How should we stand on illegal immigrants in the US?

[Genesis315]

Regarding the OP, I think we can offer charity to all without checking their IDs first. As such, it should be a non-issue because someone’s immigration status would not even be made known in the first place.

Regarding the general question on what American immigration laws and policy should be, I won’t claim to be able to declare the right answer. But I do believe the right way to approach it is as follows.

The Church teaches that there is a natural right to migrate , since in the beginning the whole world was given to all men for their good. But as with most rights, governments has the duty to regulate and coordinate the exercise of this right for the common good (CCC 2241, see also CCC 2402).

No one is omniscient, so there will be disagreements about what kind of restrictions or regulations are justified and what are not.

Too many people, however, turn these principles on their heads and give the state an absolute right to restrict all immigration for whatever reason. They make permission to immigrate merely an act of largess on the part of the state. It’s wrong to approach this question from this angle. The human person and the family exist prior to the state and their rights must therefore be the starting point for the analysis.

 

[pnewton]

Our government, as other governments, is established to protect it’s citizens.

Not quite true, at least from a Catholic perspective. The Catechism reads:

1898 Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

The common good is for society, not citizens. Otherwise, we have situations where the law may allow for the abuse of women, when women are not considered citizens, or the abuse of slaves, or the poor, because they are not citizens. The moral authority of government is derived from God. Even in the protection of citizens, immoral action remains immoral, as is also seen in an unjust war.

 

[robertericleech]

You shouldn’t stand on anyone. It’s rude.

 

[Hobbes42]

You shouldn’t stand on anyone. It’s rude.

The view is so nice from up here though

 

[NotAllHere]

I think we need to find a way to improve their living conditions in their own country until we find ourselves sneaking over the border into their country. I have no solutions to this as of yet. But, in the mean time, share the gospel and a meal with them because for the ??? go we.

 

[ORayMoose]

It is not possible to support a welfare state and an open-borders policy at the same time. Open borders might be sustainable if all of us, including potential immigrants, felt a moral obligation to provide for our own necessities so our fellow citizens would not have to do so. But if crossing the border is motivated even partially by the desire for a lifestyle that requires the labor of others to sustain, that is theft, which certainly cannot be justified on moral grounds. It is one thing to provide the temporary relief that is required to compensate for the consequences of an incompetent administration. But Matthew 25 only imposes upon us an obligation to help the poor, not the cunning.

 

[Tigg]

It is not possible to support a welfare state and an open-borders policy at the same time. Open borders might be sustainable if all of us, including potential immigrants, felt a moral obligation to provide for our own necessities so our fellow citizens would not have to do so. **But if crossing the border is motivated even partially by the desire for a lifestyle that requires the labor of others to sustain, that is theft, which certainly cannot be justified on moral grounds. **It is one thing to provide the temporary relief that is required to compensate for the consequences of an incompetent administration. But Matthew 25 only imposes upon us an obligation to help the poor, not the cunning.

And herein lies the other elephant in the room. Many, many reports coming from the trenches are indicating that not only with this new influx, but for *years *(even during the Bush years) immigrants have been enticed here by all manner of promises of free housing, food, healthcare and education. One bold Democrat has promised to work for the voting rights of even those of illegal status which could change the political landscape. What an injustice to Americans who have lived here their entire lives and understand the historical precedents. Just imagine how those from socialist countries will expect their government to take care of them since that has been their only experience. There is an ungodly agenda at work here:

haaretz.com/news/world/1.599220

And the puzzling thing is the absolute silence from the Church about the morality of this. Even though poor, the spiritual concern for immigrant souls should be primary, yet the absence of this message which is the very mission of the Church is astounding to me.

 

[MacQ]

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

That was what used to make America great, and it lead to great prosperity. I don’t think God would have us deport illegal immigrants, but embrace them. If we give up some of our comfort, and they get a few more, it will eventually even out. I’m just saying that if someone hadn’t given my ancestors a chance I might have grown up in a very different situation. That’s just me though, I grew up poor so I can identify with their struggle to better their situation.

At one time, immigrants came and had to work and make a go of it. There was work. There were jobs. there were businesses to open.
Today, unless someone has a lot of money, and accountant and a couple of lawyers, good luck starting a business.
Or getting a job for that matter.
So…for many (maybe even the majority) that leaves welfare. That changes the plight of the ‘tempest-tost’.
How many can we support?

 

[MacQ]

I’ll start by saying that if I were in the conditions many illegal immigrants are in, I’d be doing exactly what they’re doing.

Our government is amiss in this. Our policies encourage coyotes and trafficking (of humans and other things).

The long term solution is NOT to open the borders to the poor and tempest tossed.
Certainly not to put them on the public dole.
But there is even a limit to how many we can employ in honest jobs.

Here’s what we should be doing:
At home, we should create a way for documented guest workers to get jobs if they are available and to live by the laws.

We should be sponsoring initiatives in the home countries of the people who are putting themselves at risk to get here.
We send these countries money…lots of it. but we don’t ask where it’s going. It’s going into the pockets of their politicians and elite.
Instead, we should be sending not just money, but people there to oversee it and use it to build economies in those countries. To start businesses. They are all rich in natural and human resources…and yet they starve. That is the fault of their governments, and we aid and abet them. The plight of the people will not be solved by having them all come here.
They must be helped at home to thrive there.

This is consistent with Church teaching, and is addressed most recently in the documents of Vatican II.

 

[MacQ]

It is not possible to support a welfare state and an open-borders policy at the same time. Open borders might be sustainable if all of us, including potential immigrants, felt a moral obligation to provide for our own necessities so our fellow citizens would not have to do so. But if crossing the border is motivated even partially by the desire for a lifestyle that requires the labor of others to sustain, that is theft, which certainly cannot be justified on moral grounds. It is one thing to provide the temporary relief that is required to compensate for the consequences of an incompetent administration. But Matthew 25 only imposes upon us an obligation to help the poor, not the cunning.

 

[Hobbes42]

I’ll start by saying that if I were in the conditions many illegal immigrants are in, I’d be doing exactly what they’re doing.

Our government is amiss in this. Our policies encourage coyotes and trafficking (of humans and other things).

The long term solution is NOT to open the borders to the poor and tempest tossed.
Certainly not to put them on the public dole.
But there is even a limit to how many we can employ in honest jobs.

Here’s what we should be doing:
At home, we should create a way for documented guest workers to get jobs if they are available and to live by the laws.

We should be sponsoring initiatives in the home countries of the people who are putting themselves at risk to get here.
We send these countries money…lots of it. but we don’t ask where it’s going. It’s going into the pockets of their politicians and elite.
Instead, we should be sending not just money, but people there to oversee it and use it to build economies in those countries. To start businesses. They are all rich in natural and human resources…and yet they starve. That is the fault of their governments, and we aid and abet them. The plight of the people will not be solved by having them all come here.
They must be helped at home to thrive there.

This is consistent with Church teaching, and is addressed most recently in the documents of Vatican II.

Supporting real change in development in these states is contrary to the American imperial foreign policy. The US has long funded, armed, and trained dictators in South America to further its own interests. The US doesn’t do anything unless it serves its own selfish agenda. (try and prove me wrong-aiding allies doesn’t count as altruism)

 

[MacQ]

Supporting real change in development in these states is contrary to the American imperial foreign policy. The US has long funded, armed, and trained dictators in South America to further its own interests. The US doesn’t do anything unless it serves its own selfish agenda. (try and prove me wrong-aiding allies doesn’t count as altruism)

Well, while it is true that our government has provided arms and backed what seemed to be the lesser of two thugs in many regions of the world to protect economic and security interests, I disagree with the use of the term “imperial”. If we were imperialists, germans and Japanese would be speaking American English and flying our flag right now. So would France and England for that matter. Tell me what countries we have conquered that we own now.
As for arms provisions:
Should we provide arms to the Kurds right now to fight ISIL? Or not.
How about Ukraine?

I also rankle at your complete disregard for the FACT that Americans have died protecting and winning freedoms for others (or trying to). We are not the bad guys.

That said, with regard to central American countries who are sending emigre’s to our borders right now, I think we ought to get their governments to understand that the checks will stop until they get their situations under control. Second, that any foreign aid we provide in future will be in the form of business development, and that if they don’t want to create prosperity for their people, they won’t be lining their pockets with our money.

Of course, that would require a US president who didn’t think we are the bad guys.
And of course, we ought to be telling our own government the same thing…that we’re not going to fund them unless they are pursuing the interests of the people.