Churchs' position on immigration

[markbrumbaugh]

I don’t see the connection between Rand and immigration discussions.
The catechism teaches us to respect borders and laws of the land. Here are some examples:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

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.

I think that we aren’t too “able” anymore, given our national debt and unemployment, however I support legal immigration. I expect visitors in our country to carry the same type of ID I have to have when I go to someone else’s country or even come home for that matter.

Asking for someone’s proof of legal status when already stopped for another infraction, is certainly reasonable. Are you thinking anyone should come on in any time they want, for any purpose and no one should check on what they are doing here?

 

[Ender]

Sorry the Bishops’ teaching offends you. Jesus’ teaching often caused offense, too. I guess that’s part of the danger of preaching the Gospel.

If there was some connection between what the bishops opinions and what Jesus taught I wouldn’t have a problem with them, but there isn’t and I do.

Ender

 

[Ender]

ie, “don’t expect me to read anything that may challenge my stubborness”

Nonsense. Don’t expect me to read a document looking for something that you think makes your point. What you provided below will do nicely.

When 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."

Generic. This says nothing about illegal Mexicans who, by the way, probably can find work to support their families. Certainly they can better support them than can citizens of most other countries in the world. Does this statement mean that the population of the entire third world has a right to emigrate to the US? If not then the statement is useless in drawing the line between those we let in and those we don’t.

The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows

Generic. States have rights. Immigrants have rights. Those rights compete. Where should the line be drawn? Nothing here to help.

The U.S. legal immigration system places per-country limits on visas for family members of U.S. legal permanent residents from Mexico…

This actually comes close to saying something specific, but in the end it is still nothing more than "here is a problem that needs to be fixed. “Establish a new framework” is not all that specific.

A broad legalization program of the undocumented would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations.

Generic. What does “broad” mean?

Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would help to stabilize the labor market in the United States, to preserve family unity, and to improve the standard of living in immigrant communities.

Maybe, maybe not, but there is nothing here that says we have a moral obligation to do this. They offer an opinion about an action that they believe would “stabilize the labor market” but I am certainly free to disagree. You cannot seriously believe that this opinion presents us with a moral choice. A prudential one, yes, a moral one, no.

The U.S. employment-based immigration system should be reformed to feature both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers.

Generic. It is easy to say “Reform!” but the devil is in the details … and they don’t provide any.

A certain number of work visas should be created to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. Family ties and work history in the United States are two of the possible factors that should be considered in allocating such visas

Are you beginning to understand the generic nature of these comments? “A certain number”? Well, we have a certain number now; the arguments are always over how big that number should be. “Possible factors”? OK, I’ll admit they are possible factors … along with a list of other possible factors - which really isn’t much guidance in actually deciding which factors to choose and what weights to assign them.

We urge both the U.S. and Mexican enforcement authorities to abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths.

I’m OK with this one. If we had a really effective barrier there wouldn’t be enough people trying to sneak in to keep the human smugglers in business.

Ender

 

[mpb74]

I find it hard to take seriously people who discuss illegal immigration by referring to illegal immigrants as undocumented workers. They don’t have documents because they entered the country illegally. Our nation is so full of people who have learned to speak like politicians it is almost laughable. But it isn’t funny, it is tragic.
Some of our Bishops have chosen to speak like this. Cardinal Mahoney, of Los Angeles, has called the Arizona law “mean spirited”. As the spirit of all laws come from the intent of it’s authors, he is inferring these people are mean spirited. I believe he over stepped his abilties and position as the only human being to ever walk the earth fit to determine what is in anothers heart is Jesus Christ. My Bishop, Timothy Dolan has called the law “narrow minded”. Therefore he has determined that supporters of the law are narrow minded. An earlier link to a USCCB document calls the Arizona law as draconian. That is a reference to an ancient Greek sadist.
I think this use, some may say abuse, of language is beneath our Bishops. It is at least divisive and nonproductive. In none of these statements do they give a nodding recognition to the problems Arizonans face due to illegal immigration.

 

[diggerdomer]

The USCCB’s position was predictable and wrong

I disagree that the U.S. Catholic Bishops are wrong. If they are, then whom do you follow to form your conscience, as a Catholic?

 

[diggerdomer]

I find it hard to take seriously people who discuss illegal immigration by referring to illegal immigrants as undocumented workers. They don’t have documents because they entered the country illegally. Our nation is so full of people who have learned to speak like politicians it is almost laughable. But it isn’t funny, it is tragic.
Some of our Bishops have chosen to speak like this. Cardinal Mahoney, of Los Angeles, has called the Arizona law “mean spirited”. As the spirit of all laws come from the intent of it’s authors, he is inferring these people are mean spirited. I believe he over stepped his abilties and position as the only human being to ever walk the earth fit to determine what is in anothers heart is Jesus Christ. My Bishop, Timothy Dolan has called the law “narrow minded”. Therefore he has determined that supporters of the law are narrow minded. An earlier link to a USCCB document calls the Arizona law as draconian. That is a reference to an ancient Greek sadist.
I think this use, some may say abuse, of language is beneath our Bishops. It is at least divisive and nonproductive. In none of these statements do they give a nodding recognition to the problems Arizonans face due to illegal immigration.

Not all have entered the country illegally. Some enter legally but stay past the conditions/limits of their visas. Still illegal, yes, but it’s too broad a stroke to simply say “they all entered the country illegally.”

And let’s remember, the law is made for humans, not vice versa. I think I’ve heard something like that, somewhere before, about the Sabbath.

 

[pnewton]

I find it hard to take seriously people who discuss illegal immigration by referring to illegal immigrants as undocumented workers.

I have always found the term too politically correct and very inaccurate. On the other hand, I can stand the term “illegals” either.

 

[Ender]

If you are really interested in what the U.S. Bishops teach regarding immigration and all more specific related issues (like the terrible law recently passed in Arizona), here’s a good list of many statements: justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.html

Yes, they usually do not go to the specific concrete opinions of this or that legislative or political ballot or initiative, because, again, the Church is about forming our consciences, not establishing a political regime.

I agree with this … which is the point of my objections to the citations tafan provided: the concerns are generic, not - as you say - specific. I went to the site you referenced and looked at all the references from 2010 - and not a one of them represents the position of the U.S. Bishops; all of them are from individual bishops or small groups, such as the Arizona bishops and it is important to recognize that they do not even represent the voice of the “U.S. Bishops”, let alone the voice of the Church.

Our opinions on walls, amnesty, etc. are as you correctly note a matter of our conscience. But…and this is the key point…Catholic consciences should be formed by what the Church teaches. Bishops are the authoritative teachers, like it or not. There is room for dissent, but I think it’s dangerous to presume that is an easy way out to salve our own personal opinions and biases.

Our consciences should conform to what the Church teaches and the bishops are authoritative teachers … when they speak on faith or morals. The point here is that their opinions on specific solutions to political issues don’t fall into that category; they are not authoritative teachers on prudential matters. Besides, as you acknowledged above, very little of what they have said on immigration is specific enough to be turned into policy anyway.

It needs to be recognized - apparently by the bishops especially - that the laity have their own proper role in the affairs of government and just as it is inappropriate for us to try to assume roles proper to the clergy, it is just as inappropriate for the clergy to assume roles proper to the laity. Many of our bishops have crossed that line.

Ender

 

[Lampo]

For myself, I am offended that the bishops have given the impression that there is such a thing as a “Church position” on immigration.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Part 2, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 3, SubSection 4, Heading 3

1351 From the very beginning Christians have brought, along with the bread and wine for the Eucharist, gifts to share with those in need. This custom of the collection, ever appropriate, is inspired by the example of Christ who became poor to make us rich: 178

Those who are well off, and who are also willing, give as each chooses. What is gathered is given to him who presides to assist orphans and widows, those whom illness or any other cause has deprived of resources, prisoners, immigrants and, in a word, all who are in need. 179

Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 4, SubSection 4, Heading 3

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.

Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 7, SubSection 4

2433 Access to employment and to professions must be open to all without unjust discrimination: men and women, healthy and disabled, natives and immigrants. 219 For its part society should, according to circumstances, help citizens find work and employment. 220

That IS an official Church teaching!

 

[markbrumbaugh]

I disagree that the U.S. Catholic Bishops are wrong. If they are, then whom do you follow to form your conscience, as a Catholic?

I will repeat an earlier post and answer here…

The catechism teaches us to respect borders and laws of the land. Here are some examples:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

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.

Now, my thoughts on this…

I think that we aren’t too “able” anymore, given our national debt and unemployment, however I support legal immigration. I expect visitors in our country to carry the same type of ID I have to have when I go to someone else’s country or even come home for that matter.

Asking for someone’s proof of legal status when already stopped for another infraction, is certainly reasonable. Are you thinking anyone should come on in any time they want, for any purpose and no one should check on what they are doing here?

 

[diggerdomer]

I agree with this … which is the point of my objections to the citations tafan provided: the concerns are generic, not - as you say - specific. I went to the site you referenced and looked at all the references from 2010 - and not a one of them represents the position of the U.S. Bishops; all of them are from individual bishops or small groups, such as the Arizona bishops and it is important to recognize that they do not even represent the voice of the “U.S. Bishops”, let alone the voice of the Church.
Our consciences should conform to what the Church teaches and the bishops are authoritative teachers … when they speak on faith or morals. The point here is that their opinions on specific solutions to political issues don’t fall into that category; they are not authoritative teachers on prudential matters. Besides, as you acknowledged above, very little of what they have said on immigration is specific enough to be turned into policy anyway.

It needs to be recognized - apparently by the bishops especially - that the laity have their own proper role in the affairs of government and just as it is inappropriate for us to try to assume roles proper to the clergy, it is just as inappropriate for the clergy to assume roles proper to the laity. Many of our bishops have crossed that line.

Ender

Are you saying that “political” issue by definition fall outside the bounds of “faith and morals” according to Catholic teaching?

Hmm…I don’t agree, and hope you don’t, but if you do…then…what about this Vatican initiative? zenit.org/article-29292?l=english

 

[diggerdomer]

I will repeat an earlier post and answer here…

The catechism teaches us to respect borders and laws of the land. Here are some examples:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

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.

Now, my thoughts on this…

I think that we aren’t too “able” anymore, given our national debt and unemployment, however I support legal immigration. I expect visitors in our country to carry the same type of ID I have to have when I go to someone else’s country or even come home for that matter.

Asking for someone’s proof of legal status when already stopped for another infraction, is certainly reasonable. Are you thinking anyone should come on in any time they want, for any purpose and no one should check on what they are doing here?

And why do you believe or adhere to the Catechism?

 

[diggerdomer]

I think that we aren’t too “able” anymore, given our national debt and unemployment, however I support legal immigration.

Oh, so the fact that our country made mistakes and put ourselves in a bad situation means our obligations to the needy are abrogated?

 

[Ender]

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.

I think a lot of the confusion about “Church” teaching on this issue has to do with a misunderstanding about what the issue really is. It is not - as these continual references to the Catechism infer - about whether we have an obligation to poor immigrants and are willing to meet it; it is about how we best satisfy the conflicting needs and rights of all involved. The Catechism says “immigrants have rights and States have the duty to satisfy those rights … but the States have rights as well.” What neither the Catechism nor any other Church document says is where the line should be drawn between the rights of the immigrant, the rights of the citizens, and the rights of the States. That is the “immigration problem” and the Church provides no specific answer to it; thus there is no “Church” position on immigration.

That IS an official Church teaching!

Does the teaching specify whether the Arizona law is moral or immoral? Does it specify whether or not a fence can be built? Does it specify whether or not illegals should be granted citizenship? Does it say whether or not illegals can or should be deported? The answer to all of these prudential questions is no and because the Church does not address these practical questions there is no possibility that the statements of bishops on these subjects can be construed as “the teaching of the Church.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that “political” issue by definition fall outside the bounds of “faith and morals” according to Catholic teaching?

No, not categorically, but I do believe that there are very few issues about which it is proper for the bishops to be involved. Right now the USCCB acts like just another political action committee and, based on the intemperate statements some have made on immigration, it appears that many bishops are confused - and mistaken - about their proper roles.

They should be political to the extent that they should be completely apolitical. That is, they should say and do whatever is right without regard to the political consequences. Unfortunately they have become overtly involved in political activities where they don’t belong and have even let moral decisions be influenced by politics as well. We are not well served by this.

Hmm…I don’t agree, and hope you don’t, but if you do…then…what about this Vatican initiative? zenit.org/article-29292?l=english

This initiative is meant to bring more Catholic lay people back into politics and I think it is exactly right: politics is the realm of the laity and it would be a good thing to have Catholics - that is, those (unlike Pelosi et al) who are guided by their faith - involved in government. This initiative has nothing to do with getting the clergy politically involved.

Ender

 

[Lampo]

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). This demographic fact, which reflects the national tradition of hospitality to the stranger, should create a predisposition to be pro-immigrant within the Catholic community in America. That the vast majority of Catholics in the United States today are law-abiding citizens whose economic and social well-being is made possible by living within a law-governed political community should incline us to live that pro-immigrant predisposition through the mediation of the rule of law. - George Weigel

Link

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Oh, so the fact that our country made mistakes and put ourselves in a bad situation means our obligations to the needy are abrogated?

Nope but does mean that we are less able than we were under the ideals of the founding fathers…thanks to socialists.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

And why do you believe or adhere to the Catechism?

Why do you think? This question doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[diggerdomer]

I will repeat an earlier post and answer here…

The catechism teaches us to respect borders and laws of the land. Here are some examples:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.45
[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners. . . . They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws. . . . So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.46

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way."47

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.

Now, my thoughts on this…

I think that we aren’t too “able” anymore, given our national debt and unemployment, however I support legal immigration. I expect visitors in our country to carry the same type of ID I have to have when I go to someone else’s country or even come home for that matter.

Asking for someone’s proof of legal status when already stopped for another infraction, is certainly reasonable. Are you thinking anyone should come on in any time they want, for any purpose and no one should check on what they are doing here?

I still think the Bishops are right.

Do you think they are wrong?

 

[diggerdomer]

No, not categorically, but I do believe that there are very few issues about which it is proper for the bishops to be involved. Right now the USCCB acts like just another political action committee and, based on the intemperate statements some have made on immigration, it appears that many bishops are confused - and mistaken - about their proper roles.

They should be political to the extent that they should be completely apolitical. That is, they should say and do whatever is right without regard to the political consequences. Unfortunately they have become overtly involved in political activities where they don’t belong and have even let moral decisions be influenced by politics as well. We are not well served by this.

This initiative is meant to bring more Catholic lay people back into politics and I think it is exactly right: politics is the realm of the laity and it would be a good thing to have Catholics - that is, those (unlike Pelosi et al) who are guided by their faith - involved in government. This initiative has nothing to do with getting the clergy politically involved.

Ender

But if you agree that lay Catholics should be involved in politics, that begs the question of what the Church’s role is. Are lay Catholics supposed to be involved on their own initiative, without reference to Catholic teachings? Are they to form their “political” conscience independent of their Catholic conscience?