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

[Warrenton]

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

“In your suffering faces we see the true face of Jesus Christ. We are well aware of the great sacrifice you make for your families’ well-being. Many of you perform the most difficult jobs and receive miserable salaries and no health insurance or social security. Despite your contributions to the well-being of our country, instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws.”

The suffering of Christ was unmerited by His own actions. It follows that in juxtaposing the suffering if immigrants with the suffering of Christ, that the suffering of the immigrants is implied to be unjustified. Their excellencies then mention acts that the immigrants perform that merit praise, not condemnation. The structure of the argument only makes sense if the immigrants have a right not to be made to suffer, which implies a right to be present in the country.

If they have no right to be here, and if they are in fact violating just laws, then their suffering is not like Christ’s. It is difficult to conceive their excellencies would write these words without believing them, therefore I concluded that they must believe that immigrants have a right to enter into the US.

 

[pnewton]

“In your suffering faces we see the true face of Jesus Christ. We are well aware of the great sacrifice you make for your families’ well-being. Many of you perform the most difficult jobs and receive miserable salaries and no health insurance or social security. Despite your contributions to the well-being of our country, instead of receiving our thanks, you are often treated as criminals because you have violated current immigration laws.”

The suffering of Christ was unmerited by His own actions. It follows that in juxtaposing the suffering if immigrants with the suffering of Christ, that the suffering of the immigrants is implied to be unjustified.

I see what you are saying, but I think in the interest of giving the bishops a well-deserved benefit of the doubt. Their statement did not equate immigrants with Jesus in any other way that they are suffereing. To stretch this into an undeserved suffering can not be done. Jesus alone of humanity is divine and unlike all of us here, is innocent. We know that immigrants are not innocent in their sufferering simply because none are innocent.

Suffering in the world is a result of sin, personal and corporate. If we had to see innocence in others in order to see the face of Jesus, we would never see it.

 

[Warrenton]

I think in the interest of giving the bishops a well-deserved benefit of the doubt.

As I have written elsewhere, I am in substantial agreement with the bishops, even if I am correct in my interpretation of their meaning. I disagree with the idea that a government has an inherent right to prevent the peaceable movement of people across borders. The world was made for people, not states.

That perhaps is another way of saying that if the bishops perceive a right of Mexicans to come to the US, then I agree with them.

My problem with the statement is that it is not well thought out such that it will appeal to, instead of repel, many citizens of the US. Also, the problem exists on both sides of the border, and needs to be addressed. The bishops are as good a group as any to address it. Mexico needs to open up to US immigration and capitalization. If the bishops met this problem head on, I believe they would have more success in turning public opinion in a Catholic direction.