Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

[pnewton]

Our immigration policy increases poverty, so those who say that we discriminate against poor in any immigration policy are wrong because the result is to increase poverty…any more lax policy on intentionally allowing more poor in here will make OUR CITIZENS poor–er …You see you must look at the common good (another Catholic precept) of all, not just whether a law is allowing more poor into a country that cant take any more poor folks…and whose OWN poor are harmed by the policy admitting more poor folks in--------But ya gotta read the facts to learn----right…here we go-----
heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/10/Importing-Poverty-Immigration-and-Poverty-in-the-United-States-A-Book-of-Charts

FYI - I do read what the Church has to say about the issue of immigration, as well as material that does not come from the left or right. I do not care what LULAC or the Minutemen have to say on the issue. I already know where they stand. I also know what a Republican think tank or a Democratic think tank will say.

In the article, there is no mention of making or citizens poorer (no hyphen is needed, BTW). The article is on importing poverty. Yes, if poor people come here we will have more poor people. If uneducated people come here, we will have more uneducated people. That does not necessarily mean that people who are here, “OUR CITIZENS” as you put it, will become poorer or more ignorant.

 

[graciew]

Hi, Pnewton,

I do not want to stretch a point of logic, but since you mentioned that workers are not a drain (and you dispute that non-workers are a drain) - what was your point?

Now, this is where I ask one of those annoying questions … and, you do not have to answer … but, I think it would be good if you did… Tigg previously mentioned the 1986 attempt under President Regan to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants living in the US, and provide an entry way to US citizenship. No body has said anything about this - and I really think it deserves to be addressed. The offer was made - and apparently, not accepted - for reasons I do not know. The real problem is that it did not seem to work. And while we can spend a lot time criticizing our fedeal government for inept laws … I have never heard of any other country doing this. Have you? To me - this was an ‘a-ha’ moment in this discussion.

God bless

As far as I understand,it meant to eliminate(excuse if this is not the word) exploitation,it addressed people already rooted in the country before a certain year,and focussing on a tough hand on employers.His estimates meant to be less budget than let´s say social aids(I think you call it welfare?).It would also discourage illegal inmigration if borders were secured.,but I guess he had issues precisely on this last point.THis was not enforced as it should have been.Please check my answer.with a better source.
And the Amnestys I can recall in my own country many years ago,which were not concerning inmigrants,but do come to the point cause they were related to a very sensitive issue in our country with terrorism and military goverment,could not hide the wounds that have not yet healed.
You know,the word amnesty comes from the word amnesia which means not to remember.We tend to have “amnesia” of our own mistakes,and very clear in mind what the others did wrong.That´s why true Amnesty is so difficult,it implies forgiveness to a certain extent on one side and gratitude on the other.And a firm hand to start a new story.
God bless

 

[d97c]

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The state has a right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

This article from Father Peridans I think is a very well written article that shows that Catholic teaching does NOT endorse this distructive illegal immigration.
cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[graciew]

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The state has a right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

This article from Father Peridans I think is a very well written article that shows that Catholic teaching does NOT endorse this distructive illegal immigration.
cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[Sonny1954]

Hi, Sonny1954,

Go easy on trying to shame people who do not share your view - it contributes nothing to understading or open dialogue… and, after all … that is what CAF is focusing on.

Good morning tqualey. Thank you and you’re right that I went overboard with my rhetoric. I regret that. And the distinctions you made between 19th century immigration and that of today are genuine.

I am, though, remembering a time in the 1980s when the INS was trying to locate a number of undocumented Irish immigrants in the Boston area but the local citizens very largely protected the Irish immigrants by reporting that they had no information about undocumented Irish living in the area. Why would they do such a thing with legality at stake? Undoubtedly part of the answer was that the Irish-American still has a strong sentimental attachment to his/her notion of “old Ireland”, even if the family has been in America since 1850.

The undocumented Mexicans have several obstacles with which their recent Irish counterparts did not have to contend: They are not white. Many do not speak English. And they are entering the U.S. through a passage where the locals are hostile, not sympathetic.

I am an unabashed supporter of open immigration. That’s a policy opinion which I realize is out of fashion. And right now it’s safe to couch the debate in terms of who’s “legal” and who’s not. In wonder, however, if in the unlikely event that there comes a time when another wave of “illegals” seek refuge in the U.S but from Ireland, England, Germany or some other country to whom Americans are are more kindly disposed if the “build a wall to keep them out” sentiment will be as vehement at that time as it is now? Just a question.

 

[d97c]

I feel that if there were 12-20 million illegal alien Canadians, who were overwhelmingly poor and lacking skills, and violating laws as their first act of entering this nation, and sending their money back to Canada relatives,and had the effect on the border states and other states because the tax payers cant take care for them, especially when we have the terrible job loss we have, Id feel the same way. I would love it if the people who are for “open immigration” would stop playing the race card. Im really tired of someone playing it (marginalizing our argument) if anything is said negatively about someone who is of a different color. Just deal with the issues…K?..
The effects of illegal immigration are clear, regardless of the color of the person. If “open immigration” means what I think you mean…everyone in the world who wants in here can come?? Is that what “open” means?? Thats your word. Is that your definition of “open?” Now, how would we do that?? Have ya thought that “open” thing out yet?/ How many millions can this nation take…because if we did that, the would be NO “nation.”

 

[graciew]

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The state has a right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.

Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

This article from Father Peridans I think is a very well written article that shows that Catholic teaching does NOT endorse this distructive illegal immigration.
cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

97,F.Peridans does not refer to it as destructive in the sense we can infer if we do not say it in context…He brings fw interesting issues to support his ideas,does not disqualify and addresses it under the point of view of common good too.Though I may differ to a certain extent,and offer other examples from where we could arrive to different conclusions,what I appreciate from this reading is a perpective from a human and not necessarily always economic point of view.Has The Church fostered his conclusion or is he taking a step beyond what he is supposed to?
Nobody is saying open borders,nor a million Mexican,nor three French,nor criminal welcome,nor grab American jobs ,nor poor yes rich no,nor anything of the sort.
One of the issues we are bringing fw is that there has been no feasable legal path by which they could have entered.Another one that the cause for having been disqualified is not always based upon any fair reason,but economical.
And if there is to be Amnesty,or if there is to be Deportation,none of this will foster peace unless we acknowledge our own miseries in depth and honestly,hard as it may be.We may grab statistics,post articles,fill pages with ink,scream or cry.Once minimum order is secured,borders are secured,and criminals start being stopped,you will have more peace of mind to make decisions.So far,everything is entangled. Wounds will not be healed,problems will arise again,and you will only have kicked a ball foward in time,if we do not firmly acknowledge our miseries and believe God can make all things anew.This is how I see things.
God bless you

 

[graciew]

Hi, Graciew,

Many, many years ago… 47 to be exact … I had to bring my birth certificate and one parent along with me to sign up for a Drivers’ Learner’s Permit on my 16th birthday. Oh, and years later, that same birth certificate and a ton of forms - along with a fee - got me my US Passport. Paperwork plagues us all … and, yes, some more than others.

Now, to register my car in Panama when I was a soldier stationed in the Canal Zone (now, it no longer exists - all is part of the Republic of Pamama) - you would not believe all the paperwork I had to show - and, naturally the forms were in Spanish, and everyone spoke Spanish (some also spoke English…) and, it was a lot of work! ;-( And, there was a requirement for me to always carry my Military ID card and for my wife to carry her Dependant ID card. This was NOT an option.

QUOTE=graciew;6992733]I can tell you that conditions to get a Driver´s licence have changed much.
Three years ago,with my passport,I´-94,Visa,SS number and L1 Visa,and the driver´s test of course…I had my DL
Now a few months ago I had to renew mine and two of my ´boys´ cause we had changed address,and I had to present the previous documentation plus the evidence the L1 was working at present,.As I had to go on different weeks,each week I had to take the evidence written the day before to make sure I was not overstaying.Now my licence is vertical and the word TEMPORARY reads very clearly.
This is to account for some changes you may be interested in hearing.
God bless

Thank you for following the law. I am sure that you feel much better for doing it the correct way. You know what I enjoy seeing, are scenes from various places of legal immigrants becoming US Citizens. Truly, this is a heart warming sight for me. All the rhetorical arguments about how UNJUST our laws are - just fold into a pile of empty works when seeing people who have persevered in doing what they need to do to become citizens. And, when you see these pictures, note the different skin colors, the different national clothing some choose to wear -and, if you get audio coverage - the various accents. These are real people who have made more than an effort - they have run the race and finished the course.

God bless
You are welcome,Tom.
You have had the experience of being snowed down by papers…
My picture also has children,different skin colours,various accents,preferably national clothing to wear yet slightly worn out and dirty…cause they have been playing not working.,and they are smiling.Their parents work close by,they have time to talk and enjoy,food on their tables,and a warm house in winter.And I can definitely see Somebody has been hugging them all the time.
God bless you,Tom

 

[bbarron2]

Offer the country of Mexico statehood. Let them vote on whether they think this is a good idea. ( That would be 12 states based on the population ratio.) Farfetched? Maybe.

Mexico has enough natural resources to be economically stable.They have an unstable government and Freemasonry plays a major role. If Mexico became a state the influx into this country would be overwhelming. If Mexico were stable then its becoming a state might be a consideration.But at the present time I thind it would be a bad idea.

 

[Ender]

Though I may differ to a certain extent,and offer other examples from where we could arrive to different conclusions

This is surely the point: we can justly arrive at different conclusions. This is why there is no Catholic position on specific recommendations. The questions of whether we should or should not build a fence, should or should not deport illegals, should or should not provide a path to citizenship are not moral but prudential. There is no Church position on them (despite the fact that individual bishops may have personal opinions about them). What makes our choices moral are not the specific choices we make but the motivations behind those choices.

Ender

 

[bbarron2]

Illegal immigration is just that.The US cannot absorb the influx.If the Catholic Bishops think the illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay then they are wrong.All the quotes from the Bible are true but the US does not have the resources to absorb illegal immigrants.
The judge that ruled on this is a liberal and her decision was wrong.Arizona has a natural right to protect its borders and certainly cannot tell, by looking ,who is legal and who is illegal.
The interpretation of the 14th Amendment is wrong and the authors of this Amendment expressed themselves quite clearly that children born here of foreign nationals who were not citizens,and this excludes the children born here of diplomats,were not citizens.
The laws that we have are just withrespect to immigration.
The illegal immigrants have no right here and have upset the stability of this country.There is a right way to become citizens in accord with our laws which are not unjust.
The illegal immigrants place an unjust burden on the citizens of the US.It amounts to another entitlement program.
Those who are here legally such as visitors from a foreign country vacationing and give birth to a child while here that child is not an American citizen.And that goes for immigrants who are here legally but have not instituted citizenship proceedings with the immigration authorities.
The Bishops may be right in their use of the Bible quotations but if they cannot be fulfilled then they do not apply.This country at the present tme does not have the means to be generous at the expense of the taxpayer.And the federal government,which is bankrupt,has no right to subsidize foreign countries with one exception and that is dire emergencies.It can take care of everyone else but couldn’t help those caught in the wake or hurricane Katrina.
Again,illegal immigrants have no right to be here and that being the case there is no obligation to aid and assist them in breaking the law.
They come here because the Mexican government is so corrupt they cannot find work or support their families.Mexico has the resources to be and economic superpower and yet it intentionally promotes dire poverty within its borders.It’s a country run by Freemasonry.
Bruce Barron

 

[Tigg]

I am an unabashed supporter of open immigration. That’s a policy opinion which I realize is out of fashion. And right now it’s safe to couch the debate in terms of who’s “legal” and who’s not. In wonder, however, if in the unlikely event that there comes a time when another wave of “illegals” seek refuge in the U.S but from Ireland, England, Germany or some other country to whom Americans are are more kindly disposed if the “build a wall to keep them out” sentiment will be as vehement at that time as it is now? Just a question.

I really do not see the correlation between the European immigrants who came here via Ellis Island (as my Dad’s family did) after waiting for a very long time, following all the rules amidst many hardships, and those who, by proximity are able to tip-toe back and forth across the border. To my knowledge and many reports, our southern friends have little desire to become assimilated into our culture, and really have no loyalty to America, which of course is causing that rather troublesome aspect of balkanization. Oh, I guess you’re speaking of prejudices, correct? Always the race card, and to me, always ludicrous, but then I don’t see the color of skin.

I’m curious, tho, how the open borders crowd can justify the U.S. government’s obvious preference, and even the Churchs’ preference for only one race. There are people all over the world who would love to come here.

 

[bbarron2]

Never forget for a moment that this immigration debacle is something Obama wants to be and has created.He knows exactly what he is doing just like he knows what he is doing with Obamacare and all his other ruinous bills.He wants and causes these states of instability and unrest intentionally.There is not enough bad anyone can say about this man’s motives and actions.

Bruce Barron

 

[Tigg]

Never forget for a moment that this immigration debacle is something Obama wants to be and has created.

We have lived with un-enforced immigration laws long before Obama came on the scene. George Bush, for one, was adamantly in favor of open borders and amnesty. (Google SPP)

 

[baboo4]

I don’t understand the “confusion” on this issue !! Immigration laws are straightforward, and are in place to dignify, honor and respect for a country’s borders. It’s a law that defines a county’s sovereignity and it’s borders. I don’t think I need to elaborate any further about honoring a country’s law !!! It is against the law to illegally enter into any country. Breaking a law is a SIN, especially when you break it “KNOWINGLY”. Is it OK to rob a cake from a bakery because you are hungry & poor ? DEFINITELY NOT !!
If the poor and hungry in a Country need help, we can definitely help through the hundreds of charitable organizations. Breaking a law is never TOLERABLE, in fact, it should be CONDEMNED.
PLEASE DON"T MIX CHARITY WITH LEGALIZING “ILLEGALS” !

 

[tqualey]

Hi, BBarron,

I am truly more sympathetic with your position than with those who are promoting ‘open boarders’ … and the resulting chaos that would usher in!

But I do differ with you on your position with President Obama. I didn’t vote for him - and I certainly hope the Dems put someone else up for the next election - but, on this matter, he is really not guilty! (OK…I bit my tongue…) But, really, this problem with illegal immigration goes back to before President Regan who, in 1986, signed a law allowing for amnesty for illegal immigrants already living in this country. Now, it did not work - and, nothing really has changed - except the sheer numbers of illegals living in this country - so President Obama’s plan to make changes here have no more chance of success…and this will be a really big and expensive waste of resources. But, that is my opinion.

Presidents Clinton and Bush had 16-years between them to move on getting this resolved and both failed. If you want to identify who dropped the ball … it was truly a group effort - but, others bear much more responsibility for our current mess than our current President.

God bless

Never forget for a moment that this immigration debacle is something Obama wants to be and has created.He knows exactly what he is doing just like he knows what he is doing with Obamacare and all his other ruinous bills.He wants and causes these states of instability and unrest intentionally.There is not enough bad anyone can say about this man’s motives and actions.

Bruce Barron

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t understand the “confusion” on this issue !! …

Is it a sin for a law enforcement official [that would be a member of an executive branch] not to enforce a law that he doesn’t like?

 

[Tigg]

Is it a sin for a law enforcement official [that would be a member of an executive branch] not to enforce a law that he doesn’t like?

Don’t get me started down this road! I shudder to think of all the politicians who have sworn a solemn oath of office to protect and uphold the Constitution! What is their culpability in this?

 

[graciew]

This is surely the point: we can justly arrive at different conclusions. This is why there is no Catholic position on specific recommendations. The questions of whether we should or should not build a fence, should or should not deport illegals, should or should not provide a path to citizenship are not moral but prudential. There is no Church position on them (despite the fact that individual bishops may have personal opinions about them). What makes our choices moral are not the specific choices we make but the motivations behind those choices.

Ender

Ender,I don´t know if it is moral or prudential.
What I think is that the question WHAT FOR would work better than WHY.
Think in terms of virtue.
I don´t know if the Church needs to tell me…I honestly can´t say I do not have anything to share…I know in my heart …
the Church has been walking ahead all the time…
and this is just a personal examination and veeeeery brief…
Blessings

 

[Ender]

Ender,I don´t know if it is moral or prudential.
What I think is that the question WHAT FOR would work better than WHY.
Think in terms of virtue.

It is a mistake to believe that wanting to do the right thing somehow translates to knowing what the right thing is. Thinking virtuously is no help to thinking correctly - just look at the unintended consequences of any number of government assistance programs. As any parent can tell you, wanting to do what is best for their children gives them no special insight into what actions will work as intended and which will go horribly wrong. The same is true of immigration. We are all called to do what we think is best but because there is no way to know if our choices will work as anticipated there is no moral issue involved. It cannot be evil to be wrong if our intent is proper. This is why the Church has no position on specific solutions. The choices are entirely prudential and are our responsibility to make. Regrettably it seems that a number of bishops don’t recognize this.

Ender