T
tassitus
Guest
Yes.
Yes.
Apology accepted, but you appear to again make assumptions in your very next post. Hmmmmmm…
- Status
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
I’ll accept your apology and/or clarification at face value. It sure seemed to me you were saying that those who come here illegally were not “living in the shadows” as I had claimed (I’ve clarified “they” in brackets):
Agreed. It is more dignified, more respectful of the God given dignity of a person to say undocumented rather than illegal.
Yes, she was called an “Empath” short for empathetic. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all read people this way with finely tuned empathetic listening skills? It would sure spare us alot of misunderstandings as we’ve seen in our conversations. I’d settle just to stick to reading what’s actually written rather than try and read more into what is said than is actually written.“Troi’s empathic skills made her an important asset to the Enterprise and often came in handy when dealing with hostile races. Since she could usually tell if others were lying, she repeatedly proved herself invaluable in many suspenseful situations.” That doesn’t sound so bad.
Thank You. That’s very generous of you to say. Christ’s command to love our neighbor and pray for our enemies is very, very challenging, but worth the effort wouldn’t you say?.I think you are a sincere person and obviously ardent in your desire to treat everyone with the Christian love and compassion required of each of us. We do disagree on how this is to be carried out and perhaps we can leave it at that.
C
Cosette
Guest
I would indeed.
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
I don’t know, are you as outraged at illegal drivers as you are at unlawful entry?Of course driving over the speed limit is illegal. Have I condoned and/or told people to drive over the speed limit? Nope.
Do you consider yourself, family, friends, coworkers who you suspect of having at any time in their life driving 10mph over the posted speed limit illegals?
Is your silence about their illegality condoning their actions?
I would contend that there is exponentially more harm done to our society by those who drive 10mph or more over the posted speed limit than by unlawful entry. More fatalities, more costs related to raising insurance rates, policing our roads.
Again, where or where is the outrage?
R
rlg94086
Guest
No horses have been beat in my posts…that would be cruelty to animals.
You are splitting hairs.
RachelsAlumni and LilyM have both defended illegal immigration by minimizing its illegality. Juliamajor is more direct:
I would say that rises to the level of “condone.”Your saying EXACTLY what Father Groeschel was saying.Theologically there is a big difference from moral laws which must and should be obeyed and civil laws.If there wasn’t a difference every act of protest or civil disobedience would be sinful.If you lay down in front of an abortion clinic to stop abortions you would be committing a sin if civil laws held the same weight as moral laws. But they are not the same- and we are not morally compelled to obey them even if the civil law says it’s criminal.-
R
rlg94086
Guest
I’m not outraged at “unlawful entry,” so the rest of your post is basically meaningless.
What bothers me is Christians who encourage lawbreaking. How illegal aliens are treated by some employers outrage me, but the actual act of unlawful entry, while illegal and therefore sinful, is a problem that needs to be fixed…like President Bush encouraged and for which the Kennedy/McCain bill was a decent solution.
T
tassitus
Guest
Ah, yes. But aren’t you here quoting a post that was written AFTER your statement and my questioning of it?
Either way, I agree with you that JuliaMajor ends her post with what can only be regarded as a “strong tolerance” for certain illegal (though not “inherently immoral”:dancing:!) activities.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Well then, check mate my friend.
Here is juliamajor’s post from June 30th, BEFORE my statement:and…puzzleannie’s:
Again, juliamajor is more direct than puzzleannie, but it is pretty clear that the breaking of a country’s immigration laws is considered of no importance and/or not sinful.
T
tassitus
Guest
I admittedly did not go back and re-read all prior posts, and the second to last one you quote (by juliamajor) does indeed lean heavily in favor of your position. I’ll tell you what,Well then, check mate my friend.
if you tell me you are a parishoner at St. Thomas Aquinas in Camas I will conceed the point.
Peace all.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Victory!I admittedly did not go back and re-read all prior posts, and the second to last one you quote (by juliamajor) does indeed lean heavily in favor of your position. I’ll tell you what,
if you tell me you are a parishoner at St. Thomas Aquinas in Camas I will conceed the point.
Peace all.
Yes, indeed I am a parishioner at St. Thomas Aquinas (and the newest 4th Degree Knight in the John Paul II Assembly:knight2: ). Are you? If so, then no doubt we should discuss this over a beverage at one of our fine, local establishments.
T
tassitus
Guest
Nope, but close - St. Joseph in Vancouver, and only recently considering K of C (your reference to the “John Paul II Assembly”?). Howdy, neighbor!Victory!
Yes, indeed I am a parishioner at St. Thomas Aquinas (and the newest 4th Degree Knight in the John Paul II Assembly:knight2: ). Are you? If so, then no doubt we should discuss this over a beverage at one of our fine, local establishments.
As for beverages, I am a committed IPA man…
L
ljahns
Guest
There are no easy answers to this one folks! But let me tell you from real life experience what I have witnessed.
A few years ago, I lost my job to overseas mfg. Also with it went our savings, our house and our new cars. Forced to live on my husbands income alone (I was the major bread winner in the family) we have been living in an apt complex that is 99% illegal immigrants. The cost of living in the town where we reside is very high. I was shocked to find this community of illegals here.
You probably wonder why we stay. The reason is our son’s education. Anyway I have watched over the past several years families with small children and older men living 5-6 to a one bedroom apt. These are what you would call the long term residents. Every summer I witness an influx of illegals all of whom are young adults. All of whom do NOT have parental supervision. They come to visit aunts and uncles who do not have the time to supervise them as they should. Loners are not tolerated around for long. Most cannot speak English and are ignorant of our nations federal and local laws. All they know is not to get caught at anything that might remotely be deemed illegal.
I watch the men stand around the front of the apt complex every day hoping to get picked up to do whatever odd job is available so they can send money home to other family members who have no jobs. These people aren’t sophisticated enough to have designs on our legal “giveaways”. Most don’t even know about them. Some have too much pride to use them. How do I know? I talk to these people. We keep saying all this stuff and some of it is probably true. But I wonder just how much of a crises we really have. Just like with legal Americans, there are those who abuse the system, commit horrible crimes and those of us who would rather be shot than take “handouts”.
And in the media we hear how much about those who abuse the system and commit horrible crimes? And how much on those of us who’d rather stand on our own?
A few years ago, I lost my job to overseas mfg. Also with it went our savings, our house and our new cars. Forced to live on my husbands income alone (I was the major bread winner in the family) we have been living in an apt complex that is 99% illegal immigrants. The cost of living in the town where we reside is very high. I was shocked to find this community of illegals here.
You probably wonder why we stay. The reason is our son’s education. Anyway I have watched over the past several years families with small children and older men living 5-6 to a one bedroom apt. These are what you would call the long term residents. Every summer I witness an influx of illegals all of whom are young adults. All of whom do NOT have parental supervision. They come to visit aunts and uncles who do not have the time to supervise them as they should. Loners are not tolerated around for long. Most cannot speak English and are ignorant of our nations federal and local laws. All they know is not to get caught at anything that might remotely be deemed illegal.
I watch the men stand around the front of the apt complex every day hoping to get picked up to do whatever odd job is available so they can send money home to other family members who have no jobs. These people aren’t sophisticated enough to have designs on our legal “giveaways”. Most don’t even know about them. Some have too much pride to use them. How do I know? I talk to these people. We keep saying all this stuff and some of it is probably true. But I wonder just how much of a crises we really have. Just like with legal Americans, there are those who abuse the system, commit horrible crimes and those of us who would rather be shot than take “handouts”.
And in the media we hear how much about those who abuse the system and commit horrible crimes? And how much on those of us who’d rather stand on our own?
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
That was only one of the questions I posed. What about:
What about all those companies who make and sell radar detection devices to not only encourage driving over the speed limit and avoid getting caught, but give material help for people to break the law?
I realize it’s a loaded question and as such not really fair to ask, but you and I both know what I’m really getting at so I’ll just go ahead and shoot straight from the hip:
Is it just when foreigners break criminal misdemeanor laws that you call them illegals?
What about Christians who encourage breaking immoral laws? Does it bother you that Fr. Groeschel not only broke a law (blocking the entrance to an abortuary for which he was arrested) which according to your criteria = sin, but encourages others to do the same?
What about what the Catechism says about the distinction between serving God and serving the political community?
It does appear that your definition of “encouraging lawbreaking” is very, very loosely defined and you’re painting with a very broad brush if you think that juliamajor and puzzleannie are “encouraging lawbreaking”.
In the cases I’ve seen on this thread juliamajor and puzzleannie are not “encouraging” one single person to break the law. They are stating their opinion as to whether or not 1) we are to blindly obey all laws 2) whether the current immigration law is a just law and 3) the unjust classification and judgment of an entire group of people as illegals.
Here’s a definition of “encourage” if that helps:
Now according to the definition I haven’t seen anyone here inspiring, spurring on, stimulating, persuading, giving help or patronage to one single person from another country to enter this country without proper documentation, have you?
I have seen people giving their opinion as to whether the immigration laws are moral and just and thereby to be opposed, but it is those of us in the US who should oppose them rather than blame the immigrant who is unjustly subject to them. If anything we are trying to encourage other Catholics in the US to oppose the injustice being done to these immigrants.
From what I’ve little I can recall of this Bill (that unfortunately failed) I can certainly agree with you on that one.
Let’s hope there’s something even better to come this next go 'round.
S
Swan
Guest
Thank you for your post. Your personal experience and insight are invaluable in this debate. The thing that seems to be easily glossed over by many folks is that what drives most of the undocumented is simply the desire to survive. I really wonder how many who hold so steadfastly to the “law” would do so if it meant watching their children starve? Watching their families suffer? Wouldn’t most of us take risks to provide for those we loved the most? And is crossing an arbitrary line in a search for work such an infraction that must treat these people as common criminals? It is very, very easy to say that one would never do such a thing no matter what when sitting in the comfort of your own home, with your family well fed, a roof over their heads, available healthcare and a good chance of bettering themselves. If one waits 10-12 years for the current system to “work” one stands an excellent change of watching their children die or suffer the extremes of poverty that rob them of their health (mental and physical) and their hope for the future during that period. Where is the compassion? The mercy?
R
rlg94086
Guest
What about them? They are illegal in some states for a reason. I don’t understand what you are asking? I don’t condone there use, nor do I own one, nor do I recommend them.
? I use the term “illegal aliens.”. It is a legal term - ‘alien’ refers to their status as a non-citizen, and ‘illegal’ refers to the fact that they entered the country illegally. I didn’t create the term, nor do I use it in a prejoritive manner.
I realize some prefer “undocumented workers” which is also acceptable, but it is not always accurate - not all illegal aliens are working.
Since abortion is the taking of a human life, I can see the argument for breaking such a law to save the life of an unborn child. I don’t see the moral equivalence though. I’ve been to Mexico, and there is poverty there. Does an impoverished life give license to break laws? Are seriously going to argue that every person who illegally crosses the border (especially those who pay money to Coyotes) are in great peril unless they break our immigration laws?
?? What does that have to do with law-breaking? Are you saying that the potential immigrant is not serving God unless they break the US immigration laws?
IMO equivocation is tacit encouragement.
G
GreenLantern
Guest
Just throwing these out there
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~el6/presentations/Irish_Americans_S2_WS2003/foto/Image7.gif
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
Their use is breaking the same kind of law as unlawful entry - a criminal misdemeanor. It would seem to me that if you’re going to refer to illegals for one law, post about it on the internet, be bothered about how Christians can even tacitly by your definition encourage it, then if your issue were really about “breaking a criminal misdemeanor law” and not just this particular law then you would equally refer to those who drive 10 mph over the speed limit illegal drivers, post about it on the internet forums where people are discussing street racing and the like, be bothered by Companies who much more than tacitly by your definition encourage breaking the speed laws.
Ok. just wanted to see if you make any distinction between the morality of laws or whether all laws are to be obeyed regardless. Since you said breaking the law = sin.
The Catechism doesn’t just say that we are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when the matter is gravely immoral.
It says:
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,
- to those of an upright conscience
Therefore, an immigrant is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities, according to the Catechism. But I guess by your definition the Church tacitly encourages lawfullness.
]
R
RachelsAlumni
Guest
Ooops.
I meant to say:
But I guess by your definition the Church tacitly encourages lawlessness.
That’s what I get for being in such a hurry.
Another thought, and the reason why I came back to the thread, is that I think most of us agree that we need Immigration Reform or we need to reform our immigration laws. But why? if not that there’s something wrong with the laws we now have. So why disparage one another when we are in agreement that some of these laws are wrong and need to be fixed? Why not focus on the things we share in common rather than polarize others?
I believe a Soveriegn nation has the right and duty to control it’s borders in the interest of the common good. I just think that as it is now, our laws are not serving the common good. One of the reasons I agree with the Kennedy/McCain bill (that failed) was that it fixed most of these problems. It helped families to reunite, it increased the quotas for unskilled labor to name just a few. Yet at the same time it asserted our Nation’s right to control our borders.
Here are some of the highlights of that failed bill that I find stellar:
I meant to say:But I guess by your definition the Church tacitly encourages lawlessness.
That’s what I get for being in such a hurry.
Another thought, and the reason why I came back to the thread, is that I think most of us agree that we need Immigration Reform or we need to reform our immigration laws. But why? if not that there’s something wrong with the laws we now have. So why disparage one another when we are in agreement that some of these laws are wrong and need to be fixed? Why not focus on the things we share in common rather than polarize others?
I believe a Soveriegn nation has the right and duty to control it’s borders in the interest of the common good. I just think that as it is now, our laws are not serving the common good. One of the reasons I agree with the Kennedy/McCain bill (that failed) was that it fixed most of these problems. It helped families to reunite, it increased the quotas for unskilled labor to name just a few. Yet at the same time it asserted our Nation’s right to control our borders.
Here are some of the highlights of that failed bill that I find stellar:
- The Department of Labor will have new authority to conduct random audits of employers and ensure compliance with labor laws; also includes new worker protections and enhanced fines for illegal employment practices
- Requires foreign countries to enter into migration agreements with the U.S. that help control the flow of their citizens to jobs in the U.S., with emphasis on encouraging the re-integration of citizens returning home
- Encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico to promote economic opportunity back home and reduce the pressure to immigrate to the U.S.
- Encourages the U.S. government to partner with Mexico on health care access so that the U.S. is not unfairly impacted with the costs of administering health care to Mexican nationals
- Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are not counted against the 480,000 annual cap on family-sponsored green cards, thereby providing additional visas to the family preference categories
- The current per-country limit on green cards is raised slightly to clear up backlogs
- Income requirements for sponsoring a family member for a green card are changed from 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 100%, and other obstacles are removed to ensure fairness
L
LilyM
Guest
Hang on - if the civil law in Israel didn’t recognise this Biblical edict (as it may well not have done, especially under Roman occupation which I imagine would’ve imposed Roman ideas of property law upon them) then they would, as they would today in the US, be breaking the civil law at least.
Now you set yourself up for my criticism by failing to make the legitimate distinction between those who had other options and those who had no other options. I like your assumption that there are plenty of options for poor Mexicans. Do you seriously think they would choose to live under such miserable conditions in the US if their situations in Mexico weren’t substantially worse?
And tell me precisely what options DOES someone who has nothing to live on, and little or no prospect of getting any work or aid of any kind in their own country in the foreseeable future, has applied to migrate legally (often to multiple countries, I know my parents and most of their friends applied to multiple countries when they were wanting to get out of communist Eastern Europe) and been knocked back every time, have??? Do enlighten me.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Can you show me where I "referred to “illegals?” The term “illegal drivers” is non-sensical. You have a real hang up with a legal, descriptive term. Someone who is here illegally is an illegal alien. Someone who is here legally, but not yet a citizen is a “permanent resident” or here on a temporary visa. I don’t call those folks “permanents” or “HB1s” either. They are people. If you have a problem with others who refer to people as “illegals,” then please take it up with them.
Okay, but now you aren’t talking about illegal entry…unless you mean when they leave their wife and children behind (which often happens). I didn’t say I agree with the splitting of families by deporting one member.
I don’t see where legal control over immigration numbers and rules for entry are contrary to any of the points you listed. It is a nice try though.
You have a very low bar. People who believe that taxes are immoral could use your same argument and say the Catechism would support their decision not to pay taxes.
- Status