Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

[d97c]

Using the term “feeble” (your word) to characterize another’s argument…cracks me up ! I would never use that word to characterize you or anything you say. Never.
It’s prudential judgment whether this nation is “able” to take care of the illegal aliens. For example, here is a study of the medicaid costs if we legalize illegal aliens. Now, read it, OK?
cis.org/medicaid-costs
Then tell me that the question of how to pay for the costs of taking all these people onto the rolls of medicaid should not be a concern for the people of the nation. There is absolutely nothing in Catholic teaching that says that a person who illegally sneaks or crawls (or lies to remain) in a nation in violation of a law passed by the representatives of the nation is being “immorally” “discriminated” against because the people want the laws enforced. The common good of the nation is hurt if so much cost to care for law violators is passed onto the taxpayers who are paying for the additional costs. Playing the discrimination card is really getting old. The citizens of this nation should be cared for by the Bishops of this nation instead of opening the borders and then telling taxpayers, “Here…you pay for them.” The poor of America are being discriminated against in favor of law breakers.
OH…and do you think Mexico’s laws against immigrants are “immoral.”
Here they are------
factreal.wordpress.com/2010/05/08/mexico-vs-united-states-mexican-immigration-laws-are-tougher/

Here’s part of it) Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
"- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

• Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)"
  Wow…sounds like those are laws we need !!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

I read the link you provided. But you really have not addressed the issue I tried to raise. So, let me try again…

I do not understand how what I have said (and the USCCB) is vague. I understand that you may not agree, but I quoted the specific sections that I have issue with and quoted specific Church documents and Scripture that show discrimination against the poor is unjust. I have tried to go beyond rhetoric and into specifics. I find that more helpful than statements like:

*HA ! You crack me up! *

First of all, Pnewton, I did not say, “HA! You crack me up!” - that was someone else.

Here are three things that have me concerned:

1.) I have no idea how many pages the immagration law of the US is - but, tho say it is ‘unjust’ ( a term I did not see in the link you provided) means that THE ENTIRE LAW is unjust - and Pnewton, that just makes no sense. To condemn an entire section of law and essentially inviting people to break it as they will is inviting anarchy. Any other set of laws you think are ‘unjust’ and deserving of wholesale disobedience (hey, if you need a suggestion how about the US Tax Law! )

2.) Does any country have a ‘just’ immigration law? I realize that this may sound like a trick question, or a knowledge of international law that defies description - but, the very idea of having a boarder means that not everyone is welcomed to come in. I think any outsider putting a tent or other structure in Vatican City, would quickly meet the business end of the Swiss Guard. People can not barge into another country, make it home and say, “It’s my right! And, oh, by the way you have to take care of me now, too!”. A solid example would go far to make this a pratical discussion.

3.) I gave you the example of “the straw that broke the camel’s back” for a reason. Who other than political authorities set the limit for how much is enough? To say the US has been stingy or miserly or greedy - misses a lot of history on US immigration policy. So, the idea is just when and where do you say, ‘Enough!’? Seriously, this is a major issue, and one that can not languish in conflicting theory. We are to be charitable to others - but, not to the point of personal ruin. We are currently at war with terrorists - and Mexico is a prime example of when laws are ignored on a wholesale basis. Making sure about who we let in to this country - so our country tries to safety for its citizens is a real moral obligation that our government has.

These are hard questions - they deserve serious and solid responses. You are invited to try your hand at these three items - and not dismiss them as you did previously.

God bless

 

[pnewton]

1.) I have no idea how many pages the immagration law of the US is - but, tho say it is ‘unjust’ ( a term I did not see in the link you provided) means that THE ENTIRE LAW is unjust - and Pnewton, that just makes no sense. To condemn an entire section of law and essentially inviting people to break it as they will is inviting anarchy.

If you find it has a more pleasing semantics, I will alter what I said to this particular section of the law is unjust in that it discriminates against the poor. That was the only way in which I was arguing it was unjust and never said anything about wholesale immigration.

 

[pnewton]

To say the US has been stingy or miserly or greedy - misses a lot of history on US immigration policy. So, the idea is just when and where do you say, ‘Enough!’? Seriously, this is a major issue, and one that can not languish in conflicting theory. We are to be charitable to others - but, not to the point of personal ruin.

I guess that is a point I just don’t agree with a lot of folks here. I consider any worker a resource, not a drain. Properly manage, meaning legal and paying taxes, I am not sure there is so much as too many workers, just like there is not such thing as too much production. I do not see where it is necessary to allow people to be here, work and not contribute.

As to your other comment about dismissing questions, that’s really unfair. This is a forum. We should never be under an obligation to respond, or not, to what another says. There are several reasons I will not respond to something, often having nothing to do with what is said. Sometimes I can’t tell the difference between questions and rhetoric. Sometimes I miss what is said. Sometimes I think the question has already been sufficiently addressed.

 

[d97c]

Here is why our immigration laws are not “immoral” …and why illegal aliens have absolutely NO right to violate them . This nation is importing poverty, with legal and illegal immigration.
Since the immigration reforms of the 1960s, the U.S. has imported poverty through immigration policies that permitted and encouraged the entry and residence of millions of low-skill immigrants into the nation. Low-skill immigrants tend to be poor and to have children who, in turn, add to America’s poverty problem, driving up governmental welfare, social service, and education costs.

Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on average, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum.[2]
The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. In recent years, these factors have produced an inflow of some ten and a half million immigrants who lack a high school education. In terms of increased poverty and expanded government expenditure, this importation of poorly educated immigrants has had roughly the same effect as the addition of ten and a half million native-born high school drop-outs.

As a result of this dramatic inflow of low-skill immigrants,

One-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education; and
First-generation immigrants and their families, who are one-sixth of the U.S. population, comprise one-fourth of all poor persons in the U.S.
immigration also plays a large role in child poverty:

Some 38 percent of immigrant children live in families headed by persons who lack a high school education;
Minor children of first-generation immigrants comprise 26 percent of poor children in the U.S.; and
One out of six poor children in the U.S. is the offspring of first-generation immigrant parents who lack a high school diploma.
heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/10/Importing-Poverty-Immigration-and-Poverty-in-the-United-States-A-Book-of-Charts

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Your agreement or disagreement with any number of folks is not the issue. The idea of a forum is to discuss - and to do so in a charitable manner. You are certainly correct, you do not have to address an issue if you don’t want to. But, by the same token, do not be surprised is your non-response to legitimate questins appears louder than anything else you say.

Here are a couple of particulars of non-response which cloud the issue, at least for me.

Your idea that the “…immigration laws are unjust…” is curious and challenging. No examples are given - except they discriminate against the poor. In your response below, you apparently discriminate in favor or workers - with the idea that non-workers are, “… a drain…”

As I understand it, no one has a right to trample on the rights of others. All I am asking yoiu to do is address this characterization of US Immigration Laws being ‘unjust’ - with the implication that we do not need to obey unjust laws and therefore anyone is free to break unjust laws and conclude that illegal immigration is not really illegal because of faulty and unjust laws. I identified that this line of reasoning only invites chaos - and, you again chose not to respond. If you want examples of UNJUST immigration laws - look at Nazi Germany.

If you do not want to respond, fine.

Surely there are others out there who can respond - and let me make the invitation to those who think that US Immigration Laws are UNJUST. Not that they are confusing (welcome to US Law!) or discriminate against certain groups while discriminating in favor of others (most laws are written with the idea of influencing or directing behavor - people who rent do not get the tax breaks that people who are buying their home have, people below a certain income level are eligible for certain benefits that those just above this income level are denied, etc. The list is endless.) but that these laws are UNJUST and should be ingnored - so all who want to come to the US are welcomed because UNJUST have no moral authority and such laws do not have to be obeyed.

I guess that is a point I just don’t agree with a lot of folks here. I consider any worker a resource, not a drain. Properly manage, meaning legal and paying taxes, I am not sure there is so much as too many workers, just like there is not such thing as too much production. I do not see where it is necessary to allow people to be here, work and not contribute.

As to your other comment about dismissing questions, that’s really unfair. This is a forum. We should never be under an obligation to respond, or not, to what another says. There are several reasons I will not respond to something, often having nothing to do with what is said. Sometimes I can’t tell the difference between questions and rhetoric. Sometimes I miss what is said. Sometimes I think the question has already been sufficiently addressed.

 

[Sonny1954]

This is an ironic topic for Catholics to be discussing. And I admit that it hits a particualrly sensitive spot with me. Historically, Catholicism in the United States has been an immigrant church. The number of Catholics living in the U.S. grew from the 1840s through1924 primarily because of immigration. And despite the modern myth that immigrants were welcomed here, they were generally the targets of hatred, discrimination and violence. The American Protective Association and the American Nativist Party in the late 19th century, as well as the KKK in the 1920s fed off of Americans’ xenophobic racism(i.e. immigrant Catholics).

Those who today wring their hands and rail hysterically against undocumented Mexicans entering the U.S. are following that grand tradition of the A.P.A. and KKK. And to the extent that any of those same Americans are Roman Catholics, shame on them.

 

[graciew]

Since the immigration reforms of the 1960s, the U.S. has imported poverty through immigration policies that permitted and encouraged the entry and residence of millions of low-skill immigrants into the nation. Low-skill immigrants tend to be poor and to have children who, in turn, add to America’s poverty problem, driving up governmental welfare, social service, and education costs.

Today’s immigrants differ greatly from historic immigrant populations. Prior to 1960, immigrants to the U.S. had education levels that were similar to those of the non-immigrant workforce and earned wages that were, on average, higher than those of non-immigrant workers. Since the mid-1960s, however, the education levels of new immigrants have plunged relative to non-immigrants; consequently, the average wages of immigrants are now well below those of the non-immigrant population. Recent immigrants increasingly occupy the low end of the U.S. socio-economic spectrum.[2]
The current influx of poorly educated immigrants is the result of two factors: first, a legal immigration system that favors kinship ties over skills and education; and second, a permissive attitude toward illegal immigration that has led to lax border enforcement and non-enforcement of the laws that prohibit the employment of illegal immigrants. In recent years, these factors have produced an inflow of some ten and a half million immigrants who lack a high school education. In terms of increased poverty and expanded government expenditure, this importation of poorly educated immigrants has had roughly the same effect as the addition of ten and a half million native-born high school drop-outs.

As a result of this dramatic inflow of low-skill immigrants,

One-third of all immigrants live in families in which the head of the household lacks a high school education; and
First-generation immigrants and their families, who are one-sixth of the U.S. population, comprise one-fourth of all poor persons in the U.S.
immigration also plays a large role in child poverty:

Some 38 percent of immigrant children live in families headed by persons who lack a high school education;
Minor children of first-generation immigrants comprise 26 percent of poor children in the U.S.; and
One out of six poor children in the U.S. is the offspring of first-generation immigrant parents who lack a high school diploma.
heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/10/Importing-Poverty-Immigration-and-Poverty-in-the-United-States-A-Book-of-Charts

97,at this stage of the thread,I understand that the issue for you is then you would like to export poverty.And if you carefully read what you are saying,you wold export even US citizens on condition that they entered this country being poor contributing to add more poor you are not interested in keeping,for if I am understanding well,though they pay the taxes in proportion, whoever does not add economically to a number that satisfies your need? to keep up to a determined economical standard that will satisfy your personal expectation,is not worth keeping.
At this stage,I think illegal inmigrants today add one more problem to a problem against poverty-which -does -not -add-to-my-bank.account you already have.
Si far,I have not read you have posted anything but get rid of ,or ship,as you wish,a group or category of persons you utterly dislike for being poor.
Now,if I am being unfair,and have misinterpreted your words,and you are really going through tough economical situation and you are becoming poor,well count on us that we will not export you.
Did I understand well?
God bless you

 

[sedonaman]

… There is no country in the world that has taken better care of immigrants than the people of the USA. There is no country in the world that has done more to help people outside of our country than the USA.

The more America does to overcome its faults, the worse – not better – America is perceived. Why is this?

Where are all of the moral arguments about how the government of Mexico should be adopting policies that will make their people want to stay in their country and keep their families together there? …

Mega !!!

 

[d97c]

Nope…you didnt understand. See my selected posts. Read them in order. You CANT come to that conclusion. Im against illegalimmigration, whether from Canada or Mexico, and the reasons I have in detail quoted and cited.
and…so now we are Klansmen, is that right?
So…I hate the poor and I am a Klansman? Right Sonny? That was quite a jump. If I called you that I would be blocked from this forum. Names and labels. I’ll try again since this is a Catholic forum. There are huge problems with ILLEGAL immigration. Im glad we have LEGAL immigration. We need certain amount of legal immigration and we allow certain numbers and other qualifications OTHER THAN JUST NUMBERS so as to not harm the COMMON GOOOD of the nation of U S Citizens… I follow the Catachism which states that we have to accept those who seek a better life TO THE EXTENT THIS NATION IS ABLE. What extent that is is a matter of prudential judgment. Here are a few things to read that support my interpretation of the Catachism’s words, since no bishop has any expertise of what EXTENT immigration should be allowed…legal or illegal. This nation allows more immigration than any nation in the history of mankind. I want you to read some other Catholic writers who dont support all this illegal immigration…
fatherpatrickbascio.com/
vdare.com/walker/091014_bascio.htm
cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[Ender]

Those who today wring their hands and rail hysterically against undocumented Mexicans entering the U.S. are following that grand tradition of the A.P.A. and KKK. And to the extent that any of those same Americans are Roman Catholics, shame on them.

This is a wonderful example that demonstrates the point I made earlier about immigration not being a moral issue. It is not the morality of the issue that is discussed but the morality of individuals that is disparaged. Frankly, I place much of the blame for this state of affairs on the bishops, who, by choosing sides and taking specific positions imply that there is some question of morality involved. Given that there is none in regard to the proposals themselves, the only targets left are the people who choose them.

We are charged with being the moral offspring of the A.P.A. and the KKK, of having no “argument” other than hysterically wringing our hands. I wouldn’t call such assertions a grand tradition - but it is certainly the traditional tactic among those don’t know anything better.

Ender

 

[franzola]

Why does our country have laws such as Immigration laws if they can be disregarded? What if we disregarded all laws and did not arrest people for any of their transgressions? We must be morally upright, but we must also follow the laws, after all the laws were taken from the 10 commandments, and maybe the illegal immigrants are breaking the commandments of lying (stating they are here legally)
covet the neighbors goods (taking jobs away from citizens). Especially in this day and age when so many of our citizens are out of work and begging for jobs. True, Jesus does want us to help the poor, which we do by giving the illegals free medical, food stamps, welfare, etc. But the Illegals should go the “legal” route, which is only fair because other people have waited for years to come here legally.

 

[sedonaman]

This is an ironic topic for Catholics to be discussing. And I admit that it hits a particualrly sensitive spot with me. Historically, Catholicism in the United States has been an immigrant church. The number of Catholics living in the U.S. grew from the 1840s through1924 primarily because of immigration. And despite the modern myth that immigrants were welcomed here, they were generally the targets of hatred, discrimination and violence. The American Protective Association and the American Nativist Party in the late 19th century, as well as the KKK in the 1920s fed off of Americans’ xenophobic racism(i.e. immigrant Catholics).

Those who today wring their hands and rail hysterically against undocumented Mexicans entering the U.S. are following that grand tradition of the A.P.A. and KKK. And to the extent that any of those same Americans are Roman Catholics, shame on them.

I think there is more to it than that, and I can illustrate with two unrelated incidents. My grandparents came here from Italy 100 years ago. None of them spoke a word of English, but their children [all born here] were bi-lingual. My grandmother told her children that, “When you are home, speak Italian because that’s what we all understand; but when you go out the door and into the world, speak only English because we are all Americans now.” It took only one generation for all her children to be assimilated. The second incident was of a Cuban woman naturalized citizen who said, “I know I’m an American now, but I will always be Cuban first.” You can see this attitude in Hispanics who speak English but speak Spanish to their kids. Now, if they want to do that, it’s up to them; but they should be aware they are burdening their kids when they do because knowledge of English is key to their entrance into the economy and the culture at large.

 

[sedonaman]

Why does our country have laws such as Immigration laws if they can be disregarded? …

To satisfy the voters who want those laws. They are a compromise: people want the laws, but the government doesn’t; so the government passes the laws but just doesn’t enforce them, and both get what they want.

 

[tqualey]

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.

This is an ironic topic for Catholics to be discussing. And I admit that it hits a particualrly sensitive spot with me. Historically, Catholicism in the United States has been an immigrant church. The number of Catholics living in the U.S. grew from the 1840s through1924 primarily because of immigration. And despite the modern myth that immigrants were welcomed here, they were generally the targets of hatred, discrimination and violence. The American Protective Association and the American Nativist Party in the late 19th century, as well as the KKK in the 1920s fed off of Americans’ xenophobic racism(i.e. immigrant Catholics).

Don’t forget the “Know Nothing Party” that lead the nativists groups, Sonny1954 It had as its focus on rabid hatred for Catholics and Jews, a generalized xenophobia, and a desire to unite all of these various hate groups into a political force. I think it would be good to make a distinction between what is going on today and what took place in the early 19th Centry.

Those who today wring their hands and rail hysterically against undocumented Mexicans entering the U.S. are following that grand tradition of the A.P.A. and KKK. And to the extent that any of those same Americans are Roman Catholics, shame on them.

One of the problems with yearing for an earlier time period with much simpler problems is that it both distorts the current realities and enables us to develop fantasy solutions or analogies. No one that I am aware of is spweing out venom for Catholics and Jews - or Muslims, for that matter (the issue with the mosque/community center in NYC has nothing to do with their religion as such - but as a victory symbol for 19 suicidal/homicidal fanatics declaring war on the US. )

Ultimately, we have legitimate boundries that separate the US from Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. But, don’t stop there, both Cananda and Mexico not only have their own boundaries - but - they also have their own immigration laws. Looking at a globe, you see the various countries boundaries - and while these may seem geographic, they are primarily poltical. I am sure you know this - but, we need to move from this as a bit of theoretical knowledge to practical knowledge. No Catholic Church documents condemns poltical boundaries. Neither is there any document that enables the unilateral imposition of one person’s rights over another person’s rights.

The US has not shut off immigration. What it has done that is different from the 18th and 19th Centuries is set of criteria based on what is preceived as the needs of this country to both accomodate and assimilate immigrants. - coming to this country is not a ‘free-for-all’. Not surprisingly, immigrants coming to ANY COUNTRY must comply with the immigratin laws of other countries.

One of the arguments used is that US immigration laws are claimed to be UNJUST. And, because of this claim there is the principle that UNJUST LAWS need not be obeyed. The problem with this wholesale condemnation of a particular set of validly made laws is chaos and a desire to determine which other laws are also UNJUST so they can be broken with impunity, too.

Claiming we need to improve our immigration laws is certainly a legitimate position. Claiming we are free to break whatever laws we choose becuase we to not think they are just creates an unjust situation for everyone. Now, that is the issue I am looking at… and I do not think that shame is involved at all.

God bless

 

[HarryK]

**Those who say that the Immigration law must be obeyed don’t remember there were laws against African Americans drinking out of White drinking fountains and being forced to give up their seat for a white person on the bus. Just because we have a law in this country it doesn’t mean it is the correct law. To be a good and righteous law it must be in conjunction with Natural Law. Having said this Immigrants who are here illegally should be allowed to apply for citizenship but wait at the end of the line and pay a reasonable fine for breaking an unjust law. After all none of us are natives of America unless we are Native Americans. **

I don’t buy this portion of that argument at all. One has nothing to do with the other - it is what I call a liberal argument meant to screen the issue.
The federal law is quite clear - an alien must carry their authorization to be in this country at all times and the proof must be presented when questioned. I consider myself an American. I was born here - the number of generations means nothing. If you consider yourself to not be a native of America - I must assume that you are not here legally and if that is the case you should be deported. No matter how you came into the U.S.A. - if it was not through birth or legally you are illegal, a crime committer and law breaker with only one entitlement - deportation.
The Catholic Church should stay out of this argument - I am not a Social Justice supporter - I believe that I receive salvation though my individual actions and relationship to God. The bishops are way off base supporting illegal acts.

 

[graciew]

Hi, Graciew,

I am not trying to be cute - I am really looking for answers. You bet I have problems with the, “Let everyone who is here stay - and then find a way to let others join them!”

From what I see, none of the ‘source’ countries (Central and South America primarily) have clean hands in this area because money earned in the US is sent back to these countries. While sending money home to family members in need sounds nobel and generous - when you multiply this by millions - you suddenly have an ‘export’ (one’s own citizens) that is producing revenue for the ‘source’ country - and, all that has to be done is not police the borders too well.

Do you have problems with this, Graciew? Probably not. And, there’s the rub. Instead of staying in one’s own country to work out problems - it is run away from them. To claim, “Oh, these problems are too big” - no one has yet to set a manageable size to when someone stands up and does the right thing.

I do not know what country you come from - but, there was an interesting contrast between the nacro-terrorists in Columbia and those in Mexico. It seems like the Columbia crew had gotten totally out of hand - and, in a fight for territory, one group set off a car bomb - in front of a store that was selling school uniforms for young children. Well, this so enraged the Columbians that they started shooting narco-terrorists on sight! They notified the police, and army and were not putting up with this butchery. Guess what? Columbia really doesn’t have narco-terrorists. When we look at Mexico we see what happens when good people trembel in the face of gansters. Narco-terrorism is not only alive and well in Mexico, but it appears to have crippled the government, the press and I just don’t hear a lot from the Chruch. Leaving seems safe - but, these narco-terrorists do nto kow the meaning of national boundries (just like the illegal immigrants!) The only difference here is that the narco-terrorists wants to expand his operations and will come to the US.

Your ‘answers’ are non-answers and play to the cowardice of people who want to do good and fall for the easy way. Your ‘answers’ offer the easy corruption of passive aggressive actions that sap the energy from others. Finally, your ‘answers’ should enable you to more closely examine just what it is you are proclaiming here on CAF - run away from problems…don’t try to make your own country work - abandon it while trying to export the pretense of virtue to other lands. You are sooooooooooooooo right - your ‘answers’ do give me problems… and not just me, either.

Think about it.
graciew;6983823:
Tom,I have already thought about it
I will not send you back to some of my previous posts,nor reword them , I will just let you label my answers as you wish.
I will not share an explanation of how well I understand what to live under a government who has unclean hands means unless it suits to the purpose of the thread,cause I have already told you I serve for the love of God to mitigate its consequences.
I will not take personal that my answers are those of a coward,delusional,passive and agressive runaway,I will dismiss it as irrelevant and keep giving and receiving examples,argument,resources and experience we may share.for the purpose of the thread.
And I am not sorry if I am giving you “and others…not just you”…problems if these problems help us all find the connection between inmigration,deportation and catholisism.
God bless you,Tom.

 

[sedonaman]

…Those who say that the Immigration law must be obeyed don’t remember there were laws against African Americans drinking out of White drinking fountains and being forced to give up their seat for a white person on the bus. Just because we have a law in this country it doesn’t mean it is the correct law.

This is absurd logic. Just because there have been some unjust laws doesn’t mean all laws are unjust merely because they are laws. Go back and review the Sesame Street episode where the hermit explained to the Muppet the difference between “some” and “all”.

To be a good and righteous law it must be in conjunction with Natural Law. Having said this Immigrants who are here illegally should be allowed to apply for citizenship but wait at the end of the line and pay a reasonable fine for breaking an unjust law.

This is the most reasonable solution I have heard. In fact, it’s the only solution coming from the anti-SB1070 crowd. But I have one question: if the law is unjust, why should they have to pay a fine? [Note: the law would first have to be declared unjust.]

After all none of us are natives of America unless we are Native Americans.

More illogic. If we extend this reasoning all the way back to the beginning, the only legitimate inhabitant of the planet would have been Adam because he was here first. Even Eve would have been an illegal alien.

 

[tqualey]

Wow! I, too, think ‘…one has nothing to do with the other…’ and that illegal immigration is a major problem. That having been said, I think the Catholic Church as a real role to play in this discussion - keep Christ’s Church out of the marketplace is neither sound or Catholic. The fact that a group of bishops get together and come up with an idea does not mean this is the way the Holy Spirit is moving us. Anyone wondering about this, should simply recall the so-called Winnapeg Statement when Canadian bishops publicly disagreed with Humanae vitae.

My recommendation would be to re-evaluatge your stated position and look to guidance from the Holy Father. The Chruch is guided by the Holy Spirit. This is a real issue and one that invoves both Faith and Courage.

God bless

I don’t buy this portion of that argument at all. One has nothing to do with the other - it is what I call a liberal argument meant to screen the issue.
The federal law is quite clear - an alien must carry their authorization to be in this country at all times and the proof must be presented when questioned. I consider myself an American. I was born here - the number of generations means nothing. If you consider yourself to not be a native of America - I must assume that you are not here legally and if that is the case you should be deported. No matter how you came into the U.S.A. - if it was not through birth or legally you are illegal, a crime committer and law breaker with only one entitlement - deportation.
The Catholic Church should stay out of this argument - I am not a Social Justice supporter - I believe that I receive salvation though my individual actions and relationship to God. The bishops are way off base supporting illegal acts.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

We have a real difference of opinion.

Ultimately, we are all ultimately responsible for the country we live in. There is no escaping this - you either make a contribution to your homeland or your flee. If you flee, who is left to make the changes?

God bless

tqualey;6984755:

Hi, Graciew,

I am not trying to be cute - I am really looking for answers. You bet I have problems with the, “Let everyone who is here stay - and then find a way to let others join them!”

From what I see, none of the ‘source’ countries (Central and South America primarily) have clean hands in this area because money earned in the US is sent back to these countries. While sending money home to family members in need sounds nobel and generous - when you multiply this by millions - you suddenly have an ‘export’ (one’s own citizens) that is producing revenue for the ‘source’ country - and, all that has to be done is not police the borders too well.

Do you have problems with this, Graciew? Probably not. And, there’s the rub. Instead of staying in one’s own country to work out problems - it is run away from them. To claim, “Oh, these problems are too big” - no one has yet to set a manageable size to when someone stands up and does the right thing.

I do not know what country you come from - but, there was an interesting contrast between the nacro-terrorists in Columbia and those in Mexico. It seems like the Columbia crew had gotten totally out of hand - and, in a fight for territory, one group set off a car bomb - in front of a store that was selling school uniforms for young children. Well, this so enraged the Columbians that they started shooting narco-terrorists on sight! They notified the police, and army and were not putting up with this butchery. Guess what? Columbia really doesn’t have narco-terrorists. When we look at Mexico we see what happens when good people trembel in the face of gansters. Narco-terrorism is not only alive and well in Mexico, but it appears to have crippled the government, the press and I just don’t hear a lot from the Chruch. Leaving seems safe - but, these narco-terrorists do nto kow the meaning of national boundries (just like the illegal immigrants!) The only difference here is that the narco-terrorists wants to expand his operations and will come to the US.

Your ‘answers’ are non-answers and play to the cowardice of people who want to do good and fall for the easy way. Your ‘answers’ offer the easy corruption of passive aggressive actions that sap the energy from others. Finally, your ‘answers’ should enable you to more closely examine just what it is you are proclaiming here on CAF - run away from problems…don’t try to make your own country work - abandon it while trying to export the pretense of virtue to other lands. You are sooooooooooooooo right - your ‘answers’ do give me problems… and not just me, either.

Think about it.

Tom,I have already thought about it
I will not send you back to some of my previous posts,nor reword them , I will just let you label my answers as you wish.
I will not share an explanation of how well I understand what to live under a government who has unclean hands means unless it suits to the purpose of the thread,cause I have already told you I serve for the love of God to mitigate its consequences.
I will not take personal that my answers are those of a coward,delusional,passive and agressive runaway,I will dismiss it as irrelevant and keep giving and receiving examples,argument,resources and experience we may share.for the purpose of the thread.
And I am not sorry if I am giving you “and others…not just you”…problems if these problems help us all find the connection between inmigration,deportation and catholisism.
God bless you,Tom.