Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Ender]

But if I come up with a solution for my problem, and my pastor says, “I think there are moral implications to this that you are overlooking,” I’m not going to thumb my nose and say “that’s just your opinion.” I’m going to give my proposed solution a very hard and critical second look, assuming that the person with pastoral responsibility for me is more likely than not to be saying something God wants me to hear. And that’s all I’m suggesting you should do.

This debate is about morality and immigration. If I disagree with the opinions expressed by some bishops it should be acknowledged that I have a right to do so and that my rejection of their position is not a demonstrably immoral act. You may disagree with the positions I take and believe them to be seriously flawed but you cannot call them immoral because that claim involves a judgment of me, not of the positions themselves. That you have already admitted that the bishops’ positions are not binding can only mean that they are not doctrinal, opposing them is not immoral, and therefore the issue itself is not a moral concern.

You’re ignoring the fact that I wasn’t speaking about abortion itself but about remote material cooperation with abortion, which is a prudential issue just as much as immigration is.

Material cooperation with evil does indeed involve prudential judgment but this is very different from the prudential judgment involved with solving political (as the Church understands this term: management of common good) issues. The former involves determining whether an action is or is not immoral; the latter involves determining whether an action is or is not effective. The bishops are rightly involved in questions of morality but are out of their element on questions of practical politics.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Virtually anything one can find fault with the bishops on is, basically, this: they look merely at the ideal, and not the actual realization. Apparently it is sufficient to have one’s heart in the right place? Someone must tell Aquinas, I’m pretty sure his view of the morality of an act was somewhat more complex.

You’ve done an extremely poor job at reading my viewpoints even just here alone on this thread, to have grossly mischaracterized them as “finding fault with the bishops.” The concept is not “finding fault.” The concept is discerning the morality and the immorality of illegal immigration in its particulars, not in its generalities. The problem with the mere “concept” of illegal immigration is that it’s not a concept; it’s a practicality, affecting (morally) families, in no uncertain terms. Having a moral effect both on the very families immigrating illegally, and on other poor families here legally.

And I’ll thank you not to lecture me about Aquinas, on whom I am well read, and passionately so. He is not, however, the subject of this thread. nor relevant to this discussion.

A very inappropriate response on your part.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elizabeth502,

I think you concern is both well taken and well expressed!

There seems to be several variations on this theme about shelving the practical moral applications of what the bishops are saying in preference to something quite vague.

The idea of claiming that the US has failed in implementing an appropriate immigration policy because not all usable space has yet been used is truly strange. Is anyone one concerned about what will happen ‘tomorrow’ when all usable space is occupied?

What I have yet to hear is anything addressing the countries that are effectively causing their own citizens to flee from economic, religious, political, etc pressures and come to the US. If the US is effectively acting as a ‘safety valve’ to those who want freedom, would it not be better to address the cause of the problem rather then finding fault with the ‘safety valve’?

God bless

You’ve done an extremely poor job at reading my viewpoints even just here alone on this thread, to have grossly mischaracterized them as “finding fault with the bishops.” The concept is not “finding fault.” The concept is discerning the morality and the immorality of illegal immigration in its particulars, not in its generalities. The problem with the mere “concept” of illegal immigration is that it’s not a concept; it’s a practicality, affecting (morally) families, in no uncertain terms. Having a moral effect both on the very families immigrating illegally, and on other poor families here legally.

And I’ll thank you not to lecture me about Aquinas, on whom I am well read, and passionately so. He is not, however, the subject of this thread. nor relevant to this discussion.

A very inappropriate response on your part.

 

[Ender]

The concept is discerning the morality and the immorality of illegal immigration in its particulars, not in its generalities. The problem with the mere “concept” of illegal immigration is that it’s not a concept; it’s a practicality, affecting (morally) families, in no uncertain terms. Having a moral effect both on the very families immigrating illegally, and on other poor families here legally.

You are inappropriately conflating “moral” with “harmful.” That people are suffering does not make the determination of how to reduce that suffering a moral concern. In general terms immigration may be seen as a moral issue in that we have an obligation to alleviate suffering as far as we are able. In regard to particulars, however, immigration is not a moral issue inasmuch as solutions involve our prudential judgment - best guesses - about the results certain actions will have.

If I try to help but my actions turn out to be harmful, have I sinned or have I simply made a mistake? You believe your positions on immigration are moral because you want to help immigrants, but I could adopt the exact same solutions you favor and act immorally if I in fact believed those actions would be harmful. That is, it is the intent behind our choices that make them moral or immoral, not the choices (within reason) themselves. Solving immigration problems does not face us with moral choices, only practical ones.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

You are inappropriately conflating “moral” with “harmful.”

Nowhere have I done that, even implicitly. I am discussing the moral realm, not strictly the negative moral realm, nor exclusively the positive moral realm. Morality encompasses the entire spectrum of good and evil.

You have failed to follow the scope of my thinking on this thread. I observe that pnewton has done a better job of that. He has not objected to my introducing provocative moral/immoral consequences of illegal immigration, because he seems to understand that this is an open-ended discussion of the various ways in which both the concept and the reality of illegal immigration could be both moral and immoral, depending on specifics.

The bishops provide general guidance on moral matters, including matters in the social justice arena. However, accurate information is the starting point for all guidance, even when from the bishops. My issue is with the scope or the selectivity of their information, not with their authority to provide guidance. That information can make all the difference in what that guidance is.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Hi, Elizabeth502,

IThe idea of claiming that the US has failed in implementing an appropriate immigration policy because not all usable space has yet been used is truly strange. Is anyone one concerned about what will happen ‘tomorrow’ when all usable space is occupied?

What I have yet to hear is anything addressing the countries that are effectively causing their own citizens to flee from economic, religious, political, etc pressures and come to the US. If the US is effectively acting as a ‘safety valve’ to those who want freedom, would it not be better to address the cause of the problem rather then finding fault with the ‘safety valve’?

If you “have yet to hear anything,” it may be that you have yet to do a search on CAF. I have discussed this several times. You might want to do a search of my name + immigration, or better yet, JReducation’s name + immigration, because in conversations with him I was very passionate on the issue of the original country’s responsibility.

Also, you should have seen in one of my recent posts on this thread that I did tangentially refer to solutions within the emigrating country. Nevertheless, internal solutions and efforts will not entirely stem the pressure on immigration, and certainly not in the very near future. From both a political and moral viewpoint, we should continue to be a country which welcomes immigrants, but not limitlessy. The limits, procedures, and requirements for that immigration are complex matters that cannot be strictly idealistic in scope, given the confines of local and national economies, and the fact that Justice applies to all peoples, not just to migrants.

 

[Ender]

Nowhere have I done that, even implicitly. I am discussing the moral realm, not strictly the negative moral realm, nor exclusively the positive moral realm. Morality encompasses the entire spectrum of good and evil.

Morality may encompass the spectrum of good and evil but it is not involved at all with effective and ineffective, which is what solving our immigration problems involves.Your statement that *“The problem with the mere “concept” of illegal immigration is that it’s not a concept; it’s a practicality, affecting (morally) families, in no uncertain terms” *is not meaningful as hardship is not a moral effect. That some people undergo hardships is no indication that others have sinned.

He has not objected to my introducing provocative moral/immoral consequences of illegal immigration, because he seems to understand that this is an open-ended discussion of the various ways in which both the concept and the reality of illegal immigration could be both moral and immoral, depending on specifics.

People may behave morally or immorally but determining which immigration solutions will work does not involve any moral judgments.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

Not to put words in your mouth (or words in your text may be a better cliche, eh?) if you do not believe the US has set a limit for yearly immigration that is appropriate - because of some concept of ‘capacity’ you have in mind, please what is that numbrer that the US is failing to address?

I’m not sure what you mean by this. Surely one can say that the country is not admitting as many immigrants as it could, without saying just what the maximum number might be. That would depend on all kinds of circumstances.

Similarly, one can say that the earth can still support more people without saying what the maximum number of people might be.

I think it’s fascinating that you use the “lifeboat” analogy. As with the question of taxation earlier, it appears that you are at odds with many of the folks on this forum. Over and over again I’ve been told that overpopulation isn’t a problem, that the world can hold a lot more people, and that the “lifeboat” language is inaccurate and immoral garbage from the 70s, or something to that effect

And here you are, using that analogy. . . . Would you agree, then, that worldwide population controls are a good thing? Or would you favor something like space colonization.

I mean, you’re worried about overpopulation in the U.S., which has a density of 83 people per square mile if Wikipedia is to be believed. The world as a whole has a density of 135. So it’s hard for me to take your question seriously. Either overpopulation is not a U.S. problem, or it is a world problem. And if it is a world problem, it’s one that affects the U.S. less than other countries and thus doesn’t constitute a reasonable ground for limiting immigration from countries that are poorer and more densely populated. (If the U.S. wants to ban all immigration from Canada, except for people fleeing religious persecution by the evil secularists, that would be fine with me).

By the standards of the U.N. Human Development Index, the standard of living in this country is the 4th highest in the world. It is with the greatest effort (and only by taking some time in between posts) that I am able to respond with anything approaching courtesy to the astonishing claim by inhabitants of such a favored nation that they are unable to receive any more immigrants.

As far as I’m concerned, in light of the obvious facts concerning the relative wealth and extensive resources of the United States, the fact that folks on this forum can say with a straight face that the U.S. can’t receive more immigrants is a sufficient refutation of the claim that this is a purely non-moral question that the Church has no business addressing. If people can come to conclusions as remote from reality as that–conclusions that have such a devastating effect on the lives of the poor and needy–then it is certainly the Church’s business to provide a “reality check.”

Edwin

There are areas of the US that are on top of mountains, on mountains and in deserts and in swamps. While the US has 3,537,441 square miles (including water) where is it you want to put all of these people? Honest. Saying everyone squeeze into the urban area closes where you crossed into the US is not reasonable.

Endar brought up the unemployment in the country. And, while someone can be unemployed in their own country, why come here to be unemployed except to seek some type of governmental aid?

I guess what I am understanding you to be saying is that whatever you are doing is not good enough. While you have done things in the past concerning immigration - that was then and this is now. I have a problem with that. Now, maybe that is just me… but, I think we have done a good job in the past and continue to do a good job today. The Statue of Liberty has not been dismanteled - and, while immigration laws have changed since 1886 when the Lady was dedicated - it still stands for hope that things can be better. But follow the laws of this land you want to live in and show good faith in your immigration activities.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Edwin,

You are certainly free to take my question seriously - it was intended that way. But, let’s take a look at what you have presented here and I will seriously try and respond.

Contarini:
I’m not sure what you mean by this. Surely one can say that the country is not admitting as many immigrants as it could, without saying just what the maximum number might be. That would depend on all kinds of circumstances.

Without getting bogged down in “…all kinds of circumstances…” what country is doing ‘all that it can’ in any area (e.g, energy exploration, conservation, production of durable consumer items) - you name it, Edwin, short-comings abound in every area of human effort. But, that does not mean that countries are not trying to imporve. This broad-brushed criticism of US failures in immigration - is both unjust and undeserved.
.

Similarly, one can say that the earth can still support more people without saying what the maximum number of people might be.

I think it’s fascinating that you use the “lifeboat” analogy…

The ‘earth’ is not being criticized for not holding more people - the US is.

If you do not like the life boat analogy I used - feel free to change it to any other item you wish: car, bus, telephone booth, quart jar, etc. You name it, there is a physical limit to every physical entity. The issue is where is it that one draws the line since we are dealing with people. Total Population / Gross square miles may provide some number - but, that treats every square mile to be just as desireable as every other square mile. And, this just does not work.

What you have apparently refused to answer is: where are you drawing the line? Since the US actually does admit immigrants (and these would by definition be legal immigrants) every year - and every year previously admitted legal immigrants take the Oath to become US Citizens - there is a working immigration policy. .

And here you are, using that analogy. . . . Would you agree, then, that worldwide population controls are a good thing?

Actually, for me, Edwin, this is not about ‘over population’ - but, the destruction of the civilization in my own country that I have come to know. When my Father’s parents immigrated to the US - they had to learn to speak and write English. They had to learn about this country and they became citizens. Work to increase the number admitted - but, do not encourage illegal entry because of some presumed failure to admit some vaguely larger number…

I mean, you’re worried about overpopulation in the U.S., which has a density of 83 people per square mile if Wikipedia is to be believed.

As I explained above, this is not and has never been my worry…

The world as a whole has a density of 135. So it’s hard for me to take your question seriously.

Beware of averages - they only look like they provide an answer. But, since you are using this as your numeric argument - the US is to go from 83 to 135 and this resolve the criticism, Edwin?.

By the standards of the U.N. Human Development Index, the standard of living in this country is the 4th highest in the world. It is with the greatest effort (and only by taking some time in between posts) that I am able to respond with anything approaching courtesy to the astonishing claim by inhabitants of such a favored nation that they are unable to receive any more immigrants.

Thank you for the courtesy. And this is exactly what I am try to seriously address to your argument: whatever the US is doing is simply not enough - but, the ‘how much more will be enough’ question is simply dismissed as not worthy of answering. One can not be vague when one condemns! And this is just what is going on. If no specific amount will satisfy, I submit that the entire argument is flawed…

As far as I’m concerned, in light of the obvious facts concerning the relative wealth and extensive resources of the United States, the fact that folks on this forum can say with a straight face that the U.S. can’t receive more immigrants is a sufficient refutation of the claim that this is a purely non-moral question that the Church has no business addressing.

This is the major flaw in the argument presented above: every year new immigrants enter this country. No one (to my knowledge) has said, “…the US can’t receive more immigrants…”. The issue is how many more are you talking about?.

If people can come to conclusions as remote from reality as that–conclusions that have such a devastating effect on the lives of the poor and needy–then it is certainly the Church’s business to provide a “reality check.”

Well, I guess this is where we differ. You can not set up a ‘straw man’ argument such as you have done and then claim victory for defeating it. There also seems to be a bit of confusion between the USCCB and the Catholic Chruch - it is only the Church that can speak infallibly.

God bless.

 

[Ender]

Actually, for me, Edwin, this is not about ‘over population’ - but, the destruction of the civilization in my own country that I have come to know.

This is a fair and relevant concern. It has never been about merely the physical number of people the country could theoretically support. We are a nation, a culture, and there is no obligation to sacrifice that culture simply to import more bodies. It is our culture that has made us successful and we are justified in wanting to sustain it.

Beyond that, given our economic problems - and while some jobs are unfilled - we also have large numbers of jobs being filled by immigrants (illegal and otherwise) that would otherwise be taken by Americans. No illegal has a right to any job that a citizen would take and it makes little sense to import more competition for unskilled positions when unskilled Americans are already finding it difficult to get those jobs.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Per tqualey: “Since the US actually does admit immigrants…and every year previously admitted legal immigrants take the Oath to become US Citizens …there is a working immigration policy…One can not be vague when one condemns! And this is just what is going on…There also seems to be a bit of confusion between the USCCB and the Catholic Church…”

Per Ender: " We are a nation, a culture, and there is no obligation to sacrifice that culture simply to import more bodies…we also have large numbers of jobs being filled by immigrants (illegal and otherwise) that would otherwise be taken by Americans. No illegal has a right to any job that a citizen would take and it makes little sense to import more competition for unskilled positions when unskilled Americans are already finding it difficult to get those jobs."​

Agreed. So, what do we do about the big pink elephant in the room? I.E., many American clergy and religious don’t seem to care about that; or the fact that we already are taxed by our cities, and states and the federal government ( which also borrows money that we will require our children and grandchildren to repay with interest) in order to give illegal immigrants food, housing, education and health care; or the fact that such clergy and religious act beyond their competence and beyond the bounds of morality by attempting to indoctrinate our school children and us by implying that it would be immoral to resist such “social justice”; or the fact that the USCCB routinely lobby Congress to not only not reduce our already repressive taxes but to increase them for such illegal immigration-related purposes as well as dozens of other “social justice” purposes; or the fact that such clergy and religious have engaged in such activities at the expense of teaching the Catholic faith to us and our children, and far worse, of course, keeping an eye on what was going on in their seminaries for forty years.

Our Lord one day will ask many of the clergy and religious why they spent their efforts pursuing material benefits at the expense of the Faith–half or more of the American Catholics in their charge hypocritically retain the name “Catholic” but are more closely allied to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger.

So, what do we do about the big pink elephant? My suggestion is to always speak plainly about it on forums such as this (thanks be to God for CA); write, call and speak (courteously, of course) to our clergy and religious; and of course pray that God will sooner rather than later help us cleanse His Church. Christ took a whip to the problem in His day, but we are left to follow His instructions by praying and working for change.

While we must always be charitable with our money (and there are no more charitable people than Americans–one of the reasons our culture is exceptional), we need not be quiet or gullible or made to feel guilty by AmChurch or others who intentionally or not have values other than authentic Catholics in America.

I have no doubt that PBXVI and a good number of our bishops are with us. Their first steps have been to begin healing the liturgy (what we pray is what we believe) and to begin cracking down on dissent. Support them.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, KSU,

Excellent post.

God bless

Per tqualey: “Since the US actually does admit immigrants…and every year previously admitted legal immigrants take the Oath to become US Citizens …there is a working immigration policy…One can not be vague when one condemns! And this is just what is going on…There also seems to be a bit of confusion between the USCCB and the Catholic Church…”

Per Ender: " We are a nation, a culture, and there is no obligation to sacrifice that culture simply to import more bodies…we also have large numbers of jobs being filled by immigrants (illegal and otherwise) that would otherwise be taken by Americans. No illegal has a right to any job that a citizen would take and it makes little sense to import more competition for unskilled positions when unskilled Americans are already finding it difficult to get those jobs."​

Agreed. So, what do we do about the big pink elephant in the room? I.E., many American clergy and religious don’t seem to care about that; or the fact that we already are taxed by our cities, and states and the federal government ( which also borrows money that we will require our children and grandchildren to repay with interest) in order to give illegal immigrants food, housing, education and health care; or the fact that such clergy and religious act beyond their competence and beyond the bounds of morality by attempting to indoctrinate our school children and us by implying that it would be immoral to resist such “social justice”; or the fact that the USCCB routinely lobby Congress to not only not reduce our already repressive taxes but to increase them for such illegal immigration-related purposes as well as dozens of other “social justice” purposes; or the fact that such clergy and religious have engaged in such activities at the expense of teaching the Catholic faith to us and our children, and far worse, of course, keeping an eye on what was going on in their seminaries for forty years.

Our Lord one day will ask many of the clergy and religious why they spent their efforts pursuing material benefits at the expense of the Faith–half or more of the American Catholics in their charge hypocritically retain the name “Catholic” but are more closely allied to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger.

So, what do we do about the big pink elephant? My suggestion is to always speak plainly about it on forums such as this (thanks be to God for CA); write, call and speak (courteously, of course) to our clergy and religious; and of course pray that God will sooner rather than later help us cleanse His Church. Christ took a whip to the problem in His day, but we are left to follow His instructions by praying and working for change.

While we must always be charitable with our money (and there are no more charitable people than Americans–one of the reasons our culture is exceptional), we need not be quiet or gullible or made to feel guilty by AmChurch or others who intentionally or not have values other than authentic Catholics in America.

I have no doubt that PBXVI and a good number of our bishops are with us. Their first steps have been to begin healing the liturgy (what we pray is what we believe) and to begin cracking down on dissent. Support them.

 

[Ender]

So, what do we do about the big pink elephant? My suggestion is to always speak plainly about it on forums such as this (thanks be to God for CA); write, call and speak (courteously, of course) to our clergy and religious;

I agree … and this has been the focus of virtually all my comments on this (and several other) topics. We need to clearly understand the difference between when a bishop speaks for the Church and when he speaks for himself, and while he deserves consideration whenever he speaks, his opinions in prudential areas do not oblige our assent. On issues within the realm of the laity (e.g. politics) we can - and should - oppose him if we believe him to be wrong.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

What I have yet to hear is anything addressing the countries that are effectively causing their own citizens to flee from economic, religious, political, etc pressures and come to the US.

I found this document from both the Mexican and U.S. Bishop Conferences.

justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/tabasco-statement.pdf
We recommend, consistent with policies adopted by both our Episcopal conferences
that the following steps be taken to protect the rights of migrants:

The enactment of immigration laws in the United States and Mexico which
protect the human rights of migrants and provide them with legal status in
order to ensure that protection;

• The convening of the governments of Mexico, the United States, and
Central America to address the root causes of migration in this region,
including economic inequities, so that migrants may one day have the
opportunity to remain at home and support their families; and

• The establishment of cooperation between the governments to eradicate
human trafficking and human smuggling rings throughout the region.
I don’t think there is much comment here because there is no one posting from Mexico.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - In searching for that last document I found an excellent resource for church statements on the subject of immigration, if anyone is interested.

justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.shtml

 

[pnewton]

Our Lord one day will ask many of the clergy and religious why they spent their efforts pursuing material benefits at the expense of the Faith–half or more of the American Catholics in their charge hypocritically retain the name “Catholic” but are more closely allied to Henry the Eighth, Calvin, Luther, Marx and Sanger.

I do not get this. Are you saying that priests and religious are just out to make money? Are you saying that trying to help the poor and needy is Protestant? I do no understand.

 

[IrishSFV]

FYI - In searching for that last document I found an excellent resource for church statements on the subject of immigration, if anyone is interested.

justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.shtml

That website sums up why I have never put a dime into the collection plate at Mass. And never will until they realize that, as a Catholic working class American, I would prefer that my hard earned money not go to aid those that illegally hinder my pursuit of a better life for myself and my family.

 

[pnewton]

That website sums up why I have never put a dime into the collection plate at Mass. And never will until they realize that, as a Catholic working class American, I would prefer that my hard earned money not go to aid those that illegally hinder my pursuit of a better life for myself and my family.

You think this is okay and that is your business. Do you also think it moral that other working class Americans contribute to the Church in order to aid you and pay your share of maintaining the Church?

 

[IrishSFV]

You think this is okay and that is your business. Do you also think it moral that other working class Americans contribute to the Church in order to aid you

Aid me in what way?

and pay your share of maintaining the Church?

I donate directly to charities that the Church contributes to. There’s less of a chance that way that my money will be used against my family and I.

 

[pnewton]

Aid me in what way?

If as a Catholic you attend Mass, someone has to pay for the electricity, the building, the priests’ salary, the hosts used for the Eucharist and a myriad of other little expenses that go into running the Church. Someone has to donate to the collection for a parish to operate. Those that do not, receive the Sacrament as a charity from those that do give.