Hispanic bishops decry 'disdain for immigrants,' inaction on immigration reform [CWN]
- Status
F
freshair
Guest
What? More bigotry, hateful disdain for the country that espouses the rule of law? Why does none of this surprise me? Articles like this and so many other statements by Catholic hierarchy are why I no longer can support this empire of lies and eternal lust for power over free people.
This is a desperate attempt to shore up revenues and membership, but it is going to backfire on them. This type of diatribe against American standards of justice, belief in fair process and equality of opportunity from the clergy engenders hatred not just towards the hierarchy, but towards all Catholics. I believe we are fast approaching the day when this religion will rightly be viewed with the same distrust Americans now view Muslims.
This is a desperate attempt to shore up revenues and membership, but it is going to backfire on them. This type of diatribe against American standards of justice, belief in fair process and equality of opportunity from the clergy engenders hatred not just towards the hierarchy, but towards all Catholics. I believe we are fast approaching the day when this religion will rightly be viewed with the same distrust Americans now view Muslims.
W
Warrenton
Guest
The premise of the bishops’ sermon is that immigrants from Spanish America have a right to come to the United States. If this is correct, then citizens of the United States have a right to come to Mexico, and other countries with the same rights as a citizen of Mexico.
Basically, what the bishops are saying is that there are no legitimate national barriers between our countries. If this is true, then their sermon needs to be directed at the Spanish American governments with equal force, and they should urge these ineffective or unjust governments to permit the free movement of capital, goods, labor and peoples north and south. They should also permit the enforcement of US rights by such means as necessary in Spanish American lands until the process of amalgamation is complete.
Most Spanish Americans, if asked, will say that one advantage that the United States has over Spanish American governments is its adherence to the idea that people are equal before the law. In this, they are certainly correct. It is not just to permit one group of people within the nation to disobey the law. If that continues, the immigrants will be in the unfortunate position of destroying what they have come to obtain.
I’m all for Spanish American immigration, especially from Mexico. I think a good case can be made that the sooner our nations draw together as one, the better. However, this must happen in a reciprocal, legal fashion. It cannot be achieved by simply abrogating the laws of the US while permitting an unresponsive, corrupt system to remain unchecked to the south.
May their excellencies also take these facts into account in their next sermon.
Basically, what the bishops are saying is that there are no legitimate national barriers between our countries. If this is true, then their sermon needs to be directed at the Spanish American governments with equal force, and they should urge these ineffective or unjust governments to permit the free movement of capital, goods, labor and peoples north and south. They should also permit the enforcement of US rights by such means as necessary in Spanish American lands until the process of amalgamation is complete.
Most Spanish Americans, if asked, will say that one advantage that the United States has over Spanish American governments is its adherence to the idea that people are equal before the law. In this, they are certainly correct. It is not just to permit one group of people within the nation to disobey the law. If that continues, the immigrants will be in the unfortunate position of destroying what they have come to obtain.
I’m all for Spanish American immigration, especially from Mexico. I think a good case can be made that the sooner our nations draw together as one, the better. However, this must happen in a reciprocal, legal fashion. It cannot be achieved by simply abrogating the laws of the US while permitting an unresponsive, corrupt system to remain unchecked to the south.
May their excellencies also take these facts into account in their next sermon.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I suppose Irish bishops in 1858 would have said the same sort of thing if Irish were excluded at the time.
But a few things need to be remembered, and these bishops ought to think about them:
But a few things need to be remembered, and these bishops ought to think about them:
- Per capita income in Mexico is higher than it is in any Eastern European country. Should Poles, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Russians, etc, have the same rights of free entry, or are these bishops thinking to discriminate against them? What about Filipinos, whose prospects are far worse than that of Mexicans? What about Haitians?
- Should Mexico change its ways and allow Guatemalans to immigrate into Mexico? There are a lot of illegal Central Americans in Mexico and they are treated terribly by Mexico when caught.
- Unemployment in Mexico is lower than it is in the U.S. Yes, wages in Mexico are about 1/3 what they are in the U.S. But so is the cost of living. The big attraction is that you can earn U.S. wages and spend them in Mexico; getting ahead of the Mexican Joneses, so to speak. Would they support my right to work in, say, Lichtenstein, where wages are much higher than here, so I could return to the U.S. and be richer than my peers? I have my doubts about that.
- Real “immigration reform” will probably terminate the de facto Hispanic preference we have now. Why? Because I truly don’t believe American courts will allow a de jure Hispanic preference, and I don’t think Americans (including Hispanics) would tolerate “equal rights” of immigration to, say, Yemenis, Algerians, Iranians, etc. If there is true “reform”, the immigration doors will probably slam shut on everybody. The present situation might not be perfect for Hispanics, but it sure could be worse.
W
Warrenton
Guest
You pointed out some very interesting facts. Regarding the “big picture,” I think you are probably correct.
However, it bears note that nothing under law requires the government to be nationality neutral regarding immigration. Foreign nationals, as such, simply have no rights of this country, until they arrive and get covered by the constitution. But as applicants, they have no rights other than to process. The quotas, status of their home country, or the degree of process to which citizens of their home country are entitled all are national political decisions that stand apart from substantive rights.
My problem with Mexico is that its government restricts American capital, rights of ownership, and hence immigration against the US. We cannot own significant real property in fee, which obviously prevents us from moving there. Any Mexican, legal or not, is completely free to contract in the US except as to personal services. Where is the reciprocity? If we had it, our countries would be drawing closer in a much more orderly way.
S
stevekehl
Guest
It’s easier to bad mouth America than it is to go to these Latin American countries and lead movements to oust corrupt and unjust governments. How about trying to fix the countries that suck so bad people will leave everything they have and know for “miserable salaries, no health insurance or social security.” Another example of the powerful playing politics with the poor. I’ll be impressed when 33 bishops volunteer for parishes in Mexico to pastor those unfortunate enough to be stuck there.
W
Warrenton
Guest
I am pro-Mexican for a variety of reasons, but I still find myself sharing much of this sentiment. It is easier to decry the US, which may actually try to remedy the situation, than to decry the Mexican government, which is largely ineffective when not in collusion with the people who are preying on the citizens.
The interplay between the American bishops and the Mexican state is somewhat more complex, though. There are a lot of clerics who do try to fix the situation. I submit that their efforts would bear more fruit if our government dealt with the situation honestly and demanded some degree of reciprocity in terms of rights for US citizens desiring to move to Mexico.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I am in shock and disagreement with the Bishops on this issue.
The Bishops said, "Instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws’’
But illegal immigrants have broken the law, they are criminals!
Pope Benedict said states have the right to defend borders:
nytimes.com/2010/10/27/world/europe/27pope.html
Lying is a sin, people who enter a country illegally lie about their status.
When did Jesus ever encourage anybody to do something illegal to achieve i.e. better economic stability? Never.
If you want to help illegal immigrants surely the best way is to press their governments to give opportunity to their own citizens.
When it comes to the US borders you also have a huge problem with drug and gun trafficking and people trafficking, those borders need to be secured.
Treat illegal immigrants with compassion and dignity, but too ‘okay’ people breaking the law is a step too far.
The Bishops said, "Instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws’’
But illegal immigrants have broken the law, they are criminals!
Pope Benedict said states have the right to defend borders:
nytimes.com/2010/10/27/world/europe/27pope.html
Lying is a sin, people who enter a country illegally lie about their status.
When did Jesus ever encourage anybody to do something illegal to achieve i.e. better economic stability? Never.
If you want to help illegal immigrants surely the best way is to press their governments to give opportunity to their own citizens.
When it comes to the US borders you also have a huge problem with drug and gun trafficking and people trafficking, those borders need to be secured.
Treat illegal immigrants with compassion and dignity, but too ‘okay’ people breaking the law is a step too far.
C
Contarini
Guest
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
C
Contarini
Guest
Positive law is only law insofar as it agrees with natural law.I am in shock and disagreement with the Bishops on this issue.
The Bishops said, "Instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws’’
But illegal immigrants have broken the law, they are criminals!
Yes, in principle. Defending borders is not the issue. That does not give a nation the right to exclude whomever it wishes–the Catechism is clear that wealthy nations have an obligation to allow immigration.
Not necessarily.
Absolutely. And the best way to do that is to adjust immigration policy to match the natural, reasonable needs of would-be immigrants, and to stop penalizing people for following the dictates of natural law.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
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.
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 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.
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.
I don’t think the bishops are as concerned with what “Americans will allow” as they are with what is just.
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.
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.
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.
M
markomalley
Guest
The bad part is (and something you don’t hear about in these arguments) is that the US granted permanent residence to over 1,000,000 people last year (2010). Almost half were from places south of us. We admitted 2.8 million temporary workers last year (a/k/a 2010), almost 600,000 of them were from Mexico, alone.
So it’s not like we’re not letting people come in. And it’s not like we’re only letting Northern Europeans come in while excluding everybody else.
So it’s not like we’re not letting people come in. And it’s not like we’re only letting Northern Europeans come in while excluding everybody else.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Legal immigration, yes. I don’t see anywhere in Catholic teaching where it says it is acceptable to abet illegal immigration.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
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.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 298, says:
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.
When assisting an illegal immigrant that could have a moral basis? That surely is the exception, not the rule.
I moved that comment here because it fitted with your prior comment.
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.
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.
R
ringil
Guest
“Spanish Americans”???
Some would prefer if the Bishops would only speak on Abortion and Gay Marriage and leave other real issues alone…
F
freshair
Guest
I’m all for Spanish American immigration, especially from Mexico. I think a good case can be made that the sooner our nations draw together as one, the better. However, this must happen in a reciprocal, legal fashion. It cannot be achieved by simply abrogating the laws of the US while permitting an unresponsive, corrupt system to remain unchecked to the south.
That kind of one-world thinking is exactly why most Americans continue to be wary of the Catholic Church and are finally waking up to what the Church has always represented - oppression, theft of private property, theft of liberty, perpetual poverty, amassing of power in the hands of the corrupt few and the wholesale destruction of the one country on this planet dedicated to self-government. Liberty is anathema to the Catholic Church and your post demonstrates Catholic thinking in spades.
We are a sovereign nation, with the ability to enact laws in our best interest, not Mexico’s. It would never be “better” for any American citizen to be associated with that toilet of abject poverty, mass corruption and lawlessness.
Your ignorance of and disdain for this country is traitorous and treacherous.
That kind of one-world thinking is exactly why most Americans continue to be wary of the Catholic Church and are finally waking up to what the Church has always represented - oppression, theft of private property, theft of liberty, perpetual poverty, amassing of power in the hands of the corrupt few and the wholesale destruction of the one country on this planet dedicated to self-government. Liberty is anathema to the Catholic Church and your post demonstrates Catholic thinking in spades.
We are a sovereign nation, with the ability to enact laws in our best interest, not Mexico’s. It would never be “better” for any American citizen to be associated with that toilet of abject poverty, mass corruption and lawlessness.
Your ignorance of and disdain for this country is traitorous and treacherous.
R
ringil
Guest
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.
W
Warrenton
Guest
That’s not true. Illegal immigrants are status offenders, and immigration (at least the first time) is civil in nature.But illegal immigrants have broken the law, they are criminals!
Are you a criminal if you speed? Or park in a no parking zone? Or pay a bill late?
W
Warrenton
Guest
Yes. It’s an old term, but more accurate than “hispanic.”
W
Warrenton
Guest
Yes, the method of obtaining soveriegnty over California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas was a model of respect for liberty and private property.
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.
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.
Where is the Protestant revolt? The tea party? Give me a break.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When they assemble the new legion of Gustavus Adolphus, let me know. I’ll be waiting.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
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.
- Status