Illegal immigrant rights

[Ituyu]

You should make sure what you are referring to is clearly stated.

At any rate… if they don’t try to come over the border illegally… there wouldn’t even be this disuccion.

Trying to sneak over the border thru a desert does not keep women children and the elderly from harm.

The illegals should try to make changes in thier country. Not sneak over here illegally.

Sorry but you’re way off! One thing does not excuse or justify the other. Crossing the border without permission has not yet nor is it be likely to be criminalized. Currently we “Catch” and “Return”. The “illegal” have Human Rights including “legal” Rights in this country. To Dehumanize them for wanting to survive and provide for their families is contrary to Catholic principles. But, one need not be Catholic or even religious to realize how “unfair” our current system has become. Your current tactics go beyond what any reasonable person can consider “Civil”. The problem is that you don’t seem to realize that you say these things because you can’t legitimately defend your position. Our Immigration system is broken. It does not allow for sufficient “Legal” immigration to meet our needs. The fact that they are absorbed into our labor pool where they add economic growth while unemployment remains low is evidence of this. Please these are serious considerations. I have no desire to follow you along the path you are taking this discussion. The question was raised and it was anwered appropriately and more than adequately through an Encyclical of a former Pope The document is direct, clear and authoritative. I am aware of no Church document that invalidates or contradicts ‘Pacem In Terris’ (Peace On Earth). If you have such documents that invalidate the one cited, please provide them. Or, perhaps you can explain how your extreme measures and proposals are consistent with this document.

 

[resipsaloquitor]

Illegals are violating this country’s laws, therefore they should be deported. Throw them into jail just because they are illegal is wasteful and excessive. Immediate deportation is the most humane way of handling the problem. Perhaps a guest worker program for Mexicans who obey laws would be acceptable. To lie and violate the law contraves the governments effort to maintain a civil society.

We do need to help the poor i.e. feed the starving. However, we have a moral obligation to force other courtries to provide for thier citizens by making them live with the consequences of their actions.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. - Juror #8 ( Henry Fonda, 12 Angry men 1957)

 

[TimOliv]

Let’s get away from race for just a second that we might redirect the discussion to its intended purpose.

Ituyu, I could be wrong, but you seem to be saying that Church Teaching does not so much support “illegal immigrant rights” as much as it states that we should be providing help and refuge to anyone who needs it, there should be nothing “illegal” about it. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Let’s step away from border issues for just a second. Let’s not look at welfare or any other human services. Let’s look at safety.

It is very, very easy for all of you to sit up on your moral high horse and say that branding illegal immigrants, limiting their ability to obtain aid and even simply sending them to their country of origin is morally reprehensible. And who can blame you? Who among us would have the fortitude to sign an order sending a poor family back to whatever country they probably barely escaped to come to America in the first place.

But…

I think that loosening our immigration laws is simply irresponsible. Do you folks remember what happened around September back in '01? Lax restrictions on people here on travel visas made that whole adventure easier. Now, those in this country on student visas are tracked, if one goes missing, there is a search.

So if we don’t have an illegal status to designate immigrants (by the way, every country designates those in the country illegally), then what exactly is our protection from terrorism?

If you think it is so sinful that we guard our southern border, then it will only be a matter of time before terrorists see an easy way into the states. If you think that opening our borders is in keeping with the spirit of our nation, then I say you need to start speaking to immigrants.

My great grandfather came to this country and worked very very hard to learn the language, learn the history and ultimately become an American Citizen. Now I’m called a racist when I propose that our soon-to-be fellow Americans do the same? This, my friends, is a double standard. Because these people didn’t sneak in, they went through whatever legal channel was put before them. Their desire to become Americans was strong enough to carry them through.

Instead of opening up our borders, let me pitch an idea that I think we could all live with. Keep the restrictions, but help those who enter legally. How about two choices for those who want to become citizens. Military Service or Government Service.

They do a hitch, when they finish, we grant them citizenship, and now they have employment to put on their resumes.

And for all you folks who oppose the military service idea, it is important to note that those who are not American Citizens can request to be discharged during their enlistment, the only condition is that they are then barred from becoming citizens.

That sounds fair to me. Immigrants benefit, America benefits.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks Tim
Sorry to have offended you, that was not intended. You seam capable for reading a post and using a reasonable interpretation of it. I agree with most of your post, but that should not surprise you. I do not know if this is common knowledge but in the Philippians young men lined up for the option of joining the U.S. Military. I do not know if that program is still used. Frankly, I do not care if we rebuild the Berlin Wall on the border and the Mexican President gives the “Tear Down this Wall” speech. I certainly hope we do not shoot people who approach that fence as the East Germans did. What will happen is the fence will create responsible immigration policy!!! Whether English is a required language in the U.S. is an unrelated issue. Currently English is not a legally required language for U.S. Citizen. Please note the lack of posting about the “boat people” remember the Elian Gonzales case did we call him a burden on the schools and health care? was the US military the proper place for him? He could work in the DMV after all he could be 18 by the time he completed his first assignment. As for me responsible immigration policy is needed which will probably be a guest worker program. Responsible immigration policy is being prevent by wild anti-immigration rhetoric ( oh the irony )

 

[Fremont]

I’ve cited the Pope’s, the Bible and the Catechism. The Pope has said that ALL people have inviolable RIGHTS that not only cannot be taken away but cannot be surrendered. Where have you established that the Church contradicts its teachings? Your rants and ramblings have only demonstrated your willingness to promote ideas that are diametrically opposed to Church Teaching regarding Love, The Poor, Mercy, Charity and Justice. You’ve said that “illegal” immigrants have NO RIGHTS and that we have the right to cause them grave harm for pursuing their God Given rights and obligations. You haven’t established that Church Teachings are in error. Your source please.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1655184:

Certainly the teachings of the Church are not in error.

What I am saying is that the Church looks at the entire body of the message of Christ and interprets that message to apply to the entire community. From that perspective Rome has not concluded that any current US immigration laws are unjust, unfair or inconsistent with that interpretation.

It seems you have chosen to look at a much more narrow view and to consider only a few aspects of the message that, in your view, seem to support your limited vision while rejecting or ignoring other aspects that do not support your bias opinions.

My opinion is that it is very unlikely that the Church is inconsistent with your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications. It is much more likely that your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications are inconsistent with the Church.

Certainly the Church does not support your position and has never stated that any current US immigration laws are unjust, unfair or inconsistent with the Church position. Only you have made such claims.

Please all the fancy footwork is not necessary. How can you say that indeed the Church is correct that people have a right to pursue work and a Right to come here for that purpose regardless of their citizenship status. And, in the next breath say that we have the right to infringe on those rights UNJUSTLY? I say that based on the fact that the decision to under supply the Demand for Labor and the subsequent enactments of Congress did not have any other aim but to keep “THEM” out. There were no security issues or anything approaching the “COMMON GOOD” involved in the decision making. It was totally arbitrary and contradicted our economic needs as well as the nature of Supply and Demand. These were simply “Political” postures aimed at garnering politcal advantages that allowed us to look the other way as they came and allows us to “BLAME” them today for the consequences of OUR DECISIONS. The vast majority of those already here simply pursued their “INVIOLABLE” rights and obligations under NATURAL LAW and have been otherwise LAW ABIDING members of our society. There is no good reason to pursue their deportation or to encourage the departure of the majority of these people. The Bishops have supported measures that IMH fall short of the words of Pope John XXIII but is consistent with the pragmatism of Church mentality that accepts “where we are” in order to take us where we need to go.
Thus, I’m not surprised that the Bishops find it necessary to work within the “political” reality. Our “reality” is that we need to take an approach that will allow us to control our borders effectively and humanely. Only “we” have that “authority” and “power” but it leaves us with a very important “RESPONSIBILITY”. Denying these people “Due Process” and/or dehumanizing them is not a responsible path for us to follow by any standard; religious, moral, legal, security considerations or economic.

 

[Fremont]

Fremont;1657318:

Please all the fancy footwork is not necessary. How can you say that indeed the Church is correct that people have a right to pursue work and a Right to come here for that purpose regardless of their citizenship status. And, in the next breath say that we have the right to infringe on those rights UNJUSTLY? I say that based on the fact that the decision to under supply the Demand for Labor and the subsequent enactments of Congress did not have any other aim but to keep “THEM” out. There were no security issues or anything approaching the “COMMON GOOD” involved in the decision making. It was totally arbitrary and contradicted our economic needs as well as the nature of Supply and Demand. These were simply “Political” postures aimed at garnering politcal advantages that allowed us to look the other way as they came and allows us to “BLAME” them today for the consequences of OUR DECISIONS. The vast majority of those already here simply pursued their “INVIOLABLE” rights and obligations under NATURAL LAW and have been otherwise LAW ABIDING members of our society. There is no good reason to pursue their deportation or to encourage the departure of the majority of these people. The Bishops have supported measures that IMH fall short of the words of Pope John XXIII but is consistent with the pragmatism of Church mentality that accepts “where we are” in order to take us where we need to go.
Thus, I’m not surprised that the Bishops find it necessary to work within the “political” reality. Our “reality” is that we need to take an approach that will allow us to control our borders effectively and humanely. Only “we” have that “authority” and “power” but it leaves us with a very important “RESPONSIBILITY”. Denying these people “Due Process” and/or dehumanizing them is not a responsible path for us to follow by any standard; religious, moral, legal, security considerations or economic.

No fancy footwork here, just facts.

I do not dispute any of the points you have posted.

I do reject your interpretation of those points and your views of how Church teaching should be applied to US immigration laws.

The Church has the same information you do – plus a lot more points you have chosen to ignore or reject. Plus the Church has a full perspective toward the entire community.

Rome has not reached the same conclusions you have. Rome does not support your interpretations, conclusions or applications. Rome has not said any US immigration laws are unjust, unfair or inconsistent with the position of the Church. Only you have said such things.

There is a difference between your interpretations, conclusions and applications and those of the Church. Thus I repeat – it is my opinion that it is very unlikely that the Church is inconsistent with your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications. It is much more likely that your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications are inconsistent with the Church.

 

[Ituyu]

Sorry Fremont, but I have quoted the words of Pope John XXIII not mine. You have not shown how what you propose is consistent with what he affirms. I can only conclude that you can’t make your position consistent with Church Teaching.

 

[Ituyu]

Let’s get away from race for just a second that we might redirect the discussion to its intended purpose.

Ituyu, I could be wrong, but you seem to be saying that Church Teaching does not so much support “illegal immigrant rights” as much as it states that we should be providing help and refuge to anyone who needs it, there should be nothing “illegal” about it. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[Ituyu]

My great grandfather came to this country and worked very very hard to learn the language, learn the history and ultimately become an American Citizen. Now I’m called a racist when I propose that our soon-to-be fellow Americans do the same?

All indications are that our current wave of immigrants assimilate in the same way that all other non-English speaking immigrants do.

This, my friends, is a double standard. Because these people didn’t sneak in, they went through whatever legal channel was put before them. Their desire to become Americans was strong enough to carry them through.

I’ll agree that it’s a double standard but it’s one discriminates against this current wave of immigration similarly to the one’s that affected the Chinese, Japanese and Catholics. None of our Anglo immigrants ever had to face these sorts of laws and there is no reason to believe that they would not have come if faced with the same circumstances as this current group of immigrants.

Instead of opening up our borders, let me pitch an idea that I think we could all live with. Keep the restrictions, but help those who enter legally. How about two choices for those who want to become citizens. Military Service or Government Service.

They do a hitch, when they finish, we grant them citizenship, and now they have employment to put on their resumes.

And for all you folks who oppose the military service idea, it is important to note that those who are not American Citizens can request to be discharged during their enlistment, the only condition is that they are then barred from becoming citizens.

That sounds fair to me. Immigrants benefit, America benefits.

Okay, how will that solve our labor needs? Immigrants can already gain citizenship in this fashion and in today’s military we are more dependent on “immigrants” than ever before as fewer of our own natives choose to serve. I have no problem with this as an alternative but I would oppose it as a “requirement” because it is not even a requirement of citizens.

Note too, that in proportion to their population, Hispanics are the most decorated ethnic group among our veterans. And, using the same criteria, were called upon at times of war in higher proprotions and had greater fatalities. Many were honored with citizenship pothumously.

 

[Fremont]

Sorry Fremont, but I have quoted the words of Pope John XXIII not mine. You have not shown how what you propose is consistent with what he affirms. I can only conclude that you can’t make your position consistent with Church Teaching.

It really does not matter who you are quoting. There is no disagreement on the authenticity or source of the postings you have made.

The issue is the interpretation of and conclusions drawn from the verbiage you have posted as well as how they should be applied to US immigration laws.

I repeat my position, I do reject your interpretation of those points and your views of how the Church teachings you selected should be applied to US immigration laws.

The Church has the same information you do. Plus the Church has a full perspective toward the entire community.

Rome has not reached the same conclusions you have from the information. Rome does not support your interpretations, conclusions or applications. Rome has not said any US immigration laws are unjust, unfair or inconsistent with the position of the Church. Only you have said such things.

There is a difference between your interpretations, conclusions and applications and those of the Church. Thus I repeat – it is my opinion that it is very unlikely that the Church is inconsistent with your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications. It is much more likely that your interpretations, conclusions and pontifications are inconsistent with the Church.

Thus US immigration laws are to be respected by all foreign nationals and US citizens and legal residents. The US can enforce the immigration laws, as it deems proper.

 

[Ituyu]

The US can enforce the immigration laws, as it deems proper.

You won’t find that in any Church document. Where do you find that authority to arbitrarily “pick and choose” those whose rights we can violate.

Fremont, the document is clearly worded. It doesn’t leave room for interpretation. There is no “wiggle room”. Either you accept the teaching or you don’t. You keep wanting to mix The Church Teaching with our governmental laws. The ONLY way your view makes any sense is if you ignore Church Teaching. You will not find Church Teaching’s that allow you to punish the innocent for acting in accordance with God’s Law which is what you would have to show merely to defend your position. Face it you can’t defend policies, from a the standpoint of Church Social Justice Teaching, that violate God given Rights and Obligations of the innocent…

 

[wabrams]

Crossing the border without permission has not yet nor is it be likely to be criminalized. Currently we “Catch” and “Return”.

That has got to be the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

 

[Jeffrey]

Yes it is… its a Federal crime Fremont posted the law in one of these threads already.

Originally Posted by Ituyu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Crossing the border without permission has not yet nor is it be likely to be criminalized. Currently we “Catch” and “Return”.

 

[Ituyu]

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent violationscitation needed]. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the futurecitation needed]. Those who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. H.R. 4437 would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Illegal_border_crossing

 

[Jeffrey]

Correct… it is illegal.

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent violationscitation needed]. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the futurecitation needed]. Those who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. H.R. 4437 would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Illegal_border_crossing

 

[wabrams]

Crossing the border without a valid passport and U.S. visa is a misdemeanor for the first offense and a felony for subsequent violationscitation needed]. The first offense is punishable only by deportation, and in practice future offenses are only punishable by deportation and a ban on entering the U.S. legally in the futurecitation needed]. Those who are caught illegally trespassing U.S. territory are usually fingerprinted and immediately returned, unless they are a repeat offender, in which case they may be criminally prosecuted. H.R. 4437 would have made the first offense of crossing the border illegally a felony.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States#Illegal_border_crossing

You’ll forgive me if I don’t consider Wikipedia a reliable site yo quote from outside of trivial discussion.

 

[TimOliv]

 

[Ituyu]

Okay then, I will offer a Catholic perspective. So far, you have called myself and one or two other people heretics.

You have accused us of going against the teachings of the Catholic Church which call for all Catholics to go through this grand song and dance to grant more rights to illegal immigrants.

Actually you have the situation reversed. This thread started with a challenge to show that the Church taught that these people have Rights. If you are following Church Teachings please enlighten me on how claiming that “illegal Immigrants” have no inviolable rights is consistent with the words of Pope John XXIII? Tell me how forcing them into a military situation without means of sustenance or defense for a misdemeanor offense is consistent with Church Teaching. Yes, I say that such deeds ARE inconsistent with Church Teaching. Church documents were provided affirming the Rights of ALL people. Thus, the Human Rights argument offered here is consistent with Church Teaching. I’ve asked how the above violations, among others, are consistent with Church Teaching. If such an argument exists, why has it not been offered?