You bring up a very valid point. I acknowledge that you are giving the very reason why we can disagree on this topic. The principles I espoused earlier have helped form my position, as well as my application of historical lessons. As I said earlier, even though I was way over the top, I understand not all Catholics will agree.It seems so simplistic to me to tell someone you must help the poor, love your neighbor and welcome the stranger as it applies to illegal migrants. You may as well put a period behind that statement because the bishops seem to offer no further solutions to this complex problem, except to push for a sort of amnesty under the term “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Charity demands we give immediate help to those basic and urgent situations which, regardless of reason, will occur. In our charity, however, I wonder if we haven’t forgotten the entire concept of the common good which, hand in hand with justice, ensures the benefit of all.
Ta da. Any example proves the possibility, if not the reality. A law is immoral if it violates a basic moral principle. Oppressing the poor is as objectively evil as abortion. If I believe that a law that discriminates against the poor because they are poor, then I can hold that law to be immoral.Explain how the law is immoral. …Laws permitting abortion are immoral …
Chaput is actually very balanced on the issue. Here is an interview:But I am sure you are afraid of Chaput’s name coming up as it discounts your case that we are all raging, far left-wing liberals.
Archbishop Chaput: San Antonio’s Archbishop José Gómez and others have pointed out that today’s Latino immigrants are different in some important ways from the Irish, Italian and Polish immigrants of a century ago.
Many Latino immigrants neither want nor plan to settle here. They want to work for a while and then return home, and unlike previous generations of immigrants, they could actually do that if our system let them, because they don’t need to cross an ocean.
The U.S. immigration machinery has no effective way of welcoming, licensing and tracking guest workers, and yet we need enormous numbers of them. I’d call that a failure.
Really? Neglect of the poor had nothing to do with the story? Then why even include Lazarus and just tell the story of a rich man that went to Hell? It has nothing to do with immigration, as both were Jewish.The story about the rich man and Lazarus is a story about the dangers of materialism, not about amnesty for illegal aliens.
I agree that any law that violates a basic moral principle is immoral; what I question is whether any of our immigration laws fall into that category. “Oppressing the poor” probably does but it is also rather vague and in fact I doubt that you believe all laws discriminating against the poor do that. If a person is too poor to buy my house is it immoral discrimination of me to refuse to sell it to him at a price he can afford?Ta da. Any example proves the possibility, if not the reality. A law is immoral if it violates a basic moral principle. Oppressing the poor is as objectively evil as abortion. If I believe that a law that discriminates against the poor because they are poor, then I can hold that law to be immoral.
This need not be true. As long as the basis of entry was not wealth or social status, then there is no discrimination. Either a first in/first out system or a lottery would be equitable. However, let me clarify, that except for those with criminal history or those that present a definable security threat, I am not in favor of any cap on immigration, although I understand the arguments for limited immigration.In fact, if rejecting a poor person is a sin then all of us, you included, who accept any restriction at all on the number of immigrants is sinning since only the person completely disconnected from reality could support the unlimited immigration of the world’s poor to the US.
Any criterion at all discriminates against one group and for another, otherwise there would be no purpose for having criteria. What you are arguing is that criterion A which you approve is acceptable discrimination while criterion B which I approve is not. There may be cases where this is true but the suggestion that the application of B is discrimination while the application of A is not is incorrect: both are examples of discrimination; it’s just that not all discrimination is invalid.This need not be true. As long as the basis of entry was not wealth or social status, then there is no discrimination.
Where is the Church teaching that those are the only morally valid selection criteria? I am not trying to convince you that your preferences are wrong and mine are right; I am arguing that neither of our preferences represent moral choices and can only be judged on their effectiveness, not their moral validity. The Church allows numeric quotas and she does not state what those quotas should be or what criteria are valid or invalid. These are prudential choices and (within reason) my choices are as morally correct (because they are morally neutral) as yours.Either a first in/first out system or a lottery would be equitable. However, let me clarify, that except for those with criminal history or those that present a definable security threat, I am not in favor of any cap on immigration, although I understand the arguments for limited immigration.
This is where I disagree. Immigration also involves morality and is therefore a moral issue. All the bishops I know have weighed in on immigration (including AB Chaput) because it is a moral issue. If you can find one bishop that says immigration is not a moral issue, I will eat my hat. :tiphat:Abortion is a moral issue. Immigration is not.
Ender
In what way does immigration involve morality? Yes, I’m sure you believe this but I’d like you to explain what moral issue is involved here. Take the question of erecting a fence on our border - is that a moral question? Does the Church take a position on it? How about amnesty? If there is a moral point involved here then it must be about something that is intrinsically evil, otherwise the morality of competing positions is not determined by the positions taken but on the reasons for taking them. What question of intrinsic evil is involved in determining who - if anyone - should be given amnesty?Immigration also involves morality and is therefore a moral issue.
Well, I guess I will step back in. The idea that morality only encompasses issues which are intrisically evil is completely wrong. The idea that there are not moral components to almost all issues we face as a society is completely wrong. The idea that the Bishops and priests cannot or should not provide guidance to help us discern on all moral issues, not just those which are intrinsically evil, is completely wrong.In what way does immigration involve morality? Yes, I’m sure you believe this but I’d like you to explain what moral issue is involved here. Take the question of erecting a fence on our border - is that a moral question? Does the Church take a position on it? How about amnesty? If there is a moral point involved here then it must be about something that is intrinsically evil, otherwise the morality of competing positions is not determined by the positions taken but on the reasons for taking them. What question of intrinsic evil is involved in determining who - if anyone - should be given amnesty?
Ender
According to US Law, non-citizens are known as aliens.(definitions.uslegal.com/a/alien/) The particular aliens we are talking about have violated the law. Thus, we need a word to distinguish them from legal aliens. The most obvious word to describe these aliens is illegal, since they have committed illegal actions.Is it? Terminology is also picked by both sides of any debate for their own purposes. You pick yours, I pick mine. If you can show me in the US legal code where that term is used, I will accept it, otherwise, I will assume it is simply your preferred term, but it is not mine.
You suggested we issue more temporary visas. I pointed out that many illegal aliens came here on temporary visas and then overstayed their welcome. Thus, your suggestion would simply increase illegal immigration by giving wannabe illegal aliens more opportunities to become illegal aliens.Answer makes very little sense.
Those terms fit your allegations about people on this forum saying nasty things about illegal aliens, keeping in mind the fact that you refused to provide names and dates.Not worth responding to, simply slanderous and unsupported.
You suggested we get rid of the illegal alien problem by allowing more of them to cross legally. I pointed out that the similar solution would work for prostitution, as legalizing prostitution would eliminate all the illegal prostitutes. This brilliant solution overlooks the fact that in both cases, the problems associated with illegal border crossing and prostitution would not go away simply by legalizing them.Where did I say that we should legalize illegal border crossings? I did not, I simply said we should have a more just and widespread means for people to come here to work legally.
Read more carefully; this is not what I said.Well, I guess I will step back in. The idea that morality only encompasses issues which are intrisically evil is completely wrong.
This is the point I’m debating with pnewton and I’d be happy to debate it with you … if you’d care to give an explanation for your position.The idea that there are not moral components to almost all issues we face as a society is completely wrong.
This is precisely my point. If a person’s intentions are good then his position cannot be challenged morally unless the position involves an issue of intrinsic evil.This does not mean that two people, both with good intentions, cannot come to different conclusions…
If an issue does not involve a matter of intrinsic evil then the only way a person’s position on it can be evil is if his intent is evil. Since the basic questions about immigration really don’t hinge on questions of intrinsic evil, no position can be said to be evil without that being a judgment about a person’s intent, but intent cannot (normally) be known and may not be judged. My argument is that because we are not dealing with questions of intrinsic evil it is wrong to say that any particular proposal on immigration is either moral or immoral and to make such a claim is nothing more than judging the motivation of the person taking the position - a judgment, by the way, that the Church has explicitly forbidden us to make.… but you take a position since it is not a intrinsically evil issue, there is not a moral component is absurd and seems to be an excuse to not listen to guidance from our Church as we make our decisions.
I have to think about your analogy, but with specific regards to trespassing I am positive you are wrong. It seems to fall under the church’s teaching about theft, ie the seventh commandment. The Church’s teaching is very clear,I have the very simple answer: control of immigration, as a matter of national sovereignty, is an extension of private property. The actual moral term for “illegal immigration” is trespassing. It doesn’t matter how poor you are and how rich your neighbor is, or anything else; you simply don’t have the right to just waltz into his house.
Obviously “just waltz into his house” and “take shelter in his house in an emergency” are not the same thing, now are they? And as you yourself concede, it’s not an analogy to illegal immigration.So while I am not saying that illegal immigration is analogous to this at all, I am saying categorically that the idea, “no matter how poor you are or how rich your neighor, oranything else; you simply don’t have the right to walze into his house” is wrong. If you are not home, it is a freezing blizzard outside, I and my family have no where to go and will freeze to death without shelter, I would have the right to use your home for shelter, since a reasonable person would have offered it to me.
Your statement, “**no matter **how poor… and no matter how rich”, is in direct inconflict with the church’s teaching and my example is perfectly inline with your statement. If I am about to freeze to death, at that point in time, I am VERY poor, which you claimed did not matter. It does matter, a great deal. I agree trespassing is theft, which is why I showed the quote from the CCC out of that sectionl. This is a very important point, although a little thread drift. I am continually shocked to find out Catholics do not know this basic teaching. The right to property is extremely important in Church’s teaching, but it is never absolute.Obviously “just waltz into his house” and “take shelter in his house in an emergency” are not the same thing, now are they? And as you yourself concede, it’s not an analogy to illegal immigration.
Incidentally, the reason trespassing is wrong is because theft is wrong; both are presuming a right to treat others’ property as your own. So you’re right, it’s the seventh commandment (if that’s “Thou shalt not steal”, I get the numbers mixed up), but a more specific violation.
Your jibe is poorly aimed as it is not relevant to anything I’ve actually said … as opposed to how you have misapprehended what I did say.Perhaps a little moral guidance is imporant from the church after all, eh Ender?
It does not matter. What matters is the emergency, which is not a question of wealth or poverty but of dire peril to life and limb—it is fascinating that you believe that the rich cannot experience such emergencies, but I assure you they can. What strange idolatry of wealth is this, that you believe it to be a magic talisman against the forces of nature?Your statement, “**no matter **how poor… and no matter how rich”, is in direct inconflict with the church’s teaching and my example is perfectly inline with your statement. If I am about to freeze to death, at that point in time, I am VERY poor, which you claimed did not matter.