Illegal immigrant rights

[Fremont]

There have been several postings in this forum claiming the Church teaches illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to immigrate and the right to a job.

I suggest it is time to expose the truth. Those who make such claims can post those teachings here so the wording of those supposed teachings could be seen by all of us.

Consider this:

1. A German national is a flight attendant for Lufthansa Air Lines. After landing at a US airport he decides to remain in the US permanently. Maybe he had a disagreement with his employer, maybe he met a lover, maybe he envisions a better life – but for some reasons he makes the decision to remain in the US. He leaves his hotel and enters the local US community. He entered the US legally but very soon he becomes an illegal alien because he violates the terms of his visa, and is an illegal immigrant.

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that his actions to illegally remain in the US based on his personal unilateral decision are not only moral but also his right?

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is moral and just for him to violate any and all US laws that would inhibit or attenuate his actions?

• I do not believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.

1. Now the German illegal wants a job. He obtains various false credentials to get the job of his choice. He presents these false credentials to an employer and completes the I-9 employment form asserting the credentials are valid and that he is eligible to work in the US. He also fills out the W-4 tax form claiming 99 dependents to assure no income taxes will be withheld from his wages. He is using fraud and false witness in this employment process and intends to steal by refusing to pay income taxes.

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is not only moral and just to use fraud and lying to seek a job but also his right?

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is moral and just for him to violate any and all US laws that would inhibit or attenuate his ability to get a job of his choice?

• I do not believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.

1. It takes some period of time for the German illegal to complete the above process and to get settled. So he uses his German credit card for hotels, meals and cash advances. He knows the bill will go to his abandon personality in Germany and will never be paid.

Misusing a credit card in this way is a form of stealing and would normally be considered wrong.

What does the Church teach him, and us, in this case? He is using the credit card to enable his “rights” to immigration and employment. Does that justify the stealing and make it moral?

• I do not believe the Church teaches such stealing is justified or is moral.

How are these “teachings” of the Church to be interpreted?

Does the Church really teach that anyone and everyone in the world has the right to take up residence in the US at will?

Does the Church really teach that anyone and everyone in the world has the right to a job of their choice in the US?

• I do not believe the Church teaches everyone has such rights.

Does the Church discriminate between groups? Does the Church teach that some groups have the right to immigrate to the US at will as well as the right to a job of their choice in the US while other groups are to be denied these rights? If that is the case what criteria does the Church specify to discriminate between the various groups?

• I do not believe the Church teaches such discrimination between groups professing some groups are entitled to secular rights, favors and privileges that are to be denied to other groups.

I am not afraid to be corrected in my beliefs.

I request those who claim such teachings by the Church to post them here, together with any explanations they deem appropriate, for all of us to see.

 

[Jedi_Master]

There have been several postings in this forum claiming the Church teaches illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to immigrate and the right to a job.

Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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.

Consider this:

1. A German national is a flight attendant for Lufthansa Air Lines. After landing at a US airport he decides to remain in the US permanently. Maybe he had a disagreement with his employer, maybe he met a lover, maybe he envisions a better life – but for some reasons he makes the decision to remain in the US. He leaves his hotel and enters the local US community. He entered the US legally but very soon he becomes an illegal alien because he violates the terms of his visa, and is an illegal immigrant.

Germans are not suffering from hunger. Bad example.

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that his actions to illegally remain in the US based on his personal unilateral decision are not only moral but also his right?

Because his desire to stay are not out of necessity. Is he starving? Is his family starving?

1. Now the German illegal wants a job. He obtains various false credentials to get the job of his choice. He presents these false credentials to an employer and completes the I-9 employment form asserting the credentials are valid and that he is eligible to work in the US. He also fills out the W-4 tax form claiming 99 dependents to assure no income taxes will be withheld from his wages. He is using fraud and false witness in this employment process and intends to steal by refusing to pay income taxes.

when one is desperate, they resort to extreme measures to survive. I guess you had a problem with our Pope making out FALSE Baptismal Certificates for Jewish people so that they would not be killed-huh?

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is not only moral and just to use fraud and lying to seek a job but also his right?

I do not think that a poor person that is starving will go to hell because he stole bread for his family and himself. Nor do I believe the Church would believe that.

Does the Church discriminate between groups? Does the Church teach that some groups have the right to immigrate to the US at will as well as the right to a job of their choice in the US while other groups are to be denied these rights? If that is the case what criteria does the Church specify to discriminate between the various groups?

The Church speaks of those in NEED of a better way of life. I have no doubt that if it were the US that was poor and you could not find work and your family was starving, you would cross the border to the other country that was prosperous in order to feed your starving family.

 

[Jeffrey]

Illegal immigrants are not citizens or over here legally… they have no rights IMO.

There have been several postings in this forum claiming the Church teaches illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to immigrate and the right to a job.

I suggest it is time to expose the truth. Those who make such claims can post those teachings here so the wording of those supposed teachings could be seen by all of us.

Consider this:

1. A German national is a flight attendant for Lufthansa Air Lines. After landing at a US airport he decides to remain in the US permanently. Maybe he had a disagreement with his employer, maybe he met a lover, maybe he envisions a better life – but for some reasons he makes the decision to remain in the US. He leaves his hotel and enters the local US community. He entered the US legally but very soon he becomes an illegal alien because he violates the terms of his visa, and is an illegal immigrant.

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that his actions to illegally remain in the US based on his personal unilateral decision are not only moral but also his right?

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is moral and just for him to violate any and all US laws that would inhibit or attenuate his actions?

• I do not believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.

1. Now the German illegal wants a job. He obtains various false credentials to get the job of his choice. He presents these false credentials to an employer and completes the I-9 employment form asserting the credentials are valid and that he is eligible to work in the US. He also fills out the W-4 tax form claiming 99 dependents to assure no income taxes will be withheld from his wages. He is using fraud and false witness in this employment process and intends to steal by refusing to pay income taxes.

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is not only moral and just to use fraud and lying to seek a job but also his right?

What Church teaching tells him, and us, that it is moral and just for him to violate any and all US laws that would inhibit or attenuate his ability to get a job of his choice?

• I do not believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.

1. It takes some period of time for the German illegal to complete the above process and to get settled. So he uses his German credit card for hotels, meals and cash advances. He knows the bill will go to his abandon personality in Germany and will never be paid.

Misusing a credit card in this way is a form of stealing and would normally be considered wrong.

What does the Church teach him, and us, in this case? He is using the credit card to enable his “rights” to immigration and employment. Does that justify the stealing and make it moral?

• I do not believe the Church teaches such stealing is justified or is moral.

How are these “teachings” of the Church to be interpreted?

Does the Church really teach that anyone and everyone in the world has the right to take up residence in the US at will?

Does the Church really teach that anyone and everyone in the world has the right to a job of their choice in the US?

• I do not believe the Church teaches everyone has such rights.

Does the Church discriminate between groups? Does the Church teach that some groups have the right to immigrate to the US at will as well as the right to a job of their choice in the US while other groups are to be denied these rights? If that is the case what criteria does the Church specify to discriminate between the various groups?

• I do not believe the Church teaches such discrimination between groups professing some groups are entitled to secular rights, favors and privileges that are to be denied to other groups.

I am not afraid to be corrected in my beliefs.

I request those who claim such teachings by the Church to post them here, together with any explanations they deem appropriate, for all of us to see.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

There have been several postings in this forum claiming the Church teaches illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to immigrate and the right to a job… .

I think you are misunderstanding; all humans have the right to fair treatment and dignity. No human is to be abused. I have never heard the Church assigning jobs or specifying where a member of the laity is to live. Nor have I read anything on the forum which indicates such,- except for your posting

 

[Fremont]

Catechism:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

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.

Thank you for your support. I could not have done it better myself.

Your posting from our Catechism clearly supports that nations like the US have the right to regulate immigration – and thus there is no one has the “right” to take up residence in another country based on their unilateral decision.

Your post also clearly shows that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of the US or what ever other country they decide to adopt.

Germans are not suffering from hunger. Bad example.

Because his desire to stay are not out of necessity. Is he starving? Is his family starving?

Your statement is likely true but a bit baffling. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant – anyone who enters a country without the necessary permission in violation of that country’s immigration laws. There is nothing in any definition of “illegal immigrant” I have seen that says anything about being hungry.

In fact the US, both via the government and via private citizens, is the most generous in the world to provide aid to those who are hungry or suffering. Any country need simply ask for help from the United Nations or from the US. Even if a country does not ask for help due to its own motives there are numerous charitable organizations, both UN based and privately based, that will intervene and make the request.

when one is desperate, they resort to extreme measures to survive. I guess you had a problem with our Pope making out FALSE Baptismal Certificates for Jewish people so that they would not be killed-huh?

As far as I know the intent of the Pope was to protect lives, not to aid people to achieve material gains and goods.

In the 1940’s the Church also had a policy for fleeing Nazi officials. Protection and aid was provided to them in the form of new, false identities complete with a Vatican passport as well as financial support to aid their flee to places such as South America. As far as I know this too was not a program to aid in the acquisition of material gains and goods.

I do not think that a poor person that is starving will go to hell because he stole bread for his family and himself. Nor do I believe the Church would believe that.

I do not think anyone has said that it is wrong for starving people to steal apiece of bread. Using fraud and bearing false witness to gain a job is a long way from that. As far as I know there are very few starving people who use false credentials and lies to seek a job.

Anyone in the US legally or illegally who is starving has numerous sources for food, shelter and clothing. This includes Catholic Charities as well as many other organizations.

The Church speaks of those in NEED of a better way of life. I have no doubt that if it were the US that was poor and you could not find work and your family was starving, you would cross the border to the other country that was prosperous in order to feed your starving family.

Yes the Church constantly supports those in need. I am not so sure there is support for those who feel they need a “better way of life”. The vast majority of illegal immigrants have a job and are supporting their family in their native country – just as shown in the example I posted. Their way of life might be well below US standards but it might be quite good based on the standards of Somalia or Bangladesh. Just because they may believe a life in the US will be better does not justify illegal immigration or lying and fraud to get a job. A starving person stealing a piece of bread is quite different than someone robbing a bank to get a better way of life.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Illegal immigrants are not citizens or over here legally… they have no rights IMO.

HUMAN BEING have rights. Whether they have documentation or not. I am not arguing to open up our borders but if there is a human life in need of our help, then it is our Christian obligation to help.

 

[Fremont]

I think you are misunderstanding; all humans have the right to fair treatment and dignity. No human is to be abused. I have never heard the Church assigning jobs or specifying where a member of the laity is to live. Nor have I read anything on the forum which indicates such,- except for your posting

Thanks for the posting. I agree with you on the concepts you listed. They are my understanding of our focus as well.

The reason for my thread is that I have observed several postings in various threads of this forum where the contributors claim the Church teaches that all people have a right to immigrate to any country they choose, and particularly to the US, any time they choose with no regard for immigration laws or procedures. Also that the Church teaches that everyone, and particularly illegal immigrants, has a right to a job of their choice regardless of their eligibility or qualifications for that job.

Further claims are that any laws, again particularly US laws, that inhibit at will immigration or securing a job of choice are unjust, immoral and thus can be violated with impunity.

I do not agree with these contributors and my point is to request they post the actual Church teachings that support their claims.

I do not believe there is any basis in Church teaching for their – but I am open to be educated and corrected.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant …

Fremont
This is all you ever say in any of your postings. Can you explain why you have these feelings?

 

[Fremont]

HUMAN BEING have rights. Whether they have documentation or not. I am not arguing to open up our borders but if there is a human life in need of our help, then it is our Christian obligation to help.

Good post. You are right that all people have human rights and that we all should strive to help those in need.

For those in need outside the US our community, both via the government and via private citizens, is the most generous in the world to provide aid to those who are hungry or suffering. Any country need simply ask for help from the United Nations or from the US. Even if a country does not ask for help due to its own motives there are numerous charitable organizations, both UN based and privately based, that will intervene and make the request.

Through our government we provide billions of dollars in foreign aid every year and billions more in private donations and aid.

The US is also a rigorous supporter of human rights everywhere in the world.

Illegal immigration has nothing to do with human rights in my opinion. It is a legal issue not a moral one – other than the immorality of violating US laws.

The US is the most generous country in the world when it comes to immigration as well. We welcome over 1 million legal immigrants from over 200 countries every year. Interestingly, over 80% of those immigrants are from countries whose nationals are generally considered minorities in the US – countries in Latin America, South America, Asia and Africa. And, legal immigrants from Mexico are provided to most preference with the highest number of legal immigrants of any country, over twice as many as from any other country.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Thank you for your support. I could not have done it better myself.

Your posting from our Catechism clearly supports that nations like the US have the right to regulate immigration – and thus there is no one has the “right” to take up residence in another country based on their unilateral decision.

Your post also clearly shows that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of the US or what ever other country they decide to adopt…

they are obliged to respect the laws when they ARE HERE. How can you argue that they not be here yet argue that when they are here to respect the laws? Makes no sense. The Church is teaching that these humans being seeking to survive are to be welcomed and if they are here they are to respect the laws that all the citizens follow.

Your statement is likely true but a bit baffling. An illegal immigrant is an illegal immigrant – anyone who enters a country without the necessary permission in violation of that country’s immigration laws. There is nothing in any definition of “illegal immigrant” I have seen that says anything about being hungry…

The topic is what the Church teaches. The catechism clearly defends these human beings that come into the country to survive.

In fact the US, both via the government and via private citizens, is the most generous in the world to provide aid to those who are hungry or suffering. Any country need simply ask for help from the United Nations or from the US. Even if a country does not ask for help due to its own motives there are numerous charitable organizations, both UN based and privately based, that will intervene and make the request. There have been several postings in this forum claiming the Church teaches illegal immigrants have rights such as the right to immigrate and the right to a job.

The most generous? No it is not. One of the most, yes. Again, you asked us defend the Church’s defense of immigrants entering a country without proper documentation in order to survive, and I have provided the documentation.

 

[Jedi_Master]

As far as I know the intent of the Pope was to protect lives, not to aid people to achieve material gains and goods.

In the 1940’s the Church also had a policy for fleeing Nazi officials. Protection and aid was provided to them in the form of new, false identities complete with a Vatican passport as well as financial support to aid their flee to places such as South America. As far as I know this too was not a program to aid in the acquisition of material gains and goods.

What Pope? What is your documentation of this claim?
As far as I know and according to the real EVIDENCE that is available, the Church produced false passports with Spain to help save Jews.
“some of the Latin American countries retracted from accepting the validity of the faked passports. The Vatican, on January 24, 1944, interceded with the Latin American governments asking them to recognize the passports “no matter how illegally obtained”, and the humanitarian operation proceeded. Brazil gave 3,000 enter visas. Paraguay, Chile and others South American countries were also very receptive to the Pope’s pleas in favor of the Jews.”
freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1300668/posts

Some people believe that the Church should not have given false Baptismal Certificates. They argue that Baptism is a Holy Sacrament and that the Church has no business handing out certificates that represent on of our Holiest Sacraments.

I do not think anyone has said that it is wrong for starving people to steal apiece of bread. Using fraud and bearing false witness to gain a job is a long way from that. As far as I know there are very few starving people who use false credentials and lies to seek a job.

using fraud to WORK and feed themselves is a means to feeding their family and themselves. There is one thing to use someone else’e SSN or ID to work, and it is completely different thing to use someone else’s identification to steal money, make false credit cards, etc…

Anyone in the US legally or illegally who is starving has numerous sources for food, shelter and clothing. This includes Catholic Charities as well as many other organizations.

but according to you they do not have the right to it. So why even bring it up?

Yes the Church constantly supports those in need. I am not so sure there is support for those who feel they need a “better way of life”. The vast majority of illegal immigrants have a job and are supporting their family in their native country – just as shown in the example I posted. Their way of life might be well below US standards but it might be quite good based on the standards of Somalia or Bangladesh. Just because they may believe a life in the US will be better does not justify illegal immigration or lying and fraud to get a job. A starving person stealing a piece of bread is quite different than someone robbing a bank to get a better way of life.

The Catechism clearly states my point. Your personal bias and political stance does not allow you to accept it. And I can live with it. But what I cannot live with is a Catholic arguing the Church does not stand for human being to enter a country illegally in order to survive and provide for themselves nothing more than food and a roof over their heads.

 

[Jedi_Master]

We welcome over 1 million legal immigrants from over 200 countries every year. Interestingly, over 80% of those immigrants are from countries whose nationals are generally considered minorities in the US – countries in Latin America, South America, Asia and Africa. And, legal immigrants from Mexico are provided to most preference with the highest number of legal immigrants of any country, over twice as many as from any other country.

Mexico has the most preference? Last time I checked they had the least. Can you provide your source to that please? thanks!

 

[Fremont]

Mexico has the most preference? Last time I checked they had the least. Can you provide your source to that please? thanks!

Sure.

They are the official government figures provided by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (formerly the INS).

Last year, 2005, of the about 1.1 million legal immigrants to the US, immigration from Mexico was about 161,000.

The next largest was from India at about 84,000, followed by China at about 70,000 and the Philippines at about 60,000.

In comparison, immigration from the UK was less than 20,000. The total for all of Europe was about 176,000 – only slightly more than Mexico alone.

Totals from Latin America, South America, Asia and Africa were over 900,000 or about 81% of the total.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Sure.

They are the official government figures provided by U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (formerly the INS).

Last year, 2005, of the about 1.1 million legal immigrants to the US, immigration from Mexico was about 161,000.

The next largest was from India at about 84,000, followed by China at about 70,000 and the Philippines at about 60,000.

In comparison, immigration from the UK was less than 20,000. The total for all of Europe was about 176,000 – only slightly more than Mexico alone.

Totals from Latin America, South America, Asia and Africa were over 900,000 or about 81% of the total.

Let’s look at the numbers closely:
considering that the population of Mexico was 103.1 million in 2005. Central America 30 million. South America which is about 400 million now include the countries:Brazil,Colombia,Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay,The Guianas

so according to these numbers I do not think they are proportionate nor is Mexico favored as you pain it to be

 

[Fremont]

Fremont
This is all you ever say in any of your postings. Can you explain why you have these feelings?

I will try.

What I am trying to say is that an illegal immigrant is anyone who has taken up residency in the US without permission of the government, anyone who has not gone through the standard immigration process.

That includes those who have entered the US in a clandestine manner such as at a border area not a point of entry, in a shipping container, entered using false credentials and those who have taken up residency in violation of their visa. There may be some other routes but I think that covers most of them.

I believe all illegal immigrants should be viewed pretty much the same and they all have violated our immigration laws.

Due to their illegal status I believe most violate other laws too – such as employment laws and tax laws.

I do not know if I have answered your question adequately. If not give me a hint at what you are seeking and I will try again.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

People leave their home and family to travel for work, their work improves the living standards of a person named Fremont. Yet Fremont is terribly upset about it -why?

 

[Fremont]

Let’s look at the numbers closely:
considering that the population of Mexico was 103.1 million in 2005. Central America 30 million. South America which is about 400 million now include the countries:Brazil,Colombia,Argentina, Peru, Venezuela, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay,The Guianas

so according to these numbers I do not think they are proportionate nor is Mexico favored as you pain it to be

First of all let us note that the immigration policy of the US is to strive for diversity and to provide for immigration from many different countries, more than 200 countries last year. The goal is not necessarily equality.

Not all countries have the same populations or the same number of potential immigrants. Our government also considers what is in the best interests of the US. With all this in mind an annual total target is established and quotas are set for various countries. This may not be a perfect model but I believe the objective and process are fair and just.

I am not quite sure what you are driving at but maybe it is how many immigrants are welcomed to the US in comparison to the total population of their country of origin?

If so then we have –

Immigrants from Mexico were about 161,000 from a population of 103.1 million. That is between 0.15 and 0.16%.

Immigrants from the Philippines were about 60,000 from a population of 83 million. That is about 0.07%

Immigrants from the UK were less than 20,000 from a population of about 60 million. That is about 0.03%

Immigrants from India were about 84,000 from a population of 1.1 billion. That is about 0.008%

This shows that preference for Mexico is over twice that for the Philippines, more than 5 times that for the UK, and about 20 times that for India.

To me this illustrates the significant preference for Mexico both in absolute numbers as well as the percentage of the national population.

Did I miss your point? If so maybe you can help me understand how you see Mexico as being treated unfairly.

 

[Jeffrey]

Only if they are here legally… if not… deport them. Illegals have no rights here.

The topic is what the Church teaches. The catechism clearly defends these human beings that come into the country to survive.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… deport them…

People are deported every day

… Illegals have no rights here…

Are you supporting vigilante justice?

 

[Jedi_Master]

First of all let us note that the immigration policy of the US is to strive for diversity and to provide for immigration from many different countries, more than 200 countries last year. The goal is not necessarily equality.

Not all countries have the same populations or the same number of potential immigrants. Our government also considers what is in the best interests of the US. With all this in mind an annual total target is established and quotas are set for various countries. This may not be a perfect model but I believe the objective and process are fair and just.

I am not quite sure what you are driving at but maybe it is how many immigrants are welcomed to the US in comparison to the total population of their country of origin?

If so then we have –

Immigrants from Mexico were about 161,000 from a population of 103.1 million. That is between 0.15 and 0.16%.

Immigrants from the Philippines were about 60,000 from a population of 83 million. That is about 0.07%

Immigrants from the UK were less than 20,000 from a population of about 60 million. That is about 0.03%

Immigrants from India were about 84,000 from a population of 1.1 billion. That is about 0.008%

This shows that preference for Mexico is over twice that for the Philippines, more than 5 times that for the UK, and about 20 times that for India.

To me this illustrates the significant preference for Mexico both in absolute numbers as well as the percentage of the national population.

Did I miss your point? If so maybe you can help me understand how you see Mexico as being treated unfairly.

you are right. It has to be fair. I just think that special programs like lotteries and such should be allowed to Mexican citizens as well, but they are not. In case you do not know, When people are caught at the border by INS, once they determine they are from Central or South America they are given a 2 week pass to be in the country but at the end of 2 weeks they need to return. Guess what they do? they stay. So again, is the system completely fair? Not really. But without getting to off topic, the CHURCH defends humans entering a country illegally when it is a matter of survival.