Fr. Groeschel compared illegal immigrants to slaves

[chicago]

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.

There is “justice” and there is “equity.” The two ought to work together in collaboration for the common good, rather than being pitted against each other in war.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

There is “justice” and there is “equity.” The two ought to work together in collaboration for the common good, rather than being pitted against each other in war.

When people unite, it scared those on the Right. Divide and conquer is their methodology.

 

[rlg94086]

… the U.S.illegally put up their boarders.

When did the US “illegally” do that? Are you talking about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 (and subsequent Treaty of Mesilla in 1854) at the end of the Mexican-American War? These are treaties signed by both parties. These treaties are recognized as legal documents.

All Mexicans who were in those territories at that time were made citizens of the United States. The Mexicans who illegally cross the border today are not ancestors of those Mexicans, as far as I know.

 

[tassitus]

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.

You’re being facetious.

I was answering your question, and you’ve read more into my answer than was there. Do you really see no essential difference between crossing a national border illegally, and, for example, stealing someone’s car after you do so?

 

[RachelsAlumni]

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.

So what? that doesn’t mean anything other than people are speaking another language. Just because people speak a foreign language does not make them here illegally. Neither is the color of their skin, or their race mean they are here in the US without permission.

If you lived on the border with Canada you’d find alot of people and businesses speaking French. If you live in Chinatown you would find alot people and businesses speaking in Chinese, that does not in any way equate to their being here illegally. Just about every major city in the US has their different sections of town where you will see signs written in a foreign language and hear other languages being spoken.

I’d wager to guess that if they have money to spend shopping then they are citizens and have a good paying job. Undocumented workers barely make enough to survive and usually send most their pay back home to support their families.

As far as describing these unfortunate individuals as “undocumented,” I don’t know how accurate that word is…

Undocumented means they don’t have the proper government papers to live and work in the US i.e. valid worker’s permit or greencard. A fake ID is not a valid permit, therefore, undocumented.

You seem to object to the fact that people hold “personal political beliefs on immigration” as though that were a crime.

You’re doing quite a bit of mindreading Counselor Troi. I never said it was a crime or that people aren’t entitled to their opinion. You asked the question of “Who’s going to speak up for…the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait?”

Since you haven’t been able to prove the injustice, then the rhetoric of “the injustice towards those who follow the law and wait” falls flat on it’s face. It’s just that - rhetoric. I rarely see anyone who’s actually been “in line” or had parents “in line” use this argument. Most of the people I know personally who have been “in line” don’t make this argument. It’s a poor argument. Sorry if that offends you.

I find it much more offensive for someone to racially stereotype and entire group of people as illegal based on the language they speak than for someone to point out the fallacy of an argument, but that’s just me.

 

[rlg94086]

You’re being facetious.

I was answering your question, and you’ve read more into my answer than was there. Do you really see no essential difference between crossing a national border illegally, and, for example, stealing someone’s car after you do so?

That is correct. I believe that breaking an immigration law is breaking the law. I realize that is radical.

I have gone through the immigration paperwork required to move to a country in Europe, and despite their tsk-tsk attitude about the way immigrants are treated in the United States, I have received acknowledgement from Europeans that their countries would not provide essential services and would deport those who enter illegally. Go figure.

Now, I am totally for a guest-worker style program (e.g. Kennedy-McCain Bill), and I fully support Church efforts to help immigrants once they are here…especially considering the terrible conditions that some have to live in. I also fully embrace my Catholic brothers and sisters who are here illegally as fellow Catholics and will help them any way I can when it comes to food, clothing, etc. But, and this is a big but, I don’t condone breaking the law. Breaking immigration laws is a sin. The fact that some Catholics fully support the breaking of immigration laws does upset me. I see it fully equivalent to condoning theft of food from a grocery store by someone who is hungry.

 

[tassitus]

That is correct. I believe that breaking an immigration law is breaking the law.
. . .]
The fact that some Catholics fully support the breaking of immigration laws does upset me. I see it fully equivalent to condoning theft of food from a grocery store by someone who is hungry.

I thank you for the admission that you see no difference in the two transgressions I mentioned (illegal border crossing and auto theft) - that goes far in explaining your position.

I believe I have read every post on this thread, and nowhere did I see anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, supporting the breaking of immigration laws. Again, I think you need to realize you may be reading a great deal into people’s responses that just is not there.

 

[LilyM]

That is correct. I believe that breaking an immigration law is breaking the law. I realize that is radical.

I have gone through the immigration paperwork required to move to a country in Europe, and despite their tsk-tsk attitude about the way immigrants are treated in the United States, I have received acknowledgement from Europeans that their countries would not provide essential services and would deport those who enter illegally. Go figure.

Now, I am totally for a guest-worker style program (e.g. Kennedy-McCain Bill), and I fully support Church efforts to help immigrants once they are here…especially considering the terrible conditions that some have to live in. I also fully embrace my Catholic brothers and sisters who are here illegally as fellow Catholics and will help them any way I can when it comes to food, clothing, etc. But, and this is a big but, I don’t condone breaking the law. Breaking immigration laws is a sin. The fact that some Catholics fully support the breaking of immigration laws does upset me. I see it fully equivalent to condoning theft of food from a grocery store by someone who is hungry.

And? You think if someone steals from a grocery store because they’re hungry and have no other way to feed themselves it is a sin? Most moral theologians would probably beg to differ. Property and similar laws don’t take precedence over the preservation of a life that is in urgent peril.

Jesus allowed His Apostles to pick grain from the fields to feed themselves - were they fields that He or they owned? Of course not - it was someone else’s grain. But Jewish law (Leviticus 19:9) was that landowners MUST leave the last bit of grain in the fields after they harvested, and not pick it for themselves, so that the hungry could pick (‘glean’) it and eat. So it would seem to be a duty of those who have to help those who don’t, whether or not the law would consider it your property or consider the poor to be stealing.

 

[ribozyme]

And? You think if someone steals from a grocery store because they’re hungry and have no other way to feed themselves it is a sin? Most moral theologians would probably beg to differ. Property and similar laws don’t take precedence over the preservation of a life that is in urgent peril.

Jesus allowed His Apostles to pick grain from the fields to feed themselves - were they fields that He or they owned? Of course not - it was someone else’s grain. But Jewish law was that landowners MUST leave the last bit of grain in the fields after they harvested, and not pick it for themselves, so that the hungry could pick (‘glean’) it and be fed. As Ruth, for example, gleaned from Boaz’ fields.

It is more a failure of society (oh wait according to Thatcher it doesn’t exist) that a person has to resort to theft to fed themselves than an individual’s “sin.”

 

[RachelsAlumni]

How are immigration laws different than the laws against theft?

They’re quite a bit different. AFAIK grand theft is a felony.

Illegal entry, that is the act of coming into the country without proper paperwork, is a criminal misdemeanor. The same as driving 10 miles over the posted speed limit is a criminal misdemeanor.

Where or where is the outrage at all those illegal drivers?

 

[rlg94086]

And? You think if someone steals from a grocery store because they’re hungry and have no other way to feed themselves it is a sin? Most moral theologians would probably beg to differ. Property and similar laws don’t take precedence over the preservation of a life that is** in urgent peril**.

Jesus allowed His Apostles to pick grain from the fields to feed themselves - were they fields that He or they owned? Of course not - it was someone else’s grain. **But Jewish law **(Leviticus 19:9) was that landowners MUST leave the last bit of grain in the fields after they harvested, and not pick it for themselves, so that the hungry could pick (‘glean’) it and eat. So it would seem to be a duty of those who have to help those who don’t, whether or not the law would consider it your property or consider the poor to be stealing.

Ergo, they weren’t breaking the law.

Also, you assume that the hungry person in my example was in “urgent peril” and had to steal. No soup kitchens? No shelters? No other way to eat? Or do you think that the person should ignore other possibilities and go straight to theft?

 

[rlg94086]

I thank you for the admission that you see no difference in the two transgressions I mentioned (illegal border crossing and auto theft) - that goes far in explaining your position.

I believe I have read every post on this thread, and nowhere did I see anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, supporting the breaking of immigration laws. Again, I think you need to realize you may be reading a great deal into people’s responses that just is not there.

Okay, so you agree that they are breaking the law and are totally against people crossing the border illegally. I’m glad to hear that, and I apologize for making assumptions.

 

[rlg94086]

They’re quite a bit different. AFAIK grand theft is a felony.

Illegal entry, that is the act of coming into the country without proper paperwork, is a criminal misdemeanor. The same as driving 10 miles over the posted speed limit is a criminal misdemeanor.

Where or where is the outrage at all those illegal drivers?

I love it! So, first illegal immigration is compared to grand theft, and I am ridiculed for stating that they are both equivalent in one way - they are both illegal and therefore both sinful acts. Now, it is compared to driving 10 miles over the speed limit.

Of course driving over the speed limit is illegal. Have I condoned and/or told people to drive over the speed limit? Nope.

Thank you and LilyM for showing tassitus that I wasn’t reading anything into posts on the thread that wasn’t there. Y’all condone breaking the law, and some of you use Jesus’ actions/words to back it up. Nice.

 

[juliamajor]

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.

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.-

 

[Cosette]

So what? that doesn’t mean anything other than people are speaking another language. Just because people speak a foreign language does not make them here illegally.

I don’t believe I ever wrote that speaking a foreign language = illegal status. I’m saying that within the past 10 years, IN MY TOWN, the entire ethnic character has begun to drastically change, with broad deference being shown to Spanish speakers which had never been shown to the town’s previous ethnic majority (the Polish). Yes, there were Polish delis, Polish Masses, and Polish travel agencies etc. frequented by Polish speakers, but the Polish people never expected the community at large to accommodate their inability to speak English - and the community never did. By the way, I grew up in a Spanish-speaking household, as my father was raised and schooled in Buenos Aires.

If you lived on the border with Canada you’d find alot of people and businesses speaking French. If you live in Chinatown you would find a of lot people and businesses speaking in Chinese, that does not in any way equate to their being here illegally. Just about every major city in the US has their different sections of town where you will see signs written in a foreign language and hear other languages being spoken.

Again, speaking French/Chinese/Tagalog/whatever is perfectly fine and enriching, but I never said that equates with illegal status. Also, I’m not referring to ethnic neighborhoods where, of course you’re going to hear the language of the majority and read signs in their native tongue. America has always had ethnic areas of its towns and cities. But now there are entire towns across the entire country that are being rapidly overrun by non-English speakers, and capitulation to thier language of choice is an unwise and destructive way to integrate these individuals into American society.

Undocumented means they don’t have the proper government papers to live and work in the US

And it sounds so much better to say one is an “undocumented worker” rather than an illegal one.

You’re doing quite a bit of mindreading Counselor Troi.

Well, I have to admit that this reference puzzled me until I found out that this alludes to Star Trek. Okay. Well, this is what I also found about “Counselor Troi” in my online research: “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.

I find it much more offensive for someone to racially stereotype and entire group of people as illegal based on the language they speak than for someone to point out the fallacy of an argument, but that’s just me.

You’re easily offended, especially when the offense is baseless. Please, for the 3rd time, I’m not stereotyping anybody and I am not saying that speaking another language means you’re here illegally. I myself am bi-lingual and am quite American, but that’s just me.

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.

 

[mangy_dog]

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.

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.

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.

Bottleneck is the word that comes to mind when I read these threads about the “due process” and “legal vs illegal immigrants”.

But bottleneck doesn’t even begin to describe the “red tape” up-hill battle, discrimination laden system that puts the possibility of legal status beyond the reach of the more desparate, oppressed and impoverished majority that come to this nation for an opportunity. Taking jobs that Jack and Diane Q Public wouldn’t even consider even if it was the last job on earth.

No, not bottleneck…try breathing through a 1/4 inch tubing at 50 feet water depth. That’s more like it.

The parable of the good neighbor…which one are we?

Regina coeli, ora pro nobis peccatoribus.

 

[rtconstant]

It would seem to me that Father is spot on if I’m taking his meaning correctly. The basis for our current laws on immigrants was based on a racist policy meant to keep the US white and protestant. It is strange that some posts here and some attitudes in general still seem to have this basis as an origin.

Also our current “problem” does have a lot to do with the US. Remember these people live in third world conditions with nothing but a desert as a border between them and the first world. Obviously they want in. The US government though makes legal immigration so difficult and US businesses make illegal employment so easy that really what is the incentive for them to enter legally? When your family is starving but you know that good money is a hike north away what do you think most people would do.

Immigrants go through a lot to be here and in some cases do end up as slaves. We just had a major sex slave prostitution ring busted up here locally. People speak piously about the importance of following the law but in the end everyone likes the benefits of cheap labor that don’t “exist in the system”. So yes the US and its policies are most certainly at work in making the immigration issue bad.

 

[Amolibri]

It would seem to me that Father is spot on if I’m taking his meaning correctly. The basis for our current laws on immigrants was based on a racist policy meant to keep the US white and protestant. It is strange that some posts here and some attitudes in general still seem to have this basis as an origin.

Also our current “problem” does have a lot to do with the US. Remember these people live in third world conditions with nothing but a desert as a border between them and the first world. Obviously they want in. The US government though makes legal immigration so difficult and US businesses make illegal employment so easy that really what is the incentive for them to enter legally? When your family is starving but you know that good money is a hike north away what do you think most people would do.

Immigrants go through a lot to be here and in some cases do end up as slaves. We just had a major sex slave prostitution ring busted up here locally. People speak piously about the importance of following the law but in the end everyone likes the benefits of cheap labor that don’t "exist in the system". So yes the US and its policies are most certainly at work in making the immigration issue bad.

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[tassitus]

…Thank you and LilyM for showing tassitus that I wasn’t reading anything into posts on the thread that wasn’t there. Y’all condone breaking the law, and some of you use Jesus’ actions/words to back it up. Nice.

Pretty much beatin’ a dead horse here, I know, but for the last time…

Who EXACTLY has **CONDONED **breaking the law on this thread, be it illegally crossing into the US, stealing food or going over the speed limit? WHO? Can you give me post # so I can see just what I missed?

 

[tassitus]

**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.-

Wow! I truly LOVE Father Groeschel (though his style took awhile to grow on me…), so I thank you for the best compliment I’ve received in quite some time…

I usually download onto iPod all Sunday Night Live tapings, so I hope to hear myself what he had to say on this topic.