Churchs' position on immigration

[LCMS_No_More]

“Non sequitir. Your facts are uncoordinated.”
Is that your favorite line?

If you knew where I got it, you’d get the joke in my saying it.

You are wrong, it does follow. My point was the selfishness that is mentioned in your moniker provides jobs for other people. Your moniker equates conservatism with selfishness, which may or may not be true. It depends on the individual. What you might think is selfishness on my part (growing a business) does not necessarily mean I am doing it solely for my benefit. Saying “your sister” was just a way of saying “anyone”.

Hardly conclusive since I have no sister.

Listening to modern conservatives, it’s all about me, me, me, and me. Corporations don’t provide jobs, they exist for one reason and one reason only: to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. This is the problem with supply-side economics. It’s based on the notion that if you give the rich enough money and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, wherever they want to whomever they want, then the economy will be in good shape. Considering the Great Recession began during a supply-side administration…well, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

On the other hand, it makes a whole lot more sense that if the people in the middle or the bottom of the economic scale have more money to spend, they would be out there spending and buying things creating demand. That demand is what creates the need for jobs.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Doesn’t follow what?

Prove it. Do liberals preach tolerance and choice? Yes. If I don’t agree with them, than I am an idiot according to them and my thoughts shouldn’t be considred. Does that sound like tolerance?

Yes, so? So it won’t make sense to people who don’t understand the reference. What’s wrong with that?

Defensive much?

Here’s a little thing for you to understand. I used to be a card-carrying, Limbaugh listening, Fox watching right-wing Republican who believed everything the Republican party said and did…just like the majority of politically opinionated on this board. At that time, I was a fundamentalist/pentecostal Christian. As I started to move towards the one true Faith, I started to see the inconsistencies between right-wing Republicanism and the teachings of Christianity as a whole. That doesn’t mean I turned left-wing liberal. It simply means that I can no longer support what I see the core of right-wing Republican ideology: “corporations uber alles.” The pro-life plank? Ever hear of Luther’s analogy regarding snow and dunghills? I see the pro-life plank to be the snow covering the dunghill of right-wing Republican ideology.

 

[Lampo]

If you knew where I got it, you’d get the joke in my saying it.

Hardly conclusive since I have no sister.

Listening to modern conservatives, it’s all about me, me, me, and me. Corporations don’t provide jobs, they exist for one reason and one reason only: to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. This is the problem with supply-side economics. It’s based on the notion that if you give the rich enough money and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, wherever they want to whomever they want, then the economy will be in good shape. Considering the Great Recession began during a supply-side administration…well, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

On the other hand, it makes a whole lot more sense that if the people in the middle or the bottom of the economic scale have more money to spend, they would be out there spending and buying things creating demand. That demand is what creates the need for jobs.

There are restraints that are in place and should be followed. Are you familiar with the “Laffer Curve”? It’s named after Dr. Arthur Laffer and is associated with supply-side economics. He was an orchestrator of “Reaganomics.” But I digress.

Do you prefer the liberal/democrat approach of robbing the rich and giving to the poor?

 

[Lampo]

Listening to modern conservatives, it’s all about me, me, me, and me. Corporations don’t provide jobs, they exist for one reason and one reason only: to make as much money for the shareholders as possible. This is the problem with supply-side economics. It’s based on the notion that if you give the rich enough money and let them do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, wherever they want to whomever they want, then the economy will be in good shape. Considering the Great Recession began during a supply-side administration…well, how’s that workin’ out for ya?

On the other hand, it makes a whole lot more sense that if the people in the middle or the bottom of the economic scale have more money to spend, they would be out there spending and buying things creating demand. That demand is what creates the need for jobs.

Dave Ramsey had Dr. Laffer on his show this past Wednesday. Take a listen and tell me what you think. He’s on the first part of the show. Here is the link.

 

[Ender]

I used to be a card-carrying, Limbaugh listening, Fox watching right-wing Republican who believed everything the Republican party said and did…just like the majority of politically opinionated on this board.

You may have believed it but you obviously didn’t understand it. A Conservative is generally a Republican by default as the other option is worse but you shouldn’t believe for a moment that simply because a Republican proposes something a Conservative will automatically support it.

As I started to move towards the one true Faith, I started to see the inconsistencies between right-wing Republicanism and the teachings of Christianity as a whole. That doesn’t mean I turned left-wing liberal. It simply means that I can no longer support what I see the core of right-wing Republican ideology: “corporations uber alles.”

This is very much like the arguments I hear from those who have left the faith in that the religion they claim to have abandoned bears little resemblance to the religion the rest of us believe in.

The pro-life plank? Ever hear of Luther’s analogy regarding snow and dunghills? I see the pro-life plank to be the snow covering the dunghill of right-wing Republican ideology.

Colorful metaphor. Inaccurate but colorful. Of all the charges one could levy at Conservatives this one is the least accurate. Believing it would require one to accept that there are quite literally no politicians who actually oppose abortion. There is absolutely no rational justification for believing this is true. I’m not sure what all of this has to do with the Church’s position on immigration but perhaps you intend to make some future connection.

Ender

 

[mpb74]

…the major question is why would the ruling class permit this invasion,what is proven by this and what gain for their power?

The simple answer is,

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There are restraints that are in place and should be followed. Are you familiar with the “Laffer Curve”? It’s named after Dr. Arthur Laffer and is associated with supply-side economics. He was an orchestrator of “Reaganomics.” But I digress.

I’ve heard of it. The only people who’ve benefited from it are the already rich and corporations. Wages have gone down for the rest of us.

Do you prefer the liberal/democrat approach of robbing the rich and giving to the poor?

I reject that characterization and therefore cannot answer the question.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You may have believed it but you obviously didn’t understand it. A Conservative is generally a Republican by default as the other option is worse but you shouldn’t believe for a moment that simply because a Republican proposes something a Conservative will automatically support it.

Well, of course, if an individual Republican proposes something, Conservatives aren’t likely to automatically support it, but if the PARTY proposes something, then it’s going to be treated by Conservatives as though the Holy Father made an ex cathedra pronouncement.

This is very much like the arguments I hear from those who have left the faith in that the religion they claim to have abandoned bears little resemblance to the religion the rest of us believe in.

Hmmm…aside from alleged pro-life beliefs, I don’t see how an ideology based on no taxes, no regulation and corporate rule (Republicanism) is a good or Christian thing.

Colorful metaphor. Inaccurate but colorful. Of all the charges one could levy at Conservatives this one is the least accurate. Believing it would require one to accept that there are quite literally no politicians who actually oppose abortion. There is absolutely no rational justification for believing this is true. I’m not sure what all of this has to do with the Church’s position on immigration but perhaps you intend to make some future connection.

Ender

On the level of the party, what I said is certainly accurate. Republicans had total and complete rule of the Federal Government for six years and what was done to end abortion? A few nibbles around the edges so you and other right-wingers can point them out and say, “see, they’re doing something,” but where was the push to eliminate abortion? I didn’t see one. And when it came to the Supreme Court, it appeared to me that the emphasis was on packing the courts with corporatists, not pro-lifers.

After the cold winter of the campaign, when only the pro-life snow can be seen, the warmth of reality sets in during spring and summer and the snow melts away. Underneath is a dunghill of an ideology of corporations uber alles, no taxes and no regulations. Interesting how much the country moved in that direction under the first six years of the dark times of Bush. They continue here in California under the most corrupt governor in the history of California, who is a real, pro-corporate Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger (long may he burn).

Frankly, when it comes to immigration, I believe that we should accept the fact that people are here now, deal with it in the most humane and rational way possible (earned legalization), and take steps to ensure that the reasons people come up here no longer exist (mostly economic ones). What gets lost here, like any discussion where a “less worthy” group of people (i.e., “illegal aliens,” homosexual persons, public employees, etc.) is discussed is that we ARE talking about PEOPLE and those PEOPLE are created in the image and likeness of God and should be treated with and discussed with the dignity and respect that they carry.

 

[mpb74]

“With the exception of our Native American brethren, every Catholic in the United States today is the descendant of immigrants (in my case, from Germany in the early- and mid-19th century).”

Uh, “Native Americans” are no exception. ALL humans residing on the North and South American continents are descended from immigrants. The “Native Americans” just got here a bit sooner than the others (and they too came in different “waves” of immigration, witness the genetic differences between various groups).

A “Native American” in reality is someone who was born here. No more, no less.

Agree wholeheartedly. The term Native American is a political tactic imho.

I always thought the differences came from going from varying environmental conditions, from Alaska to South America. Mine was an uneducated opinion. I’m respectfully asking out of curiosity, is your statement fact or opinion? I honestly don’t know, thanks.

 

[mpb74]

You can arrive at your own moral position on issues like immigration and abortion, no problem. But what role does the teaching authority of the Catholic Church play in our conscience formation? It’s ok to agree or disagree with the Bishops based on our own personal opinions, right?

If you are in the U.S. and want to know that the U.S. Bishops consider immigration a moral issue, I’d suggest starting with “Faithful Citizenship”: usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

See para 29 etc.

The role of the Churches teaching authority is to help form a healthy Christian conciense.
In the context of the current illegal immigration problem in the US the Church has several roles. The primary role is to provide for the spiritual guidance and sustenance to that community as it does for all. Providing poor box type of help is also legitimate and good. Protecting them from those who prey on their vulnerability, especially many employers, is also vital. Protecting them from violations of their God given human rights and safeguarding their inherent human dignity. True spiritual teaching would also require instruction on the responsibilities of immigrants in full accord with Catholic teaching and doctrine. Failure to do the last item leaves the immigrant uneducated and uninformed of his necessary aherence to the social contract.

As for the law and future solutions to this problem. It is vital for the Church to stand for protection of the human dignity and human rights in formulating these laws and solutions.
That said, repatriazation to one’s home is not a violation of their human rights or dignity. Excepting cases where persecution would take place.

The problem I and many others have is the way some Bishop’s have gone about saying things. They have a perfect right to speak out on any issue they see fit. They have a responsibilty, especially as Catholic Bishop’s, to stay away from demonizing and maligning their opponents on these issues. They need to be absolutely factual. They need to speak with with Christian charity.Those statements severely compromise their integrity and credibility,

 

[mpb74]

Well, of course, if an individual Republican proposes something, Conservatives aren’t likely to automatically support it, but if the PARTY proposes something, then it’s going to be treated by Conservatives as though the Holy Father made an ex cathedra pronouncement.

Hmmm…aside from alleged pro-life beliefs, I don’t see how an ideology based on no taxes, no regulation and corporate rule (Republicanism) is a good or Christian thing.

On the level of the party, what I said is certainly accurate. Republicans had total and complete rule of the Federal Government for six years and what was done to end abortion? A few nibbles around the edges so you and other right-wingers can point them out and say, “see, they’re doing something,” but where was the push to eliminate abortion? I didn’t see one. And when it came to the Supreme Court, it appeared to me that the emphasis was on packing the courts with corporatists, not pro-lifers.

After the cold winter of the campaign, when only the pro-life snow can be seen, the warmth of reality sets in during spring and summer and the snow melts away. Underneath is a dunghill of an ideology of corporations uber alles, no taxes and no regulations. Interesting how much the country moved in that direction under the first six years of the dark times of Bush. They continue here in California under the most corrupt governor in the history of California, who is a real, pro-corporate Republican, Arnold Schwarzenegger (long may he burn).

Frankly, when it comes to immigration, I believe that we should accept the fact that people are here now, deal with it in the most humane and rational way possible (earned legalization), and take steps to ensure that the reasons people come up here no longer exist (mostly economic ones). What gets lost here, like any discussion where a “less worthy” group of people (i.e., “illegal aliens,” homosexual persons, public employees, etc.) is discussed is that we ARE talking about PEOPLE and those PEOPLE are created in the image and likeness of God and should be treated with and discussed with the dignity and respect that they carry.

All the Bush administration could do, constitutionally, to change the abortion status quo is appoint Supreme Court Judges. Alito and Roberts fit the bill. I believe that he used administrative means to restrict public funding of abortions, where he legally could. While Bush was no panacea, there were less abortions than would have occured had either of his opponents won. One life is worth all his mistakes.
Arnold , come on man, he’s a Kennedy. A RINO. Very few Republicans are actually conservative.
Conservatism, as I understand and practice it is based on 3 things. Judeo-Christian morality, that we are to be obedient to God. Greco-Roman philosophy, the use of reason. Anglo-Saxon law, the Magna Carta. Equal justice.

Some of your statements seem to show bigotry and hatred of others, those you disagree with mostly, shouldn’t they be discussed with the dignity they carry? Or do only those other people who know everything like you do deserve that? Do you think it is Christian to speak of thers in such derogatory terms?

 

[diggerdomer]

I mean by “abortion” the deliberate termination of the life of an unborn person. This would specifically exclude operations intended to save the mother that result in the death of the fetus.

So, how would you view the recent case in the news in Arizona? Clearly, the intent of those involved was to save the life of the mother, and yet the Bishop exommunicated people involved.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002085.htm

 

[diggerdomer]

When we are faced with a problem we are also faced with a moral choice in deciding how to respond.

Exactly. I agree completely. Immigration is obviously a problem in the U.S. So those of us in the U.S. are faced with a choice. A moral choice, as you said.

 

[diggerdomer]

There are significant immigration problems and the bishops are - properly - exhorting us to resolve them. This goes to the first aspect of the nature of problems I mentioned above, the part that does include a moral choice. What the bishops have done improperly is to go beyond the moral aspect and get entangled in the debate over (entirely prudential, amoral) practical solutions.

Again, thanks, then again we can agree that immigration is or Catholics a moral issue, right.

But let’s keep in mind that Bishops are not simply moral teachers. They are also shepherds, pastors, and so pastoral teachers. Being pastoral means being involved with prudential etc. decisions. Right? Or no? Is being a pastor limited to theoretical positions? Or does it not obligate one to the actual, concrete (political, social, cultural, economic, etc.) conditions of one’s flock?

What do you make of the fact, regarding immigration, that there is a Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Travelers?

How would you receive Pope Benedict’s address to that Council?

zenit.org/article-29411?l=english

 

[diggerdomer]

The role of the Churches teaching authority is to help form a healthy Christian conciense.
In the context of the current illegal immigration problem in the US the Church has several roles. The primary role is to provide for the spiritual guidance and sustenance to that community as it does for all. Providing poor box type of help is also legitimate and good. Protecting them from those who prey on their vulnerability, especially many employers, is also vital. Protecting them from violations of their God given human rights and safeguarding their inherent human dignity. True spiritual teaching would also require instruction on the responsibilities of immigrants in full accord with Catholic teaching and doctrine. Failure to do the last item leaves the immigrant uneducated and uninformed of his necessary aherence to the social contract.

As for the law and future solutions to this problem. It is vital for the Church to stand for protection of the human dignity and human rights in formulating these laws and solutions.
That said, repatriazation to one’s home is not a violation of their human rights or dignity. Excepting cases where persecution would take place.

The problem I and many others have is the way some Bishop’s have gone about saying things. They have a perfect right to speak out on any issue they see fit. They have a responsibilty, especially as Catholic Bishop’s, to stay away from demonizing and maligning their opponents on these issues. They need to be absolutely factual. They need to speak with with Christian charity.Those statements severely compromise their integrity and credibility,

Those statements severely compromise their integrity and credibility,

I don’t know what you mean by that. Can you clarify? Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

So, how would you view the recent case in the news in Arizona? Clearly, the intent of those involved was to save the life of the mother, and yet the Bishop exommunicated people involved.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1002085.htm

I do not know what this has to do with immigration, but I did find an open thread on this.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=458272&highlight=olmstead

 

[Ender]

Hmmm…aside from alleged pro-life beliefs, I don’t see how an ideology based on no taxes, no regulation and corporate rule (Republicanism) is a good or Christian thing.

This isn’t even a good caricature but it effectively makes my point that the party you say you disapprove of is nothing at all like the one that actually exists. I can allow for a bit of exaggeration but this description of Republicanism is farther from the truth than Dan Brown’s description of Catholicism in the Da Vinci Code. It is farcical.

On the level of the party, what I said is certainly accurate. Republicans had total and complete rule of the Federal Government for six years and what was done to end abortion?

Be specific: what could they have done to eliminate abortion? If you understand politics and the law even a little you should realize that ending abortion was quite literally impossible.

Frankly, when it comes to immigration, I believe that we should accept the fact that people are here now, deal with it in the most humane and rational way possible (earned legalization), and take steps to ensure that the reasons people come up here no longer exist (mostly economic ones). What gets lost here, like any discussion where a “less worthy” group of people (i.e., “illegal aliens,” homosexual persons, public employees, etc.) is discussed is that we ARE talking about PEOPLE and those PEOPLE are created in the image and likeness of God and should be treated with and discussed with the dignity and respect that they carry.

No one disputes the fact that everyone, illegals included, should be treated fairly. What we disagree on is what that means.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

When we are faced with a problem we are also faced with a moral choice in deciding how to respond.

Exactly. I agree completely. Immigration is obviously a problem in the U.S. So those of us in the U.S. are faced with a choice. A moral choice, as you said.

Let me try to be more precise. When confronted with any problem the moral choice we face is whether we will or will not try to resolve it. That’s it. The choices we make as to how to solve the problem are entirely prudential; there is no moral component in those choices beyond the obvious one that we may not choose evil means to achieve a good end. This is why I hold that immigration is not a moral issue. Once we have decided to work to achieve a just resolution we have resolved the moral issue; “all” that is left is implementation and that contains no moral challenge.

If I do something for the right reason that turns out badly, have I sinned? No, I was simply mistaken. Can I sin if I do what I sincerely think is best in addressing the immigration problem? And if I can’t sin (unless being mistaken is now a sin), where is the moral issue?

Ender

 

[diggerdomer]

Let me try to be more precise. When confronted with any problem the moral choice we face is whether we will or will not try to resolve it. That’s it. The choices we make as to how to solve the problem are entirely prudential; there is no moral component in those choices beyond the obvious one that we may not choose evil means to achieve a good end. This is why I hold that immigration is not a moral issue. Once we have decided to work to achieve a just resolution we have resolved the moral issue; “all” that is left is implementation and that contains no moral challenge.

If I do something for the right reason that turns out badly, have I sinned? No, I was simply mistaken. Can I sin if I do what I sincerely think is best in addressing the immigration problem? And if I can’t sin (unless being mistaken is now a sin), where is the moral issue?

Ender

Interesting.

I think I differ with your (as I read it) relationship of sin and moral issues.

On one hand, I agree with you, if we do something for what we think (my addition…you didn’t say that, but I am thinking you’d agree) is the right reason, then we have not sinned. In other words, as the Catholic Church teaches, we are obliged to follow our conscience. If I am reading you correctly (and correct me if I’m wrong, please) then yes…if we follow our conscience, it seems according to Catholic teaching we are likely not sinning.

The problem is, we may still do wrong. Many people have abortions (for instance) and have no problem with it regarding their conscience. While they may not be sinning, that doesn’t mean what they did is right. That doesn’t mean what they did is NOT a moral issue.

“Not sinning” in a given action is hardly the same as the action not involving a moral issue.l

At the risk of hyperbole, didn’t Hitler and the Nazis believe they were acting rightly? They made prudential choices to solve problems as they saw it. Yes or no?

Also, moral choices are not solely relegated to “problems” we encounter. As a spouse and parent, I don’t always encounter “problems” with my spouse/children. And yet, I firmly believe that every action I take with respect to my relationship to and role with them is a “moral” choice. The actions I take, even when there is no “problem”, is a moral one.

What do you think of that? Are you saying “moral” issues are only ones where clear problems exist? What about the formation of character? What about virtue?

Back to the topic at hand, how does your thought on “problem” refer to the moral issue of immigration? Are you saying immigration is never a moral issue? Or only a moral issue when there’s a problem? Why is the Pope and a Pontifical Council speaking and teaching about migration if it’s NOT a moral issue? After all, they’re not talking only about Catholics, but ALL migrants. Sorry I really don’t understand, probably, what you’re saying. Clarification would be appreciated.

 

[Ender]

If I am reading you correctly (and correct me if I’m wrong, please) then yes…if we follow our conscience, it seems according to Catholic teaching we are likely not sinning.

The problem is, we may still do wrong. Many people have abortions (for instance) and have no problem with it regarding their conscience. While they may not be sinning, that doesn’t mean what they did is right. That doesn’t mean what they did is NOT a moral issue.

We can still sin even if we follow our conscience because our conscience may be poorly formed. Following our conscience does not guarantee that our decision about what is moral is correct. I don’t make a distinction between committing a sin and doing wrong; I distinguish between doing wrong in the sense of doing evil and doing wrong in the sense of making a mistake.

Having an abortion is evil regardless of ones intent because abortion belongs to that small category of intrinsically evil acts. Passing laws restricting immigration is not intrinsically evil so what makes actions on such laws moral or immoral is ones intent. You and I could vote exactly the same way and one of us could be acting morally and the other immorally based on the reasons for our vote. This is why I claim that “immigration” - by which I mean creating laws and institutions to resolve the issue - has no moral component. I may certainly act immorally regarding immigration but neither you nor anyone else can know which based solely on my actions because the morality of my actions will be based on my intent - which you cannot know - and not the actions themselves.

“Not sinning” in a given action is hardly the same as the action not involving a moral issue.

Give me an example of the distinction you see here.

At the risk of hyperbole, didn’t Hitler and the Nazis believe they were acting rightly? They made prudential choices to solve problems as they saw it. Yes or no?

The actions Hitler took were intrinsically evil so his intentions were irrelevant. The best of intentions do not justify an evil action.

Also, moral choices are not solely relegated to “problems” we encounter. As a spouse and parent, I don’t always encounter “problems” with my spouse/children. And yet, I firmly believe that every action I take with respect to my relationship to and role with them is a “moral” choice. The actions I take, even when there is no “problem”, is a moral one.

I don’t dispute this but it doesn’t pertain to the question of the moral component of political issues.

Back to the topic at hand, how does your thought on “problem” refer to the moral issue of immigration? Are you saying immigration is never a moral issue?

Actually what I’m saying is that our terms are too vague. The statement that “immigration is a moral issue” is both true and untrue. It is true to the extent that we are morally obligated to try and resolve it justly and it is untrue to the extent that the solutions we apply to the problem are not moral questions. If you think of the argument as being between two sides both of which are asking “what will work best” then I think it is easy to recognize that this is not a moral issue.

Why is the Pope and a Pontifical Council speaking and teaching about migration if it’s NOT a moral issue?

He is addressing the part of the problem that is a moral question: the obligation of states to (make the attempt to) resolve the pressing problems of immigration. What you don’t hear him saying, however, is what steps States should take to solve those problems - the prudential part doesn’t include moral choices so he would never comment on them. He will never speak out on the Arizona law, for or against a fence, or for or against amnesty as these are not moral concerns - they are entirely prudential.

Ender