Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Elizabeth502]

No one likes to be called names like “hater.” Counter with a different [immigration reform] proposal and one is called a “hater,” a bigot, prejudiced, jingoistic, etc.

Wow…Do you instill this hatred in your loved ones?

** ^ ** = Exhibit A

 

[Elizabeth502]

The problem with your thinking along with many others is that you don’t have the first clue as to what many illegals go through on a daily basis!

For those of you who may have seen a recent investigative report on immigration & smuggling, the journey is fraught with risk and fatality, with about a 25% survival rate, and one so physically demanding that elderly relatives of those migrating generally do not come along. Yet the Mexican household, especially the rural one (from which the bulk of the undocumented migrants come), operates as an extended unit, with important family members supplementing the raising of children and the disciplining of them in the child’s home (grandparents, aunts, etc.).

When unskilled workers with low literacy rates head North, they are confronted by an economically brutal environment which even with the recent housing deflation, requires both parents to work full time in order to survive. But for the unskilled, it is worse: the minimum wages they earn, if they’re feeding more than their own mouths, are usually insufficient for U.S. cost of living, anywhere. That requires them to work much more than 40 hours/wk in order to pay rent & bare essentials with extreme frugality, and leaves them no money for child care. …[etc.]

So the reality of “a better life,” falls far behind the ideal – for those who do not come with a basic education which they then might improve upon after arrival. …And the more important point is that the conditions which are the natural consequence of illegal immigration are morally problematic for these migrants, apart from effects upon the broader community.

I favor a combination of two things:

~a NAFTA redux, IOW not based on the previous NAFTA which displaced rural families, but one which would allow Mexican famliies to stay put while earning a better living than they do now, from U.S. companies with branches in Mexico; that would also have to be overseen by either a U.S. or a U.N. joint team, so that the wages Mexicans earn would not be siphoned off in some corrupt manner by the usual thieves in the Mexican gov’t.

~a restructuring of legal immigration to include extended families, so that social/cultural continuity can be maintained…[etc.].

(It’s always so obvious when a poster hasn’t read the thread. )

 

[tqualey]

Hi, MarisaJean,

I am not sure about ‘which’ Catholic Church you are talking about. Maybe going back to the Gospels would be instructive.

Wow…I guess all I can say to you and to many others on here is that I hope I never meet you or anyone like you one day. The Catholic Church I know and love has taught me to love one another, treat people with kindness and not to judge!

We start out with John the Baptist and his initial interaction with the religious leaders of the time - Matthew 3 is very instructive on how John actually judged them for their evil deeds.

Quickly jump ahead to Matthew 21:25-26 on how Christ is repremanding the Pharisees for not believing John’s statements.

Just work on those two for the time being. You already know the many times that Christ publicly judged the Pharisees, Saducces and others for their public display of religion and their inward contempt for God’s Law.

We have in the USCCB those who write documents about social justice issues such as immigration yet fail to publicly condemn from the pulpit abortion and those who promote and vote for this abomination as an intrinsic evil. The issue is to make sure the foundation is solid before building anything on it. Our foundation is not solid here - and immigration rhetoric proves thin when. “… the least of our breathern…” - those being murdered in the womb - are not addressed in an appropriate manner.

The feel-good ‘Catholicism’ you are talking about is not the same material that Christ preached when He told His followers to give just judgment (John 7:24) by not looking at mere appearances.

Oh, by the way… CAF does not charge for paragraph breaks! When you put everything into one bloci, it just makes it a little harder to read. I don’t know … maybe you do not want to meet me, either?

God bless

 

[Ender]

They let you make the moral judgement … that is what “prudential judgement” means after all. It does not follow from this that these issues of immigration, health care, war and peace don’t involve a moral component to them, which appears to be what you’re saying.

Except for the five or so moral issues our actions are moral or immoral based on the reasons we support or oppose specific proposals, not on the nature of the proposals themselves. This is why it is not correct to say there is a moral side to prudential issues. I may behave immorally in supporting the building of a fence between the US and Mexico but only if my reason for supporting it is immoral. Building the fence itself is a morally neutral act.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Except for the five or so moral issues our actions are moral or immoral based on the reasons we support or oppose specific proposals, not on the nature of the proposals themselves.

I don’t agree with this. I agree with the poster tafan that the specific proposals must have certain moral components, as described (broadly) by the bishops, to be considered socially just (i.e., moral). However, I agree with Tom (tqualey) that the bishops’ language often gives the appearance of any limiting legislation or proposals being immoral on their face, which contradicts what the bishops say elsewhere in the same document(s), such as the recent one on Faithful Citizenship.

In order for any proposal to be socially just, it must reflect the complexity of not only the human need and prerogrative to migrate in principle, but also the specifics of national sovereignty which modify that prerogative (and which the bishops do acknowledge), economic impact on everyone affected by illegal immigration (which is a moral issue), etc.