Cdl Mahony's "Cesar Chavez Mass"

[maria_rose]

Nobody has the right to live anywhere they want. There are laws that need to be obeyed. Remember that!

How about having the courage to fix things in their own country?
Why is it that people have lost the courage to stand up and fight for what’s right in their own country?
BTW I am an immigrant to the USA. I came here on a tourist visa and stayed on. I fought for several years to get legal, using a lawyer that charged me a fortune and earned me nothing. I got legal finally when I married my American husband. It is not that easy to get through the legal process.
A country has the right to limit influx, because there is a limit as to what a country can afford to pay for.
In Europe with their open borders the prosperous countries like mine (Germany) suffer with double digit unemployment and no funds in the treasury because they are bled dry by people coming from anywhere worse of for the dream of prosperity. The crime rate has dramatically increased and the level of violence as well.
May be if the people of the third world countries stayed in their own country and got of their duffs and fixed the corruption in those nations, we the developed nations wouldn’t have pay the price we are paying.

 

[childofmary1143]

Again though, here is the text of the announcement:

There is not a single word in there about supporting illegal immigrants.

Cardinal Mahoney may indeed support a form of immigration reform that does include some kind of amnesty provision; I don’t know. But I do know that there are many knowledgeable Catholics who do support such a thing, including many bishops, and that there is nothing un-Catholic about it as Catholics are totally free to consider that there may be different ways to solve the problem.

That does NOT however translate into supporting illegal immigration. It only means that diiferent people may have different ideas about what to do about those who are already here. But nothing in this announcement says even that much, and certainly does not indicate a “support” for illegal immigration.

I’m not going to get into debates here about the best way to accomplish reform, as even the OP says that is not the intent of the thread. But as Geezerbob said early on, imputing motives to someone, when the actual announcement doesn’t support any such implication, is just wrong.

Chavez did in fact support better conditions for low wage workers. This announcement deals with support for low wage workers. It does not address supporting illegal workers so whether Chavez would or would not have supported that is irrelevant.

There are plenty of other threads to debate what kind of immigration reform might be “best”. Like a few others here though, I think the criticism leveled here as to the intent of the Cardinal is misplaced. Every item noted in that announcement is in accord with established Catholic teaching. There is no noted support for illegal immigration; only support for fair treatment of low wage workers.

Speculation on intent, to the point of condemning motives without proof of that intent, is nothing more than unfounded gossip, and sinful in itself since we are always called upon to give the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proof, as noted in that same catechism being quoted about lying.

Peace,

That maybe true that the ad says nothing about illegal immigration but it is well known that Cardinal Mahoney is for illegal immigration as he has said it many times.

 

[Caveman]

Again though, here is the text of the announcement:

There is not a single word in there about supporting illegal immigrants.

Cardinal Mahoney may indeed support a form of immigration reform that does include some kind of amnesty provision; I don’t know. But I do know that there are many knowledgeable Catholics who do support such a thing, including many bishops, and that there is nothing un-Catholic about it as Catholics are totally free to consider that there may be different ways to solve the problem.

That does NOT however translate into supporting illegal immigration. It only means that diiferent people may have different ideas about what to do about those who are already here. But nothing in this announcement says even that much, and certainly does not indicate a “support” for illegal immigration.

I’m not going to get into debates here about the best way to accomplish reform, as even the OP says that is not the intent of the thread. But as Geezerbob said early on, imputing motives to someone, when the actual announcement doesn’t support any such implication, is just wrong.

Chavez did in fact support better conditions for low wage workers. This announcement deals with support for low wage workers. It does not address supporting illegal workers so whether Chavez would or would not have supported that is irrelevant.

There are plenty of other threads to debate what kind of immigration reform might be “best”. Like a few others here though, I think the criticism leveled here as to the intent of the Cardinal is misplaced. Every item noted in that announcement is in accord with established Catholic teaching. There is no noted support for illegal immigration; only support for fair treatment of low wage workers.

Speculation on intent, to the point of condemning motives without proof of that intent, is nothing more than unfounded gossip, and sinful in itself since we are always called upon to give the benefit of the doubt in the absence of proof, as noted in that same catechism being quoted about lying.

Peace,

NCJohn,
Do you know what he means by “comprehensive immigration reform”?

What “comprehensive immigration reform” is he talking about? What is there in United States Immigration Law… the same United States that lead the world in allowing in LEGAL immigrants than the rest of the world combined… that is soooo in need of “reform”?

C’mon John… we all know the buzz words. And we know exactly who Cdl Mahony is pandering to.

And, yet again, it’s absurd that the good cardinal should use the name of an individual who was so hard core anti-illegal alien. What part of Cesar Chavez having his cousin’s gangs beat the daylights out of illegals did no one here read? What part of Chavez having UFW members picket the INS to ensure that illegals stayed OUT of the USA?

Seriously, am I the only one who sees the absurdity here?

 

[Caveman]

I think the Cardinal is probably concerned with his main constituancy in his Archdiocese, which is Hispanic. Most Hispanics are concerned with the issues that pertain to them, one of which is immigration. Many of them are poor and sympathise with the plight of illegals. So, I’d say he’s trying to be supportive of their concerns.

He probably thinks that we should change our laws and not be so restrictive of immigration. Many people do feel this way, out of sympathy for some of the more powerless people in the Hemisphere, the Mexican underclass. They are basically economic refugees looking for a way to support their families, and the Cardinal probably has a soft spot in his heart for them.

It’s sad that the good cardinal doesn’t have a “soft spot” in his heart for all the citizens and legal resident aliens who have lost their jobs to illegals.

BTW, there’s a myth out there that the illegals are doing “the jobs that Americans won’t do”. I personally know individuals who lost good paying jobs (plumbers, electricians, framers, long-haul truck drivers, etc) to uncertified illegals.

Where’s the warm fuzzy spot in Cdl Mahony’s heart for the KIDS of these men who lost their jobs?

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Since this thread has drifted into disussing immigration policy and a few other things rather than the “Chavez Mass”, it is now closed. Thanks to all who participated.