Illinois bishops welcome driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants

[New_World_Man]

In this debate, we need to always be careful not to lose sight of the dignity of the human person.

What exactly are we supposed to do with those who have come here illegally? Deport them all? Brand them with a scarlet letter ‘A’ (for “alien”)?

If you’ll permit me an imprecise analogy, think of unwed single mothers. Depending on the circumstances of course, they may have committed a sin (sex outside of marriage) which leaves them with a lasting consequence (a baby). But we do not abandon the mother and child because of how the child got here.

With illiegal immigrants, yes, they came over here illegally. Even if we assume that it was sinful of them to do that, that doesn’t change the fact that they’re still here now. So what do we do now to treat them with dignity? Do we forever ostracize and abandon them because of the decision they made at one moment in time? That doesn’t seem like the path to the best solution.

I agree. Many of these people are connected by family(parents who are undocumented,children who may be legal citizens. Or one sibling is undocumented,another isn’t. Not sure what the total answer is,but I think we need to be careful.

 

[pnewton]

I think it is a smart idea. If I had a nickel for everyone that rails about all the laws broken by undecumented (undocumented, not illegal) immigrants I could, well at least buy coffee at Starbucks. These people will drive. Getting the properly licensed and insured protects everyone else on the road and may even reduce uninsured motorist premiums.

 

[Least]

In the eyes of the Church the US is no more special than any other nation.

The Constitution is simply a document written by men for the governing of men- nothing divine in it.

The Church acknowledges no “American Exceptionalism”, and more than "Canadian, French, Japanese, or Sri Lankan Exceptionalism.

The Church stands (as it has, solely) by the DIVINE PROVIDENCE of GOD.

However, much of that PROVIDENCE (in the last nearly 250 years) has been allowed, by GOD, to come through America and Americans.

I would dare to say that Rome (may it ever serve GOD and prevail) remains as unscathed as it has (within at least the last 100 years) due to its preserving relationship with the U.S.
Regardless, I do not believe it could be said that Christianity would currently be as popularly practiced had it not been so highly lauded throughout the history of the U.S.

I believe the Bishop’s actions drives a wedge between the churches supporters and the church, and risks other things.

I FULLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE CHURCH [AND PRAY, THAT THE CHURCH FULLY AND ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTS THE WILL OF GOD], but I will support America (as well, and with unquenchable fervor) as a home for it to the death.

 

[Least]

I think it is a smart idea. If I had a nickel for everyone that rails about all the laws broken by undecumented (undocumented, not illegal) immigrants I could, well at least buy coffee at Starbucks. These people will drive. Getting the properly licensed and insured protects everyone else on the road and may even reduce uninsured motorist premiums.

This is insanity, what other country gives foreign citizens a driver’s license? Not even for commercial privileges, WHEN SUCH PERSONS ARE NOT EVEN LICENSED TO OPERATE SUCH VEHICLES WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES.

They are too broken to fix, you cannot help them, if they break the law they should be penalized and compelled .

As a quai-related tangential thought: AMERICA SHOULD PROTECT ITS BORDERS TO AT LEAST THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF ITS NEIGHBORS. And Mexico’s southernmost border is like the Berlin Wall.

“The U.S. Government is “We the People. . .” Without soveriegnty of the Term “People” there is no sovereignty of Government” - “TERMS” by J.M.Thomas R.

If you do not care about the U.S. Government maintaining its sovereignty, then I will enslave you to me, as your king.

 

[triumphguy]

If you want.

As for going over to Canada, I had the opportunity to visit Victoria in British Columbia where I had the chance to stop and smell the roses of Butchart Gardens.

But moral questions aren’t just questions of “want” but “should.”

 

[pnewton]

As a quai-related tangential thought: AMERICA SHOULD PROTECT ITS BORDERS TO AT LEAST THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF ITS NEIGHBORS. And Mexico’s southernmost border is like the Berlin Wall.

I do not think holding up a totalitarian example of the Berlin Wall as a model for our country is such a good idea. I am certain those who lost family shot to death attempting to escape the totalitarian East German regime would not agree.

 

[jwinch2]

I do not think holding up a totalitarian example of the Berlin Wall as a model for our country is such a good idea. I am certain those who lost family shot to death attempting to escape the totalitarian East German regime would not agree.

And those who’s family died in 9/11, or those who have lost family in senseless gang violence committed by illegal immigrants might.

We seem to perpetuate the stereotype here on CAF and throughout the Catholic Church in the USA, that it is only good hard working people trying to find a better life for their families who are coming into the country illegally. However, the real truth is that there are also terrorists, gang members, drug and gun runners, human traffickers, etc. We seem to ignore that part for some reason, probably because it doesn’t fit the narrative that open border advocates are trying to push.

 

[pnewton]

And those who’s family died in 9/11, or those who have lost family in senseless gang violence committed by illegal immigrants might.

I doubt if any one wants totalinarianism just for those reasons. Can you find one that suggests we shoot people dead if they are seen crossing?

 

[jwinch2]

I doubt if any one wants totalinarianism just for those reasons. Can you find one that suggests we shoot people dead if they are seen crossing?

I certainly would not agree to that, and of course I would not suggest shooting someone for crossing the border. However, I do believe it is fair to expect a secure border and a controlled immigration process where people who play by the rules are rewarded rather than criminals. I also believe it is fair for those more developed nations to assist other countries in the development of their own economies so that there are job opportunities created there for those who need them.

However, the basic point regarding Mexico’s own immigration policy is well taken. They have a very strict policy and guard their southern border quite well. Then, their own government prints manuals and guidelines on how to sneak into our country. Nice double standard. Of course, the illegal immigrants here who are sending money back to Mexico are helping to prop up their economy and keep their government officials in power, so I suppose I should expect it from that standpoint.

 

[triumphguy]

And those who’s family died in 9/11, or those who have lost family in senseless gang violence committed by illegal immigrants might.

We seem to perpetuate the stereotype here on CAF and throughout the Catholic Church in the USA, that it is only good hard working people trying to find a better life for their families who are coming into the country illegally. However, the real truth is that there are also terrorists, gang members, drug and gun runners, human traffickers, etc. We seem to ignore that part for some reason, probably because it doesn’t fit the narrative that open border advocates are trying to push.

Church teachings are pretty clear about “migrants.” Church teaching would not say any country has a duty to harbour criminals coming over the borders to commit crime.

That’s why it’s important to treat different people differently: not treat everyone like criminals, and not treat the criminals like victims.

 

[jwinch2]

Church teachings are pretty clear about “migrants.” Church teaching would not say any country has a duty to harbour criminals coming over the borders to commit crime.

Church teachings are also quite clear that people have the right to have their needs met in their own homeland. Perhaps instead of focusing so much on allowing immigration we should be helping countries with anemic economies to create opportunity for their own citizens. In addition, Church teaching is also pretty clear about a nation having the right to enforce its borders and that the right to migration is not absolute. If a society determines that accepting additional immigrants is not in the interest of their national security, tranquility, or prosperity, then they do not have a duty to accept them.

Furthermore, if we don’t close the borders and control the immigration process by knowing who is coming in and out of the country, and stop rewarding those who break the law, then we are forced to accept the terrorists, drug dealers, gang bangers, human traffickers, and gun runners also.

America has been sold this bill of goods before. We have had these build ups in the past, which eventually lead to amnesty on the argument that these are good people who are already here and what are we going to do, break up their families; as well as the promise that if we give in on this, then the borders will be properly regulated, and it will never happen again. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way it actually happens.

That’s why it’s important to treat different people differently: not treat everyone like criminals, and not treat the criminals like victims.

People who break the law by entering a country illegally and then working in that country without legal right to do so are criminals.

 

[Z1Z2]

That means 40% of working age adults aren’t working. We have a pretty stunning problem providing for our own as is, even before importing a million or more unemployable Third World hand laborers ever year

.

Those 40% of Americans who aren’t working are not going to take the jobs many of the immigrants do. When Alabama passed their tough immigration law, many illegal workers stopped showing up for ag work. Farmers hired Americans - if there were any applying. Even the Americans who did get hired quit w/i days, because the work was"too hard". Where I live, many illegal Hispanics work milking cows. There are not enough people to fill the jobs w/o the Hispanics. Who are farmers supposed to hire?

 

[triumphguy]

Church teachings are also quite clear that people have the right to have their needs met in their own homeland. Perhaps instead of focusing so much on allowing immigration we should be helping countries with anemic economies to create opportunity for their own citizens. In addition, Church teaching is also pretty clear about a nation having the right to enforce its borders and that the right to migration is not absolute. If a society determines that accepting additional immigrants is not in the interest of their national security, tranquility, or prosperity, then they do not have a duty to accept them.

Furthermore, if we don’t close the borders and control the immigration process by knowing who is coming in and out of the country, and stop rewarding those who break the law, then we are forced to accept the terrorists, drug dealers, gang bangers, human traffickers, and gun runners also.

America has been sold this bill of goods before. We have had these build ups in the past, which eventually lead to amnesty on the argument that these are good people who are already here and what are we going to do, break up their families; as well as the promise that if we give in on this, then the borders will be properly regulated, and it will never happen again. Unfortunately, that isn’t the way it actually happens.

** People who break the law by entering a country illegally and then working in that country without legal right to do so are** criminals.

And in certain circumstances the Church may view them as legitimate economic migrants who deserve special consideration.

 

[pnewton]

People who break the law by entering a country illegally and then working in that country without legal right to do so are criminals.

Aren’t we all! Most of us have ran a red light or broke the speed limit, which is the same level of crime that entering the country illegal is.

Also, the Catholic Church holds the possibility of breaking civil law if they believe the law to be immoral, as I do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

And in certain circumstances the Church may view them as legitimate economic migrants who deserve special consideration.

I’m wondering if you have any idea how many legitimate economic migrants exist on the planet. (Millions.) It creates an objective injustice to prefer the migration of those with the proximity and strength to arrive undetected, which is by the way not the most poor of even Latin America (including Mexico), let alone the equivalently (or more) poor of many other countries.

To favor economic migrants fortunate enough to sneak in is not a considered theology but a Theology of Accident and Geographical Preference, which is a distortion of justice.

The way theology is supposed to work in the Roman Catholic Church is by consistency of principle, applicable to all human beings, not more to some and less to others.

That said, we should all be awed by your weight loss progress. Seriously, It’s quite impressive so far. Good luck to you, brother.

 

[triumphguy]

I’m wondering if you have any idea how many legitimate economic migrants exist on the planet. (Millions.) It creates an objective injustice to prefer the migration of those with the proximity and strength to arrive undetected, which is by the way not the most poor of even Latin America (including Mexico), let alone the equivalently (or more) poor of many other countries.

**You are right - it’s a huge and complex problem, and injustice abounds. **

To favor economic migrants fortunate enough to sneak in is not a considered theology but a Theology of Accident and Geographical Preference, which is a distortion of justice.

Probably true: so how could it be made more just? But I’m sure that many who slip over the border are very poor.

The way theology is supposed to work in the Roman Catholic Church is by consistency of principle, applicable to all human beings, not more to some and less to others.

**Again, true, so how could it be made more just?

It’s a huge and complex issue, an the US Bishops are beginning to become more involved. How could they not? Most of the Mexican/Central and South American migrants are Catholic.**

That said, we should all be awed by your weight loss progress. Seriously, It’s quite impressive so far. Good luck to you, brother.

Thanks - I post it here as a kind of accountability - I don’t want to record a 10lb gain!

Also I can really understand the frustration of American citizens since I lived in Britain at a time when immigration was changing the faces of many northern towns forever, and not with any obvious benefit for and at great cost to the English people. However, I must remember that I have immigrant roots in Britain through my Irish ancestors, who were economic migrants, and also my British ancestors - Celts, Romans, Saxons, Danes, Normans who were variously migrants and conquerors. And I’m blessed to be an immigrant in, and now citizen of, Canada,

 

[iloveangels]

Not among Hispanics, it isn’t. They are converting in large numbers to Evangelical Protestantism.

This is true.

 

[iloveangels]

I live in an area where there are many Hispanics although the general population is non-Hispanic. Hispanics adopt the prevailing culture very quickly for immigrants, and there are many evangelical Hispanic churches in this area. They often prefer to be in their own cultural and family environment rather than in the Catholic Churches in the area that currently exist. Many Hispanics are also culturally Catholic but somewhat uncatechized due to conditions of the Church in Latin America.

I think the logic of favoring Latin American immigrants is rooted in a belief that they might shore up the Church in the United States, because non-Hispanic Americans are leaving in unprecedented numbers. About 10% of the US is now ex-Catholic. This shoring up of the Church in the US by Hispanics may be happening to some degree, but it’s not a handy fix for all of our problems by far. We’ll have to work to educate them and keep them. It’s not a given that they’re going to be–or stay–Catholic.

There’s a tempting cultural memory among Catholics of the old immigrant days when Irish and Eastern Europeans came to this country and set off a century of neighborhood-style growth on their own cultural terms, bringing the Church along with them. The rarely-spoken hope, I believe, is that that might happen again. I don’t see it though. Hispanics enter the mainstream very quickly now. The general culture has changed and people are far more mobile now.

The demographics are very interesting.

 

[iloveangels]

20 years ago Hispanic immigrants were 100% Catholic. Now American Hispanics are about 68% Catholic according to the Pew Report. Moreover, the longer they’re in the US, the more likely they are to leave the Catholic faith.

Sunday Mass attendance is also very low among Hispanics–6% lower than non-Hispanics on average. (Average non-hispanic attendance is in the 17-23% of Catholics range, depending on which study you consult.) A large proportion of them display religious symbols in their houses and on their belongings, but it’s not clear how those symbols relate to practice of the faith–in some ways, they appear to be cultural.

Over half of Hispanics prefer charismatic prayer styles over other prayer styles, which affects their church affiliation.

 

[triumphguy]

Or perhaps the Bishops are just supporting the rights of migrants per Church teaching.

Church teaching doesn’t say “Catholic migrants.”