Get Ready to Call Your Representative and Senator on Monday 2/26

[Loud-living-dogma]

Quite the divisive comments on the USCCB facebook page as well.

 

[nearlycatholic]

If you want to personally assume liability for an illegal be my guest. Put your money where your mouth is before telling me what I should or should not do.

Absolutely agree. The government knows who they are. Allow those in favour to become guardians or sponsors. And let them be responsible for their support and liable for any illegal behavior on their behalf.

 

[Arkansan]

Absolutely, states have the right to regulate immigration. The reason for extending rights to dreamers is because they don’t have another home.

Yes they do. They’re all citizens of foreign countries. Simply staying somewhere for a while doesn’t make you a native.

Additionally, there is good evidence that dreamers are a benefit to our economy and will be an even better asset if given even a stay on the threat of deportation.

This is an oft-repeated canard but it’s not remotely true. DACA recipients are on average less skilled than the average American. There’s no cogent argument for their presence being economically beneficial (note: providing cheap labor for rich people isn’t an economic benefit to the American people as a whole). OTOH, they’re more skilled on average than the people in their home countries, so their return would be unequivocally beneficial to their native lands.

 

[philipl]

Please list some of those laws

 

[LeafByNiggle]

starshiptrooper:

If you want to personally assume liability for an illegal be my guest. Put your money where your mouth is before telling me what I should or should not do.

Absolutely agree. The government knows who they are. Allow those in favour to become guardians or sponsors. And let them be responsible for their support and liable for any illegal behavior on their behalf.

I know the discussion has broadened to include all types of immigrants, but to return to dreamers, which is the subject of this thread, they largely do not need support. They are doing quite well on their own, thank you. We have one is our seminary studying to be a priest. And we have several dreamers working in the diocese office as staff. Our diocese would be worse off if these fine people were taken from us.

 

[godisgood77]

Call made… Thanks to the Bishops for their leadership on this defense of life and human dignity issue!!!

 

[Ender]

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I have asked, multiple times, how people disagree with DACA have come to that decisions via a moral perspective.

I can understand concerns when it comes to other kinds of immigration but I do not see, and no one has explained, what “the other side” is when it comes to this specific legislation. Who is harmed?

The question of who is harmed depends on how “harm” is understood. I think the harm is to society as a whole and to the rule of law. Much has been made about the fact that the children brought here by their parents didn’t break the law, their parents did. This doesn’t change the fact that if those children are allowed to stay and become citizens this becomes a reward for breaking the law. That’s a really bad precedent.

The immigration problem was addressed (but clearly not resolved) back under Reagan, where amnesty was granted with the expectation that illegal immigration would be greatly minimized. Nothing of the sort happened. If each time the problem of illegals is addressed by granting them citizenship, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the “next time” will be any different.

On the other hand, it the stance is taken that the law will be enforced, however long it takes, then those on the outside of our borders might reach a different conclusion about the advisability of coming here illegally.

 

[nearlycatholic]

I know the discussion has broadened to include all types of immigrants, but to return to dreamers, which is the subject of this thread, they largely do not need support. They are doing quite well on their own, thank you. We have one is our seminary studying to be a priest. And we have several dreamers working in the diocese office as staff. Our diocese would be worse off if these fine people were taken from us.

And that is good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I know the discussion has broadened to include all types of immigrants, but to return to dreamers, which is the subject of this thread, they largely do not need support. They are doing quite well on their own, thank you. We have one is our seminary studying to be a priest. And we have several dreamers working in the diocese office as staff. Our diocese would be worse off if these fine people were taken from us.

And that is good.

What is good?

 

[nearlycatholic]

We have one is our seminary studying to be a priest. And we have several dreamers working in the diocese office as staff.

That is good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

JetteZ:

I absolutely agree with you, which is why I have asked, multiple times, how people disagree with DACA have come to that decisions via a moral perspective.

I can understand concerns when it comes to other kinds of immigration but I do not see, and no one has explained, what “the other side” is when it comes to this specific legislation. Who is harmed?

The question of who is harmed depends on how “harm” is understood. I think the harm is to society as a whole and to the rule of law. Much has been made about the fact that the children brought here by their parents didn’t break the law, their parents did. This doesn’t change the fact that if those children are allowed to stay and become citizens this becomes a reward for breaking the law.

That depends on how “reward” is understood. There are very few people that would think that being allowed to live where you have always lived through no fault of your own is a “reward.” On the contrary, it is seen by most people as just, and not a threat to the rule of law, which can continue as strong as ever if the law is changed. When prohibition was repealed, people who had been breaking the law were suddenly “rewarded” by having that sigma removed. I don’t think the rule of law suffered from repeal as much as it did from prohibition itself, which everyone now agrees was a bad idea. Similarly it will probably be viewed by future generations as positive moment in American law when the dreamers are given reprieve.

 

[Maximilian75]

Well, 109 acres, with a lot of that being occupied by historic churches and sites that cannot be altered or moved, is not exactly ideal for settling immigrants…

 

[Ender]

That depends on how “reward” is understood. There are very few people that would think that being allowed to live where you have always lived through no fault of your own is a “reward.”

If nothing else it is surely the desire of the parents, and is thus a reward to them for having broken our laws. It becomes an incentive for others to do the same thing and sneak their children into the country.

On the contrary, it is seen by most people as just, and not a threat to the rule of law, which can continue as strong as ever if the law is changed. When prohibition was repealed, people who had been breaking the law were suddenly “rewarded” by having that sigma removed. I don’t think the rule of law suffered from repeal as much as it did from prohibition itself, which everyone now agrees was a bad idea. Similarly it will probably be viewed by future generations as positive moment in American law when the dreamers are given reprieve.

Fine, that’s a reasonable objection, and we can debate the points raised here. My real concern, however, is with the bishop’s action of creating the “Call-In Day” in the first place and for asserting that “Our faith compels us.…” to accept their political judgment on the issue.

I have called in today…to my bishop’s office to complain about his support of this political act.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

That depends on how “reward” is understood. There are very few people that would think that being allowed to live where you have always lived through no fault of your own is a “reward.”

If nothing else it is surely the desire of the parents, and is thus a reward to them for having broken our laws. It becomes an incentive for others to do the same thing and sneak their children into the country.

That is always the risk when mercy is extended. Perhaps Jesus should have thought twice about pardoning the good thief from the cross. After all, it could be seen as a “reward” for thieving and encourage others to engage in thievery.

On the contrary, it is seen by most people as just, and not a threat to the rule of law, which can continue as strong as ever if the law is changed. When prohibition was repealed, people who had been breaking the law were suddenly “rewarded” by having that sigma removed. I don’t think the rule of law suffered from repeal as much as it did from prohibition itself, which everyone now agrees was a bad idea. Similarly it will probably be viewed by future generations as positive moment in American law when the dreamers are given reprieve.

Fine, that’s a reasonable objection, and we can debate the points raised here. My real concern, however, is with the bishop’s action of creating the “Call-In Day” in the first place and for asserting that “Our faith compels us.…” to accept their political judgment on the issue.

Surely you exaggerate. The most I find on the USCCB website is “issued a call” and they ask lawmakers " to find a just and humane solution for these young people, who daily face mounting anxiety and uncertainty. " The bishops are “asking individuals to contact their Members of Congress” Nowhere in their statement do I see “our faith compels us to take this or that political position.” In fact they don’t even specify a particular political solution. They only ask that it be “just and humane.” How can anyone be against that?

 

[Ender]

That is always the risk when mercy is extended. Perhaps Jesus should have thought twice about pardoning the good thief from the cross. After all, it could be seen as a “reward” for thieving and encourage others to engage in thievery.

Well, given that Jesus didn’t terminate the man’s punishment and send him on his way with the goods he had stolen, perhaps this isn’t a comparable situation.

Surely you exaggerate. … Nowhere in their statement do I see “our faith compels us to take this or that political position.”

Suppose I didn’t exaggerate, would you agree that the statement was inappropriate?

 

[anikins]

Yikes. This thread.

The GOP has ruined the souls of many good Catholics. May god have mercy on them.

 

[Maximilian75]

Neither party is without sin.

 

[Ender]

The GOP has ruined the souls of many good Catholics. May god have mercy on them.

Apparently you don’t recognize what a rash and uncharitable judgment this is.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way: Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Surely you exaggerate. … Nowhere in their statement do I see “our faith compels us to take this or that political position.”

Suppose I didn’t exaggerate, would you agree that the statement was inappropriate?

I see no reason to engage in such hypotheticals. We have enough real stuff to talk about.

 

[Ender]

I see no reason to engage in such hypotheticals. We have enough real stuff to talk about.

It isn’t hypothetical. Here is the full comment from the three bishops at the USCCB.

In fact they don’t even specify a particular political solution.

They proposed these two specific political solutions:

“…we will be asking the faithful across the nation to call their Members of Congress next Monday, Feb. 26, to protect Dreamers from deportation, to provide them a path to citizenship…”

Nowhere in their statement do I see “our faith compels us to take this or that political position.”

This is how their proposal ends:

“Our faith compels us to stand with the vulnerable, including our immigrant brothers and sisters. We have done so continually, but we must show our support and solidarity now in a special way. Now is the time for action.”

So, our faith compels us to take action, presumably on the actions they have called for. If this does not say our faith compels us to support the proposals they have just listed then words have lost their common meanings.