Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Contarini]

Hi Contarini,

In my opinion, I think you have not only made yourself clear, but have provided a valid presentation. I really have been a bit surprised by the vigor or KSU argument given there are many ways to view this entire matter.

Not to sould silly about this, but you have really been consistently making valid Catholic arguments - and, for an Episcopalian … well, that surprised me, too! Conversely, I am not sure I could make a valid ‘Episcopalian argument’ about anything!

God bless

Intellectually speaking, I have been taking the Catholic tradition as my basic framework for a long time. I am by no means alone among Anglicans in doing this.

Of course, I recognize that there’s a big difference between reading Catholic sources and trying to think like a Catholic, and actually submitting oneself to the requirements for communion with Rome.

But I certainly care more about what Pope Benedict thinks (or even what Pope Leo thought) than what any Archbishop of Canterbury thinks–though I care about that too, and greatly admire the present occupant of the See of St. Augustine.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Hi Contarini,

In my opinion, I think you have not only made yourself clear, but have provided a valid presentation. I really have been a bit surprised by the vigor or KSU argument given there are many ways to view this entire matter.

As am I. There is an inherent contradiction with arguing with those who totally support the bishops on this initiative by claiming their right to disagree with them. It seems to miss the fact that if they have the right to disagree with the prudential judgment of the bishops on this, how much more right do faithful Catholics have to agree and support their bishops. Yet I have seen statements of anger at the bishops and accusation of being liberals for those that agree with them. The rhetoric of the opposition seems ironically harsh for a side that is merely claiming the right to disagree with the prudential judgment of the bishops.

I would like to say that Ender, while I disagree somewhat with him, has shown balance and poise in most of what he has said. Since this is an area where some latitude is
allowable, I think it important to back off the emotion a little when criticizing the legitimate viewpoint of others.

 

[KSU]

Per Contarini: “The disagreement between us is simply whether it is possible that some “conservative” American Catholics today might fall into Americanism. You consider this impossible and outrageous, in spite of not yet being able to mount a coherent argument to that effect. You just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

My friend Contarini, I have never even thought about, much less debated " whether it is possible that some ‘conservative’ American Catholics today might fall into Americanism." It is therefore an inanity for you to allege that I “consider this impossible and outrageous” and that I “just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

Your above statement is exactly why, after you showed your true Leftist colors in #210, that I said further debate is useless; we don’t agree even on basic definitions. Are you perhaps confusing me with someone else? It happens.

So you can stop putting words in my mouth and attacking a straw man, and please save yourself the trouble of saying that I am condemning you for being a Leftist (except on abortion where your position is admirable.) Be whatever you wish; this is after all a Catholic board in America, founded by Rightists, Christians and Deists

 

[cmforte]

This is divided into three posts:

B]Contarini

;8315977]Wait a minute. Both you and KSU have claimed that the Constitution was divinely inspired in some way!

Only as a political document.

And that is in fact the Americanism Leo attacked, because it implies that America, as the “exceptional” nation corresponding to the “exceptional” Catholic Church, is a particularly appropriate home for the Catholic Church, and thus that American Catholicism is freer to be itself.

*I don’t believe that. I never said that the Catholic Church in America should “be freer to be itself,” if that is a negative thing, I need to know the context. What did they mean by “freer” and “itself”? I said the exact oppposite. *

If you actually read *Testem Benevolentiae *(it’s by no means clear that KSU has done so), I think you will see that that’s the core of what Leo was worried about. Granted, he was worried about it specifically insofar as it might lead to distorting Catholic doctrine. But he never really addresses a specific doctrinal issue. His biggest specific worry is the rather vague one that “active” virtue is being exalted over “passive.” Somehow KSU deduces from this a condemnation of everything he chooses to consider “leftist” in contemporary American Catholicism. But (to set aside the anachronism of this interpretation) Leo is speaking in more general terms than that. He’s condemning any claim that the “active” American ethos is superior to more traditional Catholic piety.

*I did read it. I never said that Americanism is superior to traditional Catholicism. I said the exact opposite. *

I understand that you don’t want to conclude this, but given your statements about American exceptionalism (as interpreted by the two articles to which you linked), about only democratic governments being “legitimate,” and about the darkness of the era “when there were absolute monarchs and popes” (I’m with you on the evils of absolute monarchs–not so much when it comes to popes or to premodern politics generally), I suggest respectfully that you may not be thinking through the implications of your principles thoroughly enough.

• Please, if you would, explain why I would want to think it through thoroughly (as if I haven’t.)*

You seem to think that you can separate out politics and religion entirely. I think this is precisely the kind of error that 19th-century Popes worried about in America. You can’t separate Catholicism from *anything. *Orthodox Christianity pervades every aspect of life, doesn’t it?

*Separate in what sense? I believe The Church gives us spiritual guidance in life, it is up to us accept that guidance or not, and to suffer the consequences if by rejecting it there are adverse affects. *

(continued in next post)

 

[cmforte]

(continued):

Your belief that America is exceptional, and your unconditional loyalty not just to the nation but to national ideology as you understand it, can’t help but shape your understanding of Catholicism.

How is this? Yes, I have “unconditional loyalty” to my nation, but not to all the specific policies of its government. I am not a citizen of the world. When my government passes laws or acts in a way I don’t like, I can’t just give up my citizenship and move to another country. I am an American. I must use the American legal and democratic system and institutions to remedy the situation. This is my home. I’ll fight for it, and I’ll die for it, or with it, which ever comes first… When my government does something wrong or something I don’t like (which is often now) am I suppose to defect to somewhere? Abandon it? Flee it? Betray it? Which country is perfect? (remembering I never said the US was perfect.) You seem to think when one disagrees with their government they can say something like, “Forget the USA!! I’m going to become a Canadian!!!” Or, “I’m a Frenchmen but I disagree with the French government, so, I’ll become German!!” Granted, for Europeans that may be an an easy thing to do now, especially with the near death of the nation-state over there and the rise of the supranational EU, but that is not so for Americans. This is it for us. For Americans like me, Its not “My Country is always right,” its simply, “My country.” As if you haven’t noticed, the Catholic Church isn’t exactly perfect either, but you’re not infering to me to stop having “unconditional loyalty” to it.

And that’s why this whole digression occurred in the first place–because you are approaching the immigration issue primarily as a nationalist rather than as a Catholic. As you yourself admitted, you are uncomfortable with the “globalism” of Catholicism (though I think you mistakenly assume that any form of “globalism” must aim to create some kind of worldwide nation-state). You very much want to think that Catholicism fits with your nationalism, but you do express a bit of uneasiness about it. I brought up Pope Leo simply to point out that when I worry about American nationalism’s effect on Christianity, I’m not saying anything new or “leftist” but am echoing the concerns of a 19th-century Pope. And I stand by that claim. I was not claiming that all the details of my concerns were the same, of course. He wrote this in the 19th century–it was a quite different cultural context.

You may have a point here. If I was alive during the time of Pope Leo, I probably wouldn’t be Catholic. Anything that is opposed to democracy and to American nationalism is something I don’t want to be a part of. Thankfully, as I pointed out by quoting the Catechism and both Pope Benedict and JPII, The Church has softened this position. It doesn’t endorse American Exceptionalism, but it does endorse the USA’s right to enforce its sovereignty, a right all nations enjoy or should enjoy. However, it must be pointed out that many historians believed that Pope Leo simply over-reacted and that is why the document was largely ignored. And how can one not look at illegal immigration as a nationalist, or on nationalist grounds, since it affects one’s nation?

Finally, note this passage, where Leo describes the kind of “Americanism” that is legitimate:
Now you tell me how this is substantively different from President Obama’s version of American exceptionalism, which was rejected by one of the articles you cited earlier? Granted, Leo expresses himself more majestically, but other than that. . . .

Leo is saying, just like Obama, that it’s quite legitimate for countries to celebrate what makes them special, and that in America’s case (as Obama went on to say if you read the whole quote) that specialness has something to do with its political institutions. Therefore, since your chosen source explicitly rejected this version of “exceptionalism,” you cannot claim that Pope Leo is endorsing exceptionalism–he’s not endorsing the version you espouse.

Both Pope Leo and Obama don’t understand what true American Exceptionalism is. It doesn’t mean we are the same as other countrues, we are not. Just as I don’t believe in religious relativism, I don’t believe in national relativism.

(Continued in next post):

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

(continued):

Cmforte has argued this, saying that only democracies are “legitimate” and denigrating what he calls the era of “absolute monarchs and popes.” That is why I referred to Americanism.

*Correct on your assesment of my argument here. *

This article, cited by cmforte as representing his opinions, argues precisely that the New World had a better system than the old world and that the codification of a politics based on individual rights makes America special (though the article graciously recognizes that European philosophers helped shape this ideology).

Correct again. Two for two!!! Shall we go for three?

Now I take cmforte’s point that (as he sees it) he doesn’t want the Church in America to be something different than it is elsewhere. I think that the implications of his American exceptionalism force the Church in America to be different in some of the ways Pope Leo was worried about. But I grant that my application is indirect. It’s a different era.

Wow!! Homerun!! Pope Leo basically over-reacted and showed his ignorance of the subject by over-simplifying it. Even at that time, Catholics who supported “Americanism” didn’t want the Church in America to “change” and “be different.”

What makes absolutely no sense, however, is your repeated accusation that I “don’t understand” because I dare to suggest that right-wing Americans might be “Americanists” in something like Pope Leo’s sense. Your repeated claims that only “leftist” American Catholics are Americanists simply don’t hold up.

Well, I for one don’t think this is a Left vs. Right issue. There are too many “Right-wingers” supporting amnesty and a guest worker program. As I said before, in the long term, they all ultimately want the end of the nation-state, but in the short term, Democrats want voters, and Republicans want cheap labor. I don’t care for either party in this reguard.

Note that I’m not denying that the opinions of many “liberal” American Catholics do fall into “Americanism.” In fact, one of the reasons I find right-wing American Catholicism so frustrating is precisely that I see orthodox Catholic social teaching holding together consistently, and I see ideological factions in America each grabbing onto bits of it and distorting those bits by putting them in the context of American individualism.

*Well, for true Conservatives (not globalists) , individualism-like *rugged individualism **as Rush Limbaugh calls it-is a virtue, and a thoroughly American one, part of the quintessential American ethos.

You will get no argument from me on the question of whether “pro-choice Catholics” are heretics.

We agree here.

But that does nothing to defend you and other “right-wing Americanists” from my accusation. And no matter how often you claim that I misunderstand, you cannot seem to provide any actual evidence of my misunderstanding.

Edwin

Now, what do you think about my point-by-point repsonse to the UCCB’s document on the subject?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Here is a good article about the Catholic Church and “Americanism”, though it is some years old, it seems to pertain to today more than ever: ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/AMERICAN.TXT And this one: rosarychurch.net/answers/amcanism.html

-Chris

 

[MOTHBALL83]

I am fairly confident that he did absolutely no such thing, but perhaps you can show me wrong.

Insofar as the Catholic hierarchy supports Republicans, it’s because of issues like abortion and homosexuality.

The debate on this thread exists largely because the Catholic bishops clearly take a “liberal” position on immigration–a fact that KSU and cmforte very badly want to explain away.

There are numerous points where Catholic social teaching clashes head-on with right-wing American politics. There is a concerted movement by “conservative” Catholics these days to obscure and trivialize this conflict, making Catholics passive puppets of the Republican Party.

Edwin

Here is what I have come up with so far…

*“John Paul II also played a significant role in converting many conservative Catholics into reliable Republican voters.”

“Bush astutely chose to ignore such serious cleavages, emphasizing the pope’s socially conservative side. Conservative Catholic leaders were emboldened by the pope’s lead on social issues and, in turn, they encouraged traditionalist Catholics to support Bush and fellow socially conservative Republicans.”*

reason.com/archives/2005/04/15/how-many-votes-has-the-pope

 

[cmforte]

Here is another good article on “Americanism”: ehow.com/about_5240665_americanism_.html

An excerpt: "…Americanism is a term to characterize the influence of the United States in other cultures around the world. In the past decade it has become in varying degrees a pejorative term meaning that American values have corrupted cultures in other countries. In the United States it can mean pride in being an American. Another definition is the 19th-century American Catholic movement against the Vatican for local control of parishes…

"…Americanism has different meanings for different people. Its definition depends on one’s culture, ethnic background, race and upbringing. A benign characterization could mean that Americanism is another form of nationalism in which one expresses exuberant, if not occasionally excessive, pride in being an American."

-Which is actually what I mean by “Americanism.” I wonder if our debates have been mistakenly based on different and misunderstood definitions of the term?

"…Other Definitions

"…In the 1890s Americanism was considered an anti-Catholic movement led by American Catholics who sought for greater control in the election of pastors and how local church finances were conducted. The Vatican considered the movement and similar principles of press freedoms, separation of church and state, and individual freedoms as heresy. Fears, however, that American churches would split from the Catholic Church were unfounded."

Read more: What Is Americanism? | eHow.com ehow.com/about_5240665_americanism_.html#ixzz1WlGSpWPM

-Chris

 

[KSU]

Per cmforte to Contarini: “I wonder if our debates have been mistakenly based on different and misunderstood definitions of the term?”

Chris, you finally saw the light! I have been reading with agony your debate with Contarini. For days you have been laboring under the 180 degree wrong understanding of what Pope Leo XIII meant by the term “Americanism”–a Leftist nonsense fed to you by Contarini*, and what led you to say, “Pope Leo basically over-reacted and showed his ignorance of the subject by over-simplifying it.” That can’t be held against you because you were believing Contarini’s definition.

As you know, Chris, the pope did not even coin the term “Americanism”. In the first place it’s a misnomer.

As you have now come to realize, the pope was by no means condemning what you and I and all Conservatives, both religious and secular, love about America.

I tried to warn you in my post at #215 when I said, " And there is no sense in attempting to debate the Left on that; their “truth” is alien to our truth; because they emphasize the end over the means (e.g., social equality through Socialist means) the Church and the Constitution are in their way. Our constitutional political system (not perfect, just far better than any other since creation) together with the principals of Catholicism are invincible. The Left, therefore, hates and fears above all else what they term the Religious Right."​

• For example, Contarini said to you, "Both you and KSU have claimed that the Constitution was divinely inspired in some way. And that is in fact the Americanism Leo attacked, because it implies that America, as the ‘exceptional’ nation corresponding to the ‘exceptional’ Catholic Church, is a particularly appropriate home for the Catholic Church, and thus that American Catholicism is freer to be itself. "

 

[KSU]

Chris, in # 234 above, I reminded you that “The Left, therefore, hates and fears above all else what they term the Religious Right.”

Here they go:

campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/york-left-paints-campaign-religious-war

 

[Contarini]

Per Contarini: “The disagreement between us is simply whether it is possible that some “conservative” American Catholics today might fall into Americanism. You consider this impossible and outrageous, in spite of not yet being able to mount a coherent argument to that effect. You just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

My friend Contarini, I have never even thought about, much less debated " whether it is possible that some ‘conservative’ American Catholics today might fall into Americanism." It is therefore an inanity for you to allege that I “consider this impossible and outrageous” and that I “just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

Then I am not sure what we are disagreeing about. You have repeatedly claimed that “Americanism” refers only to “leftist dissenters,” and you have accused me of “misunderstanding” for claiming that I am siding with Pope Leo’s anti-Americanist position in my argument with cmforte. When I have repeatedly pointed out precisely why I claimed this and just where I see the similarity, you have failed to respond to my arguments and have simply dismissed them.

Perhaps I erred in assuming that this was due to your unwillingness to consider the possibility that politically “conservative” Americans (“conservative” by the strange standards of contemporary U.S. politics, that is) might fall into “Americanism.” But I find your inability even to address my arguments rather hard to explain on any other grounds.

Your above statement is exactly why, after you showed your true Leftist colors in #210

You are very fond of broad words like “Leftist” which you do not define, and you seem positively allergic to specific arguments that start with a premise and reach a conclusion.

So, for instance, you keep repeating basic definitions of “Americanism” without showing how they contradict my usage. You picked on the phrase “social welfare” in a secondary source without either justifying it in terms of the primary source or paying attention to the way it was used in the secondary source.

Instead of the empty claim that I “showed my true Leftist colors,” how about addressing what I said and showing where it is wrong? Why are you so unwilling to do this?

that I said further debate is useless; we don’t agree even on basic definitions.

Then explain how I define the term and how you define it, and how the definitions are different…

If you want to communicate, communication is possible.

If you want simply to insult me, I will go on trying to communicate as long as I think reasonable (and maybe a little longer), while requesting you not to insult me, employing as much patience and courtesy as I can muster under the circumstances given my own sinfulness and frailty.

So you can stop putting words in my mouth and attacking a straw man, and please save yourself the trouble of saying that I am condemning you for being a Leftist (except on abortion where your position is admirable.) Be whatever you wish; this is after all a Catholic board in America, founded by Rightists, Christians and Deists

Well, since you seem incapable of actually addressing my arguments, and instead choose to use the word “Leftist” over and over, I am simply describing your behavior accurately.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Per Contarini: “The disagreement between us is simply whether it is possible that some “conservative” American Catholics today might fall into Americanism. You consider this impossible and outrageous, in spite of not yet being able to mount a coherent argument to that effect. You just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

My friend Contarini, I have never even thought about, much less debated " whether it is possible that some ‘conservative’ American Catholics today might fall into Americanism." It is therefore an inanity for you to allege that I “consider this impossible and outrageous” and that I “just keep repeating over and over that it can’t be.”

Then I am not sure what we are disagreeing about. You have repeatedly claimed that “Americanism” refers only to “leftist dissenters,” and you have accused me of “misunderstanding” for claiming that I am siding with Pope Leo’s anti-Americanist position in my argument with cmforte. When I have repeatedly pointed out precisely why I claimed this and just where I see the similarity, you have failed to respond to my arguments and have simply dismissed them.

Perhaps I erred in assuming that this was due to your unwillingness to consider the possibility that politically “conservative” Americans (“conservative” by the strange standards of contemporary U.S. politics, that is) might fall into “Americanism.” But I find your inability even to address my arguments rather hard to explain on any other grounds.

Your above statement is exactly why, after you showed your true Leftist colors in #210

You are very fond of broad words like “Leftist” which you do not define, and you seem positively allergic to specific arguments that start with a premise and reach a conclusion.

So, for instance, you keep repeating basic definitions of “Americanism” without showing how they contradict my usage. You picked on the phrase “social welfare” in a secondary source without either justifying it in terms of the primary source or paying attention to the way it was used in the secondary source.

Instead of the empty claim that I “showed my true Leftist colors,” how about addressing what I said and showing where it is wrong? Why are you so unwilling to do this?

that I said further debate is useless; we don’t agree even on basic definitions.

Then explain how I define the term and how you define it, and how the definitions are different…

If you want to communicate, communication is possible.

If you want simply to insult me, I will go on trying to communicate as long as I think reasonable (and maybe a little longer), while requesting you not to insult me, employing as much patience and courtesy as I can muster under the circumstances given my own sinfulness and frailty.

So you can stop putting words in my mouth and attacking a straw man, and please save yourself the trouble of saying that I am condemning you for being a Leftist (except on abortion where your position is admirable.) Be whatever you wish; this is after all a Catholic board in America, founded by Rightists, Christians and Deists

Well, since you seem incapable of actually addressing my arguments, and instead choose to use the word “Leftist” over and over, I am simply describing your behavior accurately.

By the way, my position on abortion is entirely of a piece with my other political positions. I oppose abortion because I believe that human life is more important than the American fixation with individual autonomy. I support amnesty and generous treatment for “illegal” immigrants because I believe that human life is more important than the American fixation with national sovereignty.

I am concerned with following Jesus, being faithful to the Christian tradition, and respecting the God-given gift of human life. I take the positions that seem to me (guided by the wisdom of the Church) to agree with those principles, and oppose those that don’t. I do not ask the silly question whether by the twisted standards of contemporary politics a given position is “right-wing” or “left-wing.”

You and your “liberal” counterparts, on the other hand, both have an idolatrous regard for American cultural principles–you simply choose different points at which to show that regard. We do, however, agree that abortion is a far more outrageous example, since it involves the taking of innocent human life–those who oppose “amnesty” and other generous measures with regard to “illegals” are attacking human life in a more indirect and less clearly culpable manner.

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Contarini, I’m sory, but I repeat that fruitful debate with you is impossible because we do not share a common definition of terms or concepts*, and because you insist on telling me what it is I was attempting to debate, even though I never even considered debating such issue.

When I attempt fraternal correction, you consider it an insult. When I proved you were wrong about, for example, what Pope Leo XIII condemned in 1899 by quoting verbatim an unimpeachable, highly respected Catholic source (complete with Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur), you simply fabricated the excuse that the source was wrong and that I had been mislead! How can I debate you when you use those tactics? It’s almost like trying to debate, in English, a Frenchman speaking French even though he knows English quite well.

Communication is not possible under these circumstances because it degenerates into arguments about the meaning of terms, rather than the matters at issue.​

*Such as Christian tradition, left wing and right wing, and Americanism.

 

[Contarini]

When I attempt fraternal correction, you consider it an insult.

It’s not “correction” when you can’t actually show that I am wrong.

When I proved you were wrong about, for example, what Pope Leo XIII condemned in 1899 by quoting verbatim an unimpeachable, highly respected Catholic source (complete with Imprimi Potest, Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur), you simply fabricated the excuse that the source was wrong and that I had been mislead! How can I debate you when you use those tactics?

You can do what other reasonable people do–discuss the evidence and stop pretending that citing one secondary source (which you take out of context, as I showed) ends the debate.

Yet again:

1. I said that Pope Leo never mentioned social welfare. You did not prove me wrong. You proved that Fr. Hardon mentioned social welfare.
2. You took the phrase out of context–Fr. Hardon did not say that Pope Leo condemned social welfare.
3. I did not say that Fr. Hardon was wrong, but that you misinterpreted his use of “social welfare.” I suspect Fr. Hardon of some bias in using that phrase, but properly understood it was not inaccurate. That is why we need to go back to the primary source.

It’s almost like trying to debate, in English, a Frenchman speaking French even though he knows English quite well.

I feel equally frustrated. It is very hard to discuss history with someone who has no respect for the norms of such a discussion–such as that you need to cite primary sources instead of relying on a reference source as if it ended the matter.

But I keep trying, because it is my calling to help people understand history better, and I care about having a reasonable conversation.

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Just when I think I’m out, they pull me back in. OK, my friend, here we go.

Per Contarini: “I said that Pope Leo never mentioned social welfare. You did not prove me wrong.”

I never said he did use that term; he did not, so why do I have to prove he did? I don’t even know if the term “social welfare” existed in 1899. Come on, my friend. Quit playing games. Why do you keep alleging that I said something; just quote me and stop the games. You don’t quote me because you can’t. That’s been your M.O. all along.

Per Contarini: “You took the phrase out of context–Fr. Hardon did not say that Pope Leo condemned social welfare.”

Again, neither I nor Fr. HardonI ever said the pope did. It’s so obviously silly for you to put words in my mouth and then criticize me for not defending what I never said. You know full well I would never even think of saying something so outrageous as the pope condemned social welfare.

Per Contarini: “I did not say that Fr. Hardon was wrong, but that you misinterpreted his use of ‘social welfare’. I suspect Fr. Hardon of some bias in using that phrase, but properly understood it was not inaccurate.”

You never said Fr. Harden was wrong, just biased and inaccurate? Did you keep a straight face when you typed that? If nothing else, you do make me laugh. You don’t even agree on the common usage of “wrong”, when it suits your purpose. And I most certainly, positively did not “misinterpret” Fr. Hardon–I quoted him verbatim and in total.

 

[cmforte]

Will we ever get back to Illegal immigration and Morality?:

tqualey, thank you for your question and the link. Here is my point-by-point response to that document (put into two posts):

Catholic Social Teaching

**Persons have the right to immigrate… **

I don’t agree with this. No one has the “right” to go to another country. That country allows you to enter it, and on its terms.

…and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "The more prosperous nations are obliged***, to the extent they are able, ***to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin.

The key words here are “to the extent they are able.” If some of you haven’t noticed, like most of the rest of the world, the USA is facing a financial crisis and is discussing cutting some spending, even spending on social welfare and so-called “entitlement” programs that help disadvantaged Americans, like Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs. Not to mention cut-backs in other government services, like education. Americans, many of whom are now unemployed and many of them now newly homeless and poor, are going through such a hard time right now that I think we are not all that able to "welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin."

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.”

Where do Americans go when they can’t support their families and find employment? That statement doesn’t take into account changing economic circumstances, like the high unemployment rate in the US at the current time.

USCCB Position

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization:

An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.

This I may agree with, if nothing else because I know some illegals who are good people with “moral character”, despite the fact that they disrespected my country by violating its laws and borders, and because deporting tens of millions of people might be logistically impossible.

---

(continued in next post)

And God bless you too!

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

(continued):

---

B]Future Worker Program:

A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Another way to reduce the loss of life in the American desert is to have a border secure enough to stop people from entering the desert. As for the workplace protections and such, legal immigrants and citizens already have those. And I am still not convinced that we need more competition for jobs, even for-low-wage ones, from foreigners when so many Americans are out of work, and if those Americans won’t take those jobs, shame them into doing so!! Beggars can’t be choosers!!

Family‐based Immigration Reform:

It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

With possibly tens of milllions of illegals in this country already, put together with thier typical large familes, I wonder how this would affect population growth in respect to available resources, both natural (like water) and man-made (like money-as in, how de we pay for the government services they will use?). Can American communities, especially smaller ones, absorb such a possibly over-night surge in population? Especially when most of that population is poor, uneducated, and illiterate and wll need social services like welfare (even if only temporarily) and crowd already over-extended public schools?

Restoration of Due Process Rights:

Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Here I agree.

Addressing Root Causes:

Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

A noble idea, but really not our obligation and not our governmnet’s job. One of my big complaints of our government’s current policies is that we are “nation-building” other countries, while neglecting, on a large part, our own. For example: we just had a report about how out-dated and dangerous much of our own infrastructure now is:infrastructurereportcard.org/

Instead of government, let private individuals, charity groups, religious groups, philanthropers, large businesses/corporations who have hearts or just like good publicity, and NGOs help “develop” “under-developed” countries.

Enforcement:

The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

!!I agree with* targeted enforcement***-dangerous or violent illegals (I don’t call those “criminals” because they’re all criminals) should be arrested and deported first, so as to get rid of them asap, and by stopping or targeting human traffickers and smugglers, we would help cut back illegal immigration. I do not agree with letting in more “migrants” than is already lawful, given our current economic circumstance.

-Chris

 

[MOTHBALL83]

cmforte:
Yes, but that does not imply that we need to accept every single illegal immigrant into our country. If we were to grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens now…then we would hurt Americans because Americans would find it hard to find employment. What we should do is sort through them all…find out which ones will benefit our society the most…and deport the rest of them. So in a nutshell, maybe keep like 2-3 million of them, and weed out the rest. And that is a big MAYBE because if by keeping 2-3 million would hurt Americans finding employment then we shouldn’t keep any of them.

 

[cmforte]

Yes, but that does not imply that we need to accept every single illegal immigrant into our country. If we were to grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens now…then we would hurt Americans because Americans would find it hard to find employment. What we should do is sort through them all…find out which ones will benefit our society the most…and deport the rest of them. So in a nutshell, maybe keep like 2-3 million of them, and weed out the rest. And that is a big MAYBE because if by keeping 2-3 million would hurt Americans finding employment then we shouldn’t keep any of them.

I agree.

-Chris