law these aliens can follow to become legal.

I’ve already shown that **some **folks are quite willing to discuss ways of thinking of some ‘illegal immigrants’ as in fact legal original inhabitants of these lands. Or, if not original inhabitants then at least peaceable, respectable folks.

If hate isn’t the motivation here then what is?

As I have explained, there are quite a few other ‘motivations’ if you will. But you have chosen to focus on ‘hatred’ as the red herring of choice.