Illegal Immigration and Morality

[tqualey]

Hi, Ricky,

That was a rather bold opening statement, don’t you think? As I recall, the Bible has many verses that specifically require that we obey lawful authority… and your response to this is that if you are poor, or extremely poor you can break laws designed to protect everyone in the country.

Denying one illegal entry into a country is NOT the same as denying the poor. There are many Mexican and Latin American missions run by virtually all religious organizations whose purpose is to extend the love of Christ through the Corporal Works of Mercy.

In my judgment, your definition is too limiting and does nothing to address other issues, like poverty and extreme poverty in the US.

Ultimately, if you disagree with the justly enacted laws of this country, you are encouraged to work for their lawful modification or repeal. Such a process will undoubtedly open the doors to seeing other points of view that involve lawful boundaries and the legitimate interests of a country to control access to its land from those who would do violence to its citizens. This country does have a working immigration program - citizens from other countries really do come over here legally and follow established laws. Some that come over want to stay and actually become US Citzens. This is a reality that must be addressed and not conveniently ignored.

Those that argue for illegal immigration do a serious disservice to the immigrants who follow the laws to come to this country. Just who are these self-appointed individuals who have decided that those who break the law are more deserving than those who follow the law? What type of chaos and anarchy is really being promoted - in the name of Christ no less - to further some political agenda?

In my view, those who support the breaking of laws they do not agree with need to seriously weigh what it is they are doing and then step forward in the model of civil disobedience (and not cowardly law breaking) and state their case. And, if anyone needs a role model or two, Mohandas Gandhi freed India of British rule and M. L. King, following Gandhi’s example, helped bring about the successful Civil Rights movement in this country. While not easy, it really does work, if this is the way you want to go. But, tarry a bit and consider that in both cases, large numbers of people were being unjustly oppressed with no legal recourse for a remedy. This is not the case with immigration in the US.

God bless

When you oppose an illegal immigrant you oppose Jesus. Most illegal immigrants are escaping extreme poverty. When you deny someone who is poor or in need you deny Christ.When you give to the poor or some one in need. You give to Christ,you bear away a little of his suffering on the cross.

 

[pnewton]

Is this current enough for you, pnewton?

energypublisher.com/a/61497/Catholic-Campaign-for-Human-Development-2011-Part-2

From your article.

At the same time, CCHD critics are reiterating that, for its entire 40–plus years of existence, the collection has been disbursing money to organizations that advance blatantly immoral and politically partisan positions.

They have expanded the definition from the immoral to the “immoral and politically partisan.” This may come as a shock, but being a Democrat is not immoral. This is a built in problem with partisan blogs. As stated earlier, I totally support oversight to bring attention to issues like agencies that promote abortion. However, this lumping of abortion (gravely sinful) and immigration reform (morally good) is ridiculous. Call it a strawman if you want. I didn’t start all this CCHD stuff. I invite anyone to go back as see who started it and who is stuffing the straw.

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

I really think you need to re-evaluate your criteria for determining prudence in endorsing USCCB programs that have been exploding into flames of anti-Catholicism.

While I am sure you thought I was joking about developing myopia into an art form. With every post, or so it seems, you narrow your scope in an effort to hang onto something you think has a grain of merit.

Again, I will invite other posters here to go back and see who is flaming. If anyone were to accuse another poster of anti-Catholicism for not supporting immigration reform, that would be absolutely wrong. On that I agree with you. In fact, in a couple of my responses to Ender I made that point clear.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

If I did not start it, I know I made a contribution to identifying a real connection between the USCCB and their support for illegal immigration. This is no ‘straw man’, Pnewton.

It basically comes down to this: here is a group with an established track record of not providing due diligence when it comes to seeing if awarding grants to groups is appropriate. There is known error in the USCCB supporting groups that actively violate Catholic Church teachings. This establishes the logical framework for simply identifying that the USCCB is not infallible in their decisions or pronouncements. They are not the Vatican or a subdivision thereof.

The basic problem is that the USCCB has become an active political player in areas where there is no directive from the Pope. Illegal immigration is wrong and promoting the violation of a valid and justly enacted law to promote a preceived good - is also wrong. We need to make a very clear distinction here - the USCCB does do good work and has now (finally!) engaged and confronted President Obama on his attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (public letter to Obama from Archbishop Dolan, President of the USCCB). This is not to confuse the topic - only to identify an issue (the sanctity of marriage) that is actively encouraged by Church teaching and the bishops are rightfully getting involved in the political process here. Contrast this with a non-Chruch teaching (illegal immigration) that the Bishops have actively thrown themselves into.

Now, if you think this is a ‘straw man argument’ - just ignore it. If it is, it will simply fall from its own weight and lack of logic. No one need ‘stuff’ more ‘straw’ into it. But, if it isn’t a ‘straw man’ - that individual and collective bishops make serious mistakes, and supporting the breaking of a valid law is morally wrong, then address the issue. I understand the Bishops have another view on how US immigration should be conducted - and they can lobby, campaign and other-wise promote the lawful changing of these laws as US Citizens. When, however, they put the weight of their office behind such efforts it appears that the Catholic Church is promoting their efforts - and, simply stated, I do not think this is the case.

Now, when it comes to ‘flaming’, I would recommend you not smoke around this ‘straw man’ as it may ignite…

God bless

From your article.

They have expanded the definition from the immoral to the “immoral and politically partisan.” This may come as a shock, but being a Democrat is not immoral. This is a built in problem with partisan blogs. As stated earlier, I totally support oversight to bring attention to issues like agencies that promote abortion. However, this lumping of abortion (gravely sinful) and immigration reform (morally good) is ridiculous. Call it a strawman if you want. I didn’t start all this CCHD stuff. I invite anyone to go back as see who started it and who is stuffing the straw.

 

[colmywaykurtz]

Imagine if we were able to increase the amount of legal immigrants by decreasing illegals…

Some people say it should be the other way around, and that we could do so by streamlining and simplifying the legal immigration process.

 

[IrishSFV]

\ Do you recall from your history books the gross injustice committed by the White man upon the Native American Indians, a name poorly applied by Christopher Columbus because of the Asian Indians?

So all of us whites are collectively guilty for depleting the Native American numbers, yet you get bothered by a poster ‘singling out’ the largest illegal immigrant group?

What about THAT illegal immigration?

Any rational person would say that it’s a good reason to enforce our laws. We don’t want to end up that way.

It’s tantamount to abortion: most Native American Indians were peace-loving people who never had a natural enemy, unlike the European (immigrants).

Yes, they were like hippies, flitting about the place, spreading love and nature worship throughout the land, strumming guitars and smoking pipes together until the big bad white Man came and spoiled all their fun forever. Get real man, show me proof that “most Native American Indians were peace-loving people who never had a natural enemy”.

 

[pnewton]

Illegal immigration is wrong and promoting the violation of a valid and justly enacted law to promote a preceived good - is also wrong.

That is not the opinion of the Catholic Church. It is not *contrary *to any teaching by the Church and is surely allowable.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, IrishSFV,

Now, I am going to have to admonish you on this … The use of such outrageously funny lines - hidden amongst the text - subject the reader to injury … by falling out of the chair laughing so hard!!

In the future, please use a different font, or color or size to alwert the innocent reader of something coming up!

The rest of your post was very good.

God bless

Any rational person would say that it’s a good reason to enforce our laws. We don’t want to end up that way.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Colmywaykurtz,

Well, now we know how the other half thinks!

God bless

Some people say it should be the other way around, and that we could do so by streamlining and simplifying the legal immigration process.

 

[Ender]

They have expanded the definition from the immoral to the “immoral and politically partisan.” This may come as a shock, but being a Democrat is not immoral.

It is surely a truism that being a Democrat is not immoral … but it is equally true that the CCHD should only support organizations that are neither immoral nor partisan. Supporting partisan organizations may not be immoral but it was a grossly inappropriate thing for the CCHD to have done. Charitable contributions should not become political fund raisers.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"tqualey:

Illegal immigration is wrong and promoting the violation of a valid and justly enacted law to promote a preceived good - is also wrong.

That is not the opinion of the Catholic Church. It is not *contrary *

to any teaching by the Church and is surely allowable.

Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. (BXVI)

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII)**

**CCC 1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

Ender

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ender,

Not to paint with too broad a brush, but in addition to resisting efforts to make legal immigration the unified focus of all political parties, the majority party in the US Senate has promoted every effort to fund abortion and to frustrate the efforts of the majority party in the US House to control the defecit (currently at $14.6 trillion) by actually reducing real spending - not just talking about cutting that that has not even materialized. Does any one really know which group has been and is currently against a voter ID requirement - for the reason that this would discriminate against groups that should not be voting in the first place.

No, it is not immoral to be a Democrat. It is however immoral to support those policies that trash unborn life, the scantity of marriage and yes, the integrity of national boarders. If you associate with the party this is primarily known for this type of anti-Catholic policies - the adage about ‘birds of a feather flock together’ can not be avoided.

ILLEGAL immigration is wrong because it is illegal. Supporting the rule of law is what we as Catholics are to focus on. This does not mean passively sitting by while there are preceived injustices - but, we do not break the law to further some compromised end.

God bless

It is surely a truism that being a Democrat is not immoral … but it is equally true that the CCHD should only support organizations that are neither immoral nor partisan. Supporting partisan organizations may not be immoral but it was a grossly inappropriate thing for the CCHD to have done. Charitable contributions should not become political fund raisers.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

ILLEGAL immigration is wrong because it is illegal. Supporting the rule of law is what we as Catholics are to focus on. This does not mean passively sitting by while there are preceived injustices - but, we do not break the law to further some compromised end.

God bless

You’re reversing the order found in Catholic teaching. An unjust law is no law. Therefore, you can’t start with “law” (as in rules made by governments) and limit your pursuit of justice within those boundaries. You must start with justice and judge governmental “laws” on that basis.

Never mind that you’re arguing against a straw man–no one wants illegal immigration. The question is whether the law should be changed to conform to basic human needs, as Catholic teaching requires, or whether the law (and your twisted version of nationalism which you falsely claim is supported by Catholic teaching) should be maintained even if it tramples and crushes human beings in the process.

I have watched as in post after post you and those who think like you bemoan the “failures” of your bishops, without any willingness to consider the possibility that you, as fallible, sinful human beings, may be in the wrong and need correction.

You start with a secular, nationalist ideology (something cmforte is at least honest to admit–none of the rest of you are), and you twist Catholicism to conform to it, and dare to label the result “orthodoxy.”

I am going to take a break from this debate. Since you won’t listen to your own bishops, it’s futile for me to try to convince you. I guess it would take a papal encyclical to do it–but you would probably find some way to explain it away.

May God have mercy on all of us, especially on the wounded and broken.

Edwin

 

[pnewton]

Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. (BXVI)

Illegal immigration should be prevented, but it is also essential to combat vigorously the criminal activities which exploit illegal immigrants. (JPII)

CCC 1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Ender

Except this is not all the Catechism says about obeying the law, as you well know. For others I will post it here (#2242)

The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men”

I believe anyone here that tells me something is immoral, when those with greater training in moral theology and the charism of guiding the Church say the opposite.

As to the quote from Blessed John Paul II, I totally agree. It is one reason I am for immigration reform.

As to the quote from Pope Benedict, absolutely! I have no support for anti-American activity by immigrants, legal or otherwise.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

That was a pretty short break you took…

We have an obligation to have a correctly formed conscience. Merely wanting the best as opposed to the good is what makes us what we are - it is in identifying evil that we are to turn our backs.

Is it your claim that that US immigration law is so unjust that illegal immigration is the immediate solution? You seem to be arguing both ways - just and valid laws are to be obeyed and unjust ones ignored - yet I have yet to see where the characterization of the entire system of US immigraiton law is unjust, and if not 100% then what percentage are you willing to work with? This is a serious quesiton - and deserves a serious response. As I see you, it is your interpretation of BXVI’s and JPII’s statements and not the statements themselves that you are in real agreement with.

Is it your claim that our bishops have made no serious error in sponsoring organizations that have been working against Chruch teaching? You seem to simply dismiss the possibility that they are capable of error because they are our bishops. Yet I and others have given you factual evidence of real error and you just continue to march like nothing is wrong. Please, just look around and see what is happening. Our bishops have taken their own lead regarding immigration and not that of the Vatican - our bishops appear to be (at least until Archbishop Dolan, President of the USCCB challenged Obama on the Defense of Marriage Act last month) in the vest pocket of the Democratic Party. This is a problem when they all go sailing over the cliff on policy.

Please, take that break.

God bless

Except this is not all the Catechism says about obeying the law, as you well know. For others I will post it here (#2242)

I believe anyone here that tells me something is immoral, when those with greater training in moral theology and the charism of guiding the Church say the opposite.

As to the quote from Blessed John Paul II, I totally agree. It is one reason I am for immigration reform.

As to the quote from Pope Benedict, absolutely! I have no support for anti-American activity by immigrants, legal or otherwise.

 

[Ender]

An unjust law is no law. … Since you won’t listen to your own bishops, it’s futile for me to try to convince you.

Show me a citation from any bishop saying that Catholics are morally justified in breaking a particular immigration law or of deciding for themselves which laws they will or won’t abide by and you might have a case. With the exception of the new Alabama law, which the local bishops claim (erroneously I believe) will interfere with their religious rights, I am unaware of anyone who has said Catholics are free to violate any immigration law. I would be very interested in knowing which bishop has said Catholics should not just oppose but violate immigration laws.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Is it your claim that that US immigration law is so unjust that illegal immigration is the immediate solution? You seem to be arguing both ways -

It is my claim that is possible to have that understanding, just as the Catechism allows for the possibility that even stealing may not be immoral in a narrow range of circumstances. Yes, I also believe that the immigration laws, especially the tiered quota system, are unjust. Whether it is so unjust as to permit violation without sin, that is not something I have the authority to judge. Yes, I do argue both ways as I do not agree with either extreme. I am not one to discount some teaching from the Church, even non-authoritative teaching, because it contains opinion, nor do I side with those who want to grant all immigrants free access to the border without** a corresponding responsibility to this country.

I go to Church with many who are here illegally and do not judge them. I support the Church’s efforts to help the poor, whether they are here illegally or not. On the other hand, I have not problem deporting illegal immigrants that commit crime while here and have actively seen to the deportation of hundreds with a clean conscience. Even those I have had to assist in deporting that have not committed other crimes (something I no longer have to do) I do so with a clean conscience. After all, part of the teaching of violating an unjust law is that one must be willing to endure the consequences of such a stand.

 

[pnewton]

With the exception of the new Alabama law, which the local bishops claim (erroneously I believe) will interfere with their religious rights, I am unaware of anyone who has said Catholics are free to violate any immigration law. I would be very interested in knowing which bishop has said Catholics should not just oppose but violate immigration laws.

Ender

I believe you are mostly right in this. Most of the statements have offered understanding and emphasized the need for change, but have never green-lighted illegal entry. I can think of two more cases where the law was considered unjust. The first was in California, for the same reason, that the law made aid and support to those illegal immigrants who are already here, legally questionable. The other situation was in New Mexico where the law was originally targeted to allow any contact with someone to initiate an immigration screening. That part of the law was changed, probably because it was poorly written, since the same legislature that enacted it was swift to change it. Kind of an “oops”.

 

[Ender]

I believe you are mostly right in this. Most of the statements have offered understanding and emphasized the need for change, but have never green-lighted illegal entry. I can think of two more cases where the law was considered unjust. The first was in California, for the same reason, that the law made aid and support to those illegal immigrants who are already here, legally questionable. The other situation was in New Mexico where the law was originally targeted to allow any contact with someone to initiate an immigration screening. That part of the law was changed, probably because it was poorly written, since the same legislature that enacted it was swift to change it. Kind of an “oops”.

Thank you. I think it’s pretty clear that while many bishops strongly disapprove of any number of our immigration laws they have stopped well short of advocating they be ignored or disobeyed. While some individuals may well feel justified in violating those laws they go too far when they suggest that the Church sanctions that decision.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Per pnewton: “They [the Catholic blog] have expanded the definition from the immoral to the ‘immoral and politically partisan’.”

pnewton, they have expanded nothing. The horribly unjust results of some CCHD funding always has been both immoral and politically partisan. As I said earlier, when the bishops established the CCHD in 1970, they mandated that the Campaign fund voter registration, community organizations, capital for “industrial development” and similar projects dear to the heart of the Democrat Party, U S Socialists, ACORN, and La Raza. But please quit changing the subject.

Per pnewton: “This may come as a shock, but being a Democrat is not immoral.”

Well now, Mr. Strawman, that “depends on what is is”; on what kind of Democrat a Catholic is:

Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic
incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”

A “latae sententiae” judgment is automatic, and any Catholic who knowingly facilitates
an abortion automatically incurs the same sentence of excommunication as the person who procured the abortion. This applies to Catholics who are politicians,
as well as to those Catholics who are political commentators, or public speakers,
or who write or otherwise publicly communicate their erroneous view by influencing
public policy to make abortions legal. Catholic politicians who cast a vote intended
to have the effect of making abortion more easily obtainable, or more widely
available, incur a sentence of automatic excommunication, even if they
claim that they are “personally opposed” to abortion. That reminds me of some openly
“Catholic” Democrats, and of course I’m not including you.

The immoral and politically partisan purveyors of filth in “entertainment”; and in the abortion industry; as well as Socialists, Marxists and Catholic Church haters in general; and those who support giving the vote to illegal Democrats all just by mere coincidence
support one particular party. Which party, pnewton, do you think that
is? Which party is aggressively attacking Catholic freedom to practice the faith? And
don’t you think Democrat supporters of abortionists and homosexual
militants and La Raza and the ACLU and labor unions all rejoice at the goodies that
flow from the CCHD? And tell me, with a straight face, pnewton, that there has
never been any connection between some on the CCHD/USCCB staff and
Democrat Party activists.

But, OK, I’ll agree with you, pnewton, that “being a Democrat is not immoral.” And as you know, I am not a Republican.