Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter richardacombs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

richardacombs

Guest
Misconceptions seem to abound when the subject of immigration, deportation, and Catholicism comes up either on this forum or conversations on the street.

The stance of the Catholic Church appears to be that nations have the right to protect their borders and to secure them against unwanted immigration. On the other hand, the automatic and mass deportation of unwanted immigrants seemingly goes against the teachings of the Church.

On individual bases, Catholics, even evidently devout Catholics, differ greatly on how to handle unwanted immigration, how to treat unwanted immigrants once they have arrived, and whether to deport them automatically when they have been apprehended and identified.

Certainly, good sense dictates that governments have the right to restrict immigration and to secure their borders to prevent unwanted immigration, but not for economic reasons: Catholics should not deny necessities of life to other humans, whether those people must illegally cross a national border to obtain them or not. St John the Baptist told the crowds searching for salvation, “He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner” (Luke 3:11, Douay Rheims). Similarly, Jesus instructed the young man looking how to follow God more perfectly, “One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me” (Mark 10:21, Douay Rheims).

Of course, some Catholics will argue that they want nothing of that: what they possess, they have earned, and they will not share it with someone branded “Illegal.”

Exactly what have those Catholics earned? Did they earn life? Did they earn birth in a wealthy nation? Did they earn good health? Did they earn salvation? Did they earn Christ?

Of course not, all that humans possess is a gift, every breath is a gift of God, Who upholds creation with His will. If certain people have the environment, the health, the circumstances to earn an honorable and prosperous living, that is good, but–at least according to Scripture–they must be willing to share; share it all if need be, to follow Christ. And why shouldn’t they be asked to share their possessions, sacrifice family and friends, lay down their lives? None of those things belong to them; they belong to God.

That leads to the automatic and mass deportation of unwanted immigrants. The Catholic Faith cannot condone such a thing for the very same reasons.

St. James clearly tells us in his epistle: "And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food,
"And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be you warmed and filled: yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
“Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (James 2:15-17, Douay Rheims).

Our Faith is a stern Master requiring all that we possess, and our individual faith, our acceptance of Christ, is shown in how we act. Catholics should not attempt to justify turning away the hungry, the sick, the dispossessed, because they brand those searching for a better life “illegal.” As Sister Teresa told assembled dignitaries in her address to the United Nations in September 1994, “…I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be very demanding…”

I realize that this will be a controversial post. Many people are very emotional on both sides of this subject.

So, I’ll close this post with another bit of advice from St. James: "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20, Douay Rheims)
 
wow great tread topic.

Now imagine what happens when it isn’t an economical issue but a religious issue, more spacifically EU countries like France, Spain, Switzerland, and Belgium. All are (or atleast were) mainly Catholic countries, but the vast migrations of Arabs and Anatolians are causing religious unrest. What is the Churches view on limiting immigration because of religion?
Personally, in the short run I think having a mix or someone different then you can cause a dialectic affect where all of a sudden you have better consciousness of what you are and what makes you different. Lorraine and other parts of southern France with fairly large Islamic populations are having a Catholic awakening, but what happens later?
 
I realize that this will be a controversial post. Many people are very emotional on both sides of this subject.
And some of us live in border states and know what we’re talking about when I say the current anti-immigration sentiment has led to an increase in racial profiling. Entire city blocks are now vacant where storefront plazas used to be. If a certain law takes effect this week here in Arizona, Catholic priests can be jailed for not verifying immigration status of all parishoners. “The body of Christ…green card, please?” Please keep the State of Arizona in your prayers this week.
 
Catholic priests can be jailed for not verifying immigration status of all parishoners. “The body of Christ…green card, please?”

Wow thats basicly denying the sacriments based on secular means, i.e. Simony 😦
 
That law only concerned police who stopped people for other violations first. The idea of a priest being in trouble for not verifying citizenship status is ridiculous. If you can specifically quote the part of the law where it says what you are implying, I will apologize for being so wrong.

Having said that, the Church continues to confuse us by saying all nations have a right to regulate their borders, while also all people have a right to “migrate” wherever they please. You can’t have it both ways - unless their definition of “migration” is the legal moving to another nation (i.e. legally immigrating to another nation). It’s either one or the other, however. How do we find the balance between “the right to migrate” and “the right to secure the borders”? It’s a legitimate question to ask and all we’re getting from BOTH sides - Catholic and secular; hierarchy and laity - is heated rhetoric and name calling. No one can ignore the hopes of the Catholic Church seeing a tide of Catholics coming over the borders and filling the empty pews of American parishes. I still haven’t heard the Bishops come out with a statement pledging their solidarity with China, Japan, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Vietnam, and the countless other illegal immigrants in our nation like they did with their press release for Mexico.

I just want honesty and integrity from all involved; just an honest debate and not smoke and mirrors.
 
Anyone who makes an argument about the Arizona law using Old Testament moral standards (taking care of strangers, feeding the poor, etc.) or using sentiments expressed by the US bishops has got his/her head screwed on backwards.

There is nothing “seemingly against Catholicism” in supporting the Arizona law. One could use a moral argument to say that opposing the Arizona law condones human trafficking, drug trafficking, rape, murder, trespassing, mayhem and more.

No country or international institution, whether it be the Church or the United Nations or the EU or anyone else, can say that the United States is a country that is unjust to immigrants. 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.

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? Why aren’t the bishops of the USA uniting with the bishops of Mexico to make the moral points relevant to perspective? That is the most just position to take. Mexico should have economic and social policies that encourage its citizens to generate wealth in their own country.

Let’s use a little bit of common sense here, and get away from the mass hysteria that makes standing up for our human rights in our country some kind of sin. It’s ridiculous.
 
Yes. In fact, back in the days of the Papal States, they even had capital punishment! But over time, when the Church doesn’t have to worry about their own borders or governmental policies, it’s all too easy to give advice.

People need to do some research on the rape trees in the Southwest. Or the scores of radicals from overseas that enter the country through the southern border. It’s a dangerous world and an open border solution only works in a perfect world. The sources of the problem is the drug war, crippling corruption, and a lack of living a truly Catholic life. No border policy will fix these problems. It’s like how we get drugs from the doctor instead of them finding how to fix the problem; we just want to ease the conditions and make ourselves more comfortable. As long as things are falling apart south of the border, we’ll always have an illegal immigration problem. Instead of truly finding solutions, we’re beaten up by both sides as being bad Catholics or racists. I just want a solution that will work. Technically, not even the AZ law is the best solution - it just relocates the illegal aliens and doesn’t make the border any more secure. We need real solutions and when I hear my bishops marching in lockstep to one particular party, accusing me of having racist or uncatholic beliefs, it’s pretty disheartening and borders on scandal if you ask me.
 
I believe that no one has a problem with immigration itself - legal, that is. I have heard of many legal immigrants who are upset by the border problems, too, because they went through the legal channels to become citizens while others are ILLEGALLY entering the country with no plan to pursue a path to LEGAL citizenship.

The problem with illegal immigration and not securing the border is that you don’t know who is coming into the country. We have some illegals who just want a better life for their families (the best route for them is to apply for legal citizenship), but we know that we have drug smugglers, drug lords and human traffickers who also cross our border who are responsible for a lot of crime, especially in the border states. We aren’t securing our border against those who want to be productive, legal members of our society; we are securing our border against those who engage in illegal activities without bothering to apply for citizenship. We are either a nation of laws and the citizens are protected by those laws or it’s a free for all. Unfortunately, at the moment, with no clear plan to secure the border first, then after that to promote legal immigration, it’s a free for all.

Jesus said ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, give to God what is God’s.’ Jesus did not promote illegal activity. He promoted being a good citizen. How can you be a good citizen when you enter a country illegally in the first place and then have no plans to become a legal citizen?
 
Thank you - that is the one part of the argument that is almost never spoken about and will get MAYBE one sentence dedicated to it - doing things the legal or proper way.

My wife and I still never officially had a honeymoon because we used the money instead to pay for an immigration lawyer so we could do things the right way. I’m tired of people who do things the right way being the ones constantly condemned.
 
I’m a legal immigrant married with an American citizen. When you first immigrate, it’s not easy to communicate in a different language and get used to different eating habits, a different currency, a different climate, different customs… I can’t imagine how it is for illegal people who on top of everything have to hide from the authorities. If their intent is to work, becoming legal and live a honest life, I don’t have a problem with it and I’m extending my compassion and support to them. If their intent is to steal, rape, destroy, kill then they should be prosecuted and deported.
 
Hi, Richardacombs,

Thanks for starting such a dynamic thread. I am confident there both heat and light generated in the upcoming posts! 😃
Misconceptions seem to abound when the subject of immigration, deportation, and Catholicism comes up either on this forum or conversations on the street.

The stance of the Catholic Church appears to be that nations have the right to protect their borders and to secure them against unwanted immigration. On the other hand, the automatic and mass deportation of unwanted immigrants seemingly goes against the teachings of the Church.
Alow me to work with only one section of your post … ther really was a lot of material there, Richardacombs…😉

First of all let me say that I think that Arizona was perfectly justified to enact what appeas to be a valid law for the protections of the citizens within its boarders.

As I see it, the US has had for at least the past 100 years valid (legally enacted) laws that address immigration. Those who choose to break those laws are guilty of a crime. Now, if there is any argument about that, I guess it would be good to get that out of the way. About 100 years ago my Father’s family came over from Ireland and went through what was then legal entry into the US. I still remember stories he told me that were told to him by his Father.

My question is, why are we trying to make a victim out of a law-breaker who FREELY CHOSE TO BREAK THE LAW? For whatever reason, these people chose to end-run the system that allows for people to enter this country legally. Those that have jumped ahead in the line have thumbed their noses at valid law, at those who wish to immigrate and are following the laws and are willing to continue to live a life outside of the law.

I have no answer about those who were born in the US but of illegal immigrants. Those born in the US are US citizens. Can citizen babes in arms be separated from their ailen mothers? No. Does this mean that they should stay in the US and thus reward their illegal actions? Does this mean that they should be deported (with their citizen child) back to where they came from and then apply for legal entry? Just what would be the proper and just approach to this problem? I really do not know.

Based on my understanding of the argument, those who criticize Arizona’s law - that was recently ruled in part unconstitutional by a federal judge - do so because of their perception of racial profiling. The law specifically prohibits racial profiling - but, that seems to not even count when emotions are set to attacking this effort to protect citizens.

There rerally is a very dangerous situation currently in Mexico involving narco-terrorists that is showing signs of spilling over into the US. Trying to regulate one’s boarders from recognized threats is prudent - and all we hear is that it can not be done lest someone be asked about their citizenship. This is creating a truly impossible situation… and one that ultimately will not last!

For those who are familiar with Maslow’s Hierarchy we were looking at a safety issue. (Here is a link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs ) but, with narco-terrorists murdering people by the score, murdering police and news reporters - we are probably looking a physiologic needs. Which ever of these two you wish to focus on - remember, you can not advance to higher order needs (with self-actualization being on top) if lower order needs are not met. If you can not be safe you can not progress… you will ultimately either die or start to regress if your basic safety need is not met.

I submit that instead of the cry about how bad this law is - those who complain are merely criticizing those who have come up with one solution - and declining to offer one of their own (except blanket amnesty?)

If we decide that we are victimized by a valid law - are we free to break it claim hardship? If so, who decides which laws should be broken? Should, for example, drug dealers who have no other skilled trade feel free to sell drugs and then complain of economic hardship because they are arrested? Just where is a line drawn on violating law - and then claiming victimhood once caught?

God bless
 
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.
 
Here are some points about Immigration from the Catholic Bishops:

Immigration and the Economy
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops / Migration and Refugee Services
2009
Immigrants tend to complement the native workforce, rather than compete with it
􀂾 The percentage of Americans without a high school diploma has fallen from 50%
in the 1960’s to 7% today—and immigrants are filling the jobs vacated by
increasingly educated Americans.1
􀂾 Unemployment in border states has remained below the national average despite
high levels of immigration.2
􀂾 Studies show that legalization would likely improve wages for all workers.3
Immigrants contribute mightily to the Social Security System
􀂾 Studies show that unauthorized immigrants provide a net gain of $7 billion to the
Social Security system each year. The Social Security Administration also credits
these workers for paying an additional $520 billion under mismatching Social
Security Numbers.4
Immigrants boost state revenues
􀂾 Reports from several states such as Texas show that unauthorized immigrants
contribute as much as $1.5 billion to state revenues.5 Legalization would force
unscrupulous employers to contribute payroll taxes for their immigrant workers
and thus further increase state revenues.
Immigrant workers help to produce lower cost goods for U.S. consumers
􀂾 Many unauthorized immigrants are low-wage employees whose hard work helps
produce more affordable goods for all U.S. consumers. Deporting these workers
will lead to labor shortages that will increase the costs of U.S. goods.
Immigrants are consumers too
􀂾 Immigrants are also consumers themselves, which increases demand for the goods
and services of U.S. industries.6
Immigrants are needed to grow the tax base for an aging workforce
􀂾 Immigrants are needed to grow the labor force to support the retiring generation.7
Immigrant workers are suffering alongside native workers during this recession
􀂾 Growth in the foreign-born population began slowing following the onset of the
2007 recession.8
􀂾 Immigrant workers are just as vulnerable during recessions as native workers due
to their lower levels of skill and education, their relative youth, and their
overrepresentation in the most vulnerable U.S. industries.9
􀂾 Unemployment rates for foreign-born latinos have exceeded that of non-hispanic
workers during the current recession.10

As for the person who said reading the Old Testament and using it to defend Immigration, how about quotes from the New Testament?
“[Lord,] when did we see you a stranger and invite you in? .” The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” - Matthew 25: 38, 40
“And Jesus said to him, ‘The foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have a resting place; but the Son of man has nowhere to put his head.’” - Matthew 8:20
As the Church teaches: The Earth and it’s resources do not belong to man, it belongs to God who created everything. We are but caretakers on this Earth and we are meant to share the bounty of the Earth with all men.
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.
 
"Certainly, good sense dictates that governments have the right to restrict immigration and to secure their borders to prevent unwanted immigration, but not for economic reasons: Catholics should not deny necessities of life to other humans, whether those people must illegally cross a national border to obtain them or not… "

"…some Catholics will argue that they want nothing of that: what they possess, they have earned, and they will not share it with someone branded “Illegal.”

“Exactly what have those Catholics earned? Did they earn life? Did they earn birth in a wealthy nation…?”

“Of course not, all that humans possess is a gift, every breath is a gift of God… If certain people have the environment, the health, the circumstances to earn an honorable and prosperous living, that is good, but–at least according to Scripture–they must be willing to share; share it all if need be, to follow Christ. And why shouldn’t they be asked to share their possessions… None of those things belong to them; they belong to God.”

"Catholics should not attempt to justify turning away the hungry, the sick, the dispossessed, because they brand those searching for a better life “illegal.”

This article raises some very challenging issues. Perhaps it would be helpful to break these down into their constituent elements and strip them of sentimental trappings.

The first pair of premises involves a bit of logical legerdemain. On the one hand, “Governments have the right to secure their borders and restrict immigration…” but at the same time, “Catholics should not deny necessities of life to other humans.” Here are two seemingly plausible statements that appear to form the basis of a syllogism which might conclude something like this: "Therefore, governments should allow unlimited immigration for “economic reasons.”

For now please note only that the bases of this conclusion are invalidly paired. That Catholics, as individuals, have certain moral obligations does not mean that governments have matching moral prerogatives that entitle them to confiscate the possessions of some for the benefit of others. That is in fact the core doctrine of “Social Justice” based on Marxist Liberation Theology. It is something that Jesus never taught.

The second subtle distortion involves the premise that because all we have received comes from God as a gift we are not entitled to keep any of it. The article continues, "Exactly what have those Catholics earned? Did they earn life? Did they earn birth in a wealthy nation? Did they earn good health…? The author concludes, “Of course not, all that humans possess is a gift, every breath is a gift of God…”

Does this mean we have no right to our gifts from God? No right to our life? Why then, self defense would be immoral. Is that what Jesus taught? Is that Catholic doctrine? Following that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion we would quickly reach the point where everyone on earth who has acquired any material advantage, whether by his own effort or that of his parents, would be required to give it to the less advantaged simply because they have less. Or more precisely, again following the logic of “Social Justice,” governments would have both the right and the duty to “redistribute” all material possessions on behalf of the “needy.” Even our very lives would be subject to government discretion under such a principle, and in fact that is the premise of our new program of national health care.

This means that if a Godly people built a decent and comfortable way of life over many centuries while another people allowed decadence and bad judgment to bring them to low estate, the former must be despoiled in favor of the latter. That the Godly people formed a compact by which they bequeathed the fruits of their sacrifice and their industry to “their posterity” would be a political nullity. That a man might sacrifice to provide his children a good education while another squandered his assets with loose living would have no legal relevance. Indolence would be king. Or to put it in scriptural perspective, Noah and his family would have had no exclusive right to the ark, which would have belonged to “the world.” In fact, Noah’s obligation would have been to drown so as to make room on board for those who mocked his obedience to God. To cloak such a doctrine in passages of scripture is plain nonsense.

As Catholics we have clear moral obligations to help the less fortunate. But we also have an obligation to practice charity with wisdom and prudence. There are literally billions of people in the world who would love to come to America. We cannot accommodate all of them. Already our culture has begun to splinter into factions. Our education system, our welfare apparatus and our prisons are overtaxed. As has been said of our Constitution, Catholicism is not a suicide pact. To continue to indiscriminately allow aliens to enter our country simply because they have a “need” would mean the destruction of this great engine of wealth that has given more to the poor of the world than any other in history. It would serve no one well to turn the United States of America into the United States of Mexico. However it would resolve the moral question raised by this post, because at that point there would be a very equal distribution of poverty and no means to produce the material wealth that we, as Catholics, so charitably donate to the world’s less fortunate.

If individual Catholics deem it prudent and morally obligatory to become mendicant and give all they have to the poor, they have my admiration and my blessing. But beware of Catholics who do no such thing on a personal level, and yet demand that government strip the rest of us of the material security which our nation’s moral and disciplined living principles have made possible.
 
As Christians, we are called to obey the laws and authority of government because “…for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed,…” (Romans 13)

So it is perfectly acceptable to insist that anyone who breaks the law should be punished, whether it is the illegal alien or the employer who knowingly hires an illegal allien.

We are also called as INDIVIDUAL Christians (Caesar is not so called) to care for the poor and the needy. So if we become aware of someone or their family who is hungry or in need, regardless of whether they are here illegally or not, we are to care for them. But we must also assure that they are subject to the same laws that everyone else is and we should encourage them to go back to their country of origin. If necessary, we should alert the authorities if they decide to continue to disobey our laws.

If if becomes necessary to deport them, we should do it in a humane and respectful manner to assure they get back to their homes safely.

But in no way should they be allowed to disobey our laws. All lawbreakers must be held accountable for their actions and the government is God’s arm, his sword, “For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.” (Romans 13)

Simply put, the law should be enforced which is the obligation of the government. Our President is ignoring the law and violating his sworn duty to uphold it, all because of political gain and his hope of getting more democrat voters from the among those whom he wishes to give amnesty. He talks about the “path to citizenship” and “comprehensive immigration reform.” These are buzz words that mean nothing but amnesty. Amnesty would be unjust. Amnesty would mock all authority and laws that God entrusted to those in authority.
 
There are many interesting comments.

Let me point out that I cited no Old Testament sources. They were all New Testament sources. Additionally, I did not mention the Arizona law, since I believe that the citizens of every state have the right to make local political decisions.

In fact, politically, nations may choose to restrict immigration in whatever manner they choose.

The issue seems to be that many Catholics confuse political ideology with Church theology.

Perhaps the simplest scale with which to measure Christian actions is that as Catholics, who according to Church doctrine strive to be more Christlike each day, are we behaving as Jesus would. Would He deny the sick healthcare? Would He deny the hungry food? Would He turn away the impoverished at national borders?

Finally, to imply that all or even a majority of illegal immigrants are violent criminals is ludicrous. I have lived in the Southwest all my life. Most illegal immigrants that I have encountered have come to this country and have worked hard to obtain a better life, not to steal, rape, and murder, though some illegals do those things, as do some legal immigrants and American born citizens.
 
Hi, Thechef3456,

Welcome to CAF. I am sure you will find this list a real source of blessings and inspiration … 🙂 My response is a bit wordy … and I will need to divide this into two parts.

Now, let’s see… where to begin… 😃 Part one of two

First up - do you have a link on where you got this information? I really would appreciate you sharing that. Thanks.
Here are some points about Immigration from the Catholic Bishops:

Immigration and the Economy
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops / Migration and Refugee Services
2009
Immigrants tend to complement the native workforce, rather than compete with it
������ The percentage of Americans without a high school diploma has fallen from 50%
in the 1960’s to 7% today—and immigrants are filling the jobs vacated by
increasingly educated Americans.1
������ Unemployment in border states has remained below the national average despite
high levels of immigration.2
������ Studies show that legalization would likely improve wages for all workers.3
Immigrants contribute mightily to the Social Security System
������ Studies show that unauthorized immigrants provide a net gain of $7 billion to the
Social Security system each year. The Social Security Administration also credits
these workers for paying an additional $520 billion under mismatching Social
Security Numbers.4
Immigrants boost state revenues
������ Reports from several states such as Texas show that unauthorized immigrants
contribute as much as $1.5 billion to state revenues.5 Legalization would force
unscrupulous employers to contribute payroll taxes for their immigrant workers
and thus further increase state revenues.
Immigrant workers help to produce lower cost goods for U.S. consumers
������ Many unauthorized immigrants are low-wage employees whose hard work helps
produce more affordable goods for all U.S. consumers. Deporting these workers
will lead to labor shortages that will increase the costs of U.S. goods.
Immigrants are consumers too
������ Immigrants are also consumers themselves, which increases demand for the goods
and services of U.S. industries.6
Immigrants are needed to grow the tax base for an aging workforce
������ Immigrants are needed to grow the labor force to support the retiring generation.7
Immigrant workers are suffering alongside native workers during this recession
������ Growth in the foreign-born population began slowing following the onset of the
2007 recession.8
������ Immigrant workers are just as vulnerable during recessions as native workers due
to their lower levels of skill and education, their relative youth, and their
overrepresentation in the most vulnerable U.S. industries.9
������ Unemployment rates for foreign-born latinos have exceeded that of non-hispanic
workers during the current recession.10

This is a very important distinction - and one that is consistently overlooked or ignored. In my opinion, someone championing this anti-Arizona law should take the time from celebrating this federal judge’s ruling and just answer the question:

The Arizona law is not about LEGAL immigration or about LEGAL immigrants. The entire context of the law is about LAW BREAKERS. All 10 of your talking points simply address immigrants - and this is fine, but legal immigrants are not deported (unless, of course, they break other US laws). This is really the issue - address people sneaking into the US (their motivation is immaterial) and circumventing valid US laws specific to maintianing the integrity of US booundaries.

As for the person who said reading the Old Testament and using it to defend Immigration, how about quotes from the New Testament?
“[Lord,] when did we see you a stranger and invite you in? .”

This is an interesting quote, but in my opinion, it is being distortedf to fit a political end. Seriously, when do you think someone STOPS being a ‘STRANGER’ ? Not long ago there was a picture in USA Today about the effect on one female (could not tell her age) concerning the soon-to-be-implemented Arizona law. The picture showed her crying in the back of the family car. She and her family were leaving Arizona and moving to New Mexico becaue of their fear of this law. Both she and her family were not only in this country illegally but had been here for 12 years.

The King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” - Matthew 25: 38, 40

To the best of my knowledge, US immigration laws were enacted for the benefit of the US. There are certain compassionate exemptions - but, in all cases, sneaking into the US is not appropriate… and this is simply a matter of law.

CONTINUED…
 
Hi, Thechef3456,

Welcome to CAF. I am sure you will find this list a real source of blessings and inspiration … 🙂 My response is a bit wordy … and I will need to divide this into two parts.

Now, let’s see… where to begin… 😃 Part two of two

“And Jesus said to him, ‘The foxes have holes, and the birds of heaven have a resting place; but the Son of man has nowhere to put his head.’” - Matthew 8:20

This quote was in the context of someone offering to join Christ’s Apostles - a scribe not called by Christ. This looks like another misapplication of a scriptural quote. Here is the entire quote:

**18
When Jesus saw a crowd around him, he gave orders to cross to the other side.
19
A scribe approached and said to him, “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you go.”
20
Jesus answered him, “Foxes have dens and birds of the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to rest his head.”
21
Another of (his) disciples said to him, “Lord, let me go first and bury my father.”
22
But Jesus answered him, “Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead.” **

As the Church teaches: The Earth and it’s resources do not belong to man, it belongs to God who created everything. We are but caretakers on this Earth and we are meant to share the bounty of the Earth with all men.

Tell me, the Church also teaches that having political boundaries and regulating immigration are valid interests of all States - so how are these two thoughts brought together? If you exercise immigration laws, in that some are not allowed free access to another country, are you not then denying the earth’s resources? Just try to set up a tent in Vatican City and see how far you get.

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.

The laws you are referencing were commonly called “Jim Crow Laws” and discriminated against people of color who were citizens. Descrimination against someone because of their skin color is quite illegal. Descriminating against convicted felons being allowed to vote or hold certain jobs based, for example on security clearances, is quite legal. The key is not that someone is descriminated agianst, but rather, why. Specific to this thread, people who break immigration laws are subject to being arrested - a form of descrimination for sure, but one that is legal.

Just because we have a law in this country it doesn’t mean it is the correct law.

you are so right. “Jim Crow Laws” are examples of inappropriate laws that were the law of this land for a long time. This is no longer the case. But, note, it was people like Rev Martin Luther Kind and Rosa Parks who willingly took the consequences (non-violent civil disobedience) that ultimately brought about the change of these laws. People sneaking into the country and evading detection and avoiding capture are NOT EXAMPLES of civil disobedience.

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 guess you got me on that one. So, please, tell me about how illegal immigration and the valid laws of the US are a violation of NATURAL LAW.

Even assuming this was a viable option - somewhere someone is going to have to ask people who they are and where they came from and how long they have been in this country illegally. No one I have heard of is seriously talking about this because this is not what the masses who are demonstrating in favor of this injunction want to hear.

All I can tell you is that I am not a Native American. My grandfather immigrated from Ireland and came to the US under the laws that existed at that time. Just how far back do you want to take this? From the looks of things, ‘Native Americans’ actually came from someplace else :eek: Migration patterns seem to put us all as coming out of Africa!

Looking forward to reading your response.

God bless
 
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.
That is far fetched. Still, I can think of both positives and negatives. With the current state of drug crime in Mexico, it would be a bad idea. We don’t need more drug crime.

On the plus side, the U.S. will need more immigration than it currently has, if it is to remain economically viable. We are an aging nation with a low birthrate. The economy needs a larger base of young workers to help support programs such as Social Security and Medicare. A nation of oldsters receiving government checks is not sustainable forever.
 
Misconceptions seem to abound when the subject of immigration, deportation, and Catholicism comes up either on this forum or conversations on the street.

The stance of the Catholic Church appears to be that nations have the right to protect their borders and to secure them against unwanted immigration. On the other hand, the automatic and mass deportation of unwanted immigrants seemingly goes against the teachings of the Church.

On individual bases, Catholics, even evidently devout Catholics, differ greatly on how to handle unwanted immigration, how to treat unwanted immigrants once they have arrived, and whether to deport them automatically when they have been apprehended and identified.

Certainly, good sense dictates that governments have the right to restrict immigration and to secure their borders to prevent unwanted immigration, but not for economic reasons: Catholics should not deny necessities of life to other humans, whether those people must illegally cross a national border to obtain them or not. St John the Baptist told the crowds searching for salvation, “He that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none: and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner” (Luke 3:11, Douay Rheims). Similarly, Jesus instructed the young man looking how to follow God more perfectly, “One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me” (Mark 10:21, Douay Rheims).

Of course, some Catholics will argue that they want nothing of that: what they possess, they have earned, and they will not share it with someone branded “Illegal.”

Exactly what have those Catholics earned? Did they earn life? Did they earn birth in a wealthy nation? Did they earn good health? Did they earn salvation? Did they earn Christ?

Of course not, all that humans possess is a gift, every breath is a gift of God, Who upholds creation with His will. If certain people have the environment, the health, the circumstances to earn an honorable and prosperous living, that is good, but–at least according to Scripture–they must be willing to share; share it all if need be, to follow Christ. And why shouldn’t they be asked to share their possessions, sacrifice family and friends, lay down their lives? None of those things belong to them; they belong to God.

That leads to the automatic and mass deportation of unwanted immigrants. The Catholic Faith cannot condone such a thing for the very same reasons.

St. James clearly tells us in his epistle: "And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food,
"And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be you warmed and filled: yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit?
“Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself” (James 2:15-17, Douay Rheims).

Our Faith is a stern Master requiring all that we possess, and our individual faith, our acceptance of Christ, is shown in how we act. Catholics should not attempt to justify turning away the hungry, the sick, the dispossessed, because they brand those searching for a better life “illegal.” As Sister Teresa told assembled dignitaries in her address to the United Nations in September 1994, “…I find it sometimes very difficult to smile at my spouse, Jesus, because He can be very demanding…”

I realize that this will be a controversial post. Many people are very emotional on both sides of this subject.

So, I’ll close this post with another bit of advice from St. James: "Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” (James 2:19-20, Douay Rheims)
I believe you have turned the debate away from what should be done with people who enter this country illegally to we are bad people if we don’t help illegals who purposefully break our laws.

The fact is every good christian who is helping an illegal could have given that time, money or item to a poor sick american child who is locked away in some hospital maybe waiting to die. Just one of thousands of examples that could be made here.

There is a legal way to get into this country if we don’t like the current method it should be changed at the voting booth. Meanwhile these illegals need to reap what they sow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top