Illegal Immigration and Morality

[tafan]

You need to read your own sources. I can’t speak for the site’s accuracy, lets assume that it is accurate: illigal immigrants cost $113B dollars to taxpayers. Of that $84B is to the state and local governments. So that leaves around $29B at the federal level. And you are claiming this $29B had an impact on the US Treasury rating downgrade? If you are seriously making that case, it seems there is not much point in paying attention to any of your other points of view.

As to your second point, it seems you are saying the GOP just needs to be lily-white, all the same. Well, that would be consistent with a couple of other viewspoints you have posted. But it is not going to get rid of abortion in this country.

 

[Ender]

Only if one does not mind proof-texting. (This is one of the worst cases I have ever seen)

I don’t mind your citing the entire document as there is nothing in it that changes the meaning of the sentence I quoted. Yes, there was a lot said about other obligations and how immigrants are to be treated in general, but the bottom line is that what I quoted was not out of context and can only be understood to mean exactly what it said: “Illegal immigration should be prevented.” Everything else you quoted pertains to how immigrants should be treated once they get in … but none of it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration.

Ender is right in one point. It is acceptable to be opposed to illegal immigration.

Since that was the only point I was making I am content with that.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I Everything else you quoted pertains to how immigrants should be treated once they get in … but none of it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration.

This simply is untrue. The first quote even specifies illegal migrants. Another quote is in the immediate context of yours, and none of them specifies legal immigrants only “once they get in”. The document uses the word “illegal” fourteen times and even specifies the reason to address this issue as:

Migration is assuming the features of a social emergency,** above all** because of the increase in***illegal ***migrants which, despite the current restrictions, it seems impossible to halt.

How in the world can you possible think that nothing else but your five-word quote pertains to illegal immigration?

 

[Contarini]

Is it morally OK for a Catholic to be against Illegal Immigration?

Is it a sin for an immigrant to migrate to a country illegally? I ask this because I have heard of the concept of “law of the Land” and how it is a sin to break that.

This Topic is also intended for debating Illegal Immigration. I am personally against it, and if we get a charitable discussion going then I will reveal more about why I am against it.

Nobody–absolutely nobody–is in favor of illegal immigration.

The question is: which part of the illegal immigration presently going on do you want to stop? The illegality (by legalizing it), or the immigration?

Note that I’m not saying that folks who want to stop the second part are opposed to all immigration. I’m simply saying that no one wants a situation where people are immigrating against the law. I’m not trying to caricature your position, but to address a common caricature of mine.

The present immigration laws do not seem to provide well for the natural needs of people, especially of families. That’s why the Catholic Church tends (though not infallibly) to take a “liberal” position on immigration. Natural law trumps governmental law every time.

Furthermore, the claim that illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S. must be punished is simply irrational and immoral. Mercy is always an option, even for heinous criminals, and when the law in question is not prohibiting intrinsically evil behavior, and indeed may be contravening natural law and explicit Church teaching in many cases by preventing people from providing for their families, there is certainly nothing wrong with amnesty.

That for me is the bottom line. If you think amnesty is a bad word, you have a long way to go in understanding the Christian ethical tradition.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[MOTHBALL83]

You need to read your own sources. I can’t speak for the site’s accuracy, lets assume that it is accurate: illigal immigrants cost $113B dollars to taxpayers. Of that $84B is to the state and local governments. So that leaves around $29B at the federal level. And you are claiming this $29B had an impact on the US Treasury rating downgrade? If you are seriously making that case, it seems there is not much point in paying attention to any of your other points of view.

As to your second point, it seems you are saying the GOP just needs to be lily-white, all the same. Well, that would be consistent with a couple of other viewspoints you have posted. But it is not going to get rid of abortion in this country.

Is it Possible that the states get their funds from the Federal Government?

 

[MOTHBALL83]

Nobody–absolutely nobody–is in favor of illegal immigration.

The question is: which part of the illegal immigration presently going on do you want to stop? The illegality (by legalizing it), or the immigration?

Note that I’m not saying that folks who want to stop the second part are opposed to all immigration. I’m simply saying that no one wants a situation where people are immigrating against the law. I’m not trying to caricature your position, but to address a common caricature of mine.

The present immigration laws do not seem to provide well for the natural needs of people, especially of families. That’s why the Catholic Church tends (though not infallibly) to take a “liberal” position on immigration. Natural law trumps governmental law every time.

Furthermore, the claim that illegal immigrants who are already in the U.S. must be punished is simply irrational and immoral. Mercy is always an option, even for heinous criminals, and when the law in question is not prohibiting intrinsically evil behavior, and indeed may be contravening natural law and explicit Church teaching in many cases by preventing people from providing for their families, there is certainly nothing wrong with amnesty.

That for me is the bottom line.

In Christ,

Edwin

I don’t believe that you should reward someone for breaking the law. I feel manipulated by your statement, “If you think amnesty is a bad word, you have a long way to go in understanding the Christian ethical tradition.” Was this intended to make a person feel like they are bad in the eyes of God for being against Amnesty?

 

[Ender]

How in the world can you possible think that nothing else but your five-word quote pertains to illegal immigration?

What comment in that document negates or even mitigates the statement that “Illegal immigration should be prevented”? The mere fact that the word “illegal” is used in other contexts has no bearing on how it was used in the statement I cited. Are you really suggesting that, despite having said that illegal immigration should be prevented, the pope didn’t really mean it?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

What comment in that document negates or even mitigates the statement that “Illegal immigration should be prevented”? The mere fact that the word “illegal” is used in other contexts has no bearing on how it was used in the statement I cited. Are you really suggesting that, despite having said that illegal immigration should be prevented, the pope didn’t really mean it?

Ender

I posted a broader view. I will let each one decide for themselves the message of this document.

 

[MOTHBALL83]

I posted a broader view. I will let each one decide for themselves the message of this document.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that the American Government should be the only force trying to prevent Mexican Illegal Immigration. The Mexican Government needs to be as well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I posted a broader view. I will let each one decide for themselves the message of this document.

The two different messages are (1) the illegality & undesirability of unauthorized immigration; (2) the treatment of those illegally here, once here.

Neither situation, however, has simplistic or self-evident answers, because there is no such thing as “no impact.” Reducing (preferably preventing) negative impact on those with similar survival needs, who are not illegally here, has to always be a priority, in accord with Catholic moral theology.

 

[Crimsonflyboy]

What do y’all think of what Archbishop Rodi of Mobile, AL has to say?

mobilearchdiocese.org/temp/immigration.cfm

 

[Ender]

What do y’all think of what Archbishop Rodi of Mobile, AL has to say?

I wish he had been specific as to which section of the law he believes interferes with the exercise of his priestly duties. He makes very broad claims but does not support them with citations from the law.

“… the law makes illegal the exercise of our Christian religion which we, as citizens of Alabama, have a right to follow.”

I read the bill and I didn’t find a section that would have this effect.

latindispatch.com/2011/06/09/text-of-alabama-immigration-law-hb-56/

"The law prohibits almost everything which would assist an undocumented immigrant or encourage an undocumented immigrant to live in Alabama. This new Alabama law makes it illegal for a Catholic priest to baptize, hear the confession of, celebrate the anointing of the sick with, or preach the word of God to, an undocumented immigrant. Nor can we encourage them to attend Mass or give them a ride to Mass. It is illegal to allow them to attend adult scripture study groups, or attend CCD or Sunday school classes. It is illegal for the clergy to counsel them in times of difficulty or in preparation for marriage. It is illegal for them to come to Alcoholic Anonymous meetings or other recovery groups at our churches."

There is not a one of these allegations that is specifically referred to in the bill. That is, there is nothing that says “priests may not baptize” or “we may not encourage them to attend Mass.” If there is any defect in the law it is that it does not mention religion at all, and it seems pretty clear that the law was not being directed at religious communities. The archbishop’s comments seem a very extreme interpretation of what the law actually says.

Ender

 

[merne9]

a theologian once said, “people say they go to the Bible to find Truth, when in fact they just find what they want to back up what they already believe.”

if you want to “prove” illegal immigration to be immoral any argument will do. BUT if you really want to be open to what our Church teaches you can look up what Blessed Pope JP II had to say about that in his annual migrant speeches.

Although we may not know if illegal immigrants are acting immoral by their crossing we may be more likely to determine if we are being immoral in our treatment of them.

lastly, who ever wrote the list on why their against illegal immigration. briefly, i have heard that illegals are lazy and that employers prefer them because of their work ethic. so, sounds to me that there is just a desire to hate them regardless to what they take or give.

 

[MOTHBALL83]

What do y’all think of what Archbishop Rodi of Mobile, AL has to say?

mobilearchdiocese.org/temp/immigration.cfm

I agree that it is ridiculous that a law would prevent a Catholic Priest from administering the sacraments to an undocumented Immigrant.

 

[pnewton]

I wish he had been specific as to which section of the law he believes interferes with the exercise of his priestly duties. …There is not a one of these allegations that is specifically referred to in the bill.

That is because the bill is too broad. He said this. My guess, after looking at it it is the part from section 13 that is causing concern. Then again, the document is 72 pages long. Transporting an illegal immigrant is specified as criminal. It also makes criminal attempting to harbor(?) and encouraging to reside in Alabama. In any case, this one will be in the hands of the courts as to whether it crosses the line.

 

[Ender]

That is because the bill is too broad. He said this.

I agree there are unanswered questions but there seems little reason to believe that the restrictions the bishop listed were ever implied or would be enforced. His description of the bill does not accord very closely with its contents.

Transporting an illegal immigrant is specified as criminal.

Not so. This is what the law says:

*Transport, or attempt to transport, or conspire to transport in this state an alien in furtherance of the unlawful presence of the alien in the United States, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of federal law. *

Merely transporting an illegal is not a crime. It is the transportation of a known illegal for the purpose of furthering his unlawful presence that is unlawful. That is not an insignificant difference.

In any case, this one will be in the hands of the courts as to whether it crosses the line.

This much we agree on.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I agree there are unanswered questions but there seems little reason to believe that the restrictions the bishop listed were ever implied or would be enforced. His description of the bill does not accord very closely with its contents.
Not so. This is what the law says:

Transport, or attempt to transport, or conspire to transport in this state an alien in furtherance of the unlawful presence of the alien in the United States, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the fact, that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of federal law.

Merely transporting an illegal is not a crime. It is the transportation of a known illegal for the purpose of furthering his unlawful presence that is unlawful. That is not an insignificant difference.

First, you highlighted the wrong part the second time. The obvious section for Church’s will be “reckless disregard”, as there is a e-verify system in place so that status can be determined. If the Church ministers to the immigrant population, this is reckless disregard of their status. The Church should recklessly disreguard their status.

The first phrase is the part that may not be enforceable, but it has that very vagueness that has brought about the criticism. I feel no need to comment on “furtherance of the unlawful presence”. I believe this is vague enough to stand on its own.

 

[Contarini]

I don’t believe that you should reward someone for breaking the law.

To use a cool philosophical term I learned yesterday, the phrase “reward someone for” is “hyperintensional.” You can’t substitute an equivalent term and still have the phrase be true.

I don’t think that allowing people to remain in the country and enjoy the fruit of their labor is “rewarding” them anyway. But even if it is, what they are being “rewarded” for is their honorable desire to provide for their families and labor in an honest vocation, not for breaking the law.

Their law-breaking is incidental and arises from the fact that present immigration “law” (I put law in quotation marks because I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law is no law at all) does not adequately allow for the natural needs and legitimate aspirations of the poor neighbors of the United States.

I feel manipulated by your statement, “If you think amnesty is a bad word, you have a long way to go in understanding the Christian ethical tradition.” Was this intended to make a person feel like they are bad in the eyes of God for being against Amnesty?

It was intended to make a rational argument that “amnesty” is not an intrinsically bad concept in the Christian tradition. One of the basic convictions of Christians historically is that in showing mercy, even to those who do not deserve it, we are imitating one of the qualities that is most distinctively characteristic of God (in Thomistic terms, one of the human names/concepts which is least inadequate to describe the reality of God’s simple nature) and which we are most zealously called upon to imitate in Holy Scripture.

A fortiori, there can be nothing wrong with showing “amnesty” to people who have broken a human law (which may itself be contrary to natural law) in the service of their God-given responsibility to provide for their families, and thus may be worthy of reward rather than punishment.

I really don’t care whether you “feel manipulated” or not. I care whether you have a rational, theological answer to my argument. So far it appears that you don’t.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

First, you highlighted the wrong part the second time. The obvious section for Church’s will be “reckless disregard”, as there is a e-verify system in place so that status can be determined. If the Church ministers to the immigrant population, this is reckless disregard of their status. The Church should recklessly disreguard their status.

E-Verify is only mandated for employers. A Church has no obligation to run an E-Verify check on all of its parishioners. I didn’t see any article that would prohibit ministering to anyone even if the person was known to be an illegal. A Church may not hire illegals but there is nothing prohibiting her from ministering to them.

The first phrase is the part that may not be enforceable, but it has that very vagueness that has brought about the criticism. I feel no need to comment on “furtherance of the unlawful presence”. I believe this is vague enough to stand on its own.

There is probably some vagueness that will need to be clarified, however the bill does not appear to contain any of the prohibitions the archbishop claimed to oppose.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Their law-breaking is incidental and arises from the fact that present immigration “law” (I put law in quotation marks because I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas that an unjust law is no law at all) does not adequately allow for the natural needs and legitimate aspirations of the poor neighbors of the United States.

While I consider our immigration laws a good deal less than ideal, I also consider them valid and would have no problem enforcing them or punishing those who violate them. Nor do I think that “I don’t like that law” would be a successful defense.

It was intended to make a rational argument that “amnesty” is not an intrinsically bad concept in the Christian tradition.

This is true. It is also true that “deportation” is not an intrinsically bad concept.

A fortiori, there can be nothing wrong with showing “amnesty” to people who have broken a human law (which may itself be contrary to natural law) in the service of their God-given responsibility to provide for their families, and thus may be worthy of reward rather than punishment.

A fortiori, there can be nothing wrong with deciding that people who have violated our laws should be punished or that deportation is not a proper punishment for illegal entry. Since there are no intrinsically evil positions involved, the basis for deciding what changes to make to our immigration laws is not a moral issue but rather is a prudential difference of opinion over what actions are most likely to bring about the most satisfactory results.

Ender