Fr. Groeschel compared illegal immigrants to slaves

[RachelsAlumni]

what would you tell that equally needy individual at the rear of the line who followed the rules, waited patiently, and came within seconds of getting his “whatever,” but was shut out because the line was closed down just as his turn had finally arrived.

This isn’t a very good analogy

1. because people who are already in the process of applying for residency are not suddenly denied because of another, later, applicant.
2. many of those who are already here have been here for quite some time, probably longer than many of these applicants. They’ve been here so long, in fact, that they are raising families here - children born here who are American citizens attending school. Some have children who’ve already graduated. They may even no longer have a home to return to in their country of origin or even left their country of origin to unite with their family living here in the US. People from south of the border have been coming here for nearly 3/4 of a century. Remember Reagan’s Amnesty in the 80’s? or Eisenhower’s Operation ******* in 1954?

IMHO, I think uniting families should be the top priority for gaining citizenship.

I know this gospel isn’t really talking about workers, but it does apply:

**Matthew 20**The parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

1 The kingdom of heaven is like to an householder, who went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. 2 And having agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going about the third hour, he saw others standing in the market place idle. 4 And he said to them: Go you also into my vineyard, and I will give you what shall be just. 5 And they went their way. And again he went out about the sixth and the ninth hour, and did in like manner.

6 But about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing, and he saith to them: Why stand you here all the day idle? 7 They say to him: Because no man hath hired us. He saith to them: Go you also into my vineyard. 8 And when evening was come, the lord of the vineyard saith to his steward: Call the labourers and pay them their hire, beginning from the last even to the first. 9 When therefore they were come, that came about the eleventh hour, they received every man a penny. 10 But when the first also came, they thought that they should receive more: and they also received every man a penny.

11 And receiving it they murmured against the master of the house, 12 Saying: These last have worked but one hour, and thou hast made them equal to us, that have borne the burden of the day and the heats. 13 But he answering said to one of them: Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? 14 Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. 15 Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?

16 So shall the last be first, and the first last. For many are called, but few chosen.

How does it apply when we know that Christ is talking about the Kingdom of Heaven? It applies because of the sense of entitlement some have, that just because they were hired first they should be paid more, feeling jealous & angry with the employer for choosing to pay the latercomers the same wage (which is his perogative). The goods of the earth are a gift, to which we also are not entitled. We may want to claim our birthplace and her bountiful goodness as our own, but it’s not, it’s a gift from God. It can be taken from us at anytime He wills.

 

[Navarricano]

Hope nobody minds me taking this all the way back to the OP to add some comments in case rien is still following this thread.

NB: In the comments that follow, I ***am not ***saying that the U.S. has no right to regulate the flow of immigration across its border. I am not addressing the political and legal dimensions of the situation in this post at all. I am addressing only what I consider to be an unfair, boradsided attack on Fr. Groeschel on the basis of what apears to be a misunderstanding of his point.

So, if your first reaction is to get angry with me, please get up, get a beverage of your choice from the kitchen, take a deep breath, and then respond with patience, please! If you think I am mistaken, please say so with charity; if you think I am stupid, don’t say so, just use little words to make your point if you think that will help.

as in that is how America is treating "undocumented’ workers as he so politically correctly preached on his show today.

This suggests to me that his point is that there are quite a few people in the U.S. willing to take advantage of and exploit undocumented workers and illegal immigrants, viewing them as a source of cheap labor. At the same time, many of these people undoubtedly sit around proclaiming outrage over illegal immigration and condemning them as nothing more than criminals. The human face of the situation gets completely lost in these discussions.

In any case, I’m certain Fr. Groeschel was attempting to address the moral issues that touch on the human rights of illegal immigrants; I doubt he was attempting to examine the political and legal dimensions of the issue.

What a joke. The illegals are all innocent this priest said on his 06/29 program at 4PM EST. America is the guilty party here.

Nothing you have quoted from Fr. Groesceh’s comments justifies this conclusion. This appears to be an emotional response to Fr. Groeschel’s statements. I understand your frustration, but I sincerely doubt that he said that “the illegals are all innocent” or that “America is the guilty party.”

I have a friend whose niece was killed in a gang cross fire - illegal immigrants composing that gang. But Groeschel says its all goodness and light. Just poor folks looking for a job. Yeah right.

I am sorry to hear about your friend. I will say a prayer for the soul of her niece right now. But there are plenty of people who have died in the U.S. as a result of gang activity, and not all of the gangs are comprised of illegal immigrants, nor are all illegal immigrants inclined to join gangs. There are plenty of native U.S. citizens involved in gang activity, and plenty who have caused the deaths of innocents.

I find Groeschell’s comments today outrageous. Like he does not have a clue.

Or he may know much more about the crude reality of the situation than you do. I would wager that in his capacity as a Franciscan priest he has probably had more contact with people in this situation, and that he has heard much more sorrow and suffering than the rest of ever will.

I have contributed to my new local Catholic radio station but I am e-mailing them. If they don’t drop Groeschel I will cease my contributions. I’ve heard a few of these kind of things on EWTN which I found troubling. But today was off the wall.

May I suggest a better course of action? Why not contact your Catholic radio station and ask them to provide a forum for a point of view that contrasts with Fr. Groeschel’s? Perhaps you could appear on the show and discuss the issue. Or perhaps you could suggest a forum examining the issue from the point of view of Catholic morality and the Church’s social doctrine.

What does not seem reasonable to me is threatening to withdraw your support from a Catholic radio station that certainly depends economically on its listeners to achieve its goals, one of which is certainly evangelization and the presentation of a fair and balanced view of the Church’s teaching in an environment where so many in the media distort it.

I don’t need to be preached down to and lied to - IMO that is what Groeschel did today. He is not a stupid man and he must know the “rest of the story”. But he chooses not to share it. Gee, i wonder why? I won’t go there.

But you did just “go there.” Accusing Fr. Groeschel of deliberately lying is a very serious sin against charity. You have no evidence of this. As to “the rest of the story”, I repeat what I said above: in his capacity as a Franciscan priest he has probably had more contact with people in this situation, and that he has heard much more sorrow and suffering than the rest of ever will.

Absolutely outrageous - unless you believe it is all America’s fault. How condescening and popmpous of this man!!

I’m sorry, but I don’t agree. Nothing in what you have reported of Fr. Groeschel’s comments suggests that he said or believes that it is “all America’s fault.” I don’t understand the need for the insults here. Attacking someone who expresses an opinion that is different from our own doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve certainly done it myself on other occasions, but it’s wrong.

I guess we need to ask ourselves whether or not we genuinely want that freedom of speech that the Bill of Rights guarantees U.S. citizens? Or do we want it only for people who agree with us?

 

[MarcoPolo]

read and live the gospel and love instead of hate.
I don’t remember where Jesus told to us to hate our neighbor.

There are a number of people who live the Gospel who think illegal immigration is a tremendous problem that inflicts burdens on our own poor, among others. It is a terrible disservice to paint those people as having “hate.” I would venture to say that is bearing false witness against one’s neighbor.

These anecdotal stories of “nice people” are fine. Others have posted stories of “not nice people.” That is not the whole issue at all. The issue is legal immigration vs. illegal immigration, and no one has put forth a case here that the vast majority of illegal aliens are here because of life-threatening poverty. Maybe some are. Fine. The problem extends way beyond them.

 

[Amolibri]

Hope nobody minds me taking this all the way back to the OP to add some comments in case rien is still following this thread.

NB: In the comments that follow, I ***am not ***saying that the U.S. has no right to regulate the flow of immigration across its border. I am not addressing the political and legal dimensions of the situation in this post at all. I am addressing only what I consider to be an unfair, boradsided attack on Fr. Groeschel on the basis of what apears to be a misunderstanding of his point.

So, if your first reaction is to get angry with me, please get up, get a beverage of your choice from the kitchen, take a deep breath, and then respond with patience, please! If you think I am mistaken, please say so with charity; if you think I am stupid, don’t say so, just use little words to make your point if you think that will help.

This suggests to me that his point is that there are quite a few people in the U.S. willing to take advantage of and exploit undocumented workers and illegal immigrants, viewing them as a source of cheap labor. At the same time, many of these people undoubtedly sit around proclaiming outrage over illegal immigration and condemning them as nothing more than criminals. The human face of the situation gets completely lost in these discussions.

In any case, I’m certain Fr. Groeschel was attempting to address the moral issues that touch on the human rights of illegal immigrants; I doubt he was attempting to examine the political and legal dimensions of the issue.

Nothing you have quoted from Fr. Groesceh’s comments justifies this conclusion. This appears to be an emotional response to Fr. Groeschel’s statements. I understand your frustration, but I sincerely doubt that he said that “the illegals are all innocent” or that “America is the guilty party.”

I guess we need to ask ourselves whether or not we genuinely want that freedom of speech that the Bill of Rights guarantees U.S. citizens? Or do we want it only for people who agree with us?

Thank you, Navarricano! (and thank you for your blog…I’ve been to Santiago…everyone should go!)
I’m glad to see a Spaniard on these boards…bienvenido!!!
[my good friend Blanca is a native of Pamplona!]

Jennifer’s comment:
we pretend to take the high road by excusing illegal activity at the cost of everything else. struck me as one of the emotional reactions, perhaps. But, thinking about it…we ARE also excusing the illegal activity of the employers, who are the exploiters, IMO.
There is enough “blame” to go around, without a doubt.
The solution??? Not so easy. We have limited ability to effect change outside of our borders…but that has not stopped us in the past!
Some say that worker visas would only create another lower class, and would perpetuate the exploitation.
I don’t know the answer…as the economy worsens for us all, the stakes become higher. Prayer is certainly needed now.

 

[mangy_dog]

as in that is how America is treating "undocumented’ workers as he so politically correctly preached on his show today.

What a joke. The illegals are all innocent this priest said on his 06/29 program at 4PM EST. America is the guilty party here.

I have a friend whose niece was killed in a gang cross fire - illegal immigrants composing that gang. But Groeschel says its all goodness and light. Just poor folks looking for a job. Yeah right.

I find Groeschell’s comments today outrageous. Like he does not have a clue.

I have contributed to my new local Catholic radio station but I am e-mailing them. If they don’t drop Groeschel I will cease my contributions. I’ve heard a few of these kind of things on EWTN which I found troubling. But today was off the wall.

I don’t need to be preached down to and lied to - IMO that is what Groeschel did today. He is not a stupid man and he must know the “rest of the story”. But he chooses not to sahre it. Gee, i wonder why? I won’t go there.

Absolutely outrageous - unless you believe it is all America’s fault.

How condescening and popmpous of this man!!

Father Groeschel is a very wise man and he does know what he is talking about.

You put the example of gang members which by comparison make up a diminutive percentage of immigrants, a lot of them born here in the U.S. only an even smaller percentage being illegal.

Now, the great majority of immigrants are fleeing from oppression and poverty - and coming to America looking for a better way of life for their families.

For us to label them in one category “gang members” is more of the same american attitude that Fr. Groeschel is talking about.

Remember the parable of the good neighbor…which one are you?

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[Amolibri]

Father Groeschel is a very wise man and he does know what he is talking about.

You put the example of gang members which by comparison make up a diminutive percentage of immigrants, a lot of them born here in the U.S. only an even smaller percentage being illegal.

Now, the great majority of immigrants are fleeing from oppression and poverty - and coming to America looking for a better way of life for their families.

For us to label them in one category “gang members” is more of the same american attitude that Fr. Groeschel is talking about.

Remember the parable of the good neighbor…which one are you?

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

Amen to that. :getholy:

 

[Cosette]

One might share with the man left out half (or dare I suggest all) of your own bread.

Well, that’s a wonderful sentiment. But the reality is that I, and many other hard-working Americans, are so hard-hit by taxes that I can barely make ends meet. I’m a single mother trying to put a son through school, I contribute as generously as I can to the support of my parish, do volunteer work, and need to work 50-60 hours per week in order to survive. I’m still concerned about the guy who waited at the end of the line and you’re suggesting he take charity to make up for the injustice.

The American people are the most generous people on earth. It is not our selfishness or refusal to “share…half (or…all) of [our] bread” that is the point here. Charity really does, and should, begin at home.

 

[MarcoPolo]

the reality is that I, and many other hard-working Americans, are so hard-hit by taxes that I can barely make ends meet. I’m a single mother trying to put a son through school, I contribute as generously as I can to the support of my parish, do volunteer work, and need to work 50-60 hours per week in order to survive. I’m still concerned about the guy who waited at the end of the line and you’re suggesting he take charity to make up for the injustice.
…Charity really does, and should, begin at home.

Well said. A lot of people in this thread unfortunately feel you would have free reign to break the law in the name of “poverty”.

 

[Cosette]

This isn’t a very good analogy

1. because people who are already in the process of applying for residency are not suddenly denied because of another, later, applicant.
2. many of those who are already here have been here for quite some time, probably longer than many of these applicants.

Re your first point: I’m simply trying to say that the people who want to come here legally must often wait for years and have to go through enormous amounts of frustration and red tape, while the people who flout our laws “go to the front of the line,” so to speak.

As to your second point, I don’t think it has any bearing whatsoever on the question of the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait.

Who is speaking up for them?

 

[chewchoo]

Re your first point: I’m simply trying to say that the people who want to come here legally must often wait for years and have to go through enormous amounts of frustration and red tape, while the people who flout our laws “go to the front of the line,” so to speak.

As to your second point, I don’t think it has any bearing whatsoever on the question of the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait.

Who is speaking up for them?

AMEN!!

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Re your first point: I’m simply trying to say that the people who want to come here legally must often wait for years and have to go through enormous amounts of frustration and red tape, while the people who flout our laws “go to the front of the line,” so to speak.

And they will be able to earn more, and enjoy the same rights we do for having done so. They won’t have to live in the shadows and be at the mercy of unscrupulous employers.

I think the crime here is that the quota or number of available legal avenues for certain non-northern european (white) citizenry has not changed in decades to reflect the rising demand for unskilled labor. It has not changed for the increasing numbers of those who wish to reunite with family. Families can wait anywhere from 8-10 years to be reunited and I’m talking about reuniting a mother & her child. If I were separated from my child I would rightly consider such a law an unjust law and have the right to ignore it.

This in no way effects the outcome of those who have chosen to obey such a law. Perhaps their situation is different. Perhaps they have an education and qualify for one of 66,000 skilled work visas as opposed to the 5,000 work visas for unskilled labor. Perhaps their family has more money and connections and can afford better the legal processes. Perhaps they are not wishing to come here to be reunited with family and the wait then is more tolerable and humane. Perhaps they’re not watching their children or family starve, with no potable water to drink and no job to provide for them.

As to your second point, I don’t think it has any bearing whatsoever on the question of the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait.

I don’t see the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait. Those who follow the law will get their day in court regardless of the actions of those that don’t. They won’t be displaced because others ignore the law nor will their timeline or outcome change. Just as in the parable of the workers in the vineyard, those who came first to work in the vineyard were paid the same as those who came to the vineyard later. They received the reward they were promised, the fact that the owner of the vineyard chose (his right) to pay the latecomers the same amount in no way took one tittle away from those who came earlier.

Who is speaking up for them?

The overwhelming majority of those who are “speaking up for those already waiting in line” are doing so out of rhetoric for their political agenda. Of those people I know personally in my life who have “waited in line”, and paid large sums of money, etc to go through the legal red-tape of getting their legal permanent residency (LPR) not one of them judges or would deny another who chooses otherwise. That’s not to say there are none, but since illegal immigration does not affect their process of residency one bit, then I would gather that those who do oppose do so out of political idealogy rather than any personal harm done.

 

[Cosette]

And they will be able to earn more, and enjoy the same rights we do for having done so. They won’t have to live in the shadows and be at the mercy of unscrupulous employers

Provided they or an older family member they plan to bring with them are still alive or in good enough health after waiting for years to come here. As for “living in the shadows,” I see little evidence of that in my part of the country. I have been in local stores in which I and the salesperson were the only ones speaking English, which was definitely not the case ten years ago. Local businesses such as Lowe’s now have all their store signs in Spanish and English and J.C.Penney now makes their store loudspeaker announcements in Spanish and English. What kind of shadows are those?

I think the crime here is that the quota or number of available legal avenues for certain non-northern european (white) citizenry has not changed in decades to reflect the rising demand for unskilled labor.

I know that the U.S. had a “no visa” policy with Argentina which had to be done away with because those taking advantage of this program were coming to this country and overstaying their visas. And if indeed certain aspects of our immigration law need to be reformed or updated, then let our efforts be concentrated in that area rather than letting our nation be overrun by people who have no legal right to be here.

If I were separated from my child I would rightly consider such a law an unjust law and have the right to ignore it.

I really don’t follow you on this. Who’s being separated from their children, and why? Are you referring to someone who has come into the United States illegally and then wishes a child or children to join them here, also illegally? Frankly, I don’t believe I can go illegally into anyone else’s country of my own free will, and then say that I have the right to defy that country’s laws because I feel they’re unjust. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you.

This in no way effects the outcome of those who have chosen to obey such a law…I don’t see the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait. Those who follow the law will get their day in court regardless of the actions of those that don’t.

Not really true. If someone comes here with a green card or a valid visa and then disppears into our population and fails to return to their native country after the required time limitation, that most definitely affects those who are waiting in line as their requests for green cards or similar visas will most definitely be held up.

The overwhelming majority of those who are “speaking up for those already waiting in line” are doing so out of rhetoric for their political agenda.

Excuse me, but can you quote me a legitimate source for a statement such as that?

 

[Swan]

I think Fr Groeschel is saint. He is saying the same thigns Christ would say if He were here working among the poor, today in the country

People didn’t like Christ either because He told it like it is

God bless Fr Groeschel

Yes! These are my thoughts exactly! Fr. Groeschel walks the walk; IMO, he is a real Christian. I’ve never been able to picture Jesus standing at an arbitrary line in the desert and telling people they’ll just have to starve, watch their children starve, etc… because they were unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of the line.

We also need to consider that many U.S. policies cause or exascerbate poverty in these countries. NAFTA, for example, forced hundreds of thousands of small Mexical farmers out of work. We also have “friendly” relations with all these Banana Republics, many of which have exploited the poor and indigenous people for decades. So, in some ways, a lot of their suffering can be laid at our doorstep.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

As for “living in the shadows,” I see little evidence of that in my part of the country. I have been in local stores in which I and the salesperson were the only ones speaking English, which was definitely not the case ten years ago. Local businesses such as Lowe’s now have all their store signs in Spanish and English and J.C.Penney now makes their store loudspeaker announcements in Spanish and English. What kind of shadows are those?

Am I to understand that you think people who speak mainly Spanish are all here illegally? Do you somehow lump all spanish speaking people into one category? isn’t that racial stereotyping?

,if indeed certain aspects of our immigration law need to be reformed or updated, then let our efforts be concentrated in that area…

Who’s being separated from their children, and why?

many times when businesses are raided the undocumented workers who are deported have children living here and attending school. When the parent or parents are deported these children are in effect, orphaned. Once deported, it can take upwards to 10 years before they can “reapply”.

Here’s just one example of injustice:

Maria Avina lived in the United States for 18 years, after coming to this country at the age of 16. Both she and her husband wanted to become citizens, but while an immigration judge in San Francisco approved Felipe’s application, Maria’s was rejected, and the Federal Board of Immigration Appeals, which reviews those cases, gave her the same response. But then the Avinas appealed again to the 9th Circuit Federal Court. Justices there ruled the immigration judge had made a mistake, but it was too late. Just weeks before, refusing to wait for that decision, immigration officials had deported Maria and her baby. Now, even though the rest of the family is U.S. citizens, Maria is stuck in Mexico.
…When Felipe got to Tijuana to reunite with his wife and youngest daughter, there was more pain. The little girl, who hadn’t seen her father for three months, did not know him.

“My daughter, she didn’t recognize me,” he said.

But Felipe says he tried not to show his sadness to his children, especially when after a few days he left them all behind in Mexico to return here, alone. As he left, his wife Maria begged him not to forget.
cbs5.com/investigates/Maria.Avina.Felipe.2.434032.html

here’s another article on the increasing numbers of separated families.

Not really true. If someone comes here with a green card or a valid visa and then disppears into our population and fails to return to their native country after the required time limitation, that most definitely affects those who are waiting in line as their requests for green cards or similar visas will most definitely be held up.

How is their request held up? Remember, I’ve been through this with family members. There are different agencies for handling different issues. The Immigration court that holds hearings for “legal” claims for residency only deal with those in the legal process of obtaining their LPR on their docket. The time spent researching expired visas is another agency altogether. The other agencies activities have no bearing on the court cases Judge X is hearing in County X on person X’s request.

Excuse me, but can you quote me a legitimate source for a statement such as that?

I already did. I showed that illegal entry has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a legal applicant is allowed entry, so it’s a non-issue, a non-argument. Therefore, it’s my opinion and only a logical conclusion the only reason someone would argue this non-issue is their personal political beliefs on immigration and not really a legitimate concern for those who are already in the legal process.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes! These are my thoughts exactly! Fr. Groeschel walks the walk; IMO, he is a real Christian. **I’ve never been able to picture Jesus standing at an arbitrary line in the desert and telling people they’ll just have to starve, watch their children starve, etc… because they were unlucky enough to be born on the wrong side of the line. **

Swan,

I’m not a hard-liner when it comes to immigration issues, but it bothers me when I see this sort of statement. If I were to say the following…

“I’ve never been able to picture Jesus standing at a store doorway and telling people they’ll just have to starve, watch their children starve, etc…just because they were unlucky enough to earn a living and pay for the food they were planning to steal”

…it would ring a little hollow wouldn’t it? I mean, yes, Jesus would feed them, he would help them, etc., but would he tell them it is okay to break the law and steal from someone if they are hungry? How are immigration laws different than the laws against theft?

 

[Cosette]

Am I to understand that you think people who speak mainly Spanish are all here illegally? Do you somehow lump all spanish speaking people into one category? isn’t that racial stereotyping?

Well, you can understand whatever you want. I’m simply stating the facts of life in my town and in the stores where I shop. Are there illegals from non-Spanish-speaking countries living here as well? Absolutely no doubt, but the only language concessions I see being made are to Spanish speakers. That’s a simple fact.

many times when businesses are raided the undocumented workers who are deported have children living here and attending school

Why are these businesses being raided in the first place? Isn’t it because the law of the land has been broken? Have we no right to enforce our own laws now? As far as describing these unfortunate individuals as “undocumented,” I don’t know how accurate that word is. Apparently, many of them are quite well “documented,” using fraudulent social security cards with numbers stolen from American citizens.

Therefore, it’s my opinion and only a logical conclusion the only reason someone would argue this non-issue is their personal political beliefs on immigration and not really a legitimate concern for those who are already in the legal process.

You are certainly entitiled to your opinion, but you make very sweeping generalizations that are inaccurate, if not insulting. You seem to object to the fact that people hold “personal political beliefs on immigration” as though that were a crime. It’s not a crime, it’s a right which we have as American citizens. It seems to me that, having accused me of “stereotyping,” you’re doing a pretty good job of it yourself.

 

[siqueiros]

If one studies the history of the church, then one should study the history of the United States of America, and in that history you will find that the immigrants of ellis island were the real immigrants, and what we call immigrants now are really natives not immigrants, and I’m not talking native americans (although they count to since they are a main ingrediant in the make up of a Mexican) but Mexican since all of the southwest of the U.S. was in fact Mexico, so how can anyone call them illegal immigrants?They are in the land that their ancestors dwelled in and the U.S.illegally put up their boarders. As far as being compared to slavery Fr.Groeschel is correct. Not just for immigrants but for all who are working the minimum wage paying jobs, it just seems that the majority of these people are Latino,since they leave their side of the boarder to look for jobs to feed their families, and since they are willing to do the work for less money they are seen as a problem. So if one recognises that our dollar is weakening and gas prices are going up,so is food and our minimun wage is not compatable with inflation, then it does seem like a modern form of slavery. Since we are a church that was built on Christ then shouldn’t we look at the big picture and help are boarder brothers, remember that 90% of Latin America is Catholic,and the U.S. stems from the Protestent movement. Based on that who’s telling the truth?

 

[tassitus]

…How are immigration laws different than the laws against theft?

The two may be very different. There are generally two types of “wrong” in our world:

• actions that are “wrong in themselves” - moral wrongs, or acts involving illegality upon principles of natural, moral or public law (malum in se), and
• things that are wrong because someone with at least apparent authority to do so says they are - something prohibited (malum prohibitum), though not inherently immoral.
  The real conflict here results because some of us think illegal immigration is in the first category of wrongs, and others think it is in the second.

Immigrating to this county illegally is without question wrong, but what type of wrong is it?

I am leaning toward the second type…

Peace all.

 

[rlg94086]

The two may be very different. There are generally two types of “wrong” in our world:

• actions that are “wrong in themselves” - moral wrongs, or acts involving illegality upon principles of natural, moral or public law (malum in se), and
• things that are wrong because someone with at least apparent authority to do so says they are - something prohibited (malum prohibitum), though not inherently immoral.
  The real conflict here results because some of us think illegal immigration is in the first category of wrongs, and others think it is in the second.

Immigrating to this county illegally is without question wrong, but what type of wrong is it?

I am leaning toward the second type…

Peace all.

Oh, I see. So, what Jesus taught is that if something is “not inherently immoral,” then we can ignore the law of the land and do it anyway? I must have missed that part.

 

[chicago]

Well, you can understand whatever you want. I’m simply stating the facts of life in my town and in the stores where I shop. Are there illegals from non-Spanish-speaking countries living here as well? Absolutely no doubt, but the only language concessions I see being made are to Spanish speakers. That’s a simple fact.

In Chicago, there are significant language “concessions” made to the extensive Polish population. Koreans get language concessions in some communities, Vietnamese. In the Churches there is often a good deal of including bits of Tagalog for the Filipinos. Just to name a few of the other language accomodations which immediately come to mind.