Hispanic bishops decry 'disdain for immigrants,' inaction on immigration reform [CWN]

[Contarini]

Legal immigration, yes.

That doesn’t make any sense. “legal immigration” is immigration that a country has decided to allow (officially–it may allow “illegal” immigration by tacitly ignoring it, but we all agree that that’s not the best approach). The point is that countries have an obligation under natural law to allow people to immigrate, with legitimate regulations designed to protect the host country.

I don’t see anywhere in Catholic teaching where it says it is acceptable to abet illegal immigration.

From the aforementioned obligation, it follows that when a government fails to meet that obligation, its immigration laws become unjust.

2241 (b) 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.

Absolutely. Sounds like exactly what those evil proponents of “amnesty” and “comprehensive immigration reform” have been saying for a while.

But, again, it’s incoherent to say that one of immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption is not to come to it, which is how you’re interpreting the bolded reference to obeying its laws. Clearly the context is one in which the people in question are being allowed to immigrate.

I think that many Americans honestly believe that somehow if “illegals” just played by the rules, they would be able to immigrate legally.

That just isn’t true, as far as I can see. Yes, the U.S. admits a lot of people. But there are millions here “illegally,” and the self-proclaimed champions of law and order refuse to admit them officially even though they not only want to come here, but they are here already. This makes no sense, morally.

Regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance is one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity.

No dispute there. But the fact that immigration should be regulated does not make any given set of regulations just, does it?

If there were no laws concerning immigration, no border policy, then non American citizens from across the border would have the right to cross the border. Once there are laws authorized, the illegal person must respect the laws according to Natural Law.

Only if the laws themselves conform to natural law.

Those people who are in a country illegally, not obliging the law cannot claim to any rights in the country, because it is not theirs to possess, according to Natural Law.

Where do you find that idea in Catholic teaching?

The Catechism says that countries have an obligation to admit immigrants. In the opinion of many observers, including the bishops of your Church, the U.S. is not meeting that obligation adequately, forcing people to immigrate “illegally” in order to provide for their families according to natural law.

These obligations–of people to provide for their families and of governments to allow immigration insofar as they are able–supersede national borders.

Edwin

 

[_Abyssinia]

That doesn’t make any sense. “legal immigration” is immigration that a country has decided to allow (officially–it may allow “illegal” immigration by tacitly ignoring it, but we all agree that that’s not the best approach). The point is that countries have an obligation under natural law to allow people to immigrate, with legitimate regulations designed to protect the host country.

There is no obligation under natural law that allow for illegal immigration if the country has laws which oppose illegal immigration.

From the aforementioned obligation, it follows that when a government fails to meet that obligation, its immigration laws become unjust.

I don’t see how that is possible, the laws still stand, they do not change.

Absolutely. Sounds like exactly what those evil proponents of “amnesty” and “comprehensive immigration reform” have been saying for a while.

But, again, it’s incoherent to say that one of immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption is not to come to it, which is how you’re interpreting the bolded reference to obeying its laws. Clearly the context is one in which the people in question are being allowed to immigrate.

I think that many Americans honestly believe that somehow if “illegals” just played by the rules, they would be able to immigrate legally.

That just isn’t true, as far as I can see. Yes, the U.S. admits a lot of people. But there are millions here “illegally,” and the self-proclaimed champions of law and order refuse to admit them officially even though they not only want to come here, but they are here already. This makes no sense, morally.

Admit them how? Legality, citizenship? Amnesty is an insult to every legal immigrant.

No dispute there. But the fact that immigration should be regulated does not make any given set of regulations just, does it?

Only if the laws themselves conform to natural law.

Respect of the laws is part of natural law.

Where do you find that idea in Catholic teaching?

The Catechism says that countries have an obligation to admit immigrants. In the opinion of many observers, including the bishops of your Church, the U.S. is not meeting that obligation adequately, forcing people to immigrate “illegally” in order to provide for their families according to natural law.

These obligations–of people to provide for their families and of governments to allow immigration insofar as they are able–supersede national borders.

Edwin

The opinion that the US is not meeting its obligation is no excuse for people to become illegal immigrants.

You can not use natural law as an excuse to break the law of a country. Catholic teaching has never said that certain obligations supersede national borders.

Catcheism 2241 says that immigrants are obliged to obey a country’s laws. It does not then add you can enter a country illegally if …

 

[raaucoin]

So here we are in the year 2011 and this time it’s "Spanish americans or Latinos or hispanics " --those folks from South of the Border. (I know some will argue "no, ANY illegals) But truth be known we seldom include any others in conversation cause somebody told us that these guys are the ones who are the problem.
Here on the Gulf Coast in the 1970’s it was the Viet Namese that were the problem for the same reasons-dishonest, taking money and jobs from Americans, not paying their share and getting govt. handouts. BUT GUESS WHAT!! Most of those were LEGAL.

Our beloved Archbishop Hannon was very instrumental in getting them here to the region.They were fleeing violence, oppression,and searching for a place where they could live out the GOD GIVEN rights they were entitled to.And people complained, mistreated them, discriminated against them.
I have to wonder if this nation of immigrants forgot what that means. We can argue all we want that it’s only the ILLEGALS. Are we really being honest about that? Is it possible that “illegal alien” is just the new code word for “them that don’t look and sound like us”.
Ask a legal hispanic immigrant or heck ask a natural born American Citizen who is of Latin American descent- I bet you’ll find stories of assumptions and discrimination. I saw it and see it still with our Viet Namese.

And asking-“Can we look at ourselves honestly and ask some hard questions individually and collectively” doesn’t make me unAmerican. Just someone who knows my forefathers and mothers were chased out of three countries before they managed to put down roots here. And just someone who does want to live the Gospel.

 

[Warrenton]

You are correct but it is legal semantics. The distinction between criminal and civil laws are penalities (prison vs fine).

It is difficult to imagine how an legal immigrant continues to stay in the county without violating other laws unless they can live free of rent, job, healthcare or education, or if somebody else who is an illegal immigrant helps them which makes them an accomplice or somebody legal helps them which means that person is breaking the law.

It’s not illegal to rent. It’s not illegal to purchase healthcare or education. It’s not illegal to hire an alien unless you know for a fact the person is illegal. That means, by the way, knowledge to a legal certainty, not suspicion based on preconceptions or bias.

Immigration is civil. Do you consider yourself a criminal every instance you break a speed limit, or roll a stopsign, or float a check? Do you consider yourself a criminal if you get more change back from the supermarket than you are due? Do you consider yourself a criminal for picking up a penny on the sidewalk?

If you do, then it’s just a nation of criminals. Que lastima.

 

[Warrenton]

I don’t see how that is possible, the laws still stand, they do not change.

The problem with Mexican immigration specifically is that the federal government, which takes to itself the sole right to legislate and regulate immigration, is refusing to enforce the law. It is failing to enforce the law because it suits political and economic interests to do so. That is a basic abdication of authority. That is unjust.

Do you really think that the federal government which undertakes to fight two wars at the same time halfway round the world really cannot secure the border with Mexico?

 

[freshair]

Interesting–defending the underprivileged is somehow an expression of “lust for power,” but defending one’s own privileges isn’t. . . .

No, it’s an attempt to be faithful to the Gospel.

Catholics were once viewed with that same distrust. Perhaps that was indeed a good thing and would be again–for Catholics, not for the Protestants who poisoned their souls with hatred and bigotry, just as many people now do with regard to Muslims.

I admire the Catholic Church deeply because it is not afraid to stand up to secular political ideologies of both the right and the left.

Combine your rant with the similar things said by liberals about the Catholic stand on abortion and homosexuality, and you have a strong probabilistic argument in favor of the Catholic Church really being the True Church.

As Chesterton said, if you hear some people say that a person is too fat and others that he is too thin, some that he is too tall and others too short, etc., he may be very weirdly shaped, or he may simply be the right shape!

Edwin

Actually, I’m a constitutional conservative. You know absolutely nothing about the Catholic church and what you do know, is perverted to legitimize your progressive agenda. I stand by my comments because Catholics have become anti-itellectuals, historically a great thought tradition has devolved into nothing more than arguments based on emotion. Catholics are discouraged from engaging in any serious study, thought or analysis of any issue. In place of any real debate or discourse, we’ve received a kneejerk emotional plea for illegals. Progressives make the same arguments based not on reason, but emotion, an unreliable guide for addressing any serious issue.

I am pro-life, anti gay marriage and support traditional families and free enterprise because that is the most compassionate economic system on the planet and the U.S. is proof of that. What is not and has never been part of Christ’s teachings is trespassing on other’s property and stealing from them - clearly a violation of the Ten Commandments. Please feel free to cite the passage in the New Testament giving any moral foundation to millions and millions of illegal aliens subverting our sovereignty and laws? How about invading us and then having the nerve to riot, protest and parade around with Mexican flags? Impoverishing American citizens by edging decent American citizens out of jobs by undercutting wages? Pushing drugs on our kids? Raping, robbing and murdering American citizens by the hundreds, while Mexico arrogantly demands we free them? We have not only a legal right but a moral right and duty to defend our lives and our property.

Everything about your response is absurd. There is no religious element to immigration control. The Catholic church has absolutely no business, no jurisdiction and is completely arrogant in issuing statements on that issue or any other issue unrelated to salvation of souls. Further, these bishops lose any moral authority they have on any topic when they engage in these public debates and discussions. Forget about the fact that they do so in these bigoted terms.

Try this on for size and see if you can handle it: the U.S. has lost 2.5 million jobs since 2008. Poof! Gone from the economy. Evaporated. Most of those jobs are in manufacturing, housing-related services, construction, i.e., skilled and unskilled trades. Yet, our rates of legal immigration have increased since 2004 and remained at roughly 1.1M people granted legal status and another 750K-1M illegals emigrating to the U.S. annually during the same period. I am not familiar with anything in the Bible instructing me or anyone to impoverish myself, basically become homeless or starve myself or my family so that someone from another country who wants a job here can have one? Please address that point. (Statistics from the DHS).

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t see them calling for discrimination against those groups. But the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are from Latin America, for obvious reasons. The point was, and is, that if the purpose of accepting illegal immigration is to benefit those in need, there is much greater need in the world than there is in Mexico, and, by world standards, none in Mexico.

Well, surely that’s for the Mexican Church to address. If it isn’t doing so, perhaps it needs to be urged to do so, principally by the Vatican. But of course, the same principle applies. This really does dodge the issue. When one points a finger at the U.S. for not allowing and condoning illegal immigration for, principally, the members of one nationality, then is not one obligated to point a finger, simultaneously, at the much greater problem of Mexico’s persecution of immigrants from Central America. If there is an asserted moral principle underlying advocacy for illegal (largely Mexican) immigrants, then it is either universal in application or it is simply ethnic advocacy.

This is an interesting point. I would like to hear it addressed. I don’t know enough to address it myself, but it’s certainly a substantive and reasonable one. I’m dubious that things are quite as you describe them (I’m sure this is the motivation for many people, or the partial motivation), but again, I’d like to hear more on it. **Easy enough to look up on the internet. Took me about 10 minutes. **

How exactly does America have a de facto Hispanic preference, except that Hispanics (and Canadians!) find it easier to get in illegally, since everyone else either has to come through a port/airport or first migrate to Canada or Mexico. Yes, you have it right.

I don’t think the bishops are as concerned with what “Americans will allow” as they are with what is just. **Refer back to my earlier comment in this post. There is nothing “just” about ethnic advocacy. It’s merely a preference for one’s own. **

Furthermore, what “Americans will allow” is not a fixed or certain thing. It’s shaped by all kinds of forces. If conservative American Christians, including many Catholics as represented on this forum, would stop beating the drums of nationalistic fear, what Americans will allow would be drastically different. It’s circular for Christians to base policy on what Americans will allow, since Christians make up the majority of the American population (and Catholics, specifically, make up a large minority) and are often the loudest in calling for more restrictive policies. It is fairly clear to me that native-born Americans are extraordinarily tolerant of Hispanic illegal immigration. The only “resistance” is around the edges, and largely involves such things as criminality, abuse of public resources, etc. Why are Americans tolerant of it? It’s simple. Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) are not all that “foreign” to the native-born, many of whom are of Hispanic heritage themselves. Mexicans are, almost to a man, Christians. Their culture is essentially western. They are, despite temporary dependencies, even more “market oriented” than are the native born. In addition, there is a very long “shared” part of the culture. Hispanicana can be found absolutely everywhere in the U.S., from architecture to shared “western history” to food, to decor, to cartoon characters, to movie and television characters and themes. It’s everywhere. What person of my (long in the tooth) generation did not watch “The Cisco Kid” or Disney’s “Elfego Baca”…heroes both? Now, think about it for a moment; what is the image in American psyche about Yemen; about Algeria, about Iran, about Egypt, about Syria? Does anyone really believe Americans would be as sanguine about immigration from those places as they are about immigrants from Mexico?

I don’t think immigration policy is as blunt an instrument as you claim. For one thing, I don’t think anyone wants a “blank check” that simply declares all illegal immigrants legal. That wouldn’t make any sense. There would have to be some sort of application process, and that would provide an opportunity to screen out terrorists and other real criminals. I agree that the U.S. has no right to discriminate on the basis of religion, if that’s what you are talking about. In my opinion, it is naive to believe that ANY illegals will be given amnesty without ALL illegals being given amnesty. No illegals will be given fast tracks to citizenship without all illegals being given the same thing. And did the “screening process” screen out any of the terrorists who succeeded or failed in their attempts to kill innocent Americans? Think about it. How many Mexicans have flown planes into buildings full of people? How many have tried to blow up planes over Detroit? How many have schools in which war against the “others” is sanctioned; schools financed by hostile societies? Certainly, those who want to believe there is nothing particularly hazardous about Islam will defend the immigration of Islamic peoples. But that does not mean the majority of Americans share those impulses and, frankly, rationalizations.

Anyway, this is a very substantive and thought-provoking post–thanks for it. I think this is the kind of debate we need to see happening. The points you have raised are real ones and need to be addressed.

 

[freshair]

So Conservative American politics are more important to you than the True Faith, perhaps Catholicism isn’t for you.

I’m a Catholic first and an American at a FAR distant second.

Neither ignorance nor blind fealty to corruption serves Catholics well.

 

[freshair]

Yes, the method of obtaining soveriegnty over California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas was a model of respect for liberty and private property.

Territories which were ceded to the U.S. after a war? What’s your point? Texas was a republic before it joined the Union. What’s your point?

To be sure, the Protestant nations of Germany, England, and Sweden are models of Christian freedom and liberty. Sweden, which takes children away from their parents just because they want to home school. England, where it is “illegal” to insult the Muslims. Germany, which doesn’t even have a first amendment concept worthy of the name.

And? Again, your point? Is there a point looming there? This thread is about the United States right to control its borders. What you describe is lamentable, but I have no control over the laws and policies of Sweden, Germany or England. If the concept of sovereignty is anathema to Catholics, it makes them a threat to any nation’s security at the extreme, and bad citizens at their most innocuous.

Brave words, for a patriot. Tell it to the Chinese. Perhaps they’ll float another loan to finish the fence at the border, which our fine government will use to keep you in as a slave to pay the debt it contracted with communists, knowing full well it can’t afford to repay it.

What? Now being opposed to illegal immigration is equated with support for a massive national debt? I would remind you to take a look at Bishop Blaire’s exhortation to our Congress to continue to bankrupt the country. The Catholic church is hellbent on fiscal, social and cultural destruction here. I am simply saying “NO!”. Are they communists too? I don’t support the entitlement state, which is bankrupting the nation and for which generations of Americans will be enslaved.

Where is the Protestant revolt? The tea party? Give me a break.

I am a TEA party supporter. Thank God few Catholics there. They don’t support limited government, personal responsibility or individual liberty, do they?

Don’t blame Mexicans or Catholics at large for the homosexual liberation so in vogue in American politics. According to the Episcopal Church, it seems to quite a WASP thing.

Plenty of gays in the Catholic clergy! Do some homework, will ya?

Blowhard bigotry such as your post displays does nothing to alleviate the lamentable state of this country. Only fools believe that they helping things by merely having certain ideas, while they do nothing. They vainly hope some for some political savior, like a Reagan, will come a la King Arthur to save them. The floodgates of immigration were opened on Reagan’s watch. How could he have believed congress would honor the agreement on amnesty, when they didn’t honor a single thing he proposed?

You accuse me of being a one world type because I think the national interest would be served by imposing order on the country to the south, and allowing our people as a whole to profit from it? Your idea is what? Fighting world government by sliding deeper into Chinese and European debt so you can buy cheap junk at Walmart and fight a war halfway around the world for pile of rocks?

Great plan.

Your assertions border on the insane. The most basic element of any nation is the ability to control its borders. If you can’t agree on that simple concept, there is nothing further to discuss on the subject.

If this country had full access to Mexican resources and labor, if our people could freely hire Mexicans, start farms, mines, shipping, oil and gas companies we could pay the debt off, or just restructure it unilaterally it and give those userers the middle finger. We’d have too large and powerful an economy for the commies to do a thing about it, other than fume.

No! It would further bankrupt the nation. Open borders and a welfare state (which far higher numbers of illegal and legal immigrants avail themselves than Americans) are a recipe for disaster and national bankruptcy. What you propose will result in ever higher unemployment among American citizens, higher social welfare costs such as we see now and less stability, and security as a nation. You aren’t thinking this through.

You can rail at the Church all you want, but it does not change the fact that the pooch got done under Protestant leadership. Apart from a few crusaders like the folks at Patrick Henry College and Home School Legal Defense (which many, many Catholics support,)the Protestant pushback is non existent.

Why does anyone need to affiliate with any church to defend liberty? Chew on that.

When they assemble the new legion of Gustavus Adolphus, let me know. I’ll be waiting.

 

[Warrenton]

freshair:
The way you pasted makes it difficult to respond point by point.

A few thoughts come to mind, however.

Obviously, my strong disagreement with the Catholic bishops mentioned in this article was lost on you.

Second, compelling a country to cede territory in return for peace is hardly respect for liberty, property or law. Indeed, having obtained this territory, the US has generally taken the position that that kind of expansionism is not legitimate.

My point is just this, having taken a third of Mexico, it is time to complete the job. Except not by war, but by amalgamation.

Against this, all you do is point to the “basic” right of a government to defend a border. That, as you and the whole world knows, is pathetic. The federal government refuses to close the border. The feds are actually suing Arizona for attempting to close its portion of the border! It’s a joke.

You claim to be a strict constitutionalist. We ought to have something in common. What’s your solution to the problem of the federal government’s refusal to enforce the law, but its effective prevention of the states’ attempt to close it? Repeal the 14th Amendment? Repeal the preemption doctrine?

The tea party is not going to work. The government we have cannot be reformed. It’s less reformable than King George’s government was 230 years ago.

It caters to any deviant group, including the homosexual lobby. While everyone knows about the pedophile priests, they also know about the pedophile Mormons and “preacher” who kidnapped the girl and kept her in the shed. But what we’re talking about is official sectarian support for a non-biblical concept, sectarian support for sin. To find that, one need look no farther than the Episcopal Church, for one. The government, as well as the courts placed by the government all rely on this “evolving” religious attitude to justify their support of homosexual conduct.

We could go on about the fiscal policy, but we appear to agree on that point. It’s totally broken, and the people of this country are going to be ruined not by immigration, but by the confiscation of their wealth and property by their own government to pay international bankers and foreign underwriters of the national debt.

The presence of Mexicans here does affect some labor sections, I agree. However, the main problem with labor and income in this country lies not with Mexico, but with the confiscatory levels of taxation that businesses are subjected to, the confiscatory levels of taxation that workers are subjected to, and the government’s habitual redistribution of all that wealth to the international banks, to other countries, to armaments firms, and to broken social programs.

The construction industry you mourn was heavily subsidized by a corrupt lending industry, with full federal support. It was a glorified shell game. Any one with a lick of sense knows a nation of 350 million people can’s run on building houses and selling them to each other. It runs on farms, mines, steel, shipping, manufacturing.

Those industries have been reeling for years due to systematic looting by government backed interests and tax policy. The Mexican construction workers are a drop in the bucket.

To save this country from the eventual fate of Greece, we need either to reimplement a 1920s platform or to expand. Personally, I’ll go with either, but the topic was Mexico so I led with that idea.

You asked why faith is necessary to be a patriot. That surprised me. You and I ought to agree that this country is so fragmented along ethnic lines, along political lines, increasingly along sexual lines (stupid as this is) that there is simply no widespread patriotic appeal. It no longer exists. Again, I would expect that you were as shocked and disgusted by the official debate over the Iraq war in the mid 2000s, as I was, and recognized it as a redux of Viet Nam and all the actions Reagan undertook.

The only force strong enough to bring sufficient numbers of people together is faith.

Tea party? Fail. They don’t have enough money to match the bribe. Occupy Wall Street? Epic fail. Shows what happens with no faith. In fact, its worse than not trying, because it emboldens the government to go on wasting the wealth of the nation.

If Protestants are going to lead a national renewal, let them get moving for heaven’s sake. I can vouch that they will have at least one Catholic follower in me.

There. I picked up your gauntlet. Tell me whether we agree on anything.

 

[freshair]

Thirty-three of the nation’s Hispanic bishops, including the archbishops of Los Angeles and San Antonio, have written a letter to the nation’s immigrants "to let those of you who lack …

More…

Mr. Manion responds with such ferocity of intellect, I find I cannot improve. For all of you moronic apologists for illegal invaders, read it and weep:

[Is America Just a Protestant Botch?]](http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/is-america-just-a-protestant-botch])

 

[freshair]

Warrenton, I’m responding to your post in numbered sections, this is a bit unwieldy:

1. My point is just this, having taken a third of Mexico, it is time to complete the job. Except not by war, but by amalgamation.

A: Good luck getting the Congress to declare war or the Mexican government, and the Mexican people with their proclivity for violence and corruption to join the union!

1. What’s your solution to the problem of the federal government’s refusal to enforce the law, but its effective prevention of the states’ attempt to close it? Repeal the 14th Amendment? Repeal the preemption doctrine?

The tea party is not going to work. The government we have cannot be reformed. It’s less reformable than King George’s government was 230 years ago.

It caters to any deviant group, including the homosexual lobby. The government, as well as the courts placed by the government all rely on this “evolving” religious attitude to justify their support of homosexual conduct.

A: Congress can legislatively deal with failure of the Executive to fulfill its constitutional duty to protect the borders, and the courts could compel the Executive to do so as well. And, we can all vote for different representatives and a different Executive in 2012 - who will defend and protect the borders. Congress can fix the persistent and pernicious misapplication of the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis Birthright Citizenship. Rep. Steve King of Iowa has introduced such a bill in the House. The SCOTUS is hearing arguments on the AZ immigration law. The TEA party has already worked and is active, but quiet. With electoral victories, state legislative victories, and other accomplishments from 2010 which will finally result in the repeal of Obamacare, don’t dismiss us. The vast majority of Americans are against gay marriage, but even Catholics agree that one is free to sin. I am not sure what you’re trying to get at?

1. It’s totally broken, and the people of this country are going to be ruined not by immigration, but by the confiscation of their wealth and property by their own government to pay international bankers and foreign underwriters of the national debt.

A: The country has already been ruined by an illegal invasion for 40 years, a progressive legislative conspiracy and willing accomplices in the Republican Establishment. Newt Gingrich’s immigration “solution” is but one example. I agree that the federal government, through extra-constitutional means has expanded the scope of the federal government and destroyed the concept of “federalism” to the detriment of our property AND liberty. However, people with clarity of purpose and a firm grounding in the Constitution can and do make a difference. Getting involved in Step 1. By the way, Protestants are very involved in politics.

1. The presence of Mexicans here does affect some labor sections, I agree. However, the main problem with labor and income in this country lies not with Mexico, but with the confiscatory levels of taxation that businesses are subjected to, the confiscatory levels of taxation that workers are subjected to, and the government’s habitual redistribution of all that wealth to the international banks, to other countries, to armaments firms, and to broken social programs.

Those industries have been reeling for years due to systematic looting by government backed interests and tax policy. The Mexican construction workers are a drop in the bucket.

A: Agree that government has burdened and made it difficult for employers in many spheres to comply with the law and hire Americans. However, the answer is NOT to hire illegals, whose average annual income is $40K. Tax-free. All while gaming our social services systems, engaging in theft and fraud. We can start with getting rid of them all. Send them home by hook or by crook with their children. I really don’t need to be saddled with Mexico’s problems. Nor should I be. We give them >$1b in aid annually. I have no particular affinity for any industry, but I do have a preference for American citizens over foreigners in any industry.

1. You asked why faith is necessary to be a patriot. That surprised me. You and I ought to agree that this country is so fragmented along ethnic lines, along political lines, increasingly along sexual lines (stupid as this is) that there is simply no widespread patriotic appeal. It no longer exists. Again, I would expect that you were as shocked and disgusted by the official debate over the Iraq war in the mid 2000s, as I was, and recognized it as a redux of Viet Nam and all the actions Reagan undertook.

The only force strong enough to bring sufficient numbers of people together is faith.

A: I also happen to believe that freedom is a gift from God and as Ben Franklin said, only a virtuous people are capable of it. Why do you think we are losing our freedoms? We are NOT a virtuous people! We are too involved in foreign intrigues, and we should fight no undeclared war. Yet, we havent’ actually declared a war since WWII. Shocking? Yes. Yet, millions of stupid, brainwashed Americans who listen to these dumb, corrupt bishops vote for the same corrupt people which brings the same and worsening corruption and ills. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Stop voting for the same people! No incumbents!

I’d be interested in your take on the Crisis Magazine article by Manion. I think the guy is brilliantly perspicacious in a way no member of the Catholic clergy could ever be. It just goes to show how isolated, insulated and arrogant the American Catholic clergy has become. They possess no humily, no love of God, or of country or of their fellow man.

 

[Holly3278]

It seems that many people in the United States have a hatred for immigrants and that sickens me. I understand why people don’t want illegal immigrants here in the United States but what is so wrong with legal immigrants? In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with them. I honestly think that it is somewhat racist, bigoted, or at least xenophobic to oppose legal immigrants.

 

[pnewton]

The premise of the bishops’ sermon is that immigrants from Spanish America have a right to come to the United States.

Can you quote the part that this was said? I do not see it.

 

[pnewton]

When did Jesus ever encourage anybody to do something illegal to achieve i.e. better economic stability? Never.

He allowed the disciples to pick grain to eat on the Sabbath, which was illegal according law at the time.

 

[pnewton]

Your ignorance of and disdain for this country is traitorous and treacherous.

Those two terms make absolutely no sense in the context you used. Are you even aware of what they mean?

 

[pnewton]

You know absolutely nothing about the Catholic church and what you do know,

Before you try and remove a speck from someone’s eye you should tend to your own needs and brush up, or at least read, the rules here, specifically involved with charity. Perhaps what we see as disdain for immigrants that the bishops felt the need correct Americans on is a deeper disdain for others across the board, questioning the sanity and the loyalty of those faithful Catholics that have compassion for the stranger.

 

[freshair]

pnewton:

Sticks and stones, man, sticks and stones. Can’t stand the heat in your isolated, insulated little Catholic forum? Wait until you bear the full brunt of righteous American anger over Catholic subversion of our culture and society. Anti-Catholic sentiment is just beginning and will snowball as more and more Americans understand that modern Catholic teachings are anathema to American values. You and people like you are dangerously ignorant of and oblivious to the consequences of socialist bishops on not just this issue, but many, many issues. They decry loss of social service contracts as denial of religious liberty? Get ready for persecution far worse than that.

Catholics helped install a bureaucracy so disdainful of traditional Catholic mores; an entrenched bureaucracy that will remain no matter the outcome of this election; that will cut off the Catholic church from one of its largest sources of income: taxpayer funds, that perhaps millions of needy people will go unserved. That is a tragedy of failed moral leadership.

Instead of engendering sympathy from American Catholics, the bishops castigate and divide them. Instead of demonstrating any true Christian piety or morality, Catholic bishops denegrate everyone who disagrees with them and single out Republicans. Who would donate their hard-earned money to such mischievous people? They’ve done a great job accomplishing exactly what Saul Alinsky began. One has to wonder though, how “Catholic” is the American Catholic church these days? There is no love, no brotherhood, no harmony, nothing.

The church is dying. Americans tired of the hatred, bigotry, deceit, corruption, immorality and arrogance from the clergy have been leaving en masse. No thinking person believes this push for Mexican imports to the Catholic church is anything other than a business decision to replace lost revenues.

You, your illegal invader apologists, and others like you need a proverbial kick in the pants.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton:

Sticks and stones, man, sticks and stones. Can’t stand the heat in your isolated, insulated little Catholic forum?

I just happen to believe that integrity is the mark of a man. When we sign on here, we agree as a part of that to agree to the rules of charity. Whether I agree or not, it is a measure of who I am that I can abide by my word.

Wait until you bear the full brunt of righteous American anger over Catholic subversion of our culture and society. Anti-Catholic sentiment is just beginning and will snowball as more and more Americans understand that modern Catholic teachings are anathema to American values. You and people like you are dangerously ignorant of and oblivious to the consequences of socialist bishops on not just this issue, but many, many issues. They decry loss of social service contracts as denial of religious liberty? Get ready for persecution far worse than that.

This is scarcely the first anti-catholic threat given here.

One has to wonder though, how “Catholic” is the American Catholic church these days? There is no love, no brotherhood, no harmony, nothing.

The Church is Catholic, not American Catholic. The heresy of Americanism will never be permitted. The worship of mammon of God will never be preached. If you are looking for a prosperity gospel, it will not be in the Church. Helping those in need rather than looking toward our own prosperity will always be one with the gospel, as it has since the time of Christ. Then, as now, the rich man may turn and walk away, choosing worldly success of salvation.

The church is dying.

I would rather believe in God than you.

Americans tired of the hatred, bigotry, deceit, corruption, immorality and arrogance from the clergy have been leaving en masse. No thinking person believes this push for Mexican imports to the Catholic church is anything other than a business decision to replace lost revenues.

America still has many people of deeper spiritual faith, that put more value on the the accumulation of grace than the accumulation of wealth.

You, your illegal invader apologists, and others like you need a proverbial kick in the pants.

You speak of being afraid of “the heat”. Name-calling, threats and empty rhetoric show do little but show the inability to reason based on facts and logic.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Troll gone.
Proceed.