Illegal immigrant rights

[Ituyu]

Sorry, I’m not sold. As this is the same USCCB that has told people that the orans posture is not only permissable, but REQUIRED, despite the contrary being declared by Rome.

You didn’t provide a reference for this claim but perhaps this will save you some time:
At their November 2001 meeting, the bishops discussed “adaptations” to the new Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani (or GIRM) of the new Missal (reported in AB February 2002). The proposal to introduce the orans posture for the people was not included even as an option in the US’ “adaptations” to the GIRM.
Furthermore, the bishops did not forbid hand-holding, either, even though the BCL originally suggested this in 1995. The reason? A bishop said that hand-holding was a common practice in African-American groups and to forbid it would be considered insensitive.
Thus, in the end, all reference to any posture of the hands during the Our Father was omitted in the US-adapted GIRM. The orans posture is not only not required by the new GIRM, it is not even mentioned.
http://www.adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

I am not answerable to the USCCB, I am answerable to God, and of the church that Christ founded, I am bound by the Magisterium and the Holy Father.

Yes, agreed! All Roman Catholics are bound by the teaching authority of the Pope. I have previously cited Papal Encyclicals which no one has shown have been violated by the USCCB’s advocacy.

The USCCB can say what they want, that does not make it official church teaching, and they can violate the rubrics all they want, as individuals they will be held accountable at the time of their judgement, but individuals aside, the church will endure.

As far as :”Orans Posture” you give no reason to accept you premise. Secondly, since you say that you are “bound by the Magisterium and the Holy Father”. One would presume that you feel that our Pope would come to the same conclusion as you that the advocacy is not in keeping with Church Teaching and is therefore “wrong”. Please provide your reasoning and references.

…its America that I think is going to implode as we try to weaken our government more and more every day.

AGAIN, you’ve failed to support your arguments. In fact, most of what you’ve posted appears to be nothing more than your misunderstanding of the facts that you’ve presented thus far. Thought I’d give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[TimOliv]

I never claimed that the orans posture appears in the GIRM. What I said was that the USCCB had, in the past, incorrectly stated that the sacramentary would contain such provisions. I cite as source…

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

Now then, I never said that the USCCB in its advocacy is violating any papal mandate of any kind, I’m afraid that is a liberty you took all on your own. What I said was that I feel the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy. I said this after you had hotly implied that it was wrong of me to disagree with the USCCB. So in essence, you inferred from my statement that I felt the USCCB was violating Rome. This is not the case. What I said, simply, was that the USCCB is NOT Rome and just because they say something, does not mean I need to agree with it.

To further prevent any, shall we say, rash inferences, I will elaborate. The USCCB is addressing a political matter. To be more specific, they, as every Bishop in their respective bishopric does, are providing moral guidance for Catholics affected by these matters. However, this guidance does not constitute canon law, and I, whether you like it or not, am not obligated as a Catholic to subscribe to it (in whole or in part) if I do not wish to.

Now, I will address the topic at hand. I direct your attention to SA 3985, a recently defeated bill which would have permitted immigrants to collect SS Benefits for years they were here illegally (but are now legal).

Apparently all of you think that the injustices I am speaking of end when an illegal immigrant receives a green card. If you are here illegally for 10 years, then become legal, those 10 years should NOT count for the purpose of calculating SS benefits. Sorry gents, that’s my money you are wishing away which, quite frankly, I’d rather see being used to make sure my senior citizen neighbors receive medications or my unwed mothers down the street receive healthcare.

Why do I oppose such advocacy? Because it is such advocacy that brought about bills such as 3985.

Somewhere in this cry for more rights for illegal immigrants, we are proposing laws which violate the rights of native born americans and legal immigrants.

In reply to Texas Roofer who feels that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers are still contributing to our society because Social Security is still witheld from them regardless of the validity of their SSN…

news.bostonherald.com/immigration/view.bg?articleid=144979
There is one issue…

…but if they are getting paid under the table, why get the fake SSN? Well I’m sure they go to good use on welfare forms…

eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=7050

But why bother? Have a kid in the U.S. and you can collect all you want…
texnews.com/texas97/illegal112297.html

Or maybe, Ituyu, you are absolutely right…shucks, I don’t seem to have a source for that statement…

 

[Jedi_Master]

I never claimed that the orans posture appears in the GIRM. What I said was that the USCCB had, in the past, incorrectly stated that the sacramentary would contain such provisions. I cite as source…

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

Now then, I never said that the USCCB in its advocacy is violating any papal mandate of any kind, I’m afraid that is a liberty you took all on your own. What I said was that I feel the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy. I said this after you had hotly implied that it was wrong of me to disagree with the USCCB. So in essence, you inferred from my statement that I felt the USCCB was violating Rome. This is not the case. What I said, simply, was that the USCCB is NOT Rome and just because they say something, does not mean I need to agree with it.

To further prevent any, shall we say, rash inferences, I will elaborate. The USCCB is addressing a political matter. To be more specific, they, as every Bishop in their respective bishopric does, are providing moral guidance for Catholics affected by these matters. However, this guidance does not constitute canon law, and I, whether you like it or not, am not obligated as a Catholic to subscribe to it (in whole or in part) if I do not wish to.

Now, I will address the topic at hand. I direct your attention to SA 3985, a recently defeated bill which would have permitted immigrants to collect SS Benefits for years they were here illegally (but are now legal).

Apparently all of you think that the injustices I am speaking of end when an illegal immigrant receives a green card. If you are here illegally for 10 years, then become legal, those 10 years should NOT count for the purpose of calculating SS benefits. Sorry gents, that’s my money you are wishing away which, quite frankly, I’d rather see being used to make sure my senior citizen neighbors receive medications or my unwed mothers down the street receive healthcare.

Why do I oppose such advocacy? Because it is such advocacy that brought about bills such as 3985.

Somewhere in this cry for more rights for illegal immigrants, we are proposing laws which violate the rights of native born americans and legal immigrants.

In reply to Texas Roofer who feels that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers are still contributing to our society because Social Security is still witheld from them regardless of the validity of their SSN…

news.bostonherald.com/immigration/view.bg?articleid=144979
There is one issue…

…but if they are getting paid under the table, why get the fake SSN? Well I’m sure they go to good use on welfare forms…

eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=7050

But why bother? Have a kid in the U.S. and you can collect all you want…
texnews.com/texas97/illegal112297.html

Or maybe, Ituyu, you are absolutely right…shucks, I don’t seem to have a source for that statement…

Rather amazing how some Catholics can argue they do not have to follow our Church leaders but will bend over backwards for their political party politicians. It is sad. Very sad. What is even sadder is that the founding fathers of this country fled Europe to seek a better life and freedom. They arrived and began to starve and die. The indigenous came to their rescue and helped them survive their first winter. Now, there are people here seeking the exact same thing but they are met with vigilantes holding assault weapons and demanding they get their food from somewhere else. God will bring justice to this. Mark my words.

 

[TimOliv]

Rather amazing how some Catholics can argue they do not have to follow our Church leaders but will bend over backwards for their political party politicians. It is sad. Very sad. What is even sadder is that the founding fathers of this country fled Europe to seek a better life and freedom. They arrived and began to starve and die. The indigenous came to their rescue and helped them survive their first winter. Now, there are people here seeking the exact same thing but they are met with vigilantes holding assault weapons and demanding they get their food from somewhere else. God will bring justice to this. Mark my words.

No one has advocated not following church leaders. The USCCB is not dictating faith, they are releasing the opinions of the member-Bishops. This does not constitute something I am required by the church to agree with fully. The church does not forbid opinions.

I should also note that the founding fathers you speak of ate the food so graciously offered them, then proceeded to enslave those indigenous people and take their land. But not before offering them such treasures as glass beads and syphilis.

And the Trojans just thought they were getting a neat new horse…

 

[Ituyu]

I never claimed that the orans posture appears in the GIRM. What I said was that the USCCB had, in the past, incorrectly stated that the sacramentary would contain such provisions. I cite as source…

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

Now then, I never said that the USCCB in its advocacy is violating any papal mandate of any kind, I’m afraid that is a liberty you took all on your own. What I said was that I feel the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy. I said this after you had hotly implied that it was wrong of me to disagree with the USCCB. So in essence, you inferred from my statement that I felt the USCCB was violating Rome. This is not the case. What I said, simply, was that the USCCB is NOT Rome and just because they say something, does not mean I need to agree with it.

To further prevent any, shall we say, rash inferences, I will elaborate. The USCCB is addressing a political matter. To be more specific, they, as every Bishop in their respective bishopric does, are providing moral guidance for Catholics affected by these matters. However, this guidance does not constitute canon law, and I, whether you like it or not, am not obligated as a Catholic to subscribe to it (in whole or in part) if I do not wish to.

Now, I will address the topic at hand. I direct your attention to SA 3985, a recently defeated bill which would have permitted immigrants to collect SS Benefits for years they were here illegally (but are now legal).

Apparently all of you think that the injustices I am speaking of end when an illegal immigrant receives a green card. If you are here illegally for 10 years, then become legal, those 10 years should NOT count for the purpose of calculating SS benefits. Sorry gents, that’s my money you are wishing away which, quite frankly, I’d rather see being used to make sure my senior citizen neighbors receive medications or my unwed mothers down the street receive healthcare.

Why do I oppose such advocacy? Because it is such advocacy that brought about bills such as 3985.

Somewhere in this cry for more rights for illegal immigrants, we are proposing laws which violate the rights of native born americans and legal immigrants.

In reply to Texas Roofer who feels that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers are still contributing to our society because Social Security is still witheld from them regardless of the validity of their SSN…

news.bostonherald.com/immigration/view.bg?articleid=144979
There is one issue…

…but if they are getting paid under the table, why get the fake SSN? Well I’m sure they go to good use on welfare forms…

eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=7050

But why bother? Have a kid in the U.S. and you can collect all you want…
texnews.com/texas97/illegal112297.html

Or maybe, Ituyu, you are absolutely right…shucks, I don’t seem to have a source for that statement…

 

[Ituyu]

I never claimed that the orans posture appears in the GIRM. What I said was that the USCCB had, in the past, incorrectly stated that the sacramentary would contain such provisions. I cite as source…adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

“Sorry, I’m not sold. As this is the same USCCB that has told people that the orans posture is not only permissable, but REQUIRED, despite the contrary being declared by Rome.” TimOliv.

Look it’s late so I’ll answer the portion relating to the Orans Posture and the USCCB now and the rest later.

Initially you said:

“Sorry, I’m not sold. As this is the same USCCB that has told people that the orans posture is not only permissable, but REQUIRED, despite the contrary being declared by Rome.” TimOliv.

I understood this to mean that the USCCB had gone against Rome and thus violated Papal mandates on the Orans. This too I understood as evidence as to why you need not follow the teachings of the Church from the USCCB.

Now, you say that your Orans Posture statement referred to the Sacramentary not the GIRM.

Well the reference we both quote proves that the Orans Posture was neither required in the Sacramentary, as it was never approved by Rome or in the GIRM.

"This 1999 BCL comment stated, in part:
No position is prescribed in the present Sacramentary for an assembly gesture during the Lord’s Prayer. While the recently approved revised Sacramentary does provide for the use of the orans gesture by members of the assembly during the Lord’s Prayer, the revised Sacramentary may not be used until it has been confirmed by the Holy See. I might also note that in the course of its discussion of … this question, the Bishops’ Committee on the Liturgy expressed a strong preference for the orans gesture over the holding of hands since the focus of the Lord’s Prayer is a prayer to the Father and not primarily an expression of community and fellowship.

Unfortunately, however, this outdated and misleading comment on the USCCB web site was never removed. It was still there as of October 28, 2003.
The Sacramentary revision, however, was not only replaced by the new Roman Missal, but it was officially and specifically rejected by the Holy See after the new Missal appeared.
“Thus, in the end, all reference to any posture of the hands during the Our Father was omitted in the US-adapted GIRM. The orans posture is not only not required by the new GIRM, it is not even mentioned*”*

adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html

 

[Ituyu]

Now then, I never said that the USCCB in its advocacy is violating any papal mandate of any kind, I’m afraid that is a liberty you took all on your own. What I said was that I feel the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy. I said this after you had hotly implied that it was wrong of me to disagree with the USCCB. So in essence, you inferred from my statement that I felt the USCCB was violating Rome. This is not the case. What I said, simply, was that the USCCB is NOT Rome and just because they say something, does not mean I need to agree with it.

Well my question to you was this:

*“*So are you saying that the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy and wrong on the basis of Church teachings?”

**TimOliv says, “**Yes, I feel that the USCCB is wrong in its advocacy.”

This is where the problem occurs. I understood your reply to answer both parts of the question.

To further prevent any, shall we say, rash inferences, I will elaborate. The USCCB is addressing a political matter. To be more specific, they, as every Bishop in their respective bishopric does, are providing moral guidance for Catholics affected by these matters. However, this guidance does not constitute canon law, and I, whether you like it or not, am not obligated as a Catholic to subscribe to it (in whole or in part) if I do not wish to.

I understand that part and your are correct if the USCCB was acting indepedently of Rome. However, the USCCB in this instance is following the Teachings of the Church, teachings that have been expressed through a number of Papal Encyclicals.

While I agree that the USCCB is not the Pope, I do not agree that we can just dismiss the Social Justice Teachings of the Church as they come through the USCCB from the Popes. And, I would agree that the USCCB’s advocacy does not violate any papal mandate and is therefore NOT wrong. It seems that you don’t really disagree with the advocacy, you just don’t recognize the USCCB as THE teaching authority. You’re right, it’s not. However, I feel that the USCCB’s advocacy is consistent with Pope mandates and with Canon Law.

“In the Catholic Church, positive ecclesiastical laws, based upon either immutable divine and natural law, or changeable circumstantial and merely positive law, derive formal authority and promulgation from the Pope, who as Supreme Pontiff possesses the totality of legislative, executive, and judicial power in his person. As such, the actual subject material of the canons is not just doctrinal or moral in nature, but indeed all-encompassing of the human condition”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law

 

[Fremont]

This forum is supposed to be about immigration. Yet there seems to be a great deal of flap about the authority of the USCCB over the faithful and/or anybody else.

There is no authority.

There is no obligation for any bishop to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB. There is no obligation for any priest to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB. There is no obligation for any of the faithful to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB.

Any bishop, any priest, any of the faithful may choose to voluntarily accept and/or follow any message or teaching from the USCCB – but that is voluntary and not obligatory.

I guess a priest may obligated by obedience if his bishop voluntarily adopts a message or teaching of the USCCB and then orders the priest to do so as well. But that does not apply to the faithful.

This does not make the USCCB wrong, nor does it make the USCCB right.

If any message or teaching from the USCCB is consistent, or inconsistent, with the teachings of Rome that does not give that message or teaching any more authority.

If some wish to view any message or teaching from the USCCB as consistent with their personal views and/or interpretations of Catholic teaching and/or the teaching of Rome they can adopt that message or teaching.

If some view any message or teaching from the USCCB as inconsistent with their personal views and/or interpretations of Catholic teaching and/or the teaching of Rome they are free to reject that message or teaching.

We are all obligated to follow our conscience. Even if that conscience is misinformed or misguided our obligation is still to follow our conscience.

 

[Ituyu]

This forum is supposed to be about immigration. Yet there seems to be a great deal of flap about the authority of the USCCB over the faithful and/or anybody else.

There is no authority.

There is no obligation for any bishop to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB. There is no obligation for any priest to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB. There is no obligation for any of the faithful to accept or follow any message or teaching of the USCCB.

Any bishop, any priest, any of the faithful may choose to voluntarily accept and/or follow any message or teaching from the USCCB – but that is voluntary and not obligatory.

I guess a priest may obligated by obedience if his bishop voluntarily adopts a message or teaching of the USCCB and then orders the priest to do so as well. But that does not apply to the faithful.

This does not make the USCCB wrong, nor does it make the USCCB right.

If any message or teaching from the USCCB is consistent, or inconsistent, with the teachings of Rome that does not give that message or teaching any more authority.

If some wish to view any message or teaching from the USCCB as consistent with their personal views and/or interpretations of Catholic teaching and/or the teaching of Rome they can adopt that message or teaching.

If some view any message or teaching from the USCCB as inconsistent with their personal views and/or interpretations of Catholic teaching and/or the teaching of Rome they are free to reject that message or teaching.

We are all obligated to follow our conscience. Even if that conscience is misinformed or misguided our obligation is still to follow our conscience.

The authority comes from Church Social Teaching which stems from Tradition through the Pope. It does not from the USCCB as it is bound by the Magisterium and faithfulness to the Holy Father. The Moral teachings comes from the Pope. There is nothing in the USCCB advocacy that is inconsistent with Papal mandates or that the Pope himself would declare as “wrong”. But, there is plenty in the political measures that are inconsistent with moral Church Social Justice Teaching on the Poor, Human Rights, Natural Law as expressed, for example, in Laborem Exercens, Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus. These are very clear teachings. We do have to follow our conscience but we also have an obligation to strive to understand Church Teachings. Otherwise, for example, the Scandal would be meaningless as we would have to accept that they were merely following their own conscience, no foul, no sin and no corrective measures. I’m just an ordinary lay person, not even from a Catholic home, but I cannot see how ignorance is an excuse to choose to ignore my responsibilities and obligations as a Catholic, just as in secular law, I cannot use “Ignorance of the law” as an excuse to violate Just laws. Furthermore, I do not have to rely on Church Teaching to determine that our Immigration Policies do not work and that the system needs equitible and fair reforms that make economic sense. Enforcement Only or severely restrictive policies are not only unfair but are contrary to economic common sense.

 

[Ituyu]

Now, I will address the topic at hand. I direct your attention to SA 3985, a recently defeated bill which would have permitted immigrants to collect SS Benefits for years they were here illegally (but are now legal).

This is the first time you mention this and you’ve never cited a source. The bill failed.

You’ve made three other statements about Social Security thus far and unfortunately none of your citations addresses the Social Security issue. The first talks about the “exploitation” of “illegal” immigrants. The second, talks about various costs but nothing about Social Security and the third, talks about “illegal” head of households with citizen children.

“When an immigrant can receive Social Security benefits for time he was in the country illegally, time in which he was not paying into the system, mind you, that is not fair to the people who were working, paying their taxes and paying into Social Security and OBEYING THE LAW.”

“Apparently all of you think that the injustices I am speaking of end when an illegal immigrant receives a green card. If you are here illegally for 10 years, then become legal, those 10 years should NOT count for the purpose of calculating SS benefits. Sorry gents, that’s my money you are wishing away which, quite frankly”

“In reply to Texas Roofer who feels that illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers are still contributing to our society because Social Security is still witheld from them regardless of the validity of their SSN…”

But why bother? Have a kid in the U.S. and you can collect all you want…
http://www.texnews.com/texas97/illegal112297.html
Or maybe, Ituyu, you are absolutely right…shucks, I don’t seem to have a source for that statement…

Out of 50,000 families you cite 89 people who abused the system. So you would punish 49, 011 families of citizen children because of 89?

Question. What Federal agency was responsible for this study?

Here’s a source for you:

"
Starting in the late 1980’s, the Social Security Administration received a flood of W-2 earnings reports with incorrect - sometimes simply fictitious - Social Security numbers. It stashed them in what it calls the “earnings suspense file” in the hope that someday it would figure out whom they belonged to.
The file has been mushrooming ever since: $189 billion worth of wages ended up recorded in the suspense file over the 1990’s, two and a half times the amount of the 1980’s.
In the current decade, the file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 billion to $7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?ei=5090&en=78c87ac4641dc383&ex=1270353600&partner=kmarx&pagewanted=all&position

 

[Fremont]

The authority comes from Church Social Teaching which stems from Tradition through the Pope. It does not from the USCCB as it is bound by the Magisterium and faithfulness to the Holy Father. The Moral teachings comes from the Pope. There is nothing in the USCCB advocacy that is inconsistent with Papal mandates or that the Pope himself would declare as “wrong”. But, there is plenty in the political measures that are inconsistent with moral Church Social Justice Teaching on the Poor, Human Rights, Natural Law as expressed, for example, in Laborem Exercens, Rerum Novarum and Centesimus Annus. These are very clear teachings. We do have to follow our conscience but we also have an obligation to strive to understand Church Teachings. Otherwise, for example, the Scandal would be meaningless as we would have to accept that they were merely following their own conscience, no foul, no sin and no corrective measures. I’m just an ordinary lay person, not even from a Catholic home, but I cannot see how ignorance is an excuse to choose to ignore my responsibilities and obligations as a Catholic, just as in secular law, I cannot use “Ignorance of the law” as an excuse to violate Just laws. Furthermore, I do not have to rely on Church Teaching to determine that our Immigration Policies do not work and that the system needs equitible and fair reforms that make economic sense. Enforcement Only or severely restrictive policies are not only unfair but are contrary to economic common sense.

The USCCB has not been delegated authority over the faithful from the Pope, the Magisterium or anything or anyone else. They have no authority over you, me, the bishops or anyone else. You may see blind obedience to the USCCB as your ticket to heaven and that is your affair. Certainly the US bishops do not share your view and have chosen repeatedly to ignore the USCCB when any message does not suit their agenda.

I am not sure if the USCCB has or has not made statements inconsistent with Church teaching – I would hope not. But they do offer their interpretations of those teachings, which are certainly not the only interpretations, and not even necessarily the best interpretations.

Following our conscience is a serious matter and obligation. However we are subject to punishment if those actions violate the law or moral standards – even if those actions were made in good conscience. An evil act is still just that even if it is done in accord with an ignorant or misinformed conscience. If you wish to learn more about that major point you can check Veritatis splendor by JP II. He covers it in more detail and more skillfully than I can.

When it comes to illegal immigration it is my opinion that the USCCB has chosen to interpret Church teachings in a bias way to fit an agenda I do not agree with.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that promotes or supports illegal immigration to the US.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to ignore requirements for a passport and visa or other laws concerning entry to the US – or any other country.

I so not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the unilateral right to immigrate to the US regardless of or in spite of US laws.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to lie, cheat and steal in their pursuit of material gains.

 

[Ituyu]

When it comes to illegal immigration it is my opinion that the USCCB has chosen to interpret Church teachings in a bias way to fit an agenda I do not agree with.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that promotes or supports illegal immigration to the US.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to ignore requirements for a passport and visa or other laws concerning entry to the US – or any other country.

I so not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the unilateral right to immigrate to the US regardless of or in spite of US laws.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to lie, cheat and steal in their pursuit of material gains.

Blind obedience? Hardly, it doesn’t take much to realize that the USCCB is acting in concert with what the Church teaches. The major point where we can disagree is not what we are called to do as Catholics but how. However, we choose it must be consistent with what our Church teaches.

Here are some simple to understand excerpts from Pacem It Terris (Peace on Earth). This but one example of what the Popes have said that applies to all people.

1. Any human society, if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature.[7] And as these rights and obligations are universal and inviolable so they cannot in any way be surrendered.
2. Beginning our discussion of the rights of man, we see that every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services. Therefore a human being also has the right to security in cases of sickness, inability to work, widowhood, old age, unemployment, or in any other case in which he is deprived of the means of subsistence through no fault of his own.[8]
3. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere it is clear that man has a right by the natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion.[14]
4. Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.[22] The fact that one is a citizen of a particular State does not detract in any way from his membership in the human family as a whole, nor from his citizenship in the world community.

Encyclical Letter Of Pope John XXIII On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity And Liberty Promulgated on 11 April 1963.

---

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/I23PACEM.HTM

Proceduress that would deny those already here the basic rights described here on an abitrary quota system don’t seem to be consistent with Catholic Teaching. I remind you that we made up an arbitrary number which was contradictory to our actural needs for labor. There was never a good reason to deprive the vast majority of these people the opportunity to come here to work and settle here.

Branding someone as “Illegal” too is inconsistent with Church Teaching as it denies the person is a citizen of the Human Family. There is no such thing as an “illegal” person, we’re all EQUAL.

What ever your conscience tells you, it cant re-write or change Church Teachings.

 

[wabrams]

Blind obedience? Hardly, it doesn’t take much to realize that the USCCB is acting in concert with what the Church teaches. The major point where we can disagree is not what we are called to do as Catholics but how. However, we choose it must be consistent with what our Church teaches.

Here are some simple to understand excerpts from Pacem It Terris (Peace on Earth). This but one example of what the Popes have said that applies to all people.

1. Any human society, if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature.[7] And as these rights and obligations are universal and inviolable so they cannot in any way be surrendered.
2. Beginning our discussion of the rights of man, we see that every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services. Therefore a human being also has the right to security in cases of sickness, inability to work, widowhood, old age, unemployment, or in any other case in which he is deprived of the means of subsistence through no fault of his own.[8]
3. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere it is clear that man has a right by the natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion.[14]
4. Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.[22] The fact that one is a citizen of a particular State does not detract in any way from his membership in the human family as a whole, nor from his citizenship in the world community.

Encyclical Letter Of Pope John XXIII On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity And Liberty Promulgated on 11 April 1963.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/I23PACEM.HTM

Proceduress that would deny those already here the basic rights described here on an abitrary quota system don’t seem to be consistent with Catholic Teaching. I remind you that we made up an arbitrary number which was contradictory to our actural needs for labor. There was never a good reason to deprive the vast majority of these people the opportunity to come here to work and settle here.

Branding someone as “Illegal” too is inconsistent with Church Teaching as it denies the person is a citizen of the Human Family. There is no such thing as an “illegal” person, we’re all EQUAL.

What ever your conscience tells you, it cant re-write or change Church Teachings.

Funny, beacuse that’s what you are doing. Nowhere in what you quoted does it say it’s ok to break just laws to achieve those points you mentioned.

 

[Ituyu]

Funny, beacuse that’s what you are doing. Nowhere in what you quoted does it say it’s ok to break just laws to achieve those points you mentioned.

We’ve been through this before Wabrams. We didn’t have a legitimate reason to deny “legal” entry to the vast majority of the “illegal” in our midst. We contradicted the economic laws of Supply and Demand that created this “illegal” population. We intentionally and arbitrarily set unreasonably low quotas. Though their immigration does bring with them a set of challenges, we are better off having them here than we would be without them. Had they been allowed entry, those challenges could have been mitigated. Our current immigration policies were designed to qualify and allow people just like most of them. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to deny them the ability to work and settle here no matter how one cares to evaluate the situation. Unless of course, one bases their rationale on ulterior motives and fear. Just laws do not deny the “inviolable rights” of those who came here to satisfy their right and obligation to work and who, in the balance, have caused no harm. Thus no “Just” laws have been violated by the vast majority of them. Yet, none of the measures discussed would grant them “Amnesty”. They involve the paying of fines, a waiting period prior to applying for Permanent Residency and Citizenship, back payments of taxes along with other requisites.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks Tim
Please consider posting these replies as an independent post as I missed this several times before reading it under the USCCB

…
In reply to Texas Roofer ***who feels that ***illegal immigrants using fake social security numbers are still contributing to our society because Social Security is still witheld from them regardless of the validity of their SSN…

It is rather odd I did not think this so how come I have felt it?

news.bostonherald.com/immigration/view.bg?articleid=144979
There is one issue…

…but if they are getting paid under the table, why get the fake SSN? Well I’m sure they go to good use on welfare forms…

The article documents about 10 individual cases via first person interviews. In the typical irony the article shows every single individual is a working at a job and also says " is costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid taxes and fees" - so how does that work? 10 illegal at $10 an hour are required to pay millions in taxes and fees? Again it is an accusation thrown out without any data or frankly common sense to support it. If the union is upset they should simply turn in the illegal’s and the subs who employ them, neither appears to be happening. So we see about a dozen people reported as working illegally in the U.S. and that is the fact summary of this whole article.

eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=7050

A bad joke is superior to this article. No documentation really exists at all in this article a pro-immigration group claims illegal contribute about 350 million a year to Arizona and tell a little about the reason they arrive at that number. An anti-immigration group claims the numbers are off, but again it is just and accusation with no real substance at all. Then for a cake topper you get “*$1 billion for all state and local services for illegal immigrants, as estimated by state Rep. Randy Graf, R-Green Valley *” a personal opinion from Mr. Graf. In general this article is pro immigration, yet listed as supporting anti immgration?

But why bother? Have a kid in the U.S. and you can collect all you want…
texnews.com/texas97/illegal112297.html

This article involves a desire of anti immigration people to subvert the US Constitution. The article is about US citizens who collect welfare and other types of aid. It is simple twisting. The people collecting are US citizens. The article mentions an attempt to intimidate US citizens from collecting the legal welfare benefits by requiring the benefit be attached to a legal obligation to turn in any known illegal immigrate. Frankly just another embarrassing article concerning US citizen (anti-immigration) attempting to subvert US laws. Did you caught the irony anti-immigration people attempting to subvert US law and using this attempt to support a debate about illegal immigration is a problem because it subverts US law

 

[Fremont]

Blind obedience? Hardly, it doesn’t take much to realize that the USCCB is acting in concert with what the Church teaches. The major point where we can disagree is not what we are called to do as Catholics but how. However, we choose it must be consistent with what our Church teaches.

Here are some simple to understand excerpts from Pacem It Terris (Peace on Earth). This but one example of what the Popes have said that applies to all people.

1. Any human society, if it is to be well-ordered and productive, must lay down as a foundation this principle, namely, that every human being is a person, that is, his nature is endowed with intelligence and free will. Indeed, precisely because he is a person he has rights and obligations flowing directly and simultaneously from his very nature.[7] And as these rights and obligations are universal and inviolable so they cannot in any way be surrendered.
2. Beginning our discussion of the rights of man, we see that every man has the right to life, to bodily integrity, and to the means which are suitable for the proper development of life; these are primarily food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, and finally the necessary social services. Therefore a human being also has the right to security in cases of sickness, inability to work, widowhood, old age, unemployment, or in any other case in which he is deprived of the means of subsistence through no fault of his own.[8]
3. If we turn our attention to the economic sphere it is clear that man has a right by the natural law not only to an opportunity to work, but also to go about his work without coercion.[14]
4. Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.[22] The fact that one is a citizen of a particular State does not detract in any way from his membership in the human family as a whole, nor from his citizenship in the world community.

Encyclical Letter Of Pope John XXIII On Establishing Universal Peace In Truth, Justice, Charity And Liberty Promulgated on 11 April 1963.

---

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/I23PACEM.HTM

Proceduress that would deny those already here the basic rights described here on an abitrary quota system don’t seem to be consistent with Catholic Teaching. I remind you that we made up an arbitrary number which was contradictory to our actural needs for labor. There was never a good reason to deprive the vast majority of these people the opportunity to come here to work and settle here.

Branding someone as “Illegal” too is inconsistent with Church Teaching as it denies the person is a citizen of the Human Family. There is no such thing as an “illegal” person, we’re all EQUAL.

What ever your conscience tells you, it cant re-write or change Church Teachings.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that promotes or supports illegal immigration to the US.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to ignore requirements for a passport and visa or other laws concerning entry to the US – or any other country.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the unilateral right to immigrate to the US regardless of or in spite of US laws.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to lie, cheat and steal in his or her pursuit of material gains.

I believe that anyone who tries to interpret the statements in your post to show the Church promotes or supports any of the above is not serving the Church but rather is trying to use the Church to forward their own agenda.

An illegal immigrant is just that. That does not make them an “illegal person” as you claim. Calling an illegal immigrant is a factual label and is in no way inconsistent with Church teaching.

 

[Fremont]

We’ve been through this before Wabrams. We didn’t have a legitimate reason to deny “legal” entry to the vast majority of the “illegal” in our midst. We contradicted the economic laws of Supply and Demand that created this “illegal” population. We intentionally and arbitrarily set unreasonably low quotas. Though their immigration does bring with them a set of challenges, we are better off having them here than we would be without them. Had they been allowed entry, those challenges could have been mitigated. Our current immigration policies were designed to qualify and allow people just like most of them. Therefore, there is no legitimate reason to deny them the ability to work and settle here no matter how one cares to evaluate the situation. Unless of course, one bases their rationale on ulterior motives and fear. Just laws do not deny the “inviolable rights” of those who came here to satisfy their right and obligation to work and who, in the balance, have caused no harm. Thus no “Just” laws have been violated by the vast majority of them. Yet, none of the measures discussed would grant them “Amnesty”. They involve the paying of fines, a waiting period prior to applying for Permanent Residency and Citizenship, back payments of taxes along with other requisites.

The US certainly does have a legitimate reason and right to deny “legal” entry to the vast majority of the “illegal” in our midst. There is a legal procedure for “legal” entry into the US. The US has the right to expect those who wish to come here to follow those procedures.

The US has not set unreasonably low immigration quotas. In fact the quotas are very generous, particularly the quotas for Latin American countries.

No illegal immigrant has any “inviolable rights” except to return to their place of origin and proceed with the normal and legal immigration process.

 

[Ituyu]

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that promotes or supports illegal immigration to the US.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to ignore requirements for a passport and visa or other laws concerning entry to the US – or any other country.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the unilateral right to immigrate to the US regardless of or in spite of US laws.

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to lie, cheat and steal in his or her pursuit of material gains.

I believe that anyone who tries to interpret the statements in your post to show the Church promotes or supports any of the above is not serving the Church but rather is trying to use the Church to forward their own agenda.

An illegal immigrant is just that. That does not make them an “illegal person” as you claim. Calling an illegal immigrant is a factual label and is in no way inconsistent with Church teaching.

I can’t help it if you choose not to accept Church teaching. The fact is EVERY THING in my post indicates that considering people as “Illegal” is unthinkable via Church Teaching. We are ALL children of GOD with inalienable and inviolable rights. Moving from one country to find work does not cause them to surrender those rights.

 

[Ituyu]

The US certainly does have a legitimate reason and right to deny “legal” entry to the vast majority of the “illegal” in our midst. There is a legal procedure for “legal” entry into the US. The US has the right to expect those who wish to come here to follow those procedures

.

The US had no reasonable reason to expect that the laws of Supply and Demand would simply disappear and these people would then stop coming. To not adjust our quotas upwardly according to our labor needs was indeed arbitrary.

The US has not set unreasonably low immigration quotas. In fact the quotas are very generous, particularly the quotas for Latin American countries.

In Church teaching, it is unthinkable that a person be “illegal”. We are all EQUAL and we all have the same “Inviolable rights”. Coming to this country DOES NOT cause them to surrender those rights.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…

Nothing in your post shows Church teaching that says any person and every person has the right to lie, cheat and steal in his or her pursuit of material gains.
…

Are you sure some one said he church supports such activities?

…No illegal immigrant has any “inviolable rights” except to return to their place of origin and proceed with the normal and legal immigration process.

So now you are implying stealing, beating, murdering, kidnapping or any other such activity is not illegal provided it is done to a person you believes is illegally in this country? See your statement implies no law of any kind applies; however you are clear no one can prevent their return, how do you balance that? If a vigilante is beating a person and the person says “I want to go home” does the vigilante have to stop the beating? Did you consider your claim that even being processed through the legal system is out side of rights (you personally) granted?