Church teaching on illegal immigration

[d97c]

The reference from John 23rd was a quote I took from John Paul 2d Message for 90th World Migration Day, " 3.As regards immigrants and refugees, building conditions of peace means in practice being seriously committed to safeguarding first of all the right not to emigrate, that is, the right to live in peace and dignity in one’s own country. (my comment—ever hear of the Mexican Bishops FIXING Mexico??) By means of a farsighted local and national administration, more equitable trade and supportive international cooperation, it is possible for every country to guarantee its own population, in addition to freedom of expression and movement, the possibility to satisfy basic needs such as food, health care, work, housing and education; the frustration of these needs forces many into a position where their only option is to emigrate. (The great Catholic Mexico creates the problem and tells America "you got to fix it…to heck with the problems we give you !!)

(Continuing with the quote)…Equally, the right to emigrate exists. This right, Bl. John XXIII recalls in the Encyclical Mater et Magistra, is based on the universal destination of the goods of this world (cf. nn. 30 and 33). It is obviously the task of Governments to regulate the migratory flows with full respect for the dignity of the persons and for their families’ needs, mindful of the requirements of the host societies. (So if it’s a misquote, take it up with the Vatican.) Notice he didnt say it’s the task of Bishop Bob or Bishop Jim.

The big disagreement is what should the government do? What is the “common good?” I say the common good is determined by a balancing of the good versus the bad done by illegal immigration . I say we dont need any more…they are self deporting…there are NO jobs…they depress wages…they commit too many crimes…they use government services more than they contribute TO government (see Krugman above,)…and we dont need the low skill, uneducated numbers these illegals bring here…this nation should decide whether we need skilled or unskilled workers…NOT the people who sneak in here, lie, take SS #s, manipulate the system with their anchor babies et al… and flop their kids down here and say to the public health system and welfare sustem---->…“here, you take care of them.” You never never say anything bad about the illegals…How about telling them “Stop cutting in front of the legal immigrants…It’s a sin !”

I know what Pope J P 2 said…no need to “instruct us.” His comments gave rise to the Catechism…which says:

 

[d97c]

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I’ve highlighted three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

 

[tafan]

You guys are getting way too carried away. I will admit that in the past 30-40 years in this country, we have had some poor leadership from our bishops and there are some very liberal priests (who are difficult control, but thankfully reaching retirement age for the most part). However, we have had some really good Bishops lately and they have been doing a much better job. From all appearances, Cardinal DiNardo appears to be one of these.

I have no idea what the prayer for healthcare form was, but based on the Cardinal’s memo to pastors and nationwide bulletin insert nd what was said in our diocese, we should all have been making the prayer very fervently. It was all about the pro-life requirements of any healthcare reform legislation, here are the two Houston Diocese links:

diogh.org/healthcare/BulletinInsert-010810-ENG.pdf
diogh.org/healthcare/ArchghPressRelease-HealthCareReform.pdf

Yall’s behavior is about to reach the point of slandering Bishops. And it has exceed the point of not showing them their due respect.

 

[JLChamberlain]

The Church teaching on illegal immigration reflects the fact that telling people who are here seeking a better life for themselves and food for their families to go home and starve isn’t exactly a “pro-life” position.

“Illegal immigration” is misdemeanor carrying a maximum penalty of 6 months in jail and/or a fine of $50 - $250.
codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/8/12/II/VIII/1325

Note also that while illegal entry is a crime, remaining here once entered is not a crime. So they are only “criminals” in the sense that a person who chooses to exceed the speed limit are “criminals”.

By the way, the maximum penalty for speeding in Georgia (I just picked it because it’s where I live) is $1000 fine and up to a year in jail.

And the people who aid the illegals are “accessories after the fact” which is a crime.

 

[tafan]

d97c:

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Yes, and it has not been dropped out of this discussion. It has been acknowledged multiple times by myself, the bishop’s acknknmowledge it 4 times in their document. You can ignore that I favor control of the border and control of immigration if you want, but don’t lie about it.

The issue is that you are not arguing against an unlimited number of immigrants from Mexico, you are arguing for ZERO. You want the number of legal slots lowered and the number of legal slots are now less than 4000/year. It is absurd to say that we cannot aborb a steady number of workers from Mexico.
To argue for zero mexican workers is wrong and against Catholic teaching that “The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able”. Unless you say we are only **able **to take zero. And to take that positino, you must have very little faith in our free-enterprise system AND be a follower of Malthusian population theory, which will really lead you down the path to some immoral positions.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration

Once again, I have not denied this. It is implied in the acknowledgement of the state’s right to control the border and to regulate immigration.

 

[d97c]

There you go again…“lie” this…“lie” that…Stop that Bro !! …
Ok I’ll try agin for ya—>
“…as much as it is able”…Catechism words…or close…means that the country…not the Bishops, get to say how many we are “able” to take in here…and what the effect is of the many we take in here…THAT IS AN AREA OF PRUDENTIAL JUDGMENT…not Catholic Dogma…
Show me where Pope J P 2 says that the US of A has to take this million or that million…That is a governmental decision…not Papal…do you understand that??? I doubt it…
…"and I aint Lyin’!

No one is “slandering” anyone. Slander is the UNTRUTHFUL statement about someone. Truth is a complete defense to a “slander” allegation. No one has said anything here which is untruthful about any Bishop. When they venture out into an area like whether we should have e-verify for employers or whether illegals should get drivers licenses (like they do in my state,) they are ripe for argument and criticism. Bishops of the Catholic Church have no more expertise in this field than I do…and I think I have more…And to use parish money to push an agenda with which I may properly disagree …really *&%%$#4 me off ! We are simply saying that the Bishops have NO expertise in the area of whether and how any illegals we can accept into this country. The government has the say so. and the Government in this nation is the majority rule…and I say the majority does NOT want illegals to get in here or stay if they sneak in.

 

[Ender]

However, we have had some really good Bishops lately and they have been doing a much better job. From all appearances, Cardinal DiNardo appears to be one of these.

However good he may be as a bishop in other areas he has contributed to the confusion about what is or is not required of faithful Catholics. His failure is not in stating that we have a moral obligation to vote as he votes but in wording his document in such as way as to allow this interpretation to be insisted on by others. Here is a quote from his bulletin insert (from the first link you provided):
*
"I urge you to work to uphold essential provisions against abortion funding, to include full conscience protection and to assure that health care is accessible and affordable for all. Until and unless these criteria are met, I urge you to oppose the final bill.”*

Our only obligation as Catholics is to oppose provisions that fund abortion. As for the rest, we are only “urged” to support other objectives but nowhere is it specified that we have any obligation to support any particular bill

I have no idea what the prayer for healthcare form was, but based on the Cardinal’s memo to pastors and nationwide bulletin insert nd what was said in our diocese, we should all have been making the prayer very fervently. It was all about the pro-life requirements of any healthcare reform legislation

The Cardinal’s memo was about the particular bills before Congress and the fact that he and others supported this specific approach to health care so long as their few objections were resolved.

Yall’s behavior is about to reach the point of slandering Bishops. And it has exceed the point of not showing them their due respect.

Respect is due the office. It is not due to those individuals who either abuse that office or fail to distinguish between their obligations as bishops and their political inclinations.

Ender

 

[tafan]

d97c:

No one is “slandering” anyone. Slander is the UNTRUTHFUL statement about someone

If person A makes a slanderous statement about person B and person C acknowledges the possibility of the act without any just cause, person C also committed slander. That is standard catholic moral theology. Now, I did not say you did that. I said you are “about to reach the point of slandering Bishops”.

Thanks for the clarification of your quote. I understand how you misatributed it to John XIII. JP II was simply saying that John XIII had told us the basis for the right to immigrate. The statement you quoted was JP II’s.

The big disagreement is what should the government do? What is the “common good?” I say the common good is determined by a balancing of the good versus the bad done by illegal immigration . I say we dont need any more…they are self deporting…there are NO jobs…they depress wages…they commit too many crimes…they use government services more than they contribute TO government (see Krugman above,)…and we dont need the low skill, uneducated numbers these illegals bring here…this nation should decide whether we need skilled or unskilled workers…NOT the people who sneak in here, lie, take SS #s, manipulate the system with their anchor babies et al… and flop their kids down here and say to the public health system and welfare sustem---->…“here, you take care of them.” You never never say anything bad about the illegals…How about telling them “Stop cutting in front of the legal immigrants…It’s a sin !”

If you want to cut down on illegal immigration, it would seem logical to provide a legal means for at least some of these workers to migrate here. As to the stop cutting in line, that is a classic one. I suggest you go back to my post #47 and tell me what line they are cutting in front. I suggest to you there is no line.

As to the unskilled labor, even that is somewhat demeaning to the Mexican worker. Many, if not most of these workers, have skills. I think in charity we should just refer to them as laborers.

Finally, about me never saying anything bad about illegals. A couple of points. Well, although in conversations I may be quite argumentive, both in person and on a forum such as this, I try not to make libel against any group of individuals. Also, there are so many falsehoods and half truths and demeaning comments made about them, making in statements against them (even if true) would associate me with the rest, which would be a cause for scandal (always to be avoided). Finally, you may have missed it, but please refer to the last paragraph to post # 37 and you will see why I think it is quite dangerous to denigrate the Mexican in anyway, certainly I will err on the safe side.

 

[JLChamberlain]

Tafan, did you even read that I am married to a woman of Mexican heritage and that my extended family of Mexican heritage is over 100 people? Did you read that I said about them being skilled workers, many of whom would give you the shirt off their back? If you data is correct, that there is no way to get a green card to come over here and be a carpenter, ranch hand, mason, etc. then I’ll sure concede that needs to be fixed.

But I am NOT a racist and amnesty for lawbreakers is not an answer, it will only make the problem continue to grow.

pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.9.pdf

The other side of the coin.

 

[d97c]

so…we cant “denegrate the Mexican in ANY way??”…That s what you said—Man,
you have some really outlandish fixation on Mexicans. Just because a Mexican (or Canadian) wants to come here illegally, and obviously knows that its wrong because it is done under the dark of night or overstaying visas, does not make that Mexican a saint. I denegrate anyone who says, like the illegal does → “I have made the decision to violate the laws of the United States. It’s my decision, and you can’t criticise me for it. I am a Mexican and I cant commit a crime when I emigrate to a country which says that they have enough of me.” Which other crime would you forgive like the illegal under your theory? Any others we should totally forgive because of the status of the person committing the crime?? (you really are setting up a heck of a criminal justice system !)

and as said before…UNSKILLED labor…you got to get better on your facts…
manhattan-institute.org/html/_chicsuntimes-why_unskilled_immigrants.htm

 

[tafan]

pewhispanic.org/files/reports/117.9.pdf

The other side of the coin.

Thanks for that. It helps justify a couple of the points I have made.

 

[tafan]

so…we cant “denegrate the Mexican in ANY way??”…That s what you said—Man,
you have some really outlandish fixation on Mexicans

Well, in general, we should try not to denigrate any group of individuals based on ethnicity. But I do believe we should be very cautious with Mexicans, because they obviously hold a special place in God’s plan of salvation.

I don’t necessarily have a fixation on them. This debate pertains to them, so that is who I am talking about. As to it being outlandish, my point of view about the mexican people having a special place in God’s heart is not unique (JP II, historian Warren Carroll come to mind) and it is easily justified by looking at Mexican history.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

If such comments were made to you they were contemptible. Worse, the statements in the homily were wrong and those particular prayers of the faithful were totally inappropriate.

All of this is evidence of the politicization of the clergy for which the bishops deserve the blame since they can’t seem to keep it straight either. You were right to challenge the deacon, who apparently doesn’t understand what he read, and you should consider writing to the bishop explaining how your comments were received and asking for clarification. You should not put up with that kind of treatment … or that degree of ignorance.

Ender

Don’t worry, I did. My letter to the deacon and the hostile remarks from the pastor are on the way to Cardinal DiNardo and Bishop Vasquez. Along with my direct comments to the Cardinal about the damage his is doing.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

This doesn’t help much to answer my guestion. What your pastor may have said about heathcare in the pulpit and what Cardinal DiNardo may have said about healthcare is not what I asked. I asked about what statements, if any, your bishop had made about immigration.

Am I to assume you are from the Houston Diocese? If so, I guess I will go and see what Cardinal DiNardo has said about the subject.

The Deacon at St. Clare’s in Clear Lake told us we had to call illegal aliens undocumented citizens and that we needed to pray for immigration reform. Yes it is the Archdiocese of Galveston Houston and I have written a note to Cardinal DiNardo complaining of the activist stance of the USCCB. I hope I get a clarifying response, but I was told by Fr. Dominic Pistore, that all this came directly from the USCCB and the Cardinal’s letter to congress on Health Care Reform was quoted in the sermon and the nice notes I got from Fr. Dominic. I will share with you whatever if anything I get back from the Archdiocese.

Oh, and I give up…I am a racist. That is why I married a Mexican American widow with two little brown boys and made a couple more half and half’s. Does this make you happy now?

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Thanks for that. It helps justify a couple of the points I have made.

I read this and can’t for the life of me figure out what this is supposed to tell me. That Mexican kids are better off if they stay in Mexico? That the welfare state of the Barrio is managing to corrupt people who come here from Mexico? That you are prejudiced against US citizens or the naturalization process?

I’m sure this poll supported something in your mind, but I never have said that we should limit hispanic immigration because they are violent criminals. Someone else may have said that, I don’t know, but my experience with the people of Hispanic descent is no different that my experience with any other ethnic group.

But like I said before. I am a racist bigot and appreciate you clarifying that for me.

 

[tafan]

Oh, and I give up…I am a racist. That is why I married a Mexican American widow with two little brown boys and made a couple more half and half’s. Does this make you happy now?

Ok, you are not a racist, but you made a racist statement, and then misrepresented your statment to try to get out of it. Instead of a satirical comment admitting to be a racist, why not just say, “I was wrong, I wrote something I shouldn’t have and I apologize”.

 

[tafan]

I read this and can’t for the life of me figure out what this is supposed to tell me. That Mexican kids are better off if they stay in Mexico? That the welfare state of the Barrio is managing to corrupt people who come here from Mexico? That you are prejudiced against US citizens or the naturalization process?

I’m sure this poll supported something in your mind, but I never have said that we should limit hispanic immigration because they are violent criminals. Someone else may have said that, I don’t know, but my experience with the people of Hispanic descent is no different that my experience with any other ethnic group.

But like I said before. I am a racist bigot and appreciate you clarifying that for me.

Another poster used the example of hispanic gangs in LA as an example of why mexican immigrants were a problem. I answered that these gangs were not new immigrants. It also helps justify the position that it is not new immigration that causes other crime and violence problems. We need to critically look at our own culture-of-death for those causes and not look for scape-goats.

And I am glad to hear you say now that hispanics are no different than other ethnic groups. You are in a minority on this thread at least on that point.

 

[tafan]

The Deacon at St. Clare’s in Clear Lake told us we had to call illegal aliens undocumented citizens and that we needed to pray for immigration reform. Yes it is the Archdiocese of Galveston Houston and I have written a note to Cardinal DiNardo complaining of the activist stance of the USCCB. I hope I get a clarifying response, but I was told by Fr. Dominic Pistore, that all this came directly from the USCCB and the Cardinal’s letter to congress on Health Care Reform was quoted in the sermon and the nice notes I got from Fr. Dominic. I will share with you whatever if anything I get back from the Archdiocese.

Don’t expect anything positive back from the archdiocese. If you did not even educate yourself enough about the Bishops’ positions to be able to point out specific items you disagree with, they probably won’t spend much time responding.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Tafan. I did educate myself on the USCCB’s message and I, like thousands of other catholics, do not approve. In my opinion the Bishops have shirked their responsibility to educate us on the meaning of Charity and instead have requested that we assign change to the Government.

You can approve of it if you want. I know I can’t change your mind.

We are entitled to different means of achieving any certain objective, and in most cases I think we would agree on the end product. (I don’t however believe Mexican’s are any more or less favored by God than any other race or heritage.)

I don’t expect a positive response from the Archdiocese.

Anyway, thanks for the lively dialogue but that’s the way I believe and I’m stickin to it. Thank God there is room in Heaven for sinners.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t however believe Mexican’s are any more or less favored by God than any other race or heritage.

Nor does God believe so. (according to classic Catholic theology)

That is despite whatever is currently popular, despite whatever political influences may be undercurrents in any church-originating statements.