Fr. Groeschel compared illegal immigrants to slaves

[rlg94086]

RachelsAlumni, can you post a link to where this quote was taken? It only tells us what terms NOT to use, while I am interested in what terms such groups might have suggested in their place.

Thanks.

Here’s a link to the NAHJ’s remarks: nahj.org/nahjnews/articles/2006/March/immigrationcoverage.shtml

 

[rlg94086]

Read the Gospels - it condemns those who ‘saw me hungry and did not feed me’, not just those who ‘saw me absolutely starving with nowhere else to turn, and did not feed me’. Christ is in the poor, not just the absolutely starving, and how we treat them is how we treat Him.

I agree 100% and have already said that. Apparently, you are confusing my concern with lawfulness with my belief in charity and fair treatment of workers.

LilyM:

Ok, so in the infinite knowledge you’ve gained of Mexico on all of a handful of visits, do tell us how many unemployed people there are currently in Mexico, what type of job qualifications those unemployed people have, and what percentage of the unemployed have what type of qualification, how many job vacancies are currently advertised/available and what percentage of those vacancies are for what type of jobs? Unless you can answer all these questions you’re talking out your arse as much as I.

Very uncharitable on your part. I will make no further response.

 

[BeluvdLily]

Well, I was very anti-illegal immigration and I heard Fr. Groschel on the subject one night and I really had to realize that I was not being Christian in my attitude and I have now changed it. I love him and think he is very wise and charitable. He gave me a whole new perspective.

On top of it all, my husband is from England. He has his permanent residency. It was all retardedly expensive. Totally unreasonable. For him to become a citizen or even renew his residency it will cost us a good $1000 additional to what we have already paid. We will have to most likely save years in advance. It’s a bunch of **** what people have to do and money to spend to come to this country.

Amie

 

[RachelsAlumni]

What term do you use? Some people find handicapped and disabled perjorative.

I try to go by the reaction of the ones who are offended. As in the case of people who have been crippled taking offense to the use of the term “cripple” to describe them. Although the term may be accurate it is offensive to them and any person of good conscience and good will towards their neighbor ought not use terms that offend or are taken as perjorative, especially when they are offered terms to use that ARE MORE DESCRIPTIVE and LESS OFFENSIVE. With regards to immigration, that term is undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant as the case may be. The term illegal alien overgeneralizes and mischaracterizes when some are not guilty of any criminal offense, only the civil infraction of being with proper federal documentation. Like operating a vehicle without proof of insurance is a civil infraction being lumped together with people who are guilty of driving in excess of 10mph over the posted speed limit, a criminal misdemeanor.

With regards to people who are crippled the word they use to catagorize themselves and how they have expressed they want to be refered to is Disabled; Disabled Veterans rather than Crippled Veterans, Access for the Disabled vs. Access for the Crippled. There are groups who don’t like to be included as Disabled such as the hearing impaired because they don’t consider themselves disabled, they just have a different language and different way of communicating which in some ways is superior to a hearing language. They are entirely “able” and categorizing them as “Disabled” is false.

Their problem with the word “alien” cracks me up:
So, they are concerned that we are confusing “illegal aliens” with little green men? I really find it hard to take them seriously. I’m sorry that people don’t understand the accurate use of the term alien. I don’t use it as a perjorative, any more than I would use handicapped or disabled as a perjorative.

Some people could claim, as well, that they don’t use the word cripple as a perjorative. It has less to do with your “intent” than it has to do with how the term is received by those about whom you are speaking. Your belittling misrepresentation of their their concern for being considered “alien” makes you appear hard hearted, uncharitable and calls into question your good “intentions” or that you really hold no animosity towards an entire group of people when you stubbornly insist upon the use of the perjorative illegal alien.

 

[tassitus]

I try to go by the reaction of the ones who are offended. As in the case of people who have been crippled taking offense to the use of the term “cripple” to describe them. Although the term may be accurate it is offensive to them and any person of good conscience and good will towards their neighbor ought not use terms that offend or are taken as perjorative, especially when they are offered terms to use that ARE MORE DESCRIPTIVE and LESS OFFENSIVE. With regards to immigration, that term is undocumented worker or undocumented immigrant as the case may be. The term illegal alien overgeneralizes and mischaracterizes when some are not guilty of any criminal offense, only the civil infraction of being with proper federal documentation. Like operating a vehicle without proof of insurance is a civil infraction being lumped together with people who are guilty of driving in excess of 10mph over the posted speed limit, a criminal misdemeanor…

But I think the point is that we need an acceptable term to refer to those non-US citizens (otherwise known as “aliens” or “foreign nationals now on US soil”) who have entered the US, or are staying in the US, in violation of the relevant US law (thus the term “illegal”), regardless of whether such persons intend to give up their current/former citizenship and “immigrate” to the US permanently (traditionally the term “immigrant” applies to those attempting to change or in the process of changing their citizenship). Some individuals are here to work, in which case “undocumented worker” fits the bill. But how would we refer to those non-working persons, say, in the “undocumented worker’s” immediate family?

So far, I don’t think a precise alternative has been offered, but I’m open to persuasion.

 

[jman507]

If you want to try and show how a criminal misdemeanor law that disallows going 10 mph over the posted speed limit is 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
  go for it.

Thanks for more or less making my point. Hone down your arguments. Your hard to follow, and it takes away from your original points.

 

[jman507]

I don’t use it as a pejorative, any more than I would use handicapped or disabled as a pejorative.

Today’s politically correct word is tomorrow’s pejorative.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

But I think the point is that we need an acceptable term to refer to those non-US citizens (otherwise known as “aliens” or “foreign nationals now on US soil”) who have entered the US, or are staying in the US, in violation of the relevant US law (thus the term “illegal”), regardless of whether such persons intend to give up their current/former citizenship and “immigrate” to the US permanently (traditionally the term “immigrant” applies to those attempting to change or in the process of changing their citizenship). Some individuals are here to work, in which case “undocumented worker” fits the bill. But how would we refer to those non-working persons, say, in the “undocumented worker’s” immediate family?

So far, I don’t think a precise alternative has been offered, but I’m open to persuasion.

I really don’t think there’s such a need to split hairs. It’s actually rather easy. When you’re talking to an INS official or amongst/within Government agencies then it would be perhaps more appropriate to use their common terminology. When you’re discussing “persons” on an open forum such as this, especially a Catholic forum, then any person of good conscience and good will towards their neighbor ought not use terms that offend or are taken as perjorative.

The Church seems to use the term “irregular” alot as in:

The human rights and human dignity of the undocumented, should always be respected. The term undocumented has caused many to say that the Church is camouflaging an illegal situation. Persons without documents, those who have entered the country in an irregular situation or who have overstayed authorized entry, are persons who do not leave their humanity behind in their country of origin. For the most part, they are undocumented workers in a society whose labor market craves their labor but does not afford them status.

This report uses the terms ‘irregular’ migration and ‘irregular’ migrant(s).

The term ‘irregular’ is conceptually problematic, as expanded in the following subsection. It is, nevertheless, considered preferable to the other term most commonly used in this context - ‘illegal’. The use of the term ‘illegal’ can be criticised in at least three ways.

• First is its connotation with criminality. Most irregular migrants are not criminals. This has been emphasised by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Non-Citizens, whose final report recommends that: ‘Immigrants…even those who are in a country illegally and whose claims are not considered valid by the authorities, should not be treated as criminals’ (E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/2003/23 Para 29).

• Second, defining persons as ‘illegal’ can also be regarded as denying their humanity (Ochoa-Llidó 2004). It can easily be forgotten that such migrants are human beings who possess fundamental rights whatever their status (CDMG (2004) 29).

• Third, and of particular concern to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), is the possibility that labelling as ‘illegal’ asylum seekers who find themselves in an irregular situation may further jeopardise their asylum claims.

To answer your question about the families though. In many if not most cases the undocumented immigrant or worker’s family can be properly referred to as US Citizens, having been born in the US and all.

 

[tassitus]

The Church seems to use the term “irregular” alot… This report uses the terms ‘irregular’ migration and ‘irregular’ migrant(s).

Yes, “irregular migrant” is a term I could live with, though it lacks specificity as to the type of “irregularity” involved. I suppose in context this would work.

However, in my mind at least, the term “illegal alien” is factually more accurate and actually less demeaning than “irregular migrant”: the former, to me, reflects legal status and state of citizenship with no indication or opinion on social status or occupation, while the latter sounds not too far removed from India’s caste system. An “illegal alien” could be a foreign-born movie star or high-paid athlete who has unlawfully overstayed his or her visa, while “irregular migrant” sounds like something out of The Grapes of Wrath.

You see what I mean?

The June 29th Sunday Night Live is next up on my iPod - I’ll see if I have any further thoughts after hearing Fr. Groeschel.

 

[rlg94086]

With regards to people who are crippled the word they use to catagorize themselves and how they have expressed they want to be refered to is Disabled; Disabled Veterans rather than Crippled Veterans, Access for the Disabled vs. Access for the Crippled. There are groups who don’t like to be included as Disabled such as the hearing impaired because they don’t consider themselves disabled, they just have a different language and different way of communicating which in some ways is superior to a hearing language. They are entirely “able” and categorizing them as “Disabled” is false.

That’s why I asked what you use. For a while, my brother, who is physically handicapped and received free care from Shriner’s Hospital for Crippled Children (they have only recently dropped the term “crippled,” but I’m pretty certain they weren’t using it as a perjorative. ), had a problem with the terms “disabled” and “handicapped.” As he matured, he realized it was how someone used the word, not the word itself. Perhaps, someday, you will come to understand that as well.

rachelsalumni:

Some people could claim, as well, that they don’t use the word cripple as a perjorative. It has less to do with your “intent” than it has to do with how the term is received by those about whom you are speaking. Your belittling misrepresentation of their their concern for being considered “alien” makes you appear hard hearted, uncharitable and calls into question your good “intentions” or that you really hold no animosity towards an entire group of people when you stubbornly insist upon the use of the perjorative illegal alien.

Quite frankly, the way I “appear” to you tells me more about you. If you wish to think ill of me and question my charity and intentions, that is your choice. You are wrong. I hold no animosity towards any group of people, including those who are here illegally.

Perhaps the reason people like to make a fuss about the use of the term “illegal alien” is so they can vilify those who oppose illegal immigration. I think it’s similar to playing the race/xenophobia card, as a couple of other posters have done. Personally, I would prefer that we get back to the real issue of the thread - how people are treated once they are here. My hope is still for a proper guest worker program with a path to residency and citizenship. Such a program could lay down guidelines for working and living conditions.

 

[rlg94086]

Today’s politically correct word is tomorrow’s pejorative.

Exactly. I absolutely guarantee you that the term “irregular immigrants” will result in people offended at being called “irregular.” It is a perjorative waiting to happen.

Here, I’ll write up a mock, future entry by the NAHJ:

Irregular
A word used by the Catholic Church to describe a foreign-born person who is not a citizen by naturalization or parentage.

While Webster’s first definition of the term “irregular” is in accordance with the Church’s interpretation, the dictionary also includes other, darker, meanings for the word, such as “merchandise that has minor defects ," " lacking perfect symmetry or evenness ," “not belonging to or a part of a regular organized group.”

People don’t wish to be considered defective, so we don’t recommend using the term “irregular.”

 

[a_priori]

Fr. Groeschel seems pretty much on target to me.

But then again, it seems that although we are one Church we seem to have different “targets”.

 

[rlg94086]

Fr. Groeschel seems pretty much on target to me.

But then again, it seems that although we are one Church we seem to have different “targets”.

I agree with almost everything he said on the subject. The most glaring exception is that he believes that immigration must be completely unregulated because it is contrary to Natural Law. Here, I don’t agree.

 

[AHapka]

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?

Could you please provide some proof for this statement. I did some internet searching and was unable to find any proof.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe no state in the union considers speeding 10 miles per hour over the limit as a criminal misdemeanor.

As far as I know, it is a civil forfeiture in all 50 states.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe no state in the union considers speeding 10 miles per hour over the limit as a criminal misdemeanor. As far as I know, it is a civil forfeiture in all 50 states.

You’re wrong.

Some States, such as Washington for example put no numerical limit, but simply state that “exceeding the speed limit is evidence of reckless driving”. The decision whether to arrest is left up to the discretion of the officer, the same way the decision whether to arrest someone caught illegally entering the US is left up to the officer and I might note is rarely if ever prosecuted as such.

Although an alien who unlawfully enters the United States is potentially subject to removal and criminal prosecution, an alien found unlawfully present in the U.S. is typically subject only to removal. Unlawful presence is only a criminal offense when an alien is found in the United States after having been formally removed or after departing the U.S. while a removal order was outstanding.

The availability of both criminal sanctions and removal authority for immigration violations does not mean that both tools will be used concomitantly, especially if one tool can more easily be employed than the other. **The vast majority of aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol unlawfully entering the United States are either removed or (far more often) permitted to voluntarily depart in lieu of removal without being criminally prosecuted. **
In 2004, for example, the Border Patrol seized approximately 1.16 million aliens who unlawfully entered or attempted to enter the United States from Mexico.

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, YEARBOOK OF IMMIGRATION STATISTICS: 2004 (2005), at Table 38. Only about 16,000 aliens (mostly serial offenders) were convicted of the crime of unlawful entry. Id. at Table 50.

I am not sure what the exact code is in your State, Wisconsin, but a quick google search did find this from a law firm in Kenosha, WI:

In our **criminal defense **practice, we handle most misdemeanor and felony charges, including:

…traffic violations, including speeding, reckless driving and failure to use due caution

This explains what a criminal misdemeanor charge is:

Misdemeanor

**A misdemeanor is a criminal charge **that is less serious than a gross misdemeanor or a felony. A misdemeanor is typically a crime that is punishable by less than one year of incarceration and a certain maximum fine.

Some examples of misdemeanor offenses include certain traffic violations, property theft at a value lower than a specific amount, trespassing, disorderly conduct, possession of a controlled substance, and more. Each state has passed specific laws which apply to the classification of criminal offenses. Many states also have a system which classifies misdemeanor offenses based on severity.

In the State of Washington for our Washington viewers:

Many people seem to be under the misconception that Reckless Driving is really nothing more than a serious traffic ticket. In reality, however, Reckless Driving in Washington State is a very serious driving crime that can a dramatic impact on your life and your driving privileges if you are convicted.

Reckless Driving is a **gross misdemeanor **here in WA State. It is punishable by a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Speeding can be “prima facie” evidence of Reckless Driving in Washington State.

Many people are surprised to learn that excessive speeding in and of itself can constitute Reckless Driving here in Washington State. But it’s true so long as the police officer can make some tangible argument that by speeding your driving in some way also endangered the safety of persons or property.

Law enforcement officers often makes a subjective decision about whether or not a person’s speed should simply be cited as speeding or whether it warrants a criminal charge of Reckless Driving.

Washington State’s Reckless Driving Laws

RCW 46.61.500
Reckless driving — Penalty.

(1) Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. Violation of the provisions of this section is a gross misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars.

RCW 46.61.465
Exceeding speed limit evidence of reckless driving.

The unlawful operation of a vehicle in excess of the maximum lawful speeds provided in this chapter at the point of operation and under the circumstances described shall be prima facie evidence of the operation of a motor vehicle in a reckless manner by the operator thereof.

I suggest you google “criminal misdemeanor” for your State and/or Reckless driving or speeding.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Perhaps the reason people like to make a fuss about the use of the term “illegal alien” is so they can vilify those who oppose illegal immigration. .

I have no need to vilify you, you seem to be doing a good enough job of that yourself.

The terms and expression we choose reveal our bias.

To use the term “alien” is to alienate.

The Church also has been vilified in the Press as “Open Borders” because out of her respect for the dignity of persons and in solidarity she uses terms such as undocumented and irregular rather than the exclusionary term “Alien”.

I try and take my lead from my Shepherd, The Church, since I consider myself one of Her flock.

 

[rlg94086]

The Church also has been vilified in the Press as “Open Borders” because out of her respect for the dignity of persons and in solidarity she uses terms such as undocumented and irregular rather than the exclusionary term “Alien”.

I try and take my lead from my Shepherd, The Church, since I consider myself one of Her flock.

Again, the term “illegal alien” is a legal term. I even checked with our parish’s (and city’s) legal counsel, and he confirmed it. I have no perjorative intent in using the term. If you wish to use a “politically correct” term in its place, that is fine. I choose to use the accurate, legal term. However, there is no reason for you to attribute bias and/or prejudice where none exists.

With regards to the Church and immigration:

CCC:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption**. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

The Church doesn’t require “open borders,” so Fr. Groeschel is apparently wrong about Natural Law regarding immigration. If the right to immigrate supercedes civil immigration law, then the Catechism would not have included the bolded section above allowing political authorities to make immigration “subject to various juridical conditions.”

There is nothing wrong with believing in open borders, but the Church does not require it. I have written nothing contrary to Church teaching, as far as I know.

 

[AHapka]

You’re wrong.

Some States, such as Washington for example put no numerical limit, but simply state that “exceeding the speed limit is evidence of reckless driving”.

Wow, I’m amazed. We routinely cite people for high speeds and as far as I know no one in my department has ever issued reckless driving charges based on speed alone.

In fact, just a couple of weeks ago I cited someone for doing 97 on I94. Reckless driving charges never even entered my mind. It’s the same for many other coworkers as far as I know.

While you are right that reckless driving is a criminal misdemeanor, a speeding ticket of any speed (at least in Wisconsin) is a civil forfeiture. And that applied at even 45+ over the limit.

While you have established that reckless driving is a criminal misdemeanor, do you know of any states where the speeding ticket itself (not any incidental charges related to the speed) is?

 

[jman507]

I have no need to vilify you, you seem to be doing a good enough job of that yourself.

The terms and expression we choose reveal our bias.

To use the term “alien” is to alienate.

The Church also has been vilified in the Press as “Open Borders” because out of her respect for the dignity of persons and in solidarity she uses terms such as undocumented and irregular rather than the exclusionary term “Alien”.

I try and take my lead from my Shepherd, The Church, since I consider myself one of Her flock.

Wow, speaking of revealing our biases. Let’s add that maybe we shouldn’t “poising the well.”

How about using the term “alien” to differentiate. To assume using this term must mean that can get you into fallacious arguments.

I think it is in all good charity, assume if someone says they are Catholic are trying to follow the lead of Jesus and the Church, since we are having a technical argument, how to technically carry that out is the argument on the table. I know you haven’t said otherwise, but it seems to me passive-aggressively that is being implied. I just want to set that clear.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I really like listening to Fr. Groeschel. I head this show also. But, I disagree with him here. Slaves had no choice in their being moved from one country to another. It was not their choice. Illegal immigrants are those that made a conscious decision to move from one place to another without legal rights to do so.

I do find this reference as a truth in the case of minor children that have no say in where their parents take them. Or someone that was kidnapped and moved against his.her own will.