Illegal Immigration and Morality

[KSU]

Agustin, thank you, sincerely, for your reply in #121.

It seems you have a good heart and I respect your efforts for your people. Please, accept my following comments in that light.

Your answer is unintentionally condescending. What makes you think we don’t “really know what Christianity is and everything it entails”, or that “we must first understand Catholicism and our duty toward our neighbor”? We American Catholics are well versed in that regard. For you to imply that some of us are not, and therefor we have the wrong perspective to properly understand this issue, will get you nowhere.

Understand, Agustin, we know full well Church teaching and see no conflict between that teaching and the obvious political solution to the very real and nationally debilitating problem of illegal immigration-- lock down the boarder first, treat humanely those already here (there are many programs to do that), install a real guest-worker program, and imprison and eventually deport the criminal element that makes the news every night. Mexico just throws all their illegals in prison and violates international law by facilitating illegal immigration into the U S A. We, on the other hand, are a Christian nation and act like it even though we pay a tremendous price for it.

Economic survival of our families and country comes first. Neither our Faith nor our Constitution is a suicide pact; they are gifts from God and we intend to keep them.

 

[pnewton]

---

I agree with everything here except for the last part. It is not in the best interest of the nation to keep allowing in a massive amount of people, especially poor, uneducated ones. A good decade or two more of that and we’ll be in the position of the nations they came from, then where would they go? (Or us for that matter?)

Yes, that is something that we can disagree on, and do. I see them as a resource, and a much needed one.

 

[pnewton]

This is certainly not true and the insult itself almost shuts down the debate here. Americans have always been hard workers.

I deal with a job that employees multi-generational workers. It has been my experiences that baby boomers have a better work ethic than gen-x, who in turn have a better work ethic than gen-y. That actually teach how to deal with the lax work ethic of the young teens to twenties and still maintain productivity.

 

[pnewton]

John Paul II said that Illegal Immigration should be prevented. Doesn’t matter where they come from.

This keeps getting posted. I will expand on the quote a little

Illegal immigration* should* be prevented, but…

 

[MOTHBALL83]

This keeps getting posted. I will expand on the quote a little

Illegal immigration* should* be prevented, but…

It’s saying that Illegal Immigration should be prevented, but at the same time we should prevent people from treating Illegal Immigrants poorly.

 

[zyzyban]

Generic Zyban (Bupropion)
http://zybanpills.com/order-zyban-online-en_files/icon_38_100x125.jpg
Zyban is an atypical antidepressant which helps to stop smoking by reducing cravings and withdrawals. Also we have super viagra and priligy

 

[Agustin821]

Agustin, thank you, sincerely, for your reply in #121.

It seems you have a good heart and I respect your efforts for your people. Please, accept my following comments in that light.

Your answer is unintentionally condescending. What makes you think we don’t “really know what Christianity is and everything it entails”, or that “we must first understand Catholicism and our duty toward our neighbor”? We American Catholics are well versed in that regard. For you to imply that some of us are not, and therefor we have the wrong perspective to properly understand this issue, will get you nowhere.

Understand, Agustin, we know full well Church teaching and see no conflict between that teaching and the obvious political solution to the very real and nationally debilitating problem of illegal immigration-- lock down the boarder first, treat humanely those already here (there are many programs to do that), install a real guest-worker program, and imprison and eventually deport the criminal element that makes the news every night. Mexico just throws all their illegals in prison and violates international law by facilitating illegal immigration into the U S A. We, on the other hand, are a Christian nation and act like it even though we pay a tremendous price for it.

Economic survival of our families and country comes first. Neither our Faith nor our Constitution is a suicide pact; they are gifts from God and we intend to keep them.

Maybe we got onto a rough start. For starters, I’m more American than Mexican (I was practically born in the US and definitely raised there). What I said about understanding Catholicism was a general statement, not one applying solely to Americans.

We seem to agree on most everything; I too think illegal immigration should be prevented. I guess I naturally get defensive because usually when someone is against illegal immigration, they are also against illegal immigrants as persons (I grew up in a somewhat rough part of Arizona, which I found out is famous all over Latin America as being a racist state). For anything offensive that I said, I apologize. To tell you the truth, I think this thread is stale and is no longer really tackling the problem at hand. I don’t think I’ll be able to post again because of the demands of my state of life right now, but I pray that there is a solution soon, one that is born of both love of neighbor and of the common good.

Peace,

Agustin

 

[KSU]

“…I pray that there is a solution soon, one that is born of both love of neighbor and of the common good. Peace.”

Back atcha, Augustin. God bless you in your vocation.

 

[pnewton]

It’s saying that Illegal Immigration should be prevented, but at the same time we should prevent people from treating Illegal Immigrants poorly.

The rest of the quote is " but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. " The statement that is being waved like a banner from the Pope is nothing but a subordinate clause to protecting illegal immigrants from criminal exploitation. The rest of the message is the same in tone as we are receiving from our bishops. Fact! ( check out my signature quote)

Here is the whole document

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

Here are some fuller quotes:

The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant; in order to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common justice.

Thus it is important to help illegal migrants to complete the necessary administrative papers to obtain a residence permit.

Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that “stranger” in whom Jesus asks to be recognized. To welcome him and to show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself.

One should read the whole speech. If one feels about this like you do about the bishops statements, then it is time for self-examination as to whether you wish to follow the Church’s teaching on the matter.

 

[MOTHBALL83]

The rest of the quote is " but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. " The statement that is being waved like a banner from the Pope is nothing but a subordinate clause to protecting illegal immigrants from criminal exploitation. The rest of the message is the same in tone as we are receiving from our bishops. Fact! ( check out my signature quote)

Here is the whole document

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

Here are some fuller quotes:

One should read the whole speech. If one feels about this like you do about the bishops statements, then it is time for self-examination as to whether you wish to follow the Church’s teaching on the matter.

Basically what I am getting out of this is that we should listen to Illegal Immigrants about why they came here. Then we should direct them to a government agency so that they may fill out the proper paperwork to gain citizenship status.

I agree with what Pope John Paul II is saying in this letter. He is not at all saying that we should just give everyone citizenship who comes here illegally. He is saying that we should determine whether or not we can accommodate these people, and make a decision as to how we should help them…whether we should find another country for them to migrate to or whatever. Pope John Paul II does not at all say that we should allow them to reside here illegally the entire time. He is saying that once we are aware of their presence we should try to make legal accommodations for them. If we are unable to do so then we should do what we can for them (this also includes the possibility of sending them back to their respective countries).

I am pretty sure this illegal immigration issue is not being dealt with at all like Pope John Paul II describes in this letter.

 

[pnewton]

Basically what I am getting out of this is that we should listen to Illegal Immigrants about why they came here. Then we should direct them to a government agency so that they may fill out the proper paperwork to gain citizenship status.

That’s all I would want to see; a way to fill out the proper paperwork for citizenship or residency. I would also say that all immigrants should be require to participate in contributing to the needs in society (a.k.a. taxes).

 

[cmforte]

(I grew up in a somewhat rough part of Arizona, which I found out is famous all over Latin America as being a racist state).

It is famous as a “racist state” to Latin Americans because it tries to stop illegal immigration and enforce the sovereignty of America, and since most illegal immigrants come from Latin America, ergo Latin Americans don’t like that. I agree with the laws in Arizona, and would love to have them here in Cali.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Basically what I am getting out of this is that we should listen to Illegal Immigrants about why they came here. Then we should direct them to a government agency so that they may fill out the proper paperwork to gain citizenship status.

I agree with what Pope John Paul II is saying in this letter. He is not at all saying that we should just give everyone citizenship who comes here illegally. He is saying that we should determine whether or not we can accommodate these people, and make a decision as to how we should help them…whether we should find another country for them to migrate to or whatever. Pope John Paul II does not at all say that we should allow them to reside here illegally the entire time. He is saying that once we are aware of their presence we should try to make legal accommodations for them. If we are unable to do so then we should do what we can for them (this also includes the possibility of sending them back to their respective countries).

I am pretty sure this illegal immigration issue is not being dealt with at all like Pope John Paul II describes in this letter.

I do agree here. I think exceptions should be made for certain illgals. We should take each one on a case-by-case basis, looking at the reasons they came here and their behavior while here, for example, I would let this guy stay: msnbc.msn.com/id/21950265/ns/us_news-life/t/sheriff-illegal-border-crosser-rescues-us-boy/

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton
This keeps getting posted. I will expand on the quote a little

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but…

It’s saying that Illegal Immigration should be prevented, but at the same time we should prevent people from treating Illegal Immigrants poorly.

Which is one of the assertions I that really offend me made by pro-amnesty people; as if we are treating illegals “poorly”. Even with our current system, we are not.

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

I deal with a job that employees multi-generational workers. It has been my experiences that baby boomers have a better work ethic than gen-x, who in turn have a better work ethic than gen-y. That actually teach how to deal with the lax work ethic of the young teens to twenties and still maintain productivity.

And somehow that speaks for all 300 million Americans? Ok, if you say so…

And again, shouldn’t we be telling these people to stop being so lazy and arrogant and to go get those few jobs available, even if they are low-wage? Instead of letting foreigners get them?

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

Basically what I am getting out of this is that we should listen to Illegal Immigrants about why they came here.

All I hear from illegals and their supporters is pride, arrogance, and chauvinism and an outright contempt for this nation’s sovereingty and laws …they do jobs Americans are too lazy to do, who else will scrub your toilets? (As if every American is rich); this was once their land, we stole it from them, therefore they have the right to take it back (not true at all); they are dying in our deserts not because they voluntarily entered them in order to violate our borders, but because we “forced” them to by having a border!! I see illegals openly showing contempt for the law, some even boldly speak out at city council meetings, not at all ashamed for their law-breaking (even if it illegally entering this country is for a “good” reason, you shouldn’t flaunt what you did)…

.If they would just be more humble and apologetic, just come out and say., “please forgive us for coming here illegally…but please understand why we did it…” instead they call us racist, they stick their noses up at us because they think they are right and more “compassionate” and that we are wrong and just cold-blooded; at my sister’s colege, a famous Liberal one, they openly bad-mouth America and say that all the problems in the world is its fault and the fault of white Western society in general and its our obligation as that wealthy, white Western society to correct the wrongs we inflicted on them by giving in to everything they demand…

Not all illegals may think this, but the most vocal ones, and their supporters, do…so excuse me if I have a problem with them!

As I said before, in the name of justice and mercy, we should take each case individually and judge them on their own merits, I do agree there…its not that I “hate” illegals, its that I hate how they are framing the issue and how they act when they present it…if they would just be more humble and apologetic, and stop insulting Americans, then people like me wouldn’t be so resentful and so legalistic…

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

The Church considers the problem of illegal migrants from the standpoint of Christ, who died to gather together the dispersed children of God (cf. Jn 11:52), to rehabilitate the marginalized and to bring close those who are distant; in order** to integrate all within a communion that is not based on ethnic, cultural or social membership, but on the common justice**.

Here I somewhat disagree. I believe culture is a neccessary and natural part of human nature and life, and that borders, and the nation-states within them, exist partly for preserving a certain culture, especially if that culture is in danger of disappearing. That is also why I think borders are important and why I support the concept of the nation-state. However, this does not preclude common justice.

-Chris

 

[MOTHBALL83]

That’s all I would want to see; a way to fill out the proper paperwork for citizenship or residency. I would also say that all immigrants should be require to participate in contributing to the needs in society (a.k.a. taxes).

But just because they fill out the paperwork does not mean they get citizenship status. Whether or not they get citizenship would be based on the needs of our country. If we can not accommodate them then we may send them back to their respective country or find another country for them to migrate to. Right now there are as many as 20 million illegal immigrants in our country. This is WAY TOO MUCH. I wouldn’t mind if we gave amnesty to 2-3 million of them, and sent the rest of them off somewhere else. But we are having enough trouble employing our own citizens at the moment. Amnesty would be devestating to Americans right now.

 

[Contarini]

As an American and as a Catholic, both ideologies must coalesce.

Why “must”? Do you believe that either the creators or the current shapers of American ideology are/were infallible or divinely inspired? Why is it so inconceivable that mere mortals got some stuff wrong? And why can’t an American think this?

I checked out your profile and still can’t figure out where you’re from.

It’s a long story. The short version is: born in England of partly American parents (my mother has dual U.S./British citizenship; my father dual British/Australian), moved to the States when I was six.

Are you an American?

No. Well, actually I’m not sure. That’s how confusing the information given out by the INS on cases like mine is. (My mother is a citizen because her parents were, but this doesn’t seem to apply to me in quite the same way.) I have read the relevant documents a number of times and gotten more confused each time. But I don’t have an American passport. So effectively no. I don’t vote. (But in case you’re worried, I do pay taxes.)

One of the reasons I am content to be a resident alien and not make the necessary effort to sort out my citizenship status is precisely the attitude you’re expressing. I have no interest in adhering to America as to some sort of a religion, as you seem to do. I already have a religion. It’s called Christianity. If I wanted a second one on the side, I think I’d go for Buddhism.

I would be happy to *be *an American citizen if Divine Providence had so ordered things. America is a darned fine nation as nations go. But I have no urge to attach myself to the United States as to some sort of salvific covenant community. Figuring out how I relate to the Church is confusing enough.

If so, how can you disparage the Founders? That is not a very American thing to do.

Fortunately, not all Americans think as you do. . . . But many do.

Besides, I didn’t say they were rapscallions (though some of them were), only that they were not (from a Catholic standpoint) entirely orthodox!

And you are right: they were very “un-Catholic” (some were very anti-Catholic…heck, most were Masons!!), in that they believed in freedom and democracy…both very good concepts in my point of view. It was the “un-Catholic” American Founding Fathers that so believed in religious freedom, that even though they were historically against the Catholic Church because of its history in Europe, they allowed it to exist in the US and it is now one of (if not THE) largest religions here and has the most influence. I think the so-called “un-Catholic” views of the American Founding Fathers worked out great! Even for Catholics!!

Well, many folks on these forums don’t seem to think so. They seem quite worried about the American Church.

I don’t think that America has been uniquely bad for Catholicism–Catholicism has unique advantages and unique challenges here. The lack of state support is on the whole good for any church, but at the same time the peculiar American ideology also has some points of conflict with Catholicism, which is all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s thoroughly bad or that orthodox Christians (I should perhaps use that term instead of “Catholic,” since I’m not in full communion with Rome myself) should reject all of it–only that we should view it critically and not accept it in toto by an act of faith,a s you seem to do.

Although, it can be argued that their ideology wasn’t “un-Catholic.”

Well, which do you think? I’m confused?

Granted, it’s a confusing subject. American Catholics have contributed a great deal to help the Church as a whole think through these issues. At the same time, an orthodox Catholic is going to stand in tension with standard “Americanism” in a lot of ways, and I think that’s healthy as well. Tension and paradox are generally good things while we are in via in hac lacrimarum valle.

You really have no idea what a “nation” is?

I think that it is a concept too often taken for granted and exempted from critical analysis. Is it a group of people? If so, is the group of people defined by geography or by citizenship? Who grants citizenship and what does that say about the nature of a “nation”? And so on.

Where exactly do you live? Is it in a nation?

In the state of Indiana, in the United States.

And I did say that a nation’s government is suppose to do “what is good for its own people,” just not provide for our every little needs and wants.

Then I’m not sure what you thought you were disagreeing with in the definition I gave earlier.

 

[Contarini]

And how can the concept of a nation be “abstract”? Look on a globe and tell me if there are nations. Its not “abstract,” its concrete.

I suppose we could argue over what is abstract. My concern is that a “nation” is a peculiar blend of people, geography, ideology, and raw coercive force, and that the concept is used to cover over the tensions among all these things and evoke a raw, unquestioning loyalty that none of those things would elicit on their own. So when I say it’s “abstract” I mean that the concept does “work” that none of the concrete referents seem to be able to do.

You point to the map–but of course, judging from the map one would think that an undocumented migrant worker living within the borders of the U.S. was part of the “nation” called the United States. You have made it clear that you don’t think this. So your appeal to the map is questionable.

I believe in the nation because I live in one.

But do you believe in this particular one, or in the general concept of a nation? Do you think it right for the inhabitants of North Korea to believe in their nation in precisely the same way you believe in yours? And since you speak of “living in” a nation as the decisive factor, what about a non-citizen resident, whether “legal” (like myself) or “illegal” (like the primary subjects of this thread)? In what nation ought such a person to believe? And what does it mean to “believe in” a nation?

The greatest on earth (though not perfect).

How does one measure greatness, and is it reasonable to make the citizens of a particular nation judges in their own cause?

Nations, in the American view, like States, should be separate, individual and sovereign in their own spheres as a way to prevent tyranny that can occur when all power is centralized, like in one global government.

I entirely agree with you about the dangers of concentrated power. That’s precisely why I’m dubious about nation-states. Why should they be “sovereign in their own spheres,” and how on earth does that *prevent *centralization? It promotes centralization.

Compare, say, the Holy Roman Empire of the early sixteenth century, or more broadly the ideal “Christendom” of medieval political thinkers (which actually corresponded, in principle, to the Holy Roman Empire, inasmuch as all European monarchs were theoretically supposed to be in some way subject to the Emperor, at least according to many writers). That’s a much *less *centralized polity. The rise of the nation-state was a movement toward centralization, not away from it.

One of the great strengths of the United States is its relative decentralization–of course, that’s partly because it’s just so darned big. . . .

"…My vision is of a republic, not an empire, a nation that does not go to war unless it is attacked, or her vital interests are imperilled, or her honour is impugned. And when she does go to war it is only after following a constitutional declaration by the Congress of the United States. We are not imperialists; we are not interventionists; we are not hegemonists; and we are not isolationists. We simply believe in America first, last and always.

Jesus doesn’t get a look in, I guess. . . . .

I actually agree with significant parts of this. But in practice believing in America (or any other country) “first, last, and always” leads to imperialism, because when you “believe in” your nation you can persuade yourself that just about anything is a threat to its “interests.” A just patriotism requires one to believe in more than the nation, so that one can have some standard by which to judge when the “interests” of the nation correspond to natural law.

Exactly. Though I do believe in a “safety net,” just not one like they have (or had) in Europe that coddled its citizens from the cradle to the grave for so long (gee, how is that turning out for you?)

It’s not at all clear to me that Europe is by any reasonable standard “worse off” than the U.S. Both Europe and the U.S. (neither of which, of course, is monolithic) have their strengths and their weaknesses.

What huge disagreement on "freedom’? I know of no disagreement. Most people, at least in Western society, agree with the concepts of freedom as spelled out in the American Constitution, even if they are anti-American.

First of all, that’s not true. There’s room for a lot of disagreement as to whether the approach taken by the Constitution was really preferable to that taken by, for instance, Britain with its more incremental development. But in the second place, within the U.S. there’s huge disagreement as to how to interpret the Constitution. Every major political debate in American history has been over how to interpret this “American” concept of freedom. If you don’t see this, it’s because you have so thoroughly accepted a particular body of propaganda that you see your opponents as not really believing in freedom at all. No reasonable person, listening to both sides with something approaching fairness, would fail to conclude that both sides in contemporary political debates (as in previous ones) are working from the values of the American Constitution as they understand it. There are of course tiny minorities on both sides who are willing to go beyond this, and each side likes to point to those tiny minorities to justify its own misrepresentation of the other.

Edwin