Catholics and Immigration

  • Thread starter Thread starter meeshy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’ think it is too late at all.

(1) Again this immigration issue needs to be dealt with and put away. Fine tune it on the back burner. It just creates too much noise that affects everything else. We saw that in the GOP when there was so much infighting over it they woke up too late to realize Oh yeah we have opponents:)

(2) I think it is still wide open. Everyday the media has a new favorite and proclaim him as the likely nominee in the GOP. THis will go on forever. On the Dem side the one person that I am really suprised has not picked up traction is Richardson which is as A Republican I fear the most because I think he can win a General and take alot of states away. Such as Arizona and prob Colorado.

My predictions in the House and Senate is that we shall see a slight correction. The Senate MAY go back Repub but it will be tough. The House will remain under Dem control.

As to President who knows. It will be either Hillary or Edwards.

The Republicans I have no clue yetr who will win the Nomination. I think it is safe tosay we can count these people out
Tancredo, Pataki, Newt,and Prob Hunter.

I think Huckabee, Romny, Guillani, and McCain all have shots.

Senator Brownback maybe but I am not hopeful at this point. He has got to wow people at some debates.

Out of all the above the GOP best chances I think would be Huckabee or Romney.

Romney has a lot of advantages espeically since he can put the Northeast and Michigan into play. Also his Mormon network is huge and that will give us a solid West I think.
 
Wow, some very interesting posts. It’s especially informative to hear from people in other parts of the world, who are dealing with illegal immigration issues just as we are here in the U.S.

Today is Good Friday, and, just as food for thought I think we should all concentrate today on the fact that Jesus forgave --aloud-- twice, from his dying agony on the Cross.

I know I need to remind myself daily that forgiveness is a way of life, and is the only way to make ourselves free enough to love one another as Christ asks us to do.

And forgiveness is one of the central issues in the illegal immigration debate.

Just as an exercise, I’d like to see the response to this question: How should we punish illegal aliens? Just curious about how many would say we shouldn’t punish, what kind of punishments people might be envisioning, and how people would propose to execute the punishments. Just an exercise.

On the question “What does the Church say about immigration? Is it a matter of dogma? Or is it prudential?” My answer is this:

While there is no specific discourse on the topic of “Immigration” in the Catechism, there are indeed many discourses on the topics of how to treat our neighbor, (no matter what crimes they have committed), how to treat the poor, how to evangelize by acceptance rather than rejection, and countless examples of Christ admonishing us to open ourselves. This is dogma.

If a person wants to hear it straight from the Pope, please read this lovely letter by Pope John Paul II, entitled The Church and Illegal Immigration. The letter in its entirety can be found here:

Pope’s Letter

Particularly beautiful is this passage:

Solidarity means taking responsibility for those in trouble. For Christians, the migrant is not merely an individual to be respected in accordance with the norms established by law, but a person whose presence challenges them and whose needs become an obligation for their responsibility. “What have you done to your brother?” (Cf. Gen 4:9). The answer should not be limited to what is imposed by law, but should be made in the manner of solidarity.

This is dogma.

On the subject of double effect: I think the concept was mentioned in the context of punishment of criminals. For the concept to be relevant to the immigration debate, negative consequences for the immigrant and the nation would have to be defined for two options: punishment and legalization.

Negatives in this situation are almost impossible to define, because they are highly subjective. For example, I can foresee no negative effect on my personal life if all illegals were immediately legalized. However, some people (while I think it would be rare) may assert that their life would somehow be personally damaged by broad legalization.

To aid us in defining negative impacts, we must define “negative” as Christ would define “negative;” as selfless servants, not as members of the most powerful capitalist nation on earth.

Peace,
Meeshy
 
meeshy said:
On the subject of double effect:
Click to expand...
Double effect cannot be shortcutted. If you want to refer to double effect, then please step us through the analysis point by point. I have given you the points.

As for dogma and illegal immigration, you have not persuaded me. Dogma on an issue needs to be very specific. I do not see anywhere that we need to stop being vigilant as to prosecuting criminal activity whether that activity is perpetrated by residents, citizens, or illegal aliens.

Certainly we need to forgive. But God himself did not abandon Justice for the sake of Mercy. The Cross is about God’s Mercy and Justice.

I have read the Pope’s pov and the bishops’ pov. Of course they want all Catholics to be part of the solution in terms of alleviating poverty. We are not saying keep them poor.

We are saying that the present system and the system proposed for pardon operates to perpetuate poverty: it keeps folks poor because it encourages black market employers to pay harmfully low wages and to exploit illegals in many other ways. These practices both endanger and artificially lower the wage standards for everyone not just illegals.

Pardoning folks for breaking the law sends a message out that some people have special status as to the law and some people don’t. And so people have no incentive to stop breaking the law. That is counterproductive.

However, as I have said, I do not believe that consequences for crossing the border illegally should necessarily be harsh. Except when dealing with terrorists and other violent criminals.

I also believe that the overall problem of fixing the poverty in other countries can best be handled using the carrot, not the stick: a rational foreign policy for the hemisphere which addresses poverty and exploitation as well as the threat from would-be dictators like Chavez and his buddies in the bin Laden circles. Open the borders, but close the perimeter.
 
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, on dogma:

…according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.
 
meeshy said:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, on dogma:

…according to a long-standing usage a dogma is now understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful.
Click to expand...
I brought up the question of specificity.

I also brought up the question of Justice being coupled with Mercy.
 
Here is a true story that both sides of this issue might find amusing.

I remember about 10 years ago several old government documents were found in San Jose, California (the former capital). These documents were from the 1800’s before California was part of the US. These documents showed that the Californians were very concerned about the immigrants from the United States. They felt the situation was getting out of control and the immigrants were going to take over.

I guess this proves that immigrants can be very problematic. 😃

Of course in this case it worked out for the best.
 
avelino said:
Here is a true story that both sides of this issue might find amusing.

I remember about 10 years ago several old government documents were found in San Jose, California (the former capital). These documents were from the 1800’s before California was part of the US. These documents showed that the Californians were very concerned about the immigrants from the United States. They felt the situation was getting out of control and the immigrants were going to take over.

I guess this proves that immigrants can be very problematic. 😃

Of course in this case it worked out for the best.
Click to expand...
In fact, the immitgrants did take over – deposing the government and forming the Bear Flag Republic just before the Army of the West arrived.
 
Gosh, I already answered your exercise yesterday.
Just as an exercise, I’d like to see the response to this question: How should we punish illegal aliens?
Click to expand...
What I personally would object to is a ‘law’ that does not take into account all the factors involved.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
“Double effect cannot be shortcutted. If you want to refer to double effect, then please step us through the analysis point by point. I have given you the points.” (Ani Ibi)

Actually, I was only responding to your post on double effect. I don’t have any interest in the analysis, because obviously the writings of the Pope and the bishops have already taken this concept into account. I don’t need to do it myself when they’ve already done it for me.

On the subject of dogma: I guess you saying that because there is no Papal decree on the subject of illegal immigration in America, there is no dogma on the subject.

However, dogma is not just Papal decree. Previously I presented the definition of the word. The main dogmas Pope John Paul II and the bishops have reminded us of in their writings on the subject of illegal immigration are the dogmas of charity, solidarity, and seeing Christ in one’s brother. While punishment is not a dogma per se, there is mention of punishment in the bishops writings, namely the paying of fines.

The Catechism, on punishment:

2266… The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

More on the subject of law and punishment–John 8:3-11:

**The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”**

The bishops, in their writings, echo this Gospel passage when they advise legalization. They go further than punishment and deportation—they go the full forgiveness route, by actually advising the reception of the (punished) sinner graciously into our country.

Kinda like if someone steals your cloak let him have your tunic too, right? (Matt 5:40-42)

Yup.

Peace,
Meeshy
 
“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.” (Tantum Ergo)

Awesome.

Peace,
Meeshy
 
Kinda like if someone steals your cloak let him have your tunic too, right? (Matt 5:40-42
Click to expand...
You do know that this specific passage undercuts you. . .because it was the believer who was to follow the law by **doing even more than what was required by law **(under Roman law Jewish citizens were forced into having to ‘walk the mile’ or ‘surrender the cloak’ under the proper law and authority). Not ‘false’ authority. Therefore, until and unless the law changes, it is the immigrant (as well as the citizen) who is to let the law take “the cloak and tunic”.

See the dangers of cherrypicking Scripture or taking out of context? 😃
 
You read it–great! You forgot the part about the fine (a nominal but necessary part for most, I believe) and also this, most important I think of all. . .
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.
Click to expand...
 
Tantum_ergo said:
You do know that this specific passage undercuts you. . .because it was the believer who was to follow the law by **doing even more than what was required by law **(under Roman law Jewish citizens were forced into having to ‘walk the mile’ or ‘surrender the cloak’ under the proper law and authority). Not ‘false’ authority. Therefore, until and unless the law changes, it is the immigrant (as well as the citizen) who is to let the law take “the cloak and tunic”.

See the dangers of cherrypicking Scripture or taking out of context? 😃
Click to expand...
Dear Heart,

The Gospel is broad. It is understood in many contexts, not just the context of the era in which it was written. For certain passages it is of great value to know the history or law of the era. For other passages, they apply no matter when or where or by whom they are read. This is just one of those passages. It has value in and of itself, without the reader being cognizant of Roman law.

"You read it–great! " (Tantum Ergo) Yes, I do read all the posts. My lack of reponse is not an indication of not having read something. It would be impossible to comment on everything. While I did start original thread, it’s a group discussion. And unless a post is directed specifically toward me, often I prefer to read rather than comment.

I’m checking out for the remainder of Good Friday.

Peace,
Meeshy
 
meeshy said:
“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.” (Tantum Ergo)

Awesome.

Peace,
Meeshy
Click to expand...
A penance that imposes some hardship, but does not cripple the family’s finances or ability to work or participate in society.

A period of community volunteer work.

A written promise not to collaborate in the plans of others to cross the border illegally or to work illegally.

A written promise to inform on other illegals.

Regular agency monitoring for adherence.

And if these agreements are violated then the deal is off.

But this is only for those who are not terrorists or violent criminals.

This arrangement is short-term only. The underlying reasons for illegal immigration must be addressed by a change in foreign policy vis a vis the Americas. And soon.
 
As the great-grandson of Sicilian immigrants, I do sympathize with immigrants. However, every immigrant in my family, even at the high of anti-Catholic, anti-Italian hatred, came here legally.

I’m in favor of anyone who comes here legally seeking a new life. I think our system should be reformed to allow more LEGAL immigration.
 
40.png
meeshy:
I don’t have any interest in the analysis, because obviously the writings of the Pope and the bishops have already taken this concept into account. I don’t need to do it myself when they’ve already done it for me.
Click to expand...
Then please cite their step by step Double Effect analyses.
 
This is not the same situation. The immigration policy was much more open back then. If we had the same policy we probably wouldn’t have an illegal immigration problem.

You’re proposed solution is one way to deal with this. However, I don’t know if we could handle such a large amount of immigration.

I think we also need to ask why is it that everyone wants to immigrate to the US. Back in the days of your Great Grandparents, people immigrated all over North and South America.

In the old days you had Italians, Scottish, German, Polish, Lebanese, Chinese, etc. immigrating to many different countries in the Americas. Now they only want to immigrate to the US.
Brian_C said:
As the great-grandson of Sicilian immigrants, I do sympathize with immigrants. However, every immigrant in my family, even at the high of anti-Catholic, anti-Italian hatred, came here legally.

I’m in favor of anyone who comes here legally seeking a new life. I think our system should be reformed to allow more LEGAL immigration.
Click to expand...
 
Brian_C said:
As the great-grandson of Sicilian immigrants, I do sympathize with immigrants. However, every immigrant in my family, even at the high of anti-Catholic, anti-Italian hatred, came here legally.

I’m in favor of anyone who comes here legally seeking a new life. I think our system should be reformed to allow more LEGAL immigration.
Click to expand...
I can see your point., But we must also remember that coming here was not exactly like it is now. Mainly you got on the boat and came. If you were not an anarchist or had a disease you were let in. It wasnt like people were applying at the Merican Consulate to enter etc
 
A written promise to inform on other illegals
Click to expand...
I guess I would not include this. I can see scenes of family memebers having to inform on other uncle Carlos for example.

In american law we really don’t have any laws or traditions that include “informing” and if one doesnt one is penalized. But I can leave with thre rest:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top