Immigration Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicray

Guest
To keep it simple I believe we should secure the southern border of the United States which will and already is having consequences on immigrants. I would like to debate the biblical and Church basis for opposing this. Why, according to the Church should we be compelled to help immigrants who are breaking the law to enter the United States?

To start my own side of the debate I would say I am specifically talking about the problem of people crossing the border illegally. I believe in helping immigrants providing that they are pursuing citizenship through the proper channels. Why is it wrong to oppose illegal immigration?
 
I think we are compelled to help legitimate refugees but not economic migrants. I think most of the disagreement stems from who one thinks is a refugee or not.

The UN Agreement of Refugees was hammered out in the 50’s and is based on experiences following WW2 upheavals. It does a good job defining who qualifies as a refugee and who doesn’t. It also lays out responsibilities to help, such as providing aid to mass refugees close to their homes until it is safe for them to return. Hence we have UN refugee camps which the US supports along with other nations.

Battered spouses or living in a dangerous neighborhood don’t qualify because they can move to another location and can be protected by their local authorities.

Virtually all the people crossing our southern border don’t qualify as refugees. Exceptions would be those fleeing religious and political persecution or those fleeing a natural disaster or civil war, which is why we accepted many people from Haiti years back.

The Church teaches Subsidiarity. To my understanding, this implies the various governments in central America and Mexico are primarily responsible for their citizens. If help is required then that help should be channeled through these responsible parties. The same goes for local parishes, they are primarily responsible for their flock and when they ask for our additional help, we should give it, but it should go through the church structure so the people on the ground in the community are accountable and in control. We are not to circumvent their role or responsibilities. Outside of famine or major civil unrest, economic migrants don’t qualify.
 
Last edited:
Why? How do you relate the story of the Samaritan woman to immigration problems. To be clear myself I do not think we should treat anyone as less than what they are. A human being. But I do not see where this story condones illegal immigration.
 
I would be comfortable standing behind the basics of what you have described here. I agree the question then is who qualifies as a refugee rather than an immigrant.
 
“For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ Then the righteous will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?”

The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

(Matthew 25:35-40 NASB)

Jesus said it all.
 
“Legal” and “illegal” are constructs based on a government’s whims and prejudices. The current administration is trying to expand the definition of “illegal,” something which the USCCB has commendably opposed. They are indeed a valuable resource for Catholics seeking moral clarity on the issue. https://justiceforimmigrants.org/ The Church is therefore working to change the laws, as indeed it should.

The bottom line is that “legal” and “illegal” all too often exist in a separate realm from right and wrong.
 
“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. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”

I agree with Jesus as well by the way but I do not believe he was promoting illegal immigration. Nor does this passage in Romans suggest we should obstruct security for our borders. Again I am all for helping refugees and opening the door to legal immigration.
 
That may be the case but Jesus did not break laws even when they were unjust against him. Nor did obstruct justice rendered against him unjustly. So the Church may be trying to change laws to better society and life which is commendable but I would argue that obstructing law as it currently stands is not what Jesus taught. When Peter cut off the mans ear to protect our Lord, Jesus healed the aggressor and gave himself up to the authority that would persecute Him.
 
It is written, “The shepherd enters through the gate. All who climb over the fence are thieves and robbers.” I welcome those who come to build a better life, but they must come through the gates.
 
catholicray said:
Why, according to the Church should we be compelled to help immigrants who are breaking the law to enter the United States?
Click to expand...
Maybe for the same reason Jesus told the Pharisees that he dined with sinners and tax collectors…that these immigrants, the marginalized, are most in need of help.
 
The Church, at least in this case, is arguing for changing the laws. You’re talking about breaking them, which has nothing to do with the link I provided or the point I was making.

But if you insist on discussing the matter, then yes, a Catholic, in close consult with his/her priest, may well be justified in breaking unjust immigration laws.


 
I think your reading too much into this verse. Again while Jesus may have dined with sinners and tax collectors (treating them as human beings and loving them equally) I do not believe he was in violation of any law, whether religious or state, while doing so.
 
I have not read the article yet but from your original post it seemed the point you were making is that legal is not necessarily right and illegal is not necessarily wrong. I agree with you completely my point was to simply question why we should obstruct law, right or wrong, prior to its being changed. I believe this is where the conversation may take a turn for the worst but this is where I am unwilling to consider the hard questions.
 
catholicray said:
To keep it simple I believe we should secure the southern border of the United States which will and already is having consequences on immigrants. I would like to debate the biblical and Church basis for opposing this.
Click to expand...
Where does the church do this?

Disagreeing with a concrete wall from sea to shining sea is not the same things as opposing securing the border.

This wall is not the end all and be all of border security.
catholicray said:
Why, according to the Church should we be compelled to help immigrants who are breaking the law to enter the United States?
Click to expand...
Because once we find that these PEOPLE are in DIRE straits charity compels us to assist them as best we can. True charity is an act of love freely given especially to those who do not deserve it. Their immigration status is a matter for the government to sort out.
 
That may be true but from where I stand I have to take that verse in consideration with Romans 13 as well as the fact that Jesus handed himself over to wrong laws. This was His example that he set for me. We could move to a lower level of this discussion as well concerning the fact that God taught that he who loses his life for God’s sake will gain it and of course he who gains it shall lose it. I would question whether the obstruction of “wrong” laws is not spiritually seeking the things of this world rather than the Kingdom of God which we find in sharing his death.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Because once we find that these PEOPLE are in DIRE straits charity compels us to assist them as best we can. True charity is an act of love freely given especially to those who do not deserve it. Their immigration status is a matter for the government to sort out.
Click to expand...
While a lot of what you said is morally compelling my problem is that this can not be calculated very well. As far as I know, no one knows who is truly a refugee and who is hiding under the cloak of being a refugee. That problems are occurring for immigrants on the southern border does not necessarily mean that those people were facing worse circumstances where they were.

Another problem is that this same argument can be used for criminals. Suppose a criminal is facing certain death in his own country and flees to another to preserve his life? If we uphold the laws of our system then he receives no help at the border but if we obstruct those laws in the name of charity then justice is not served. It is a catch 22 situation.

Also disagreeing with a wall is very near-sighted. I don’t believe a wall will answer every problem we have but it does begin to correct a very real problem. I may want to have charity for refugees but I also want to start the process to slowing down drugs coming into the country from our southern border. That is Charity for children who are already here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top