Catholics and Immigration

[Ani_Ibi]

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

And murder. And fraud. B&E. Carjacking. Kidnapping.

What happened to “you do the crime, you do the time”?

There is another big red flag coming up for me. I work in a high needs area of a big city. The notion that the poor are more prone to crime is simply false. And sets a different standard for the poor than for the more fortunate, sets the poor up for continued failure by lowering the bar for them when lowering the bar does not train them to compete with best and brightest, and diverts precious energy needed to help them succeed – without breaking the law.

The resoucefullness necessary to cross the border illegally can just as well be used to cross the border legally. One wonders if encouraging folks to take the easy way out is helpful? And if it is helpful, then to whom exactly?

 

[avelino]

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

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.

To me the crime rate is not an issue since aliens that commit serious crimes are not allowed to immigrate.

However, I think we agree more than you think.

I am also against illegal entrants. But what about those that entered legally, became illegal and now have the ability to go through the proper procedures to gain their residency. The current laws prevent them from applying through the “proper procedures.” Did you read the cases I told you about. Don’t you agree they should be able to go through the “proper procedures” in order to obtain their residency.

 

[vern_humphrey]

And murder. And fraud. B&E. Carjacking. Kidnapping.

What happened to “you do the crime, you do the time”?

There is another big red flag coming up for me. I work in a high needs area of a big city. The notion that the poor are more prone to crime is simply false. And sets a different standard for the poor than for the more fortunate, sets the poor up for continued failure by lowering the bar for them when lowering the bar does not train them to compete with best and brightest, and diverts precious energy needed to help them succeed – without breaking the law.

The resoucefullness necessary to cross the border illegally can just as well be used to cross the border legally. One wonders if encouraging folks to take the easy way out is helpful? And if it is helpful, then to whom exactly?

fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c

The criminal alien problem is growing.

Criminal aliens—non-citizens who commit crimes—are a growing threat to public safety and national security, as well as a drain on our scarce criminal justice resources. In 1980, our federal and state prisons housed fewer than 9,000 criminal aliens. By the end of 1999, these same prisons housed over 68,000 criminal aliens.1 Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates.2 These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thanks for this, Vern. I’ll read it later. I have to check out for the afternoon.

Interesting discussion all.

 

[vern_humphrey]

To me the crime rate is not an issue since aliens that commit serious crimes are not allowed to immigrate.

If they commit crimes in the United States, they’ve already immigrated!

However, I think we agree more than you think.

I am also against illegal entrants. But what about those that entered legally, became illegal and now have the ability to go through the proper procedures to gain their residency. The current laws prevent them from applying through the “proper procedures.” Did you read the cases I told you about. Don’t you agree they should be able to go through the “proper procedures” in order to obtain their residency.

I think we’re talking apples and oranges – if people are here legally and without breaking any laws “become illegal” that should be fixed by a stroke of the pen. But people who come here illegally should not be allowed to become residents.

 

[avelino]

If they commit crimes in the United States, they’ve already immigrated!

I think we’re talking apples and oranges – if people are here legally and without breaking any laws “become illegal” that should be fixed by a stroke of the pen. But people who come here illegally should not be allowed to become residents.

It looks like we are very similar in our views.

By the way, I was using the word immigrate in the legal definition. Your use is of the term is significantly broader. However, I now understand your point of view a little more now that I understand your definition.

 

[urban-hermit]

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

Hi Meeshy. Thank you for starting this thread and your posts - I think they reflect many peoples’ thinking.

I disagree with you that we must follow the bishops regarding immigration. I think your analogy with John Paul II’s recommendation against attacking Iraq is a good one, and illustrates this point.

As I understand it, the bishops, or even the Pope, can make recommendations in certain areas, such as immigration, but the solution must be worked out by the government of the country involved.

That is the proper role of the State - to govern the country. The bishops are free to make their case in an advisory role. But they are not in the business of governing a country, working out all the details of their recommendations. And, as such, it is up to the country (the State) and the people of the USA, to make these decisions. So, ultimately, we make the decision, not the bishops. Should we listen to them? Yes. We should listen, ask questions, and explain to them respectfully why we disagree with them on this issue. This is sometimes necessary when we are dealing with an issue of civil governance and not an issue of faith or morals. True, it is a morality issue - but the focus here is how best to implement that morality for all concerned.

The other point I want to make is that what you see as “hate” is actually frustration. Frustration with a perceived injustice: illegal aliens coming here … well, illegally. We all know that every illegal immigrant is not a murderer. Still, can you blame people for being doubly outraged when a horrible murderer also turns out to be an illegal immigrant? I agree - it’s not helpful to the debate about how to deal with the problem when people go overboard emotionally. But these facts are relevant in that they reflect some of the injustice that is going on here. I.e., the injustice directed toward the USA and its citizens. They point to one of the reasons we need secure borders: if known murderers and rapists can get in, so can terrorists. Will they get in anyway? Maybe. Should we prevent as many as we can from getting in? Definitely! Have the bishops spoken about this? A little. Very little. They say “the USA has the right to secure its borders”, but then they proceed to write pages and pages of words which do not in fact reflect that belief.

I truly feel the bishops have things out of proportion. I don’t agree with them, and I do not support their proposed solution.

I feel we have to look at the big picture. Are there some illegal immigrants here who are truly in such dire need that being here illegally trumps the fact that they broke the rules to get here? I personally would say yes.

BUT, the problem is that these people are the exception - they are FAR from the rule. The problem we have on our hands is that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are simply here because they want to make more money - not because they are starving. Maybe you will disagree with me on that. But I have yet to hear anybody, bishop or not, prove otherwise. The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens will never visit an immigration lawyer because they simply have no legal leg to stand upon. I mean no disrespect but I feel that immigration apologists always seem to bring up the exception, and try to make it the rule, in order to garner sympathy for illegals in general. This clouds the issue and does not lead us to an accurate appraisal of the situation.

 

[meeshy]

I am sorry if anyone feels that their posts in this discussion are unwelcome and remain unanswered. I cannot speak for others who have participated in the discussion, but for my part, I usually only respond when I feel that someone has misunderstood one of my posts.

Regarding the Mexican First Nation peoples: This is a very interesting point and it could be the start of another complex and informative discussion, for sure. Personally, my view on borders and ownership of land is quite different than the norm, so I am quite certain my comment on the subject would probably not be received easily.

Regarding dogma: I used this word to answer a poster because he had used it in his post. The correct definition of dogma, according to the Catechism:

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or having a necessary connection with them, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith.

89 … if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.

I suppose, for counsel on the issue of illegal immigration, we might look to the dogmas of loving one’s neighbor, forgiving others’ trespasses as God forgives us, ministering to the poor, judging not lest we be judged, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, etc.

These dogmas are explained beautifully and fully in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which in my mind is the most incredible and profound book ever written aside from the Bible. And we know that the Catechism is Truth, because Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to bind and loose both on earth and in heaven.

In my life, I see no reason to form any opinions outside of the dogmas of the Church, which are taught to us by our magisterium in many ways aside from the Catechism; one of which being the printed or spoken teachings of our bishops as a collective group.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[Ani_Ibi]

meeshy:

Regarding the Mexican First Nation peoples: This is a very interesting point and it could be the start of another complex and informative discussion, for sure.

Thank you.

Regarding dogma: I used this word to answer a poster because he had used it in his post. The correct definition of dogma, according to the Catechism… I suppose, for counsel on the issue of illegal immigration, we might look to the dogmas of loving one’s neighbor, forgiving others’ trespasses as God forgives us, ministering to the poor, judging not lest we be judged, doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, etc.

Thank you. What does the Church say about immigration? Is it a matter of dogma? Or is it prudential?

More specifically, I hope we can agree that the Social Gospel you have mentioned is something that is non-negotiable. I hope also that we can understand too that many posters differ however on how to achieve the goals of the Social Gospel.

The question then is not if we honour the Social Gospel but how we honour it. And if the Church allows us to determine the best way for our respective nations to honour the Social Gospel.

Do you think that looking at it this way brings us a bit closer to finding common understanding – and therefore common ground – on this thread? It is common ground we need to find because we cannot afford to be a house divided in the North American Catholic Church for very much longer.

Peace, Meeshy

Peace to you. :tiphat:

 

[meeshy]

The problem we have on our hands is that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens are simply here because they want to make more money - not because they are starving.

I agree with you; lots of them are here for that reason. But I also know that many times there are mitigating circumstances.

I live in the South, so I don’t know many illegals other than hispanics, of whom I know many. By knowing them, I mean they are either my friends or I know them from Mass.

Their reasons for coming are varied, but on the whole the people I know came to the land of opportunity for a better life for their families. I don’t know many who are here working solely for themselves; they usually either have children or a sick mother or someone who needs their support.

I speak fluent Spanish, and am the choir director of two hispanic choirs in two different Catholic churches. I’m very involved in the hispanic community, and am called upon often to translate or to help make appointments, look for information, etc.

I’ve had many discussions with my hispanic friends about their lives and being here illegally, driving illegally, paying taxes, not speaking English, and other matters which bother me.

These are difficult discussions. Sometimes I find it hard to be understanding. But I try. I ask myself what Jesus would do. Sometimes I just don’t know.

I think of my own life and the laws I’ve broken. I think of how I’ve changed over the years, and how I regret many things I did in my past.

I think of the people in my life whom I’ve had to forgive; some who did horrendous things to me–things which were definitely both against moral and civil law.

In the final analysis, I think we have to consider how we can help others become better people. If someone breaks the law, punishment won’t necessarily make them a better person or take away their will to commit more crimes. A good look into prison recidivism will reveal that punishment fails most of the time.

So if the person is willing to commit to change, I think we need to give them the chance.

How do you punish 6 million people and their kids? Kinda hard, isn’t it?

Forgiveness, giving them an opportunity to become legal, giving them an opportunity to be a guest worker if they want to be… those things are positive and not punitive. This is what the bishops advocate.

It’s a tough, emotional discussion. But in the end it all has to do with forgiveness.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

An illegal alien raped and kidnapped a little girl whose parents
immigrated legally from Mexico, they are against illegal immigrants and so am I.
Criminals are not hard working Church goers, they are simply criminals.
The corrupt Mexican gov’t is now legalizing abortion and your example also illustrates how they feel about women.
Breaking the laws of the United States will do nothing to improve the lives of women and children in either Mexico or the United States.
Mexicans need to fix their own country which is very wealthy in natural resources, when immigrants are treated fairly when sneaking over the border into Mexico from other Latin countries perhaps they themselves will get a fair deal elsewhere.
Mexico is harsh to illegal immigrants in their own country, they need to fix Mexico not ruin America.

You guys have it easy…we have app. 10 million illegal immigrants in our country , most are unemployed. They come mainly from war-torn countries in west and central africa.The strange thing is that many are catholics…BUT some like the Nigerians have turned parts of our cities into no-go areas for the police. They claim to be christian but this must pose a problem for their main line of work involves drug trafficking! The Congolese on the other hand avoid the Nigerians like the plague , as they really are completely different in their outlook on life. I have had to admit that although these folks put a strain on the economy , we cannot paint them all with the same brush…i’m sure that at least some of the Mexicans crossing into America must be decent people simply looking for a better life !!!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c

Thanks for this article, Vern. A leel fren always used to tell me, when in doubt, do the math, look at the evidence. This article does both. And I always used to say (and still do) when in doubt put a price tag on it. This article does that too.

Of the solutions offered to find compassionate as well as just solutions (note the plural) regarding the US illegal migrant problems it might be useful

– to cost each proposed solution out and

– to determine how these solutions will be financed

– and by who.

This particular article emphasizes border control. I say that proposal is seductive in the short term and probably not the most effective in the long term. Particularly as we have engaged in the WOT which by definition requires a foreign policy which is not isolationist.

Look, we’ve been here before. I mean the whole notion of the Americas as one political or – if you will – economic unit. Various people have proposed it in various forms, both benign and malignant.

At present we have a factor at play which differs from the factors at play in recent history. That is Hugo Chavez.

Chavez is bright, charismatic, and has a lot of leel frenz including those in Al Queda. Chavez is seducing the people with promises and short term delivery of culturally specific media, oil, education, and so on. Yet the kind of people who make up his leel frenz have proven that not far behind the social-benefits teasers come the paramilitary, the disappearances, the torture pits, the confiscation by government of private property and industry, the suspension of human rights, and – of course last but not least – the suppression of the Catholic Church.

Does Chavez have designs on takeover of the Western Hemisphere? Um… not exactly. He has designs on takeover of the globe. Our immediate problem is no longer our own borders, but the Western Hemisphere. At least. (My view of what to do when Europe once again cries help us are at best ambivalent.)

While I think giving criminals a break is counterproductive particularly in light of our engagement in the WOT, I also think that a bite of the carrot – actually a large bite will be a more effective long range plan.

What positive incentives can we give the ambitious and lawabiding in the nations of the Americas to immigrate legally? Even if only for short-term work.

And what tie-backs can we impose about reform in their home countries? Particularly with respect to perimeter control and cooperation in the WOT.

How will we enforce the international agreements? How will we pay for this? Who will pay for this?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

meeshy:

If someone breaks the law, punishment won’t necessarily make them a better person or take away their will to commit more crimes. A good look into prison recidivism will reveal that punishment fails most of the time.

This may or may not be true. But is not the central issue. The central issue is the protection of the innocent.

We are in effect talking about double effect. In order to protect the innocent (effect number one) we may or may not be harming those who have preyed on the innocent (and who may continue to prey on the innocent) (effect number two. These two effects work in opposition to each other and therefore must be balanced.

Here is the Principle of Double Effect:

Principle of Double Effect:

For the act in question to be licit, all Five Tests for Double Effect must be met.

1. The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);
2. The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;
3. The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by means of the foreseen harmful effects, when no other means of achieving those effects are available;
4. The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);
5. The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

Object of the Act

There are two categories of intention: proximate intention and indirect (remote or circumstantial) intention. It is the proximate intention which counts.

 

[seremina]

Meeshy,

Definitely. The novena sounds like a great idea. Who knows, maybe this’ll become a great rosary chain. I’d be happy to join you for it.

I cannot remember who asked me to supply the passage about giving immigrants the ability to move into your country and give them what they need until they’re back on their feet, but I will happily answer that. Just let me re-find the passage for you. I should have it for you in either a few hours or the next day.

 

[lsusportsfan]

Whoa, let me addrerss something here.

Take anything from NumbersUSA, FAIR, and CIS with a huge grain of salt. These are not non partisan think tanks. These are groups that were birthed by John Tanton whose ideas and disciples are fueling this debate. The people behind this are radical population control folks and by the way hit on the Catholic Church a lot. Their Goal is to stop almost all immigration. Legal or otherwise. They have this insane aim to reduce the population of the US to 150 million people. Tancredo and Lou Dobbs all agree with these population reduction aims. You see that is what people are missing. This really isn’t about illegals. It is far more radical than that.

I am not some conspiracy nut either. Heck I am prob one of the few folks that think JFK was killed just by Oswald

I cannot over emphasis how Catholics and COnservatives especially need to be aware how these groups and Racist groups like the Council of Conservative(word hijack) Citizens is coming throught the back door. Catholics and especially Republicans and Conservative need to educate themselves on this. The Wll Street Journal hit it on the head a couple of years ago when warning us
Below is an excerpt from a March 15, 2004 editorial by Jason Riley, a senior editorial page writer at the Journal.

“

So determined is conservatism’s nativist wing that it’s even made common cause with radical environmentalists and zero-population-growth fanatics on the leftist fringe. The Federation for American Immigration Reform and the Center for Immigration Studies may strike right-wing poses in the press, but both groups support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.

I was involved in that horrible Primary in Utah the Republicans had. I supported Cannon. The lines were drawn and they hit us with everything.
On his Web site he has reproduced the article that a reporter ran on these Groups. I strongly urge all to read it.
chriscannon.com/Issues/Immigration/anti-immigration_groups.html

These again are groups that have aims that should make Social conservatives shudder.

 

[lsusportsfan]

Urban HerI disagree with you that we must follow the bishops

regarding immigration. I think your analogy with John Paul II’s recommendation against attacking Iraq is a good one, and illustrates this point.

As I understand it, the bishops, or even the Pope, can make recommendations in certain areas, such as immigration, but the solution must be worked out by the government of the country involvedmit Let me address some of your points

First one does not have to agree with the Bishops to the letter as to legislation. But I must say what they are teaching is pretty consistent with the Catechism. Not and the scripture we see cannot be regulated to the “Follow it if you want to” It has got to be consulted. I find the comparsion between this and Iraq kind of weak at points. I think when we are talking aboout complex issues of War, Weapons etc there is a lot of debate. However I do think the priinciples at least of how we put Christ in our immigration law is clearer

The other point I want to make is that what you see as “hate” is actually frustration. Frustration with a perceived injustice: illegal aliens coming here … well, illegally. We all know that every illegal immigrant is not a murderer. Still, can you blame people for being doubly outraged when a horrible murderer also turns out to be an illegal immigrant? I agree - it’s not helpful to the debate about how to deal with the problem when people go overboard emotionally. But these facts are relevant in that they reflect some of the injustice that is going on here. I.e., the injustice directed toward the USA and its citizens. T

I agree with this to a certain extent. However the leadership and people associated with it are not being examined. Major leaders in these groups have associations that are very unsavory. Especially when you start looking at the State leadership. The problem is when I talk about this I get"Oh the Race Card". Not everyone is racist but again many of the people in positions of power are. Example past links with the Council of Conservative Citizens etc

The overwhelming majority of illegal aliens will never visit an immigration lawyer because they simply have no legal leg to stand upon. I mean no disrespect but I feel that immigration apologists always seem to bring up the exception, and try to make it the rule, in order to garner sympathy for illegals in general. This clouds the issue and does not lead us to an accurate appraisal of the situation.

Some might not be literally starving like 'Famine" starving. Some are though. The thing is that is why we need comprehensove immigration reform. I am for giving the ones that worthy a chance. But I am also after setting the rules down that they be followed. For instance you got to report to palce X with a certain amount of weeks or months to get in the system. If not you are out. I think there is a lot of compromise here but unfort the deabte was not allowed to happened in the House. Literally the Debate was stopped. There was no chance to get conference committee bill. That was wrong in my view and we have got to do better

Also let me point this out. This Country will not profit if one Racial group votes like 90 percent for one party. The GOP, i hate to say took a hit last election. A hit it did not have to take. I think a lot is stake in this including how future Latinos and Hispanics engage in and with whom in the public square

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I think a lot is stake in this including how future Latinos and Hispanics engage in and with whom in the public square

What do you predict on this front? Something new or the same old same old?

 

[lsusportsfan]

What do you predict on this front? Something new or the same old same old?

It depends on what happens in the next few years. I think the situation was going quite well after years of hard work. It appeared that both parties were getting a afair share of the Latino/Hispanic vote. Now this differs in various areas and also as to where these Hispanics/Latinos are from

I think that it is important to cool down all this immigration rethoric. The sad fact is that all the Cable networks, and many net sites thrive off controversy. That is one reason why Tancredo and King were always on the Radio or Tv versu their opposite extreme.

When the GOP guys won against the extreme element it was rarely highlighted. Now of course this is not all GOP. I think the new Senator from Virigina ,Dem Webb, is almost Buchanite in his views

If the immigration issue can get rational then it will be good. If not there will be trouble. Every one focus on the Catholics but there are alot of Pentecostals and Baptistmad: we need to get them back) Hispanics and Latinos. They were not happy with the silence on this issue by fellow Evanglicals. What could happen is that suddenally allies on abortion, family issues, etc will leave and start aligning with groups that are not so friendly on those issues. That will be a class one Disaster. We see that in LA where it seems that the Latino vote is very Democrat(that is often pro choice for example). However we have not seen such a trend in other States.

From personal experience having an entire “ethnic group” go one party is a disaster. In my state of Louisiana, African Americans still vote about 90 to 92 percent straight Democrat. Well that has been a disaster for various reason. It is very hard to get a competion of ideas etc going if a party has that much vote in the bank.

Needless to say if the Latino vote goes heavely Democrat there will be in effect one party rule for decades in the US. The GOP cannot win without those Western States.

 

[lsusportsfan]

One final thought. That is one reason why I am hopong Sen Brownback and Gov Huckabee do well and get exposure. They are both very conservative but are sane on immigration and don’t grandstand on it. The more that gets exposed the better.

I am anxious when the Dem house and Senate are going to start introducing legislation on this issue. They need to deal with it now when they are assured they will have a person in the White House that will deal with them

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Isusportsfan: do you think it is too late for this election? Who do you think will win? What will be the result of that win?