How the Catholic Soul Reconciles Illegal Immigration

[puzzleannie]

One more point, those who say leave the illegals alone are fostering the unintended consequence of discrimination. They are endorsing the substandard illegal wages the illegals get, the law breaking of the businesses, the persistance of low level education, stuck in grunt jobs, etc.

no, protesting one injustice does not equate to acceptance of another injustice. do not abandon logic in your legitimate and worthy concern about these wrongs, and do not misread the history of ethnic groups who have emigrated to this country in large numbers. Not all have assimilated. many have, some have not. some experienced and overcame massive injustice on many levels when they came, some did not face those challenges. immigration history is not something that can be summarized with facile generalizations.

 

[Isaacsdad]

As usual, it is popular to blame the victim. Ever wonder why these folks are coming up here? Much of it is a direct result of American foreign policy in Latin America.

Not only is it a question of victim blaming, which is disgusting, it is just a ploy that is common of fascists to attack the weakest members of a society. The first issue addressed in fascist regimes is always immigration.

 

[Dee_Geils]

In Fascist regimes … is the rule of law equally applied … or is it a monetary distribution or a totalitarian fear process ?

 

[Isaacsdad]

In Fascist regimes … is the rule of law equally applied … or is it a monetary distribution or a totalitarian fear process ?

Its a xenophobic fear that places blame on perceived outsiders for current social and economic problems.

 

[Dee_Geils]

So the rule of law has nothing to do with the poorest of the poor … or people who do not look like the judges and law librarians?

 

[puzzleannie]

So the rule of law has nothing to do with the poorest of the poor … or people who do not look like the judges and law librarians?

the rule of law should be protecting the poorest of the poor, and those who do not have access to lawyers, judges and law libraries, the most vulnerable, including of course the unborn, and anyone without representation or advocacy on their behalf. If it does not, it is not law, it is tyranny.

 

[Isaacsdad]

So the rule of law has nothing to do with the poorest of the poor … or people who do not look like the judges and law librarians?

What immigrants are essentially asking for is the opportunity to comply with the law.

 

[SanClemente]

do not misread the history of ethnic groups who have emigrated to this country in large numbers.

Don’t you mean to say, “emigrated to this country LEGALLY in large numbers…”

There’s a big difference between standing against illegal immigration and being anti-immigrant. The first does not alway imply the second.

Por ejemplo: nací aquí en los E.E.U.U., pero ha vivido en México. Mi esposa vino a este país legalmente cuando ella era una niña. Ayudé casi una docena empleados nuevos con el proceso de la visa “H1B”. Ojala por el día quando la mayoría de la gente a la misa Español en nuestra parroquia (que parece mí) NO son ilegales.

SanClemente

 

[SanClemente]

In Fascist regimes…

Could you please define what you mean by “Fascist”?

¡Gracias!

SanClemente

 

[puzzleannie]

Don’t you mean to say, “emigrated to this country LEGALLY in large numbers…”

There’s a big difference between standing against illegal immigration and being anti-immigrant. The first does not alway imply the second.

e

the vast majority of people in this country are immigrants or descendents of immigrants. The vast majority of those ancestors came to this country before there were any immigration laws. What I have suggested is that we educate ourselves on this history of immigration law in this country, the reasons and backgrounds for its original enactment, particularly in reference to anti-Boshevism, ethnic, religious and racial prejudice shaping the context in which these laws were enacted.

The entire edifice of immigration law is rotten because its foundation is rotten and based on values and assumptions at odds with the Constitution, as well as the gospel. It cannot be fixed without complete reform of the law from its root, as the bishops have repeatedly called for.

 

[po18guy]

As a Catholic Christian, I believe all human beings are worth giving freedom and dignity … but the rules of law and order need to be addressed. We can’t obey only the laws we agree with …

Shouldn’t the countries where the illegal immigration flows most heavily be encouraged … even expected … to improve life in their own countries for those people most oppressed and impoverished?

Clearly the problem is the Mexican government. I am among both legals and illegals daily under all types of circumstances. To a man, and woman, they fled their homes seeking work.

Mexico is:
Number 1 in the world in silver production.
Number 5 in the world in petroleum production (at today’s prices!).
Number ? in tourism (lots)
Increasing automotive production.
Other industry moving from America.

How come so poor? If our Administration and State Department have let America down, it is in turning a blind eye to the rampant corruption that impoverishes millions of Mexicans, each of whom has the same human dignity as we do. It is there that the problem has its genesis. We could solve it, but lack the spine.

Christ’s peace.

 

[SanClemente]

the vast majority of people in this country are immigrants or descendents [sic] of immigrants.

Yes, true. But note that 88.9% of the people here are native born (2000 census figure) down from 95.3% in the 1970 census.

The vast majority of those ancestors came to this country before there were any immigration laws.

Not true.

Here’s a graph of the number of immigrants to the USA per decade (from Encarta)
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/cha/T373615A.gif

The first immigration laws are the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Every dot on the graph was affected by them and by later legislation. Suggesting that immigration has always been unrestricted until recently is a false argument.

Immigration became more of a legal concern in the latter part of the 19th century, and thus was more restricted. Restrictions increased in the 20th century, especially since 1952, but the numbers keep growing.

It cannot be fixed without complete reform of the law from its root, as the bishops have repeatedly called for.

Perhaps we can start with the suggestions in the CCC:
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. (2241)
SanClemente

 

[AliciaCL]

Excellent try on a CCC draft. However, I’d take out the word “right” to immigrate. There is no such legal or moral right -----adesire perhaps.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Yes, true. But note that 88.9% of the people here are native born (2000 census figure) down from 95.3% in the 1970 census.

Not true.

Here’s a graph of the number of immigrants to the USA per decade (from Encarta)
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/illus/cha/T373615A.gif

The first immigration laws are the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Every dot on the graph was affected by them and by later legislation. Suggesting that immigration has always been unrestricted until recently is a false argument.

Immigration became more of a legal concern in the latter part of the 19th century, and thus was more restricted. Restrictions increased in the 20th century, especially since 1952, but the numbers keep growing.

Those numbers are meaningless unless they are made in comparison to the population of the country. In raw numbers, it would seem that we are being highly generous by allowing so many to enter today, but are we? Add the factor of the population of the United States and a different picture will emerge.

Also, I think it would be enlightening to see the ethnicity of the people being allowed to enter during each peak in immigration numbers.

 

[SanClemente]

Those numbers are meaningless unless they are made in comparison to the population of the country.

Sorry - you’re dangling a red herring. You are trying to make a different point than I was trying to make. To reiterate: Puzzleannie said:
“The vast majority of those ancestors came to this country before there were any immigration laws.”
This graph and the dates of the laws prove her assertion to be false.

SanClemente

 

[SanClemente]

Excellent try on a CCC draft. However, I’d take out the word “right” to immigrate. There is no such legal or moral right -----a desire perhaps.

Sorry - your post is confusing. The text used isn’t a draft, but is an actual quote from the CCC. Go see 2241.

Sorry - I should have embedded a link the first time.

SanClemente

 

[Wirraway]

the rule of law should be protecting the poorest of the poor, and those who do not have access to lawyers, judges and law libraries, the most vulnerable, including of course the unborn, and anyone without representation or advocacy on their behalf. If it does not, it is not law, it is tyranny.

US immigration law is very generous when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, battered spouses, battered children, family preference immigration and, of course, there are the various guarantees in the constitution to procedural and substantive due process.

what you seem to be saying is that if US immigration law doesn’t set immigration quotas high enough to suit you, it is “tyranny”. I would respectfully disagree. “tyranny” is something like, oh, genocide, gas chambers, forced relocation, deportation and confiscations. I mean, do you see a difference of a few magnitudes here? am I off base?