Conflict over immigration

[traillius]

I have a conundrum, ( a problem )
I know the catholic church teaches that immigration, legal or otherwise, transcends government and borders. I know that as a good catholic I must support this teaching. Here is my problem. Not only am I a native born american citizen, with an implied oath of loyalty to the constitution, government and flag, but I took a specific verbal oath as part of a group, with witnesses, about 12 years ago, for a program I was voluntary part of. The oath is legally and morally binding for life, as I understand it. It was a statement that I would defend the government, flag, and constitution, so help me God. So here I am stuck in the middle.I am not sure what to do.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I can not follow your post could you be more specific?

The Catholic teaching does not bind on the subject of immigration. Immigration does not hurt the US nor conflict with “defend the government, flag, and constitution, so help me God” in fact the borders were open when the constitution, government, and flag were formed. Most people fail to read immigration was heavily debated then! They targeted other groups in those days. Also remember it is illegal and nonbinding to take a vow which requires illegal activity, so to vow to personally control the border is illegal in the US.

 

[traillius]

clarifying,
I have a baptismal promise to uphold the teachings of the catholic church. I also have a constitutional oath to obey the laws of the united states. On some issues US law and catholic teaching conflict. regarding immigration: It is a violation of US code to enter the country without government authorization. It is my understanding of catholic teaching that free movement is taught as a right of humans given by God. This would seem to make me in a precarious position of deciding between my baptismal promises and my constitutional oath. If I am wrong about catholic teaching on immigration someone please tell me. I know I am right about US code. What was formerly the INS, I don’t know what its called now, is charged with executing border enforcement.
Immigrations and customs enforcement ICE the current name ?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

It is my understanding of catholic teaching that free movement is taught as a right of humans given by God.

I think the Catholic position is more nuanced than you are making it.

The bishops of the US and Mexico collaborated on a pastoral letter titled “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” Here’s one section of the document that may help:

1. Both of our episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church’s view on migration issues.

I. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland.
34. All persons have the right to find in their own countries the economic, political, and social opportunities to live in dignity and achieve a full life through the use of their God-given gifts. In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need.

II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. 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.

III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. 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.

IV. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
37. Those who flee wars and persecution should be protected by the global community. This requires, at a minimum, that migrants have a right to claim refugee status without incarceration and to have their claims fully considered by a competent authority.

**V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.
**38. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary.

So there’s a combination of countries having the right to secure their borders and people having basic human rights and dignity.

I hope this helps.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

clarifying,
I have a baptismal promise to uphold the teachings of the catholic church.

Baptism imparts grace in you it is not a promise

I also have a constitutional oath to obey the laws of the united states.

?? when did you take that oath and how does it relate to the Church?

On some issues US law and catholic teaching conflict.

I am not aware of that, US Law and the Catholic Church do not disagree on immigration

regarding immigration: It is a violation of US code to enter the country without government authorization. It is my understanding of catholic teaching that free movement is taught as a right of humans given by God. This would seem to make me in a precarious position of deciding between my baptismal promises and my constitutional oath. If I am wrong about catholic teaching on immigration someone please tell me. I know I am right about US code. What was formerly the INS, I don’t know what its called now, is charged with executing border enforcement.
Immigrations and customs enforcement ICE the current name ?

The Church calls for the US to allow increased legal immigration to people who need immigration to provide for their families. Similarly the US Law is not anti-immigration it is restrictive immigration.

Hope that helps

 

[traillius]

Interesting,
Being Human as I am, I sometimes suffer from an incomplete understanding of the facts, I guess when I heard somewhere that the church was in favor of illegal immigration, which is definitely a violation of US code, it may have been a simplification, a misunderstanding, or a misrepresentation. I apologize for any confusion. As far as when I took the oath, it was about 12 years ago. The events surrounding it, I won’t discuss now, perhaps another time.

 

[traillius]

Further clarification
By illegal I mean entering the country undocumented, in a surreptitious fashion, so as to enter without being discovered and thereby avoid all responsibilities charged upon those whom the government recognizes as specifically present and documented by government regulators. Sorry for the run on sentence.

 

[traillius]

Lest I be labeled racist, I would like to add the following. Illegal immigration also includes entering under false pretense, remaining after permission to remain is lapsed, or using fraudulent documentation to enter. responsibilities avoided include obeying all laws and paying all applicable taxes, costs and fees.

 

[Galandriel]

you’ve never gotten a speeding ticket?!

I’ve had 3!!!

In a nutshell, the Church wants you to look at immigrants as a person, not as a thief or a murderer. We can’t just treat people like dogs stealing food from the table that need to be thrown out of the house. They are people.

Treating them with dignity, yet maintaining national security can be done. The Church is not for a free for all.

You should read more into it to help you understand where the Church stands and your duty as a Catholic layperson. What I find is that people look at immigrants as a tax dollar, an expense, a criminal, not even human. It’s quite saddening and maddening at the same time.

and because it bears worth repeating:

V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.
38. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary.

 

[Galandriel]

I think the Catholic position is more nuanced than you are making it.

The bishops of the US and Mexico collaborated on a pastoral letter titled “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” Here’s one section of the document that may help:

1. Both of our episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church’s view on migration issues.

I. Persons have the right to find opportunities in their homeland.
34. All persons have the right to find in their own countries the economic, political, and social opportunities to live in dignity and achieve a full life through the use of their God-given gifts. In this context, work that provides a just, living wage is a basic human need.

II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
35. The Church recognizes that all the goods of the earth belong to all people. 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.

III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
36. 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.

IV. Refugees and asylum seekers should be afforded protection.
37. Those who flee wars and persecution should be protected by the global community. This requires, at a minimum, that migrants have a right to claim refugee status without incarceration and to have their claims fully considered by a competent authority.

**V. The human dignity and human rights of undocumented migrants should be respected.
**38. Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary.

So there’s a combination of countries having the right to secure their borders and people having basic human rights and dignity.

I hope this helps.

:bowdown:

 

[Caesar517]

See this AAA thread about illegal immigration.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

clarifying,
I have a baptismal promise to uphold the teachings of the catholic church. I also have a constitutional oath to obey the laws of the united states. On some issues US law and catholic teaching conflict.
…This would seem to make me in a precarious position of deciding between my baptismal promises and my constitutional oath.

When there is a conflict you are to choose the teachings of the Church over the laws of a nation.

For example, the laws of the US consider it a woman’s right to an abortion whereas the Church considers abortion a gravely immoral act. In this example the Church’s teaching is directly opposed to the law of the land.

There are also proposed laws for same sex marriage. These are also considered opposed to Church teachings.

The Church teaches:

CCC 2242:
"The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”:

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel."

So we must obey God rather than men. Sometimes people forget the last part of that sentence.

 

[Yerusalyim]

I know the catholic church teaches that immigration, legal or otherwise, transcends government and borders

The Church teaches no such thing. Illegal immigration is potentially a sin. Opposition to illegal immigration, as long as it’s not race based, is NOT a sin.

 

[Tigg]

I have studied the Church’s position on social justice and totally understand that the dignity of the human person must be regarded first and that even sovereign countries are only stewards of the commonwealth of nations.

However, there is such a dark side to this illegal alien issue (they are not immigrants if they are here illegally.) We have all been duped - on both sides of the border. Our government has enticed them here because there is a hidden agenda that concerns the globalists and the illegals are nothing more than a diversionary tactic to further their agenda including bringing down the sovereign borders of America, and, as a secondary issue, enrich the corps with slave labor.

I PRAY that the American bishops, in their defense of amnesty, would look at not only the spiritual perspective, but the secret political ideology behind it, which is evil and promotes (in the long run) socialism, which, of course, the Church condemns as well.

I do not support blanket amnesty and think we should all take a second look at who the victims really are!

 

[RachelsAlumni]

… there is such a dark side to this illegal alien issue…We have all been duped - on both sides of the border. Our government has enticed them here because there is a hidden agenda that concerns the globalists … agenda including bringing down the sovereign borders of America…I PRAY that the American bishops, in their defense of amnesty, would look at not only the spiritual perspective, but the secret political ideology behind it, which is evil and promotes (in the long run) socialism, which, of course, the Church condemns as well.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory

I’m not quite sure how to respond since I don’t know what you’re talking about, but AFAIK the concept of globalization isn’t opposed by the Church. It also isn’t the same as Socialism and I’m not positive the Church condemns. CMIIW, but I thought it was Communist-Marxist-Socialism the Church opposes.

There are a good number of writings by the Church on Globalization. Here are a few excerpts from

“Catholic Social Teaching & Migration”
Fr. Brian Hehir, SJ

The concept of nationalism, as John Paul II himself has said, is a valuable idea; people are to take pride in their culture, their heritage, their roots, but once again, just as there is no absolute sovereignty, there is no absolute nationalism. It is a limited idea, a limited good that must be put in the context of larger needs.

Catholicism recognizes sovereignty as a value, but only a relative value. That’s why when we get to questions of principles by which nations shape their immigration policy, there is a right to a nation to use principles, to set limits, as well as to open opportunities, but we are not going to allow the notion of sovereignty to say that we are simply a set of billiard balls with no relationships among ourselves. We believe in the human community; sovereignty has relative value.

The emergence of human rights in the UN system meant that the old notion that what a government did within its boundaries was the business of that government alone and no one else had a right or a duty to do anything about it; that has now come under the most severe challenge. We have made progress on the notion that sovereignty is relative because human rights are absolute.

usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalization.shtml

 

[Tigg]

Sounds like a conspiracy theory

I’m not quite sure how to respond since I don’t know what you’re talking about, but AFAIK the concept of globalization isn’t opposed by the Church. It also isn’t the same as Socialism and I’m not positive the Church condemns. CMIIW, but I thought it was Communist-Marxist-Socialism the Church opposes.

There are a good number of writings by the Church on Globalization. Here are a few excerpts from

usccb.org/sdwp/international/globalization.shtml

There are several facets to globalization…not all evil, but what I was referring to was the documented agenda of the Tri-Lateral Commission via the Security & Prosperity Partnership whereby the sovereignty of this country is brought down by the shredding of our Constitution and the disregard of the solemn oath of office by elected officials to preserve and protect it. It is a gradual plan from a North American Union to a global government. I would not at this juncture, call it conspiracy theory as Tom Tancredo himself has made a video and testified that the NAU is a plan by globalists to undermine our country in their march toward a global fascist/socialist government. No, this was not on the 5 pm news because the main stream media will not report it (being owned by the very ones who wish to dissolve our sovereignty.)

Didn’t Pope Leo XIII condemn socialism in one of his encyclicals? I do not remember the name, but I do have a quote from Pius XI in 1931 in which he said, “no one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true socialist.”

The entire concept is contrary to Catholic morality, in fact, the Church institution is one which will need to be brought down by the State for they will not recognize any authority except their own, not even God and His Word. They also desire the dissolution of parental authority, again, in the name of the State. The CCC (#2424 says, “a system that subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of productions is contrary to human dignity,” and also (#2425) states, “the Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with communism or socialism.”

 

[RachelsAlumni]

There are several facets to globalization…not all evil, but what I was referring to was the documented agenda of the Tri-Lateral Commission via the Security & Prosperity Partnership whereby the sovereignty of this country is brought down by the shredding of our Constitution… It is a gradual plan from a North American Union to a global government.

The Trilateral Commision’s mission statement reads almost word for word what the Church has been teaching about growing interdependence & globalization:

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Japan, Europe (European Union countries), and North America (United States and Canada) to foster closer cooperation among these core democratic industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.

When the first triennium of the Trilateral Commission was launched in 1973, the most immediate purpose was to draw together—at a time of considerable friction among governments—the highest level unofficial group possible to look together at the key common problems facing our three areas. At a deeper level, there was a sense that the United States was no longer in such a singular leadership position as it had been in earlier post-World War II years, and that a more shared form of leadership—including Europe and Japan in particular—would be needed for the international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.

The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is** deepening into “globalization.”**

Now about the Security & Prosperity Partnership
The SPP is a White House-led initiative among the United States and the two nations it borders – Canada and Mexico – to increase security and to enhance prosperity among the three countries through greater cooperation. The SPP is based on the principle that our prosperity is dependent on our security and recognizes that our three great nations share a belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. The SPP outlines a comprehensive agenda for cooperation among our three countries while respecting the sovereignty and unique cultural heritage of each nation. The SPP provides a vehicle by which the United States, Canada, and Mexico can identify and resolve unnecessary obstacles to trade and it provides a means to improve our response to emergencies and increase security, thus benefiting and protecting Americans.

Myth vs. Fact

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a “NAFTA Super Highway.”

Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as “NAFTA Corridors,” but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.

*Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes. *

Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.

Tom Tancredo himself has made a video and testified that the NAU is a plan by globalists to undermine our country in their march toward a global fascist/socialist government.

Tancredo? Wasn’t he the supposed pro-life candidate who received campaign contributions from a Planned Parenthood Network through it’s founder, John Tanton’s, varied organizations (Tancredo also served on the board of FAIR, another Tanton org.)

In 2003, The Washington Post quoted some nasty little racist remarks from a memo by Tancredo’s good friend and benefactor, Zero Population Control Fanatic John Tanton:

“‘In this society, will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile,’ Tanton wrote in his 1988 memo. ‘Can homo contraceptives compete with horno progenitivo if our borders aren’t controlled. … Perhaps this is the first instance in which those with their pants up are going to get caught by those with their pants down."

Looks like Tanton got caught with his pants down, or his memo showing.

The CCC (#2424 says, “a system that subordinates the basic rights of individuals and of groups to the collective organization of productions is contrary to human dignity,” and also (#2425) states, “the Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with communism or socialism.”

Agreed. That’s why I said CMIIW (correct me if I’m wrong) and I stand corrected. Thank You.

 

[Tigg]

Well Rachels, you may believe the “official” answers as quoted above, but I do not hold much credence in the .gov web pages.

Keep your eyes and ears open - only time will answer some of these questions.

 

[RWMorris]

… but I do not hold much credence in the .gov web pages … Keep your eyes and ears open …

I suggest you do the same, but that is awfully hard to do if you refuse to look a big part of the evidence.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Well Rachels, you may believe the “official” answers as quoted above, but I do not hold much credence in the .gov web pages.

Keep your eyes and ears open - only time will answer some of these questions.

Likewise it would be helpful for you to consider the movtivations and character of those i.e. Tancredo and John Tanton, when determining the truth and accuracy of their propaganda.