N
nearing80
Guest
Righto! My grandparents and my wife’s immigrated from Europe. That’s right, they did however the difference is they did it legally. I believe therein lies the difference.
- Status
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Hi Tim
Of the 3 statements above one is highly emotional and 2 are incorrect. See if immigration has to be argued from emotion or with incorrect statements it is a waste of time. All through human history the wealth has been present where the trade occurs, which is very similar to where you can go and set up shop. Second the economic decision to replace a farm with a housing addition is just that, not an immigration issue at all. See the houses were built as part of a growing economy. In fact when the economy shrinks enough to reverse the scenario we have big problems.
Tim if you read earlier postings you will see me ask why the emotion is present(to others), but no answers, not even false answers. I reviewed the post of one member to find every single post he made was on immigration! No other single issue, that is sad. I wish he and you would address why you are posting. See legal is a status if you really believe – illegal is illegal (see earlier post) then amnesty or open borders would be good answers for you. So if you oppose illegal entry, open borders, and amnesty then what is the real issue you oppose?
T
TimOliv
Guest
[/QUOTE]
F
Fremont
Guest
US Government laws are indeed the point. Violation of many of those laws is what illegal immigration and unlawful behavior of illegal immigrants is all about.
There have been many claims in this forum that US immigration laws are unfair, unjust, racist, against social justice, etc. Those making those claims then take the position that foreign nationals are free to come and go to/from the US at their personal pleasure.
Rome has never ruled or taught that any US immigration laws are in conflict with Church principles. Rome has never ruled or taught that any US immigration laws are in conflict with God’s law. Rome has never ruled or taught that any US immigration laws are in conflict with Church social justice teaching. Rome has never ruled or taught that any US immigration laws violate God given rights and obligations of the innocent.
Rome has never ruled or taught that any US laws requiring foreign nationals to have a valid passport and valid visa to enter the US are in conflict with Church principles, God’s law, church social justice teaching or God given rights and obligations of the innocent.
Rome has never ruled or taught that any US labor laws such as requiring all foreign nationals to have official permission to work in the US are in conflict with Church principles, God’s law, Church social justice teaching or God given rights and obligations of the innocent.
Thus foreign nationals are expected to honor US immigration, entry and labor laws. And the US may punish those who violate those laws according to its rules.
You have tried to use various selected quotes from various selected sources to attack those US laws. You try to construe those quotes to support your way of thinking and to claim your personal interpretations “prove” those laws are wrong. You have tried to use the Church as a tool or weapon to advance your personal agenda.
The Church has the same quotes you do plus many more, i.e., consideration of the entire body of Church teaching. From that perspective the Church does not support your interpretations and claims.
I
Ituyu
Guest
The military alternative already exists. The only part I disagree with is the compulsory part. Why should we require something of others that our own natives increasing choose not to do. And, ultimately how does this address the labor market needs for additional labor.
Actually, the arbitrary nature that denied “Legal” entry of those already here does not appear consistent with what the Church asks of us. The low quotas and the laws prior to 9/11 closed the the “legal” door for the majority of those already here “illegally”. One more thing, I’ve never proposed that “everybody” be allowed in. My premise though has always been that we act in the “Common Good”. The exclusion of felons and terrorists for example serves both the “illegal” and “legal”.
“Current policy favors family members of citizens and legal residents; if you’re from the wrong family, you’ll never cross the border legally, no matter how much you believe in the American way. Unless, that is, you happen to have special skills or advanced degrees. Or you get lucky in the “di versity” lottery that gives out 40,000 green cards a year to people from countries that otherwise send few legal immigrants (with 40 percent reserved for the Irish). Or you’re the Amerasian child of a U.S. serviceman. Or you have big bucks to invest. If you have a “well-founded fear of persecution,” you can get refugee status, but chances are you’ll first have to cross the border illegally, or come in as a tourist or student. In other words, Ellis Island is a historical monument, not a symbol of today’s legal immigra tion.”
reason.com/news/show/29776.html
There are important laws that have been enacted since the above article of 1995 which made it even more difficult for people to be here “legally”. Of course, some of the things posted on this thread are simply barbaric and can hardly be defended through Catholic Social Teaching.
If you feel the responsibility to “control our population”, then that would also include the necessity to increase our population to meet our needs. Our current population growth is insufficient to meet the demands of our economy.
I
Ituyu
Guest
My agenda was to meet your demand for proof that the Church teaches that the “illegal” have Rights. I’ve offered Church documents that support the “inviolable Rights” of ALL. You have offered noting but self serving rhetoric. Will you please provide your source that would allow us to deny these “illegal” their RIGHTS. They’ve violated our immigration laws but have only pursued the Rights and Obligation that the Church affirms they have. I don’t deny that it would be appropriate and consistent with Church Teaching to deny “some” legal status when it serves the “Common Good” but the majority don’t fall into that category.
Kindly link or cite your source that supports your contention that my reliance on the Encyclical by John Pope XXIII is in error. Thus far you’ve chosen to avoid the issue.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Nope. Ituyu is clearly correct on this; you have avoided every serious question. There simply would be no such need if this statement was correct.
this discribes others in this thread far closer than the person it was directed at.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
No he’s not… the illegals are breaking the law. Period. Its up to thier repective governemtns to make things right. Its up to them to help make thier countries worth living in. Not sneak over here illegally then expect amnesty.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
F
Fremont
Guest
Certainly all people have various rights. In the US immigrants, both legal and illegal have fewer rights than US citizens. The Church has never ruled or taught that this is unjust, unfair or inconsistent with Church principles.
The original questions of this thread included:
- 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?
- I do not believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.
- 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 believe the Church teaches he has any such right or that it is moral for him to violate the laws.
- Misusing a credit card in this way is a form of stealing and would normally be considered wrong.
- I do not believe the Church teaches such stealing is justified or is moral.
F
Fremont
Guest
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say but I will repeat that US government laws are indeed the basic point.
If there were no US laws concerning immigration or concerning the requirement that non-citizens have permission to work we would not be having this dialog.
Violation of those laws is the basis for the controversy about illegal immigration and the behavior of illegal immigrants residing in the US.
T
TimOliv
Guest
Hence why there would be a civilian service alternative. This option is NOT presently open to immigrants. So basically the two choices are civilian government employment or military service. So giving our soon-to-be neighbors employment with healthcare benefits, dental plans and life insurance is a bad thing because we would be requiring them to work?
F
Fremont
Guest
The Church has never declared or taught that US immigration laws are arbitrary, unfair, unjust or inconsistent with Church principles.
The Church has never declared or taught that the S immigration quota system is arbitrary, unfair, unjust or inconsistent with Church principles.
I
Ituyu
Guest
So that fact that these laws go against Nature and violate Human Rights are affirmed by the Church is not important to you?
Yes, governments should act rightly and make their countires better. Does’t that go for both Mexico and the United States? Aren’t our internal policies what are really in question here? It would appear then that one should expect us to act “rightly” and to act in our national interests. Our currently policies don’t do either.
Before 1965 there was no maximum quota on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Our immigration policies are based on racial characteristics and ignore the fact that indigenous people pre-date us on this continent. Yet, I think they expect only to be able to exercise their God given rights. Prior to these laws many more of these people would have decided to return to their families. Today that is not a practical thing to do.
I
Ituyu
Guest
So you would make waitresses, busboys and other unskilled labor a “Civil Service” occupation?
I
Ituyu
Guest
Sorry Fremont but you’re talking about two different things. The Church is addressing Human Rights that we ALL have. Being a citizen from different countries does not diminish those Rights in any way. Thus those that pursue their Rights and Obligations under God’s law have acted Justly. The Church says that these Rights are “Inviolable” and cannot be “Surrendered”. How can laws that violate those Rights be “Just”? Not only do we not have an obligation to obey “UNJUST” laws we have an obligation to seek JUSTICE. The examples you have given seem to imply, that we as a Nation are free to do as we wish UNTIL the Church declares a particular event to be against Church Teaching whether or not it is clear by reasonable assessment that Church Teaching has been violated. So if one were to follow your logic, one would not be in violation of the Ten Commandments until the Church declares one, by name, in violation for a specific event. So one would be free of sin until the Church puts my name to it. I wouldn’t want to offer that as an approach on Judgment Day. I’ve only referred to ONE document that answered all the elements of your original challenge. I chose that document because it was unambiguous and direct. After so many of your posts, you are still unwilling, more likely, unable, to show how what you’ve promoted here is consistent with that document or any other applicable Church document. Instead you choose to answer a different question and you go round and round.
T
TimOliv
Guest
I love how you make free occupational training, a job with benefits and something to start off an American resume look oppressive. If you are coming into the country as an unskilled laborer and are looking forward to a career as a busboy, waitress or other unskilled laborer, then I’d say you are pretty much going to just find a job that you can do well that can support your family. How is the civil service option a poor one?
Look, the fact of the matter is you asked me how my idea would benefit the labor problems of this country. Well, taking unskilled laborers and providing them with training so that now our unskilled laborers are now, well, skilled, I see that as a benefit, don’t you?
The people in this country have opportunities that fail to necessitate compulsory military or civil service. We live in a country with 12 free years of education and colleges with financial aid packages. Virtually anyone can go to college and a poor boy from the back woods can grow up to be a Doctor even if neither parent ever attended college.
The would-be immigrant will most likely be coming from a country where education is NOT free and occupational training is limited to, as you say, waiting tables.
So I really fail to see how you can act like what I am proposing is something horrible because it is mandatory. It is work, these new immigrants will be looking for work, and by the way, they aren’t used to working and living in America. The military already has programs to help people transition from another country and they provide free training. An alternate civil service option could do the same thing, not to mention it would provide immigrants with an American work history which can be verified.
Oh snap, that means that we wouldn’t have people from India with degrees in Engineering working on assembly lines in factories, Mexican carpenters flipping burgers, or the schoolteacher from Poland cleaning offices. How dare I propose something that would end their inviolable right to be oppressed!
I cite those three as examples because I hired all three of them for factory jobs while I was a production supervisor. Engineering firms won’t hire Indian Engineers because they don’t have any American credentials, a Civil Service program utilizing present skills and building upon those skills would give them that. The Polish School teacher became a janitor in Brooklyn because the DoE wouldn’t issue her a teaching certificate, even if a civil service program couldn’t make her a teacher, I’ll bet we can come up with better career changes than janitor.
So the answer is no, I would not make waitresses, busboys and such “civil service” occupations. But that is because we should not be training our new fellow Americans to become waitresses when we could be giving them the opportunity to become Electricians, Firefighters, Paramedics or just about anything else we can train people for.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
No
A person can not promote the statements of:
- See Posted #97 …No illegal immigrant has any “inviolable rights” …
and Post # 130… ship them to Iraq anyway, without the canteen, rifle or ammo.…*
I
Ituyu
Guest
Just a reminder, we’re off topic again. But, if these people will not be filling unskilled labor jobs, who will? Personally I like the traditional way of doing things where people move up the ladder competitively. It serves our mutual immediate needs.
Job training programs should be available to everyone who is ready and able to commit to the training. However currently the demand for English classes far exceeds the availability. I think that learning English is step number one and unfortunately, adults are at a distinct disadvantage when learning a new language as it takes time. It’s their children where we need to focus on more because they will need to have the skills to step up the success ladder. That is one reason I don’t complain about educational costs because nothing is more expensive than having a population that is not prepared to be productive in a competitive environment. I too have known professionals who took menial jobs in order to survive when they first arrived. However, every single last one of them obtained the necessary training and skills necessary to meet the needed licensing requirements. One of them is my dentist who opened an office in Beverly Hills.
As far as “compulsory” service is concerned, no matter how well intended, I’m afraid it may violate the 13th Amendment, especially since Civil Service is not compulsory for any citizen. But, even more fundamental than that, I feel that we don’t have the infrastructure necessary to make such a program work. Like was mentioned earlier, we can’t even provide English classes for all those that want them. And, if such a program were voluntary, these opportunities should be open to all.
F
Fremont
Guest
Ituyu,
Let’s not get carried away with ridiculous statements.
As I have previously stated I, for one anyway, do not challenge most of the various selected quotes you have posted covering Church precepts.
What I do challenge is your interpretation of those postings and how you try to apply them to illegal immigration issues.
For example, yes, the Church recognizes the right of people to immigrate.
You try to interpret that to mean that everyone is free to move about any geography they wish at any time they wish and to remain in any location as long as they wish. Then you try to go further by insisting that any US laws that inhibit or restrict such behavior are immoral, unjust and a violation of Church principles as well as a denial of inviolable rights.
I deny that as a legitimate interpretation of the right to immigrate. I do not believe the Church supports your interpretation. I do not accept your accusations that anyone that does not agree with your interpretations and applications is calling the Church a liar.
The US laws, rules and regulations, as well as similar laws of many other countries, require foreign nationals to enter through a legitimate port of entry, to provide valid identification, via a passport, and obtain official permission, via a valid visa, to enter the US.
Rome has never declared or taught that those laws, rules and regulations are unjust, immoral, unreasonable or in violation of Church teaching nor that those laws, rules and regulations violate any the rights of anyone.
It is a very serious matter for any individual to make a personal judgement about the nature of civil laws.
The Church teaches that we are to respect civil authority – “For the sake of the Lord, accept the authority of every social institution - - ”, I Peter. The Church also teaches that once a law has been passed by the civil government, it should be considered just unless the contrary is clear from the nature of the law or from the declaration of ecclesiastical authority.
There is nothing “clear from the nature” of those laws governing entry into the US that they violate anyone’s rights, any Church teaching or the natural law. Such laws covering the entry of foreign nationals are reasonable and practiced throughout the world.
- Status