Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Elizabeth502]

I can’t document it, but consider this.

1. An illegal alien can accept less than minimum wage, with no recourse. An American cannot accept less than minimum wage, and if this is what the employer offers, then can go to the state labor bureau and file a complaint.
2. An illegal alien may accept a low wage to work in the field, either a piece price or set wage, say $10 per hour. They accept the lower lifestyle, and again have no recourse for redress. An American may reject the job at $10 per hour, but accept $20 per hour. Of course he has to pay income tax to the state and federal government, where the illegal alien does not.
3. The employer does not have to pay any benefits, or unemployment to illegal aliens; this is another reason why they prefer to use illegal aliens instead of Americans. Americans have laws protecting them; illegal aliens to not. These laws cost employers money.

You have to document for me that Americans are lazy, when I believe we are amongst the most productive workforce in the world.

Did you think I thought differently? (Just trying to determine with whom you are disagreeing here, since we seem to be on the same side of the productivity argument, no?)
I thought I had implied that I do not believe that Americans are lazy; apparently I miscommunicated about that?

What you can expect to see in Alabama is an increase in costs as the employers have to pay the Americans more than they did the illegal aliens.

We shall certainly see, won’t we? First we would have to see if the agricultural industry does or does not extend itself to the unemployed legal residents of Alabama, then we’d have to see how those legal residents do or do not respond. I think that none of us here can probably prophesy as to what price increases would result, but a recent study (I don’t know the location; I believe it was CA) calculated a $1 increase per unit (by weight, by small container, etc.).

What I don’t understand is why people support the concept of paying slave wages to people just because they are illegal aliens. This is what you are saying with your statement that illegal aliens fill jobs that lazy Americans won’t do.

Could you specify to whom you were referring with the pronoun “you”? I didn’t read such a statement here, but maybe I missed that.

And again, let me be clear, lest I be confused with any other poster on this thread (or elsewhere), I do not support “slave” or any other immoral wages. I actually support three things:
(1) special legal permits for agricultural workers, whether those be temporary (seasonal) or permanent
plus
(2) higher wages for agricultural work, given both the need and the greater physical labor involved
plus
(3) labor protections for agricultural workers of any origin.

You may be referring to someone else, or misinterpreting what I said?

I hope that’s clear now.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tafan,

As you know, CAF does not charge by the word to post a comment.

What is it you are saying here? If you wish to quote a document, it makes it a lot easier to identify the specific section(s) and possibly add your thoughts on how it applies to the thread.

Please, give it another try.

God bless

Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est

 

[Elizabeth502]

Tom, I believe he quoted it earlier, in post 503.
And he put Benedict’s name under the boxed quote.

Elaborating (editing here), I think he wished to re-center posters on the central moral issue, which tafan further commented on at the top of this page.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I rarely see constructive ideas for change of immigration laws from the “build a fence” crowd (of which I agree with on almost every other political issue).

There are posters, who in the past have explicitly stated they would not read document “Strangers no more”. I have seen little discussion (I know you are an exception to this) to the phrase in the catechism

I respectfully ask you to consider that I represent a much larger group than myself – a group representing Catholics and non-Catholics of all stripes. Perhaps not many in this group happen to post on CAF, but I meet them, and read comments and editorials from them, abundantly outside CAF. There is a large group of what you would call “rational” people on this issue, who are striving to reconcile many aspects of justice within this broad issue.

The problem (I think) is that such voices are quieter, and perhaps you never/rarely hear them. It is also human nature to react and to be defensive when stereotyped with belligerent language – and when presented with extreme proposals on either side, to become more entrenched and even more “radical” as a protective measure. No one likes to be called names like “hater.” (Not that you have done that!) It has been done often, on and off CAF. Counter with a different proposal than Open Borders or Mexican annexation of the entire Southwest, and one is called a “hater,” a bigot, prejudiced, jingoistic, etc.

This is, by the way, not unlike what happens with the whole issue of homosexual “marriage”: dare to oppose such a radical notion against traditional marriage, and you are immediately labeled a “hater.” It works, you see: it silences the opposition through moral intimidation. And that is perhaps why you hear audibly so few voices of moderation on the immigration issue (legal and illegal).

By the way, there are also sincere people, whom I would not call socially or politically radical, who actually are in favor of a kind of Open Border policy, for mutual economic benefit north and south of our lower border. It’s tempting to seriously consider such a policy, until one learns, as we did recently, that a captured terrorist whose plot was thwarted had planned to use our porous southern border to execute a violent plot, and to tie the plot to Mexican nationals and the drug cartels in an effort to throw off the authorities from locating the true culprit. We have to consider all of those factors when constructing immigration reform; we cannot be naive about terrorism and how that relates to border security.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tafan,

I think you have taken several liberal interpretations with what is going on. May I suggest some greater discipline in your presentation. For example…

I rarely see constructive ideas for change of immigration laws from the “build a fence” crowd (of which I agree with on almost every other political issue).

If you start in the middle, it will make seeing the problems in context more difficult. Things did not START with building a fence - but this appears to have been a response to a lack of real interest in being serious about boarder security - even after the tragic events of 9/11/01. One of the issues with ILLEGAL immigratin is that the ‘host’ city has no real way of knowing what is going on until classrooms are suddenly overcrowded, there are additional demands for social services, and more demand on infrastructure. Yes, I know, these are merely problems we must live with - but, still, it places a hardship on everyone involved.

My guess is that US laws could be made more flexible, streamline and user-friendly … in fact, maybe they could start with the IRS and show us all how to be helpful to all taxpayers! Here is a real link to show you what is going on:immigrationdirect.com/?gclid=CIPSmpax5KsCFUbs7Qodw1qhHw But, you know, it is going to come down to something like, “You don’t like this form? Fine. What is it you want that will give us the information we are required to have by law?” I have not heard anything specific from you - and now would certainly be a good time to present something.
.

So the Bishops are a rational voice, among not very many rational voices (please note the moderators call to civility as evidence).

I really do not have a problem with this, Tafan. The Bishops are a rational voice. They are not an irrational voice and some may claim. But, by the same token, they are not a helpful voice or a practical voice or an enlighten voice. While rationality must be a base-line, we are all looking at complex problems. Effectively saying, “Throw open your doors - let all who want to come in - come in! Your borders are a barrier to God’s Love!” Such a policy, puts both legal US citizens and our culture at risk of simply being dissolved. Countries have a right to require those who would enter to comply with the laws.

People break laws to rob banks because they claim, “… there is an unjust economic system that is depriving them of their rights. Helping themselves to the money of others is one way to stay economically ahead!” We do not ask the banks to stop locking their doors to facilitate the distribution of other people’s money to those who ask. When it comes to immigration, the US is asking people wanting to come in to comply with the laws, to be law abiding citizens in their own country and to give to this society rather than come over and take from it the tax dollars that others have put in. This is the theory - in practice, those who are persecuted have historically found refuge in the US - and this is a fact since the Mayflower that keeps on getting overlooked.

Right now, the law supports almost no legal means of immigration for a Mexican worker in search for a means of livelihood.

In my opinion, Tafan, this is a gross exaggeration and distortion of fact. Besides, Mexican Nationals are not the only ones seeking to emegrate. As I appreciate the situation, people from all over the world want to come to the US. Are you saying all immigration laws should be changed so as to only allow Mexican Nationals? If not, then what is it you mean? From what I have seen, it looks like more immigrants from all over the world are coming to the US each year. Check this out: cis.org/articles/2007/back1007.html

The basic criticism I hear from you, is not that thre US is not doing enough - it is doing nothing! And, I say ‘nothing’ because ‘nothing’ is ever mentioned about what the US has done when there is talk about immigration. This is more than an oversight.

The obvious evidence of millions of undocumented workers shows that our laws don’t work. Lets move on, how should the laws be changed; in accordance to actual social justice teachings of the church.

Going back to the bank robbery analogy … most of us would not say the economic system (for all of its short-comings and disappointments and don’t forget political interference) is failing because there are more bank robbers, or there have been more robberies, or more money has been stolen.

And, at the risk of gettng off topic - this bit about ‘Social Justice’ as interpreted by so many who feel slighted in some way - really should be addressed. We have totally lost the Church’s teachings on Morality. Abortion, ‘same-sex-marriage’ demands, embryonic stem cell research, mercy killings, sex scandals amongst the clergy, USCCB being responsible for giving financial grants to groups who support homosexuality and abortion services, and so on. If you want a project - reforming ourselves is what needs work now.

Tell ya’ what - let’s see about getting our own house in order before we think we can solve society’s ills by throwing open our doors. Oh, and by the way, just what do you plan on doing to keep the Mexican Drug Cartels from having their violence just spill over here - along with the beheadings, and mass executions that have been going on now for years?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Thank you, Elizabeth502. I missed it.

God bless

Tom, I believe he quoted it earlier, in post 503.
And he put Benedict’s name under the boxed quote.

Elaborating (editing here), I think he wished to re-center posters on the central moral issue, which tafan further commented on at the top of this page.

 

[pnewton]

This would seem to imply that the debate is between those with higher principles and those without them, but this isn’t the case. There are valid competing claims; in many cases what benefits one group harms another. There is no perfect solution where everyone gets what is best and what he wants and it is a mistake to suggest that the claims of one group are morally principled while those of another group are base. That the bishops have lent some credence to this view has not helped the dialogue.

Ender

I would not say that there are *people *with higher principles, but rather there are higher principles. The bishops have given credence to the view that they hold. It has not helped the Republican side of the dialogue, but that was never their purpose. .

 

[pnewton]

So the Bishops are a rational voice, among not very many rational voices (please note the moderators call to civility as evidence).

FYI - I believe there have been incivility on both sides of this thread. I am also of the opinion that there are a couple of rational voices that have give reasoned and prudent disagreement with some of the things the bishops have said, even though I do not agree with their view.

 

[tqualey]

Please, Pnewton, spare us this non-sense on political division over moral issues.

Just take a look at how the Dems have supported the Church’s teachings on abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, etc - all from ‘Catholic’ Democratic politicians like the V-P Biden, Nancy Pelozi, Kathy Sabalieus, Leon Penetta - and the current Govs of New York and California.

And, you are still lost when it comes why it is so counterproductive for the Bishops to get in bed with political parties and their policies. The problems are real and ignoring them may only make them go away for you.

God bless

I would not say that there are *people *with higher principles, but rather there are higher principles. The bishops have given credence to the view that they hold. It has not helped the Republican side of the dialogue, but that was never their purpose. .

 

[KSU]

Per pnewton: "I would not say that there are people with higher principles, but rather there are higher principles. The bishops have given credence to the view that they hold. It has not helped the Republican side of the dialogue… "​

Here’s the Democrats’ side of the dialog:

October 12, 2011 10:21am
Payback? Obama drops grant to Catholic bishops
byCharlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer

President Obama failed to renew the $19 million grant awarded to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for providing assistance to human trafficking victims.

The grant from the Department of Health and Human Service was awarded to the bishops in 2006 by President George W. Bush and funded the Migration and Refugee Services.

The office helped 2,700 victims of human trafficking obtain food, clothing and access to medical care.

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that she hoped the “position against abortion, sterilization and artificial contraception has not entered into this decision.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families gave no reason to the Catholic Bishops for refusing to renew the grant.

“HHS’s primary focus in serving victims of human trafficking is ensuring that they have access to the high quality and comprehensive case management services they need,” Marrianne McMullen, a spokesman for the agency told Bloomberg News. “These are individuals who have endured traumatic experiences in many cases and who face uniquely complex challenges.”

In recent months, the Conference has criticized Obama for positioning himself against the Catholic Church.

In August, the Conference urged the HHS to repeal Obama’s private insurance mandate to cover contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization.

Last month, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, head of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, issued a strong statement warning that Obama’s failure to defend the Defense of Marriage Act was a “serious breach of Church-State relations.”

 

[pnewton]

Here’s the Democrats’ side of the dialog:

I noticed you did not link your source. A Republican blog, by any chance? If so, this is not the “Democrats side of the dialog” but their opponents presentation of their side. These two are very different things. Do you mind posting your link? Not only does it give a fair understanding to what you post, it also meets the requirements of CAF that they avoid plagurism.

 

[tqualey]

I would not want you to wait for this link … so, I jumped in to provide what has been reported.

Here is item from LifeNews.com - a pro-life (and that must mean anti-Domocrate) publication advising all about what is going on in the world specific to abortion.

"Bishops Lose Obama Anti-Sex Trafficking Grant Over Abortion
The nation’s Catholic bishops have lost a grant the federal government previous gave them for efforts to stop sex trafficking and they are concerned it is because they disagree with President Barack Obama over abortion.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had previously received a five-year $19 million grant to help victims of sex trafficking during the administration of pro-life President George W. Bush. Sensitive to how women are exploited in the sex industry, the Catholic bishops prohibit any subcontractors from using the funds to pay for or promote abortions. Instead, the Catholic bishops provide comprehensive case management services to survivors including medical and mental health services.
While the Obama administration extended the contract briefly in March, the bishops were recently notified that it would not be renewed. Instead, Obama officials awarded the grant to three other groups (Tapestri of Atlanta, Heartland Human Care Services of Chicago and the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants of Washington) — even though the bishops have helped more than 2,700 victims with the funding.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the Catholic Bishops, told Bloomberg News she worries the decision to pull the grant was made because the bishops are pro-life and strenuously disagree with Obama and the administration over abortion. “We hope our religious beliefs didn’t come into play,” she said. “Abortion politics will not find homes for minors being sold into sex slavery.” lifenews.com/2011/10/12/bishops-lose-obama-anti-sex-trafficking-grant-over-abortion/ "

Now, that this has been given a source and plagurism is not an issue - would you care to respond?
God bless

I noticed you did not link your source. A Republican blog, by any chance? If so, this is not the “Democrats side of the dialog” but their opponents presentation of their side. These two are very different things. Do you mind posting your link? Not only does it give a fair understanding to what you post, it also meets the requirements of CAF that they avoid plagurism.

 

[pnewton]

Just take a look at how the Dems have supported the Church’s teachings on abortion, homosexuality, embryonic stem cell research, etc …

No, I will not, at least here, as that is not the topic of this thread. The Catholic bishops do not “get in bed” with political parties. They support moral issues. Sometimes it is the Democrats who they see as being on the right side of a moral issue.

 

[pnewton]

Now, that this has been given a source and plagurism is not an issue - would you care to respond?
God bless

No, that was all. I just don’t want CAF to get into any controversy for not having quotes properly documented. That is the purpose of the rule.

 

[MarisaJean]

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! I don’t know what Catholic teaching you were taught but they seem to be a little off, don’t ya think? People are people, no matter what color their skin is, how much money they have or what walk of life they come from. We are to treat them the same with love and kindness. There are people that do bad things in every race around the world, but that does not mean the whole race in itself is bad. We, as Americans, should be proud that people want to live they way we do, that they are reaching for freedom! And we as Catholics should embrace them like we would anyone else. 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! This has no way impacted your life personally and until it does you will not change the way of thinking you have, which I might add is very sad. Do you teach your children that people from other walks of life, different colors of skin, those who speak different languages, and those that do not have a simple piece of paper are all bad??? Do you instill this hatred in your loved ones? I hope for the future generations you do not. That last thing we need is young people growing up with more views like yours! These threads always make me very upset. This is an issue very close to my heart. This not only effects my personal life but also effects my job as well. You see, I work for a Catholic hospital and I love my job very much. I am in a lower income area with alot of unemployment and alot of illegal immigrants. I do not get paid what I should but I know God has sent me to this particular hospital for a reason. Everyday I see people scared to come in for treatment, nervous to get test taken because they have no insurance and they know they will not be able to pay their bill. So I tell them…do not worry. We, as an orginization, do not care what your legal status is, we care about helping you and making you well again. I treat each and every one of my pt’s the same no matter what walk of life they come from. The bottome line is they are all here for help and that is my job as a worker and a catholic. I do not get paid what I should but at the end of the day I know I have done the right thing and I have helped someone’s mother, father, sister, brother, or child. I help them because I have love in my heart, kindness in my soul, and the ability not to judge…alll of which were the basics that were taught to me as a child. A person is a person…I hope you find these things inside of you one day. Perhapse you should take a walk around an area you normally would not and see the families together…you would really want to be the cause of why a child cannot be with their parents all because they are trying to give their children more? I pray for you and all the people out there like you that have no first hand experience with immigration. I hope that God gives you the understanding to love unconditionally, the kindness to help those in need and the ability not to judge. Just remember the things we do or do not do here on earth will have to be answered to one day…God bless

 

[Ender]

Sometimes it is the Democrats who they see as being on the right side of a moral issue.

Inasmuch as neither the Church nor the bishops have specified what specific policies must or must not be supported for most issues (including immigration, health care, the budget) it is inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are on the right side of any moral issue. There are really only a handful of moral issues and the Democrats are on the wrong side of them all.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I hope I never meet you or anyone like you one day.

The Catholic Church I know and love has taught me … not to judge!

Perhaps it’s time for a remedial course.

Ender

 

[tomarin]

Inasmuch as neither the Church nor the bishops have specified what specific policies must or must not be supported for most issues (including immigration, health care, the budget) it is inaccurate to claim that the Democrats are on the right side of any moral issue. There are really only a handful of moral issues and the Democrats are on the wrong side of them all.

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.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Fine. But, there is a basic idea we all must realize - you can not come up with a sound building, with a cracked foundation - no matter how much paint you put on it, the building will crumble.

The stand taken by the USCCB on illegal immigration is a total frustration because of its ambiguity and contradictory approach. You can not declare that a country is correct to have clearly defined borders and then say to effectively throw open the doors to anyone wishing to come in. You simply can not have it both ways.

The US has an obligation in Justice to protect its citizens before going out in charity to non-citizens. This is basic. So far the argument has been that nothing has been done - not that not enough has been done. Obvious facts of people from other countries actually legally entering this country - and later become Naturalized Citizens is just ignored with statements about well, not enough Mexicans are let in, or not enough poor Mexicans can enter or whatever group one is supporting. There is a whole world out there that wants to come to the US - and you know, that fact alone makes a lot of people ask, “Why is that?” Maybe it is because they see that the US in not ‘Little Mexico’ or 'Little Japan" or ‘Little Columbia’ or ‘Little Wherever’. The reality is that we have our own flavor as a country that practices democracy - and many like the taste. But, no one can endorse unlimited immigration - and when limits are identified (as with current US Law) the cry is ‘Not Enough!’ To this I say, “Nonsense!”

But, back to the cracked foundation from which you are busy building this edifice to Social Justice via new and improved immigration. Our USCCB recently issued a document on our duties as Faithful Catholics with this up coming election (here is the link: usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf ) is a bit of a relief. Finally, this group of Bishops are talking about intrisic moral evil - like abortion, laws against conscience, homsoxuality and that we can as Catholics can not support this. Unfortunately, these Bishops do nothing to make this meaningful by actually denying Communion to those ‘Catholics’ INO who promote and vote for abortion. This would simply be consistent action with consistent Church teaching.

If you want real immigration reform and this would be a branch on the real Social Justice tree - then the USCCB needs to begin with the most basic right - and this is the right to life, before we go out to solicit for more immigration.

God bless

No, I will not, at least here, as that is not the topic of this thread. The Catholic bishops do not “get in bed” with political parties. They support moral issues. Sometimes it is the Democrats who they see as being on the right side of a moral issue.

 

[IrishSFV]

There are people that do bad things in every race around the world, but that does not mean the whole race in itself is bad.

Who said it was?

We, as Americans, should be proud that people want to live they way we do, that they are reaching for freedom!

Reaching for moolah, you mean.

And we as Catholics should embrace them like we would anyone else.

Not if they’re here illegally.

{quote]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!

I don’t? Then why don’t you inform me?

This has no way impacted your life personally and until it does you will not change the way of thinking you have, which I might add is very sad.

Ummm, yes, yes it has impacted my way of life. That’s why it is a major issue to me. I live in Los Angeles, not Indiana.

Do you teach your children that people from other walks of life, different colors of skin, those who speak different languages, and those that do not have a simple piece of paper are all bad??? Do you instill this hatred in your loved ones? I hope for the future generations you do not. That last thing we need is young people growing up with more views like yours!

I teach my children about Nationhood. They are citizens of the United States, not citizens of the world.

These threads always make me very upset. This is an issue very close to my heart. This not only effects my personal life but also effects my job as well. You see, I work for a Catholic hospital and I love my job very much. I am in a lower income area with alot of unemployment and alot of illegal immigrants. I do not get paid what I should but I know God has sent me to this particular hospital for a reason. Everyday I see people scared to come in for treatment, nervous to get test taken because they have no insurance and they know they will not be able to pay their bill. So I tell them…do not worry. We, as an orginization, do not care what your legal status is, we care about helping you and making you well again. I treat each and every one of my pt’s the same no matter what walk of life they come from. The bottome line is they are all here for help and that is my job as a worker and a catholic. I do not get paid what I should but at the end of the day I know I have done the right thing and I have helped someone’s mother, father, sister, brother, or child. I help them because I have love in my heart, kindness in my soul, and the ability not to judge…alll of which were the basics that were taught to me as a child. A person is a person…I hope you find these things inside of you one day.

That’s funny. California is bankrupt partly because illegal immigrants use our hospitals and don’t pay. And also ironic that you bring up that you don’t get paid that much. I don’t get paid that much because greedy owners will only hire me for illegal immigrant wages (out of which I pay taxes).

Perhapse you should take a walk around an area you normally would not and see the families together…you would really want to be the cause of why a child cannot be with their parents all because they are trying to give their children more?

Can’t they be reunited in their country of origin? Who says they can’t?

I pray for you and all the people out there like you that have no first hand experience with immigration.

Hehehe, I hope you’re not talking about me.