Helping Illegal Immigrants

[bbentrup]

Some questions raised but not answered from law school class yesterday:

The Catechism calls each nation to be responsible with their immigration policies. If an ordinary citizen doesn’t believe that the government is acting responsibly in this area, to what extent should he feel morally obliged to welcome and help an illegal immigrant? More than not at all? Can he give the starving immigrant bread, shelter, money? What if any such aid is illegal? Must he report the illegal to the authorities? What if the citizen feels the government is acting with gross neglect in its moral responsibility? Is it the citizen’s job to arrogate that decisionmaking to himself, or should he defer blindly to government? Does the citizen have a First Amendment free exercise right to help the illegal immigrant as a part of his faith’s teaching? If so, does that make it moral? Does the analysis change if it is a government official acting in his private capacity?

Sorry for all the questions, just answer the ones you want if you have any thoughts on the matter.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The guiding principle should be, “Is the law asking me to sin, through action or inaction?” If it is, then your loyalty to God is higher than your loyalty to the State. On the other hand if what the law asks is perhaps less generous than you would prefer but within the rights of the State to control immigration then you should obey the law.

 

[pnewton]

The basis of moral law in the area of civil disobedience is that we render unto Caesar his stuff, but we also give God what belongs to Him. Charity toward all our brothers and sisters is a moral obligation, though we all must look to those that God put in our way. For me, I have no problem helping those in need without quesitoning their status. If for any reason this action becomes against the law, then I will violate that law.

 

[Blacksword]

The basis of moral law in the area of civil disobedience is that we render unto Caesar his stuff, but we also give God what belongs to Him. Charity toward all our brothers and sisters is a moral obligation, though we all must look to those that God put in our way. For me, I have no problem helping those in need without quesitoning their status. If for any reason this action becomes against the law, then I will violate that law.

Amen to this!

 

[Warrenton]

The basis of moral law in the area of civil disobedience is that we render unto Caesar his stuff, but we also give God what belongs to Him. Charity toward all our brothers and sisters is a moral obligation, though we all must look to those that God put in our way. For me, I have no problem helping those in need without quesitoning their status. If for any reason this action becomes against the law, then I will violate that law.

 

[Warrenton]

Some questions raised but not answered from law school class yesterday:

Must he report the illegal to the authorities?

 

[Elizabeth502]

For me, I have no problem helping those in need without quesitoning their status. If for any reason this action becomes against the law, then I will violate that law.

“Helping” illegal immigrants is hardly against the law. I help my illegal immigrant neighbors as well, all the time. But I would not hire them knowing their status, because that is against the law, and I have no moral obligation to break that law.

 

[bbentrup]

All excellent resposnses so far, though I think Aelred Minor put it best. Warrenton’s response, however, is certainly the most conducive to further discussion.

1. Duty to report - you didn’t specify which (neither did I), but do you mean no legal duty to report (agreed) or no moral duty to report? You probably meant both, but I just want to hear you say so.
2. First Amendment rights - Caselaw doesn’t seem to favor your position from the little I overheard. It might be jurisdictionally dependent, as federal laws enjoy more religious exemptions then state laws thanks to RFRA (only applies to federal). However, my professor and I would both agree with you as to that’s how it should be.
3. Morality - you misinterpreted me, but I wasn’t as clear as possible. Let me restate. This ties in with Aelred Minor’s earlier distinction. If the law is one that is legitimate but I dislike it, then I owe deference to the state. Yet, if I think I have a First Amendment right to the law, do I now have a moral right to transgress the otherwise fair law? This is subtle.
4. Ack, ran out of time before class! Bye - good responses warrenton!

 

[pnewton]

“Helping” illegal immigrants is hardly against the law. I help my illegal immigrant neighbors as well, all the time. But I would not hire them knowing their status, because that is against the law, and I have no moral obligation to break that law.

I agree, which is why I said “if” it becomes illegal. Although I will point out that some of the new laws, like the one in Alabama, has not yet been defined in the courts. The concern of the bishops there was that the law does make charity illegal in some cases.

For me, if I was in your situation and someone needed, lets say $100 for gas and groceries, giving them the assistance, either individually or through the Church is an act of charity. What if such a person insisted on working for the money? I would also extend charity to the point of giving them their dignity and allowing them to do so. I know this is a judgment call.

As to Catholic teaching, the Church does teach that those who violate the law for conscience sake must be prepared to accept the consequences, though there is nothing to forbid legal recourse in fighting punishment. Civil disobedience comes with a price, and that price may one day be dear.

 

[pnewton]

Does the analysis change if it is a government official acting in his private capacity?
.

Absolutely. There is a clear line of acting under the color of law and as an indivdual. However, a person must act morally in both situations. I think the hard time will come in this country when people of faith in government will be faced with a choice between their job and their faith. We have already seen this in the medical profession. In the end, God will not pardon sin because “we were only following orders.”

 

[DENNYINMI]

Does any of this fall into the category of “what’s in your heart”…most of us would feed our neighbor, and offer clothing…to know that someone was illegal would change this?

Why I ask?

The only reason one could/would not would be due to the culpability they may find themselves in.

The reason for not helping them at this point would be fear.

We can understand that the spirit of fear is not of the Lord…and we know fare ye’ well what our Protestant Brethren would say about the “Law” dear folks…

It was nailed to the Cross with our Lord!

Literally!!!

So one acts with the Spirit of Love, which is of the Lord, or the spirit of fear…and the law.

Yes, we help them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

pnewton, I don’t want to resurrect our previous discussions on this from other threads, but just know that I do not view giving any illegal immigrant a job (against the law) as an act of “civil disobedience.” If I personally knew that the immigrant was in real danger of death or repressive imprisonment in their native country (such as a political refugee or a persecuted believer in a religiously repressive setting) then I might consider my actions to be righteous civil disobedience. But the broad category of economically-motivated unlawful immigration (from any continent/county, by the way) I wouldn’t necessarily categorize with such elevated moral status.

Simply seeking a less arduous life, economically, does not, in itself, qualify as a moral green light. Millions of legal Americans are right now as we speak seeking a less arduous life, economically. Many (including some on this forum) are desperate. They have actually reached the low level of the chronically poor. If law-breaking is justified for one impoverished group (based on ‘social justice’), then it’s justified for other impoverished groups as well. There are government workers in social services agencies and in state employment departments who have some discretion when it comes to making decisions about eligibility. (Not every regulation is black-and-white.) Like many of those workers, who have done so, I would also apply justice and charity to my decision-making. But I would not approve of or encourage such a person to break economic law, because that not only violates a Commandment, it also compromises that person’s freedom. Public demonstrations (such as the “Occupy” displays) do qualify, i.m.o., as morally legitimate civil disobedience, particularly because the intent is to bring national attention to a national problem, as opposed to merely benefiting private individuals at the expense of other individuals.

Not every immigrant who is here illegally has come from what any of us, or the Church, would call desperate circumstances. Some have, some have not. Be very careful of painting with a broad brush. We discussed the romanticizing of illegal immigration on at least two other recent threads.

 

[Warrenton]

Duty to report - you didn’t specify which (neither did I), but do you mean no legal duty to report (agreed) or no moral duty to report? You probably meant both, but I just want to hear you say so.

No moral duty to report. The government takes a position on immigration for its own purposes. In that respect, while it has the power to make law, it occupies the same basic position as a private actor - it is responsible to carry out its own functions, just as you and I are responsible to carry out ours.

1. First Amendment rights - Caselaw doesn’t seem to favor your position from the little I overheard. It might be jurisdictionally dependent, as federal laws enjoy more religious exemptions then state laws thanks to RFRA (only applies to federal). However, my professor and I would both agree with you as to that’s how it should be.

 

[pnewton]

But I would not approve of or encourage such a person to break economic law, because that not only violates a Commandment, it also compromises that person’s freedom… Be very careful of painting with a broad brush. We discussed the romanticizing of illegal immigration on at least two other recent threads.

I did not paint with a broad brush. I spoke of possibilities. Even taking something of others may not be sin, the Ten Commandments not withstanding, according to the Catechsim.

The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others

old.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art7.shtml

 

[pnewton]

It is. I question whether Catholics can legitimately engage in civil disobedience absent a serious challenge to the Holy Faith.

What about a serious challenge to morality, or are you including that in “Holy Faith”.

I think it bears in mind to consider the extent to that the bishops of the United States are fairly unified on the topic of providing charitable aid to illegal immigrants.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I did not paint with a broad brush. I spoke of possibilities. Even taking something of others may not be sin, the Ten Commandments not withstanding, according to the Catechsim.

And it may be sin, depending on the situation and who is affected. That’s why a broad statement is not appropriate, and even less so is the category “civil disobedience” appropriate. That’s sloppy thinking, not to mention an over-dramatization.

Simply “seeking a better life” does not qualify as justifying breaking the law, or cooperating with those breaking the law. It is well established and documented that those who were born rich in this country have built-in advantages in terms of opportunity versus those who were born poor (who lack connections and privileges). Generally, mere hard work will not succeed in evening the economic playing field; most often, intervention from a wealthy source, and/or luck (chance), combined with hard work, can even individual playing fields. The long odds of moving from a lower class, or lower-middle-class stratum does not justify those who were not born rich violating the law “for a better life.” That’s because in Catholic moral theology, the end never justifies the means.

OTOH, political action against the Mexican government (and other Latin American governments) would be a form of appropriate civil disobedience, because the responsibility and cause of economic oppression below the border did not originate with U.S. businesses and individuals, but with corruption and greed in Latin American governments. (And it still does.)

 

[Warrenton]

What about a serious challenge to morality, or are you including that in “Holy Faith”.

I think it bears in mind to consider the extent to that the bishops of the United States are fairly unified on the topic of providing charitable aid to illegal immigrants.

I prefer to deal with examples in questions like this, because I have found my definition of Holy Faith sometimes has more in common with other people’s idea of “immoral.”

If the government, as it suggested in the 1980s, made the giving of shelter, food or clothing to undocumented persons illegal, I would consider such a law to offend the faith.
Any means, including perhaps violent resistance, would in my view be justified.

On the other hand, the government claims to have the right to make it illegal for a person to work, and while I see no possible moral or rational justification for such laws, I would not engage in civil disobedience to change it.

Neither would I do anything to help it.

In the first case, the government is seeking directly to prohibit the exercise of our faith, as well as punish the faith in action, and make a class of people outcasts.

In the second case, even though the government acts as a tryranny, there is ample room to provide aid and succor to those affected, and the burden is on the faithful to bear it because the government has - in effect- consented to refrain from the use of violence.

 

[pnewton]

I prefer to deal with examples in questions like this, because I have found my definition of Holy Faith sometimes has more in common with other people’s idea of “immoral.”

Thank you for the examples and clarification. I thought this might be what you were meaning.

 

[pnewton]

And it may be sin, depending on the situation and who is affected. That’s why a broad statement is not appropriate, and even less so is the category “civil disobedience” appropriate. That’s sloppy thinking, not to mention an over-dramatization.

It is not sloppy thinking to grant the possibility, any more than it is generalization. Perhaps it was over-dramatic, but I was trying to use the term I had just read.