Church teaching on immigration is dicotomous and contradictory

[JoeFreedom]

According to the USCCB (see link here):

Catholic Social Teaching

The Catholic Catechism instructs the faithful that good government has two duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored. The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the human person. Persons have the right to immigrate and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: “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.” Catholic Catechism, 2241.

The second duty is to secure one’s border and enforce the law for the sake of the common good. Sovereign nations have the right to enforce their laws and all persons must respect the legitimate exercise of this right: “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.” Catholic Catechism, 2241.

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.” No. 35. The Bishops made clear that the “[m]ore powerful economic nations…ave a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.” No. 36.

If in paragraph one, it instructs us to welcome those who illegally cross our borders, and in paragraph two, it tells us to secure our borders, and for those who are not citizens to respect our laws, is this not contradictory?

I have no problem with immigration or foreigners. I think a lot of people who believe in secure borders are automatically called racists, bigots, etc., of which I can honestly and firmly tell you that I am not. What I believe in is the enforcement of our current laws and respect for our laws. I believe that immigration, as it currently stands should be done legally and within the established processes/laws. However, in an ideal world where our government does not provide everything to everyone cradle to grave by robbing from the haves and giving the poor (this is NOT the job of the government but a commandment of God to love our neighbor, be his brother’s keeper, and for him to exercise the free will to provide charity, NOT forced charity through government coercion). If our government did not do this, and people were allowed the freedom to be free of government slavery, and people were NOT given handouts all through life, I would agree that unfettered immigration we be more acceptable, because those people then are not coming here for FREE stuff, but rather to find a way to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and to work and provide for themselves, like the first immigrants had to do (no government freebies).

So how do these two Catholic teachings reconcile with each other? I mean, in the same respect, if someone were to steal (break our laws), even if the sake they were hungry and had no money, would the CC say to love them and let them be, just like what I am reading into their teaching above?

 

[FrDavid96]

…

If in paragraph one, it instructs us to welcome those who illegally cross our borders, and in paragraph two, it tells us to secure our borders, and for those who are not citizens to respect our laws, is this not contradictory?
…

It’s not contradictory. We are not instructed to “welcome those who illegally cross our borders.” That’s a common misunderstanding. What the Catechism actually says is that more prosperous (or peaceful, if there is war or persecution in the country of origin) should welcome immigrants. It means that our laws should be welcoming (and indeed, we already have the most welcoming and most generous immigration laws in the world), but that doesn’t translate into the Church saying that we must accommodate illegal immigration.

 

[GEddie]

I think the key is that the first paragraph as stated does not contain the word “illegal”.

While immigration may be a natural right, breaking the law to do so is not.

The law must be respected, but it is the government’s law, to handle as they see fit. The current conservative hysteria over illegal immigration helps nobody.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Neofight]

Too often in the immigration discussion (especially along the southern U.S. borders) the term “illegal” is used to fashion an exculpatory clause, which might fit a simplistic dictionary definition, but is still questionable from a moral perspective.

“Legal” does not translate to “moral” if the law itself is immoral.

Legality deals with the letter of the law, morality with the intent of the law.

I think the church is speaking on moral not legal aspects.

This is exactly why immigration reform is so sorely needed in this country.

Peace and all good!

 

[beleg]

Actually, people are supposed to recognize and follow the laws of the country that they are in. That’s why we can call people who come into our country without proper documentation “illegal”.

Immigrants have the right to come into a country, but they still are obliged to follow the proper laws in order to do so. The laws, in turn, should not make it difficult for the immigrants to enter the country in a timely manner.

So conscientious Catholics can oppose illegal immigration, but they should not be opposed to the idea of lawful immigration. In either case, we’re meant to be charitable to the humans involved.

In America, at least, I think that it’s pretty clear that we’ve got a problem with our laws accommodating immigration from some countries, and that reform is needed for them to be more Catholic. IMO

 

[Clinias]

There is so much confusion out there.

The history of “rights” is in the Roman Republic/Empire where the law stipulated that Roman citizens could ask this or that because the law said that they could or should. There was NO idea of “Rights” common to all men. St. Paul when arrested in Acts, when he was about to be flayed, bellowed out, “I am a Roman citizen and I have a right to be heard in front of the Emperor”. That was because Roman Law dictated that any Roman citizen can appeal to the Emperor. Paul did NOT claim to appeal to the Emperor because of some ephemeral idea that all people have rights of this and that.

Universal “Rights” is not a part of Western Culture or Civilization. Rights were only in one’s own political community and were what the Law gave them according to redress.

There is NO such thing ever as “rights to immigrate”. In the old days they were called Invasions and people fought over that. In the old days, no one migrated “alone”. It was too dangerous all around. People migrated in groups. Hardly ever individually. Did the Egyptians recognize the “right” of the Hebrews to emigrate out of Egypt? NO. There was NO right. God had to use scourges to impel the Pharaoh to give in. And then when they went to Palestine, the indigenous people prevented them from coming in. They had to fight their way in and the Hebrews genocided the indigenous people.

Now, the “Rights of Man” was invented by the Enlightenment thinkers especially the American intellectuals which was passed by the atheist Thomas Paine into France. Totally made up. They took English Common Law and just applied them to everybody outside of England and made up the proposition that “Everybody has rights”. They used these “rights” to destroy the Old Order, their Monarchy and the Church. “Rights” were used as a weapon to destroy.

That is the most supersilly thing I have ever read: The right to immigrate. I was kicked out of Britain and sent back to France because I had NO money on me! I had to lie and show somebody’ elses money to get into Denmark! Right to Immigrate? Nonsense.

The American government in 1925 restricted immigration to only Northern European countries and restricted immigration from other places.

Ancient Sparta had xenelasia laws that prevented their people from emigrating and people from immigrating into Sparta.

So this “right to immigrate” is NOT shown by history. The American Indian met the European colonizers with violence once they understood it was an invasion. Europeans were constantly breaking the sovereignty of American Indian lands.

God tells Joshua, where you spear point lands–it is your land. There was no “right” to the land of Israel—they had to conquer it by force.

The “rights” program is the basis for socialism, communism, political correctness and much turmoil.

For a much more discussion please see This thread talking on Nations and political correctness.

In Operation *******, President Eisenhower sent 3 million Mexicans back to Mexico.

This “right” to immigration is turning into an invasion that will quickly make us, Europeans, a minority in the country we built.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Actually, people are supposed to recognize and follow the laws of the country that they are in. That’s why we can call people who come into our country without proper documentation “illegal”.

Immigrants have the right to come into a country, but they still are obliged to follow the proper laws in order to do so. The laws, in turn, should not make it difficult for the immigrants to enter the country in a timely manner.

So conscientious Catholics can oppose illegal immigration, but they should not be opposed to the idea of lawful immigration. In either case, we’re meant to be charitable to the humans involved.

In America, at least, I think that it’s pretty clear that we’ve got a problem with our laws accommodating immigration from some countries, and that reform is needed for them to be more Catholic. IMO

I agree with you. I am not opposed at all to immigration, just *illegal *immigration, which conservatives often get accused of, as well as many other beliefs about immigration which are simply not true (at least for the ones I know). I am very much pro-immigration. What I am opposed to is that there is this belief now that we should just “let it go”, like nothing every happened, and no one broke any laws coming into the country illegally, and we should just be Mr. Nice Guy and forget anything ever happened. I do not believe we should treat illegal immigrants unfairly, poorly or in any other fashion that would be unbecoming of Christ’s teaching, but breaking the immigration law is not an excuse to just “let it go” and simply “be charitable” and call all those who want the laws upheld bigots and racists.

But I hope everyone can see how the CCC can be confusing and misinterpreted… right? Clearly, there are apologetics who study decades to understand the true nature of these things, and for a layperson to consistently get it right when it isn’t clear… well. I mean, it could have easily cleared up things by saying, “within the confines of all morally acceptable laws”… could it not? I feel like I am consistently misinterpreting the CCC and reading into it or not reading out of it what I should be it can be ambiguous.

 

[SyroMalankara]

There is NO such thing ever as “rights to immigrate”.

The Catechism did not mention this as a human right, there are various nations that consider the “political” or “legislative” right to immigrate or emigrate. Human persons also have the human right to move freely, unless the person is infringing on some other law. Neither the law to “protect the border” not immigrate/emigrate are absolute - there needs to be a balance. The citizenry of many of the United States have determined that the current status is not properly balanced.

 

[dmar198]

There is so much confusion out there.

I agree, but I’m not so sure I agree with the rest of your post.

Universal “Rights” is not a part of Western Culture or Civilization. Rights were only in one’s own political community and were what the Law gave them according to redress.

I think there is evidence of an idea of universal human rights based on natural law in early Catholic literature. As an example, St. Isidore seems to have said that natural law gives everyone some universal rights in this passage:

“Natural law is common to all nations. It has its origins in nature, not in any constitution. Examples of natural law are the union of men and women, the procreation and raising of children, the common possessions of all persons, the equal liberty of all persons, the acquisition of things that are taken from the heavens, earth, or sea, the return of property or money that has been deposited or entrusted. This also includes the right to repel violence with force. These things and similar are never unjust but are natural and equitable.” (Etymologies Book V Chapter 4 Paragraph 1) source

He was much, much earlier than the so-called Enlightenment, writing around 630 A.D.

It is my understanding this passage made its way into Gratian’s collection of Canon Law on page 1, and from there into the early universities, and from there into the minds of most early Catholic scholastic thinkers. Therefore, I think the concept of universal human rights is much, much earlier than Enlightenment thinkers, and is really an ancient part of Catholic social teaching.

Did the Egyptians recognize the “right” of the Hebrews to emigrate out of Egypt? NO. There was NO right. God had to use scourges to impel the Pharaoh to give in.

I don’t think the government has to Recognize a right in order for it to exist. What if they had a right to migrate and Pharaoh simply denied it? That would Also explain God’s scourges, IMO. What do you think of that argument?

The “rights” program is the basis for socialism, communism, political correctness and much turmoil.

I don’t think so, because socialism and communism deny human rights, and political correctness has too many interpretations. If you mean secularism, that denies human rights too.

 

[Clinias]

Thanks for that dmarl 198. Good points and thanks for the link.

What I mean is that the “Rights of Man” in France was used to further revolutionary change and wrecked Catholic France. Here in America, “Freedom of Speech” is used to pass on evil and the “rights” program is being used to undermine WASP America. American Communists and Marxists are using the “rights” industry to undermine America. The ACLU is good case.

Your points about where this “right” thing came from is very interesting. I have to mull on that source of info. Maybe Catholics are their own worst enemy. St. Thomas and his intellectual companions lived in all Catholic countries so there would be no problem with his concepts. But once an enemy comes in, they used those “rights” to silence us and Christian authority. I see the operation of prudence and Wisdom thwarted by the “rights” program. Intrinsically, in my being, I don’t like these “rights”; I have seen to much evil advanced under its flag.

 

[Tigg]

I am not opposed at all to immigration, just *illegal *immigration, which conservatives often get accused of, as well as many other beliefs about immigration which are simply not true (at least for the ones I know). I am very much pro-immigration. What I am opposed to is that there is this belief now that we should just “let it go”, like nothing every happened, and no one broke any laws coming into the country illegally, and we should just be Mr. Nice Guy and forget anything ever happened. I do not believe we should treat illegal immigrants unfairly, poorly or in any other fashion that would be unbecoming of Christ’s teaching, but breaking the immigration law is not an excuse to just “let it go” and simply “be charitable” and call all those who want the laws upheld bigots and racists.

There is no question at all as to our obligations regarding the weak and poor, but I believe there is a very dark area regarding immigration which implies that deception, secrecy, and dishonesty are acceptable. We are a nation of laws and if law breaks down as it has over this, what really do we have to stand on? Not the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights it seems.

But I hope everyone can see how the CCC can be confusing and misinterpreted… right? Clearly, there are apologetics who study decades to understand the true nature of these things, and for a layperson to consistently get it right when it isn’t clear… well. I mean, it could have easily cleared up things by saying, “within the confines of all morally acceptable laws”… could it not? I feel like I am consistently misinterpreting the CCC and reading into it or not reading out of it what I should be it can be ambiguous.

I believe some of the bishops’ statements have only added to the confusion because of their political stance. When they suggest we must back an amnesty for example, that is not church teaching, but nonetheless it implies we must support a specific piece of legislation even though the church gives us the freedom as laity to prudentially judge the situation. I am further confused by certain individual bishops in not upholding earlier church documents, most especially those which contain two major elements of SJ teaching - primarily subsidiarity (see Quadragesimo Anno) and the common good (Mater et Magistra.) With the new globalization, many fear we are entering a period of blatant human social engineering which surrounds illegal immigration. This country is embracing more and more socialist ideology while the bishops continue to favor statism. With the crisis concerning basic catechesis and the numbers even of Latinos leaving the church, I wonder why and how immigration and even the environment seem to have become more important than Christian living and leadership defining the way to Christ and holiness.

 

[mikekle]

Im not sure about all the immigration, if we look back to the Tower of Babel, God ‘jumbled’ all the languages for a reason…I dont think we are taking this into consideration when plunging into a global community’. There must have been a reason God did not want everyone on the same page so to speak.

 

[Ender]

I believe some of the bishops’ statements have only added to the confusion because of their political stance.

There is nothing good that comes from the involvement of bishops in political issues. If anything their comments make the problems more intractable by implying that differences are not prudential but moral. Debate is stifled because those who differ politically from the bishops are dismissed not for being mistaken but for being immoral. How can there be a discussion over the issues if one side is summarily dismissed as evil, greedy, jingoistic, or - at best - indifferent to the suffering of others?

When they suggest we must back an amnesty for example, that is not church teaching, but nonetheless it implies we must support a specific piece of legislation even though the church gives us the freedom as laity to prudentially judge the situation.

This is the problem. When a bishop offers his prudential opinion it is mistaken for a moral judgment. This leads those who have formed an opposing opinion to reject the bishop’s guidance in such cases, which is their right. Unfortunately, this also reinforces the mistaken belief that they may also reject his guidance on moral issues.*I suggested that it is a mistake for bishops to squander their credibility as teachers of faith and morals by issuing pronouncements, especially politically partisan pronouncements, on matters beyond their competence as bishops. These are typically matters of prudential judgment on which Catholics (and others) of equal intelligence and good will can and do disagree. *(Fr. Richard Neuhaus)

I wonder why and how immigration and even the environment seem to have become more important than Christian living and leadership defining the way to Christ and holiness.

Given that Catholics are virtually indistinguishable from everyone else when it comes to divorce, the use of contraception, and a myriad of other social pathologies one could reasonably suggest that the bishops have more pressing matters than politics.

Ender

 

[Clinias]

Aristotle catalogues historical events on how immigration doesn’t go so well:

“Also difference of race is a cause of faction, until harmony of spirit is reached; for just as any chance multitude of people does not form a state, so a state is not formed in any chance period of time. Hence most of the states that have hitherto admitted joint settlers or additional settlers have split into factions; for example Achaeans settled at Sybaris jointly with Troezenians, and afterwards the Achaeans having become more numerous expelled the Troezenians, which was the cause of the curse that fell on the Sybarites; and at Thurii Sybarites quarreled with those who had settled there with them for they claimed to have the larger share in the country as being their own, and were ejected; and at Byzantium the additional settlers were discovered plotting against the colonists and were expelled by force of arms; and the people of Antissa after admitting the Chian exiles expelled them by arms and the people of Zancle after admitting settlers from Samos were themselves expelled; and the people of Apollonia on the Euxine Sea after bringing in additional settlers fell into faction; and the Syracusans after the period of the tyrants conferred citizenship on their foreign troops and mercenaries and then faction set in and they came to battle; and the Amphipolitans having received settlers from Chalcis were most of them driven out by them.” Politics, V, ii, 10-11; §1303a 25-§1303b 5; Loeb pg 387-389.

How well did immigration do in these cases? So how did the hierarchy come to the conclusion that immigration is a right when the historical example is one of violence and expelling? In what ways did they come to the conclusion that immigration is a right?

The Hebrews immigrated to Palestine and genocided almost everyone they came into contact with.

And immigration is a right? I wouldn’t think that the Canaanites thought that was good.

I point to the European immigration to America. What effect did the immigration of the European upon the indigenous American Indians? They lost their land, infectious diseases spread throughout their land killing many. Not one single treaty between European and Indian was kept.

Now, lets turn to America of today. We have La Raza that wants a Reconquista of America. They want to take back California, New Mexico and Arizona to Mexico. There is a lot of hatred in La Raza towards the WASP majority in this country. Immigration is a good? So people who hate us, who lost a couple of wars with us, who have a hate toward us, have a right to immigrate into America and attempt a Reconquista?

With all these immigrants coming from Central America, Asia and Africa, new diseases are appearing in America! Measles that was long dead in America, was brought BACK in!

In Minnesota, we have a large Somalia community that have young men leaving to join ISIS in the Middle East. We have a fifth column of Islamists in this country now. Is increasing the threat of faction and terrorism, a Common Good?

Has somebody lost their marbles? The historical record shows the utter foolishness of immigration. It has been harmful to communities. I am looking forward to the coming minority status of European peoples in a country that they built! How does one square the “right of immigration” with an “act of Treason”?

 

[Tigg]

Has somebody lost their marbles? The historical record shows the utter foolishness of immigration. It has been harmful to communities. I am looking forward to the coming minority status of European peoples in a country that they built! How does one square the “right of immigration” with an “act of Treason”?

Welcome to the forums. We hope you stick around for awhile!

 

[Tigg]

Kevin Appleby, spokesperson and director of migration policy at the USCCB has said the church has a vested interest in expansive immigration policies. The church’s work he said, “is driven from our pastoral mission to welcome the stranger and cater to our flock.” I consider this extreme naivete. What is never addressed is the common good, the increasing costs of educating illegal children, the billions of dollars in health care, food stamps and housing assistance and the unemployment rate among citizens with their own families to support. Not only that but the current proposed amnesty could allow those deemed eligible to receive over $7 billion every year in terms of refundable earned income tax and child tax credits and further claim credit for three years of illegal work, which will amount to another $23 billion. It is an unrealistic burden for this country to bear and suicide to the middle class. In addition there is the cost of crime, gang violence and drug cartel activity (do not ever forget ICE released 30,000+ criminals last year and even more the year before.) And at what potential harm to innocents?

The societal cost is just as great as the monetary. Multiculturalism is shrouded in double standards and “equality” for all does not recognize individual initiative nor respect the human person, but places emphasis on groups just as Marxism does with its classes. Bi-cultural societies not willing to assimilate create suspicion, grievances and racial tension with little communication. Diversity is praised instead of uniting under a common cause. Not quite sure how this “caters to the flock.”

 

[Clinias]

I can’t get to bed.

The teaching of a Common Good and a Right to Immigrate, if put together, is an oxymoron. You can’t square the circle! Joe Freedom is absolutely right!

What is the “Right to immigrate”?

The Right to immigrate nullifies, automatically, national sovereignty!!!

It is a back door way into destroying nations!!!

Common Good is a square; Right to immigrate is a circle. You can’t have a square circle!

The Right to Immigrate is the back door to nullifying national sovereignty!

 

[JoeFreedom]

Kevin Appleby, spokesperson and director of migration policy at the USCCB has said the church has a vested interest in expansive immigration policies. The church’s work he said, “is driven from our pastoral mission to welcome the stranger and cater to our flock.” I consider this extreme naivete. What is never addressed is the common good, the increasing costs of educating illegal children, the billions of dollars in health care, food stamps and housing assistance and the unemployment rate among citizens with their own families to support. Not only that but the current proposed amnesty could allow those deemed eligible to receive over $7 billion every year in terms of refundable earned income tax and child tax credits and further claim credit for three years of illegal work, which will amount to another $23 billion. It is an unrealistic burden for this country to bear and suicide to the middle class. In addition there is the cost of crime, gang violence and drug cartel activity (do not ever forget ICE released 30,000+ criminals last year and even more the year before.) And at what potential harm to innocents?

And I also agree that we are a nation of Americans, and those that want to immigrate, should assimilate to American customs and values.

The societal cost is just as great as the monetary. Multiculturalism is shrouded in double standards and “equality” for all does not recognize individual initiative nor respect the human person, but places emphasis on groups just as Marxism does with its classes. Bi-cultural societies not willing to assimilate create suspicion, grievances and racial tension with little communication. Diversity is praised instead of uniting under a common cause. Not quite sure how this “caters to the flock.”

Very true. I agree that it is naive and also dangerous to simply open the borders. We have laws that are fair and should be followed. Within those laws, we can still love, care for and respect people as Jesus instructs us to. However, in an ideal world, where immigrants do not get “cradled” with free stuff, paid for by government coercion from those with more (Jesus NEVER said government should force you to give to the needy, he called for it out of FREE WILL) from birth to death, I would not have as much of a problem with open borders, other than the whole terrorist thing (which is another topic that would be addressed with different solutions altogether). So for an immigrant to come here and get free medicine, food stamps, housing, cell phones, internet, tax refunds when no taxes were paid,so on and so on, THAT has major consequences for the health of a nation. Again, no FREE stuff should be provided by the government. It should be charity. Forced charity is theft. If we were to remove the attitude and the government intrusion that “we provide you with everything you need paid for by the citizens”, and let them establish a life based on hard work and a hand up from free-will charity, like our forefathers HAD TO, I would be more inclined to let people in without having a line through Ellis Island (so to speak).

Not sure why my edit didn’t go through. Agreed on your second point. Those that want to immigrate to America should assimilate to American values and customs and not the other way around.

 

[Clinias]

Vox Day in Feb. 17, 2013, commented on a NY Times article that “California Eases its Tone as Latinos Make Gains”.

Vox Day wrote:

Of course California is “easing its tone”. It’s been occupied and those who do not show the proper respect to their new padrones will be punished. And very clear signals have been sent that nowhere is safe; every non-Latino enclave will eventually be invaded and Latinized, be it black or white. It should be fascinating to see what happens when the Latino elite decides to make a play for dominance in Washington DC, which I expect will begin to take place once the Latino population hits around 100 million. The increased visibility of politicians such as Rubio and Cruz only marks the beginning of this process.

I have no sympathy for the coming American white minority. This is the path white Americans chose when they elected to mass-murder three generations of unborn children and embraced cheap imported labor because they believed they were a nation of immigrants rather than settlers. The rules of The Game of History are perfectly clear, and a nation that permits itself to be invaded by 50 million foreigners without so much as a protest, let alone a massive military response, has clearly demonstrated that it is not fit to survive.

This immigration debacle is an invasion and occupation.

Lawrence Auster also talked that

“…the country to our south is embarked on an imperialistic agenda and nationalist revanchist campaign against us, fueled and encouraged by our decades-long liberal openness to it.” (from: “Open-borders Catholicism comes to Wall Street”

As Vox pointed out the WASPs colonized this continent, they were not “immigrants”. They colonized, settled. What is going on from the South of us is an invasion. Millions of people are an invasion. This invasion is destroying the homogeneity of this country! Is that a Common Good?

 

[pnewton]

I think little is gained in any discussion by loaded rhetoric. I see it usually as a sign that substance is lacking if words like “invasion” are used to describe immigration, legal and illegal.

The initial post quotes the Catechism on obligation to secure national borders. I am reminded of the joke where the four branches of the military were told to secure a building.

One reason the Armed Services have trouble operating jointly is that they have very different meanings for the same terms;

  The Joint Chiefs once told the Navy to "secure a building," to which they responded by turning off the lights and locking the doors. 
   
  The Joint Chiefs then instructed Army personnel to "secure the building," and they occupied the building so no one could enter. 
   
  Upon receiving the exact same order, the Marines assaulted the building, captured it, and set up defences with suppressive fire and amphibious assault vehicals, established reconnaissance and communications channels, and prepared for close hand-to-hand combat if the situation arose. 
   
  But the Air Force, on the other hand, acted most swiftly on the command, and took out a three-year lease with an option to buy.

jokes.christiansunite.com/Military/Secure_The_Building.shtml

We have the obligation to keep our citizens safe, not free from immigrants. Our current immigration policy of allowing only a fraction of the people that immigrant here to do so legally, showing partiality to the skilled and providing little chance for the poor, has not resulted in secure borders. Now there may be some that think sufficient force could secure our borders, but historically that has never happened.

We need to remember that the Catechism is written to be applicable to all countries. If we escape our America-centric mindset, we find that there really is no contradiction. It is hard to see that here because our immigration policy is so broken. We cannot defy God’s command to put the poor first.