Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

[d97c]

Tom, your thoughts are appreciated. I guess what really bothers me about the Church and this issue is that there is no fairness in the discussion carried on by the Bishops. I have been called a “nativist” by the Bishop, a person “consumed by fear,” and I find that once this Bishop here became a Bishop, all other issues (including anti abortion) took back seat to these illegals. He printed a “letter” and demanded there be “instruction” in each parish. It was quite clear that it was “right” to let these liieglas in because THEY SAID they were “needy.” Simplistically, that was the end of argument…fine’…next topic. I am shocked at the precedent set by this argument. If I say I am “needy” and there is a potential to doing something that takes away my “need,” I am justified in violating the laws to satisfy it? Wow…what a way to live. Im poor, where is the nearest bank?.. Where is the next test I can cheat on to get ahead of this person and better my chances of getting a scholorship (lets say?)…
Two other things:
I see NO feelings from the Bishops for those who are NOT violating the laws to become AMERICAN citizens.
Under the Bishops theories, an UNLIMITED NUMBER of people can come in here and it’s ok…if they are “needy.” Now if that is a logical argument from their position, what does that do to the common good?..or to those tax payers who have to pay more or forgo benefits to pay for the benefits received by those who SAY they are “needy.”
I think the above is why the Bishop here, in his “letter,” never mentioned the Catachism which says
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

THREE POINTS

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants. Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

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.

What about the state’s 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.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

What about the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating. This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, D97c,

Yours is an excellent post - and, I really can not add anything to it. The Church has a rich history - and part of that history is when groups of bishops run amuck - and everyone wonders what happened.

In the last analysis, people vote with their feet and their pocketbook. Supporting causes that are just part of the liberal agenda of the Democratic Party has nothing to do with the Faith. If these causes are part of the Faith, then there needs to be a discussion - where both sides are actually heard.

Being driven by sympathy will simply cause one to drive around in circles. Either there is a logical principle that can be uniformly applied or there isn’t. Christ admonished us to be as simple as doves and as wise as serpants. (Matt 10:16). I think we are all praying that someone in a leadership position would show some wisdom.

God bless

Tom, your thoughts are appreciated. I guess what really bothers me about the Church and this issue is that there is no fairness in the discussion carried on by the Bishops. I have been called a “nativist” by the Bishop, a person “consumed by fear,” and I find that once this Bishop here became a Bishop, all other issues (including anti abortion) took back seat to these illegals. He printed a “letter” and demanded there be “instruction” in each parish. It was quite clear that it was “right” to let these liieglas in because THEY SAID they were “needy.” Simplistically, that was the end of argument…fine’…next topic. I am shocked at the precedent set by this argument. If I say I am “needy” and there is a potential to doing something that takes away my “need,” I am justified in violating the laws to satisfy it? Wow…what a way to live. Im poor, where is the nearest bank?.. Where is the next test I can cheat on to get ahead of this person and better my chances of getting a scholorship (lets say?)…
Two other things:
I see NO feelings from the Bishops for those who are NOT violating the laws to become AMERICAN citizens.
Under the Bishops theories, an UNLIMITED NUMBER of people can come in here and it’s ok…if they are “needy.” Now if that is a logical argument from their position, what does that do to the common good?..or to those tax payers who have to pay more or forgo benefits to pay for the benefits received by those who SAY they are “needy.”
I think the above is why the Bishop here, in his “letter,” never mentioned the Catachism which says
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

THREE POINTS

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants. Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

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.

What about the state’s 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.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

What about the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating. This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there.

Discussion of this subject is not served by those who speak as if this were not the case.

Church teaching on immigration thus does not reflect a free-wheeling, open borders policy in which anyone can enter a country at will. It conceives of immigration process as a responsibility of prosperous nations as a form of humanitarian aid, conducted in an orderly manner subject to legal requirements, with limits on the number of immigrants, and with the immigrants obeying the laws of the host nation.

 

[janw]

I would never want to go to a country illegally. So we are not getting the upstanding citizens as they would not wish to break the laws and risk jail. So what kind of people are we getting when the illegal sneak in. It is all just so unfair to those on waiting list and to American citizens as we can’t break the law and get away with it but these people can.

It must stop.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Janw,

I totally agree! And, as a basic principle, justice must preceed mercy - we can not be ‘merciful’ to others as we are being ‘unjust’ to make it work. We really are not allowed to commit an evil to bring about a good.

And, that is the name of that tune!

God bless

I would never want to go to a country illegally. So we are not getting the upstanding citizens as they would not wish to break the laws and risk jail. So what kind of people are we getting when the illegal sneak in. It is all just so unfair to those on waiting list and to American citizens as we can’t break the law and get away with it but these people can.

It must stop.

 

[graciew]

If justice must precede mercy,well,I´m in the oven…!I don´t know about you…I can´t cast the first stone…
I would like to answer one simple question you asked about what “kind of people are we gettin in”,and I will not get tired of insisting I am not for terrosrism or crime.As a foreigner as see from outside,which does not mean I do not care or am not involved.
Try for one minute to be in sb else´s place.My knowledge comes from the streets.When I saw and shared how they lived,what they could hope for,their chances to work,…all my book shelves collapsed and my certificates did not provide any sense to what I was experiencing.
The people who arrive here ,many illegally, are people like anywhere on earth,same flesh,same hopes,same sufferings.Most of them live packed up,roofs made of tin,walls made of card,no running water maybe a tap for the neighbourhood,almost illiterate maybe up to grade 6,no jobs or temporary ones.I have seen families of many children sleeping in twos in one bedroom with parents,where the last “bed” is put when everybody else has gone to the bathroom(basically a hole outside partially hidden by an improvised door)cause there is no more room to move then.Sometimes it is not even easy to understand what they are saying in their own language.
They do not belong,they are excluded from the system.No market explanation includes them.Market ups and downs cannot affect them any longer,they are ways behind any chance of improvement.Children “work” at very early stages,maybe picking up vegetables very late out of wht is trown away as useless from the market place,maybe picking up paper and selling it for coins.Thus it has happened to their parents and grandparents.
We all show them,consciously or unconsciously, that you have to own sth to be somebody.Yet,few have such hatred so as to go about stealing,or kidnapping,most of them strive as they can for that day.Tomorrow makes no sense.They have their children who will ensure their old age lovingly and providing the little they ask for.I it the only thing they “have” in their own words.
Being ignored has made them somehow ignorant,having tresspassed their limits has somehow set them in an unlimited nothingness.
The do not preceive the rules as you perceive them cause no rules of minimum dignity have been applied for them.This is not rethoric,it´s a fact.They live on “gifts” made by their governmet in form of “support” for their poverty…Yet,tehy insist,they want to work.This is ot greed,it is a basic need,nobody cares about.
And what they do is NOT react against anything,but look for a chance to work and provide a future for their children.Mistaken or not,they hope for what we hope for,yet get it in a way we do not believe as rational(neither it is to be deprived of the chance to work).
They just cannot follow your or my trend of thought,and they have nothing to lose,and they never meant to harm anybody.What could be worse than being ignored,rejected,and go back to a roof somewhere which they “buy” as they can.?Well,maybe being told again that this was a dream,that they do not exist,that what they have seen is not for them,that what they have earned working hard was unlawful.and that their children will be trapped again.
Now,all what you are saying about your rights to keep inmigration under control,the rights of those who wait to come in legally,your rights not to be surpassed by illegal situations,I think it is ok and you have a right again to put your house in order.But we are also responsible.They are human beings,they are here,and not every person who crossed the border meant to do any harm.They have no history of either being respected by any law,hardly can they understand what you are talking about,fair as it could be.
I belive you have to try and understand who you are dealing with.aS THEY WILL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND things do not work the light way here.I only hope neither side has to learn it the tough way.
In my opinion,neither will it be a good precedent to thrust everybody out out the borders as an exodus.The social cost will be much higher than the benefits.Accepting everybody as if nothing had happened,not a solution either.Detecting primarily criminals,is an alternative for me,giving a chance for those already established and have american children born before a certain date and working at present,to establish a lawful relationship with both country and boss and make up somehow for the advantages taken,will be another second alternative.And involving Mexican governent in bilateral search for solutions ,urgent.
In my opinion there has been a two side flaw on this window,and it won´t work just by replacing it.
Humbly,just looking for a way out so you can understand each other.
God bless.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

Please believe me when I say I both sympathize and empathize with the position you have presented here. But, this does not mean I agree with your position. Let me explain…

If justice must precede mercy,well,I´m in the oven…!I don´t know about you…I can´t cast the first stone…

None of us can 'cast the first stone; in the sense that none of us is without sin (that was the requirement Christ gave to those who would have stoned this woman). But, I would like to quote from an entirely different source - and this is from a play by Shakespear (The Merchant of Venice). Now, in this play, a money lender has lent money to a man who has now defaulted - but has come up with the money although after the payment date. The money lender is offered 3x the amount of the debt - but, he refuses - wanting to kill the debtor for past wrongs! In this section, the debtor’s lawyer argues for mercy over justice - and, I was reminded of this while reading your statement. Here are the lines from Portia to the judge:

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much
To mitigate the justice of thy plea;
Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice
Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there.

Powerful presentation - and one that I think deserves consideration. The money lender is being totally unreasonable - this is no longer about getting his money back with interest - it has everything to do with killing someone he hates. This is wrong - but, it looks like the law is on the side of the money lender. If you are not familiar with the play, I will not spoil it for you… but it is worth reading.

The money lender was not interested in justice - it would appear as though ‘justice’ was just a cloak to hide his black heart. But, what I am telling you is that your presentation does tremendous violence to simple justice - giving everyone what is their due. For the people who have waited in line to complete immigration forms - you would be unjust, for the people who must pay more in taxes to accommodate extra people who do not pay taxes - you would be unjust, and for the people who are choosing to break multiple laws so that they can have their own way, you are being unjust.

No one can build a system that hides justice from others with the wink that we are giving mercy to others. Before long - those who have beneiftted from this mercy at the expense of justice will demand justice for themselves - and who will answer their plea? No one can answer them because justice has been murdered. If you are being unjust to others - how can you be merciful to THEM? (Aren’t they deserving of your mercy, too?)

I understand from your post to: let those who were born here remain in the US. (Actually, they really are US citizens and I have not problem with that as such. Will the illegal parents turn over the raising of their children to other US citizens? No. Hmmmm… sounds like someone will have to make a decision as to where these children are going to be, and they should really be witht the parents - and the parents really should have come in legally. If we allow illegal immigrants to remain we have no idea who we really have here. And, considering the human trafficking that is already taking place - I do not think anyone would be safe with these people around. Do you think you would be safe?

There is no doubt that this is a major problem - and, I really do not think the government of Mexico (or other governments for that matter) have clean hands in this matter because of all the money that gets sent back to the homeland.
God bless

I would like to answer one simple question you asked about what “kind of people are we gettin in”,and I will not get tired of insisting I am not for terrosrism or crime.As a foreigner as see from outside,which does not mean I do not care or am not involved.
Try for one minute to be in sb else´s place.My knowledge comes from the streets.When I saw and shared how they lived,what they could hope for,their chances to work,…all my book shelves collapsed and my certificates did not provide any sense to what I was experiencing. EDITED FOR BREVITY…

In my opinion,neither will it be a good precedent to thrust everybody out out the borders as an exodus.The social cost will be much higher than the benefits.Accepting everybody as if nothing had happened,not a  solution either.Detecting primarily criminals,is an alternative for me,giving a chance for those already established and have american children born before a certain date and working at present,to establish a lawful relationship with both country and boss and make up somehow for the advantages taken,will be another second alternative.And involving Mexican governent in bilateral search for solutions ,urgent.

In my opinion there has been a two side flaw on this window,and it won´t work just by replacing it.
Humbly,just looking for a way out so you can understand each other.
God bless.

 

[Stonehouse]

This is a reply to all those who emphasize the needyness of the immigrants who are illegally entering our land while demanding that the quality of our own mercy be not “strained.” If you have personally given all you have to the poor, and have welcomed illegal aliens into your own home until they are bursting at the doors, then you are to be commended for your sincerity. However if you have not done these things, which incidentally Christ required of the young man who asked him how he might gain eternal life, then you are simply hustling the rest of us. In essence, what you are saying is that while you will not personally sacrifice your possessions, your sensibilities would be eased if you could just arrange for men with guns (that is, revenue agents) to confiscate the substance of your neighbors for distribution to these poor.

This is the liberal way, to supplant the call to Christian charity on a personal level with government force disguised in the language of justice and charity. If the majority, who by the way scarcely pay any taxes, use their collective vote to compel society’s producers to support selected constituencies not of their choosing, that is not justice or mercy. It is theft under color of law.

Let’s start with a simple example. Two men and a woman are castaway on a desert island. The men have a deep need for sex, and so they call for an election and then pass a measure, by a two to one margin needless to say, requiring all citizens of the island to make sex available on demand to anyone in need. The woman might object, but they have considered that, and so they have also elected one of their number judge and the other sheriff. Soon a third man swims ashore from the abandoned wreck, and then a fourth and fifth. These men also have needs, but the woman begins to protest that she can no longer accommodate all of them. The men, however, feel that the woman is merely being selfish with her essential possession. As the islanders are discussing this matter, a passing aircraft carrier sinks and thousands of men can be seen swimming to shore.

My question for all the self-righteous who demand that the rest of us submit to forced dispossession for the sake of illegal immigrants is this? How many of these newly arrived men must the poor woman service? And how would you characterize what is happening to her? Is she showing mercy not “strained?” Or is she the victim of a gang rape dressed up to look like democratic due process?

Of course the parallel is not exact, and some challenged imaginations will doubtless observe that providing for illegal aliens is not the same as providing sex. But that is not the point, is it? The point is that we cannot morally vote to take that which belongs to some for distribution to others. No matter how you dress it up, that is still theft by force which is robbery.

Our faith calls us to charity. It does not call us to strong arm our neighbors into giving. Whether we are talking about sex, or welfare, or our overloaded medical system and schools and prison, or the culture that has made our way of life possible but is now rapidly unraveling, it is neither justice nor mercy to force others to give. But beyond that, it is pathological to the point of insanity to believe that we can continue to do this to one another without destroying the incentive that has made this country the land of dreams for so many in the world. Immigration, yes! But legal, ordered immigration with rational limits that do not jeopardize the health of the poor woman–let us call her Lady Liberty–who must provide.

Please, if we are going to have a frank discussion about immigration, which I believe should be reformed to meet our national needs and provide a fair and equal opportunity for others from every part of the world (not just Hispanics), let us speak honestly without hiding a coercive and essentially Marxist agenda in the verbiage of social justice!

 

[d97c]

I’ll say this…If the Bishops would have a discussion like the ones here, both for and against, it might mean that people would be totally informed. Bravo to the above posters.

I start thinking about where we are…“Catholic Answers.” The question which needs an answer is …:What is the duty of a Catholic (church and individual) to immigrants who want to come here, but do so in violation to the laws of the host country? Yes, the legals and the illegals are God’s creatures. Yes, there are obviously jobs that they can get here. Yes, there are people who hire them. Yes, most are just wanting to work and are not criminals. Yes, many probably are Catholics (practicing?..who knows).I see Hispanic looking guys working on yards all around here, and Im betting they are illegal. They speak nothing but Spanish. Yes, they work hard. Its 100 degrees here today. They are trying to “make it.” They may have people back in Mexico who really need the money BUT, its not like I can help Jose’ the yard guy as a Catholic and a tax paying American, and do God’s work. I am faced with 12-20 million Joses ! Of that number, its about 50-50 in terms of illegals who crawled across the border and those who have overstayed their visas and we cant find them, or dont have the enfoecement to do anything about them. The people who are against anything being done like taking away the job “carrott” and punishing employers who hire, seem to just forget the fact of the 12-20 million numbers. I feel that they are being disingenuous when they discuss what is our duty to Jose’ individually and his family. I feel the Catachism really has it right:
"2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

The USA is “more prosperous” than Mexico. OK. BUT who is the Catachism talking about when it says that the “nation” is “obliged?” Is the Catachism telling the taxpayers of the “nation” that they are bound by the teachings of Christ to pay for ANYONE who comes here???----who can GET HERE by any means??? But then the Catachism, to its credit, then allows a little common sense to creep in when it says “TO THE EXTENT THEY (in this case the USA) ARE ABLE.”…there have been plenty of studies (and I can cite them if needed) that show that, especially in the border states, those areas, through their tax payers, ARE NOT ABLE to care for these people. What’s going on to prove the taxpayers of the many states cant take care of 12-20 million?? …that they are not “ABLE?” Why dont they have the “ability” to care for 12-20 million??? Of course the arguments are legion…we have 9.5% unemployment, (read this)
cis.org/illegalimmigration-employment
hospitals closed in Calif and AZ, costs of educating illegals kids, increased costs of putting criminal illegals in jail, etc, etc. (read this)
cis.org/medicaid-costs
SO, my opinion is that we are NOT ABLE, and the proof shows we are not able. Here is a cite SHOWING we are not able.
dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/081910dnteximmigcosts.2a35827.html
The second part of the Catachism—well, the illegals have flunked ! They have not obeyed or laws…or assisted in carrying civic burdens.
So, you can feel sorry for Jose’ the yard guy…want to help him…BUT we are not able to handle 12-20 million Joses !!! We have the right to have our laws enforced, especially when we can see the harm that the failure to enforce the laws can result in !! And I keep on asking the question: especially to the likes of Cardinal Mahoney (lets say)—Bishop, what OTHER laws can I violate and get your blessing simply because I SAY I “need” to violate it ???

 

[Stylites]

But then the Catachism, to its credit, then allows a little common sense to creep in when it says . . .

Thank goodness that the Catechism isn’t all filled with nonsense, eh?

 

[d97c]

Flippant comment there…Why bother?..
The point is (as I am sure you appreciated before the comment) that even though the Catachism begins with the statement of a duty by the more prosperous nations, it qualifies that duty with the language “to the extent they are able.” Now, if you have any comment regarding the “extent” we are able, that comment would be welcome.

 

[graciew]

Flippant comment there…Why bother?..
The point is (as I am sure you appreciated before the comment) that even though the Catachism begins with the statement of a duty by the more prosperous nations, it qualifies that duty with the language “to the extent they are able.” Now, if you have any comment regarding the “extent” we are able, that comment would be welcome.

97,thanks for giving José a name,that was a very kind idea.
I do not have an answer to your to “what extent”,but we tend to reach out for our calculators…
Now,when we go to Jesus,w realize He was not a mathematician in a way we can understand.In fact,He was not so good at Maths…or was He? He left 99 sheep to tend 1,he paid the same wages to the ones that had worked all day as to the ones who had worked for an hour, out of 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish He fed 5 thousands,if someone offends you 7 times He tells us to forgive 70 times 7…If you would read “Five loaves and 2 fish” by Cardinal Francis Xavier Van Thuan,he was at that time a Bishop in Saigon arrested by Communist government of Vietnam,and was imprisoned for 13 years,9 of which he spent in solitary confinement,just for being Catholic…He decided to love to the brim.He survived,was released, and these reflections come from his book.Here also Mathematics on a 2 plus 2 equals 4 basis can´t explain how this man could love,forgive,survive.“It calls each of us to give to God the little we have with great confidence that He will turn our small gifts into wonders”.
Have a blessed day.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

Why do I get the impression that you do not really have a plan?

The example you used of Cardinal Francis Xavier Van Thuan is one of a person freeling loving within his capacity - he was not forced to do this…and, that is an important distinction between the posts and others who want illegal immigrants rewarded for their illegal activity - and those who say, “No”. And, just so you know that the US is not the only country that is concerned with illegal immigration - and the damage it is doing to the host country - France is taking action. Here is a link: migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=721_0_4_0

97,thanks for giving José a name,that was a very kind idea.
I do not have an answer to your to “what extent”,but we tend to reach out for our calculators…
Now,when we go to Jesus,w realize He was not a mathematician in a way we can understand.In fact,He was not so good at Maths…or was He? He left 99 sheep to tend 1,he paid the same wages to the ones that had worked all day as to the ones who had worked for an hour, out of 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish He fed 5 thousands,if someone offends you 7 times He tells us to forgive 70 times 7…If you would read “Five loaves and 2 fish” by Cardinal Francis Xavier Van Thuan,he was at that time a Bishop in Saigon arrested by Communist government of Vietnam,and was imprisoned for 13 years,9 of which he spent in solitary confinement,just for being Catholic…He decided to love to the brim.He survived,was released, and these reflections come from his book.Here also Mathematics on a 2 plus 2 equals 4 basis can´t explain how this man could love,forgive,survive.“It calls each of us to give to God the little we have with great confidence that He will turn our small gifts into wonders”.
Have a blessed day.

I offered a partial soluiton of allowing those born in the US to remain with the approval of their parents (assuming that they are minors) to have a US citizen care for or if necessary, adopt them - but, the parents would have to leave. Now, if this was not acceptable, the parents could leave with the US citizen children.

Anytime someone moves from one place to another there is always a trauma - it really does cause pain. This is even more pointed when one is forced to move against their will. While I am not unsympathetic with this position - the problem now becomes how does one maintain the laws of a country that has valid immigration laws - but, these laws are just being broken?

There are no easy answers - but, there is a simple one: observe the law, leave the country and legally apply for immigration to the US. This is where justice comes in and justice must be the base from where we build charity. Again, to be unjust while claiming to be charitable is dishonest. No one can commit evil to bring about a good. The laws in the US are as dear to us as the laws of any other country are to their own citizens. To have others come in and break these laws with the idea that they do not want to live in their own country - is illegal. To have these people try to claim that their breaking the law is justified - is, in my opinion, a ruse. And, quite honestly, those who engage in human trafficking are simply contributing to the crime and human misery that these illegal immigrants must endure as they all break US laws.

The ‘quality of mercy’ means obeying the law first and then moving forward.

God bless

 

[richardacombs]

I find it amazing that one of the prime arguments against unwanted immigrants is that they’re “illegal,” period. That’s it. They’re lawbreakers; off to the pillory with them.

If civil laws were always just, the United States would not have had to abolish slavery, or address the inequality in the applications of civil-rights laws. If civil laws were always just, millions of Jews would not have been slaughtered by law-abiding Germans. If civil laws were always just, the United States would still be an English colony. If civil laws were always just, the Magna Carta would have been a useless piece of paper. If civil laws were always just, Christ would not have been crucified.

Only one law is unchangeable and always just: the Law of God.

As far as to what extent Christians are obliged to share. I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to share from abundance. This isn’t an argument of hyperbole: how impoverished we want to be; it revolves around how much we’re willing to share from our abundance.

If the value of our lives is based on what we possess, they’re not worth much: the number of years that we have to live. “If you have two coats,’ He [Jesus] replied, 'give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry.” (Luke 3:11)

When you strip away all the hysteria, what Jesus asks doesn’t seem so hard after all.

 

[graciew]

I find it amazing that one of the prime arguments against unwanted immigrants is that they’re “illegal,” period. That’s it. They’re lawbreakers; off to the pillory with them.

If civil laws were always just, the United States would not have had to abolish slavery, or address the inequality in the applications of civil-rights laws. If civil laws were always just, millions of Jews would not have been slaughtered by law-abiding Germans. If civil laws were always just, the United States would still be an English colony. If civil laws were always just, the Magna Carta would have been a useless piece of paper. If civil laws were always just, Christ would not have been crucified.

Only one law is unchangeable and always just: the Law of God.

As far as to what extent Christians are obliged to share. I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to share from abundance. This isn’t an argument of hyperbole: how impoverished we want to be; it revolves around how much we’re willing to share from our abundance.

If the value of our lives is based on what we possess, they’re not worth much: the number of years that we have to live. “If you have two coats,’ He [Jesus] replied, 'give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry.” (Luke 3:11)

When you strip away all the hysteria, what Jesus asks doesn’t seem so hard after all.

  Very inetersting view point,Richard.I do appreciate it sincerely.
 Listen to this example .Let´s see if we can clarify "abundance."

We served in a parrish in our developing country where most of the people lived the way I described in a previous post.Their dwelling places,cause they can hardly be called houses,but most certainly homes,were precarious.The conditions of the surroundings they lived in ,way beyond being healthy,and there were cases of different types of abuse we knew existed.This community consisted of about 100 families who were also in touch with us through personal interaction,we met regularly once a week to share different activities,or chats,or learning resources affectionately…We all new each other
We gathered money to repair,build partial areas of their houses,etc.Without them knowing yet,we outlined simple procedures in terms of who would need this plan most and after personally visiting their homes,which we did quite often for visiting purposes, determined their counterpart would be offering some kind of help according to their possibilities(weekly cleaning the ground where we taught their children,repairing these common spaces,etc),apart from the clause they would provide by themselves the pepole who would build or repair their homes(which they could easily find among family members and friends).It would not be a gift,they would really feel they would be working and contributing and partially returning the “loan” which would enable us to continue helping others together with funds we could gather.

We had to announce the plan,also the fact that we could respond to the most crucial cases according to the money we had to begin with and ask for their thoughts and advise in terms of who these persons would be,instead of imposing our own list.
One possible preception we had,was that we would have everybody stating they needed it first,or sceaming the order could be unfair,and so many objectively reasonable and why not fair claims.Nobody had practically nothing.
Now,what did these people do? And it still moves me to remember this.They started providing,THE NAMES OF THE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND ELDERLY whom they perceived needed this help urgently,cases even outside our parrish borders of people they were worried about,names and cases of very urgent needs, situations we did not know about,INCLUDING homes objectively among the better ones,but whose owner did have a job and needed an extra push to finish it kind of rewarding her effort,and only a couple of them brought about their personal urgence first,one objectively urgent and legitimate.

 HARD.YES .VERY HARD.It is very hard to follow their example.

To this extent are many of “THESE” (human beings with a name and a last name)READY AND EAGER to give.
Able?
God bless us,and forgive us.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Richardacombs,

Interesting. Because we do not have perfect laws (your examples were excellent) they can be broken with the idea of actually going to war with the idea of settling this conflict with giagantic violence.

Now, there are some differences: slavery was an economic event of the Old South to compete with the Industrialzed North… murdering Jews in Nazi German was a political move of a madman and those devestated by WW I reparation costs, and yes, King George III decided that taxing people without listenting to them was so much simper - until he lost the colonies through the revolutionary way.

Are you suggesting that because developing totally just civil laws is an impossibility, that following reasonable, but flawed laws is impossible, too? What rubric would you launch to determine just which laws - and, I am as serious as a heart attack on this - you would follow. Ultimately, you may not like the ‘enforce the law to punish law breakers’ approach -but, just what are you proposing? Honest.

In previous posts I have identified that these illegal immigrants have an illegal underground economies, have paid illegal individuals who have brought them to the US but exploit them through human trafficking, these people are also exploited by US employers who are breaking the laws and cheating these unfortunate people. Now, the argument is that these illegal immigrants pay taxes - but, really this is incidental. Since they do not have valid SS numbers, there is no way to track what is really going on. Not mentioned is the injustice these people create for others who actually try and abide by the laws and fill out immigration forms and wait in line for legal entry. These people, do however utilize resources (health care, schools, infrastructure [roads, bridges, etc] and this is just for starters.

Encouraging others to be generous is one thing. Having others take your property because they think they need it more than you do - is simply dishonest.

I am more than willing to listen to your ideas - I guess that idea of pillories was not totally serious. My idea was for deportation.

God bless

I find it amazing that one of the prime arguments against unwanted immigrants is that they’re “illegal,” period. That’s it. They’re lawbreakers; off to the pillory with them.

If civil laws were always just, the United States would not have had to abolish slavery, or address the inequality in the applications of civil-rights laws. If civil laws were always just, millions of Jews would not have been slaughtered by law-abiding Germans. If civil laws were always just, the United States would still be an English colony. If civil laws were always just, the Magna Carta would have been a useless piece of paper. If civil laws were always just, Christ would not have been crucified.

Only one law is unchangeable and always just: the Law of God.

As far as to what extent Christians are obliged to share. I don’t know, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to share from abundance. This isn’t an argument of hyperbole: how impoverished we want to be; it revolves around how much we’re willing to share from our abundance.

If the value of our lives is based on what we possess, they’re not worth much: the number of years that we have to live. “If you have two coats,’ He [Jesus] replied, 'give one to the poor. If you have extra food, give it away to those who are hungry.” (Luke 3:11)

When you strip away all the hysteria, what Jesus asks doesn’t seem so hard after all.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

This was a very touching story - and one I am sure is both accurate and meaningful to all of those who participated.

But, the problem is, this story does not fit the current situation or this thread - unless, of course, you would have people just come in and invade their homes to sleep (well, then needed a place to sleep), take their crops to eat (well, they are hungry) attend their schools without paying (well, they need an education)… you get the picture.

Your story involves group participation in sharing resources. The concern I have expressed involves illegal immigraiton and how to provide justice for all partieis involved - and then move toward charity.

I appreciate your posts, but, honestly, I have yet to find something that could be discussed in the sense of a program to address the problem of illegal immigraiton… other than, just let everyone in and make do.

God bless

Very inetersting view point,Richard.I do appreciate it sincerely.
Listen to this example .Let´s see if we can clarify “abundance.”
We served in a parrish in our developing country where most of the people lived the way I described in a previous post.Their dwelling places,cause they can hardly be called houses,but most certainly homes,were precarious.The conditions of the surroundings they lived in ,way beyond being healthy,and there were cases of different types of abuse we knew existed.This community consisted of about 100 families who were also in touch with us through personal interaction,we met regularly once a week to share different activities,or chats,or learning resources affectionately…We all new each other
We gathered money to repair,build partial areas of their houses,etc.Without them knowing yet,we outlined simple procedures in terms of who would need this plan most and after personally visiting their homes,which we did quite often for visiting purposes, determined their counterpart would be offering some kind of help according to their possibilities(weekly cleaning the ground where we taught their children,repairing these common spaces,etc),apart from the clause they would provide by themselves the pepole who would build or repair their homes(which they could easily find among family members and friends).It would not be a gift,they would really feel they would be working and contributing and partially returning the “loan” which would enable us to continue helping others together with funds we could gather.

We had to announce the plan,also the fact that we could respond to the most crucial cases according to the money we had to begin with and ask for their thoughts and advise in terms of who these persons would be,instead of imposing our own list.
One possible preception we had,was that we would have everybody stating they needed it first,or sceaming the order could be unfair,and so many objectively reasonable and why not fair claims.Nobody had practically nothing.
Now,what did these people do? And it still moves me to remember this.They started providing,THE NAMES OF THE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND ELDERLY whom they perceived needed this help urgently,cases even outside our parrish borders of people they were worried about,names and cases of very urgent needs, situations we did not know about,INCLUDING homes objectively among the better ones,but whose owner did have a job and needed an extra push to finish it kind of rewarding her effort,and only a couple of them brought about their personal urgence first,one objectively urgent and legitimate.

 HARD.YES .VERY HARD.It is very hard to follow their example.

To this extent are many of “THESE” (human beings with a name and a last name)READY AND EAGER to give.
Able?
God bless us,and forgive us.

 

[seekerz]

I would never want to go to a country illegally. So we are not getting the upstanding citizens as they would not wish to break the laws and risk jail. So what kind of people are we getting when the illegal sneak in. It is all just so unfair to those on waiting list and to American citizens as we can’t break the law and get away with it but these people can.

It must stop.

This is an issue that is widely misunderstood but which our Church seems to appreciate very well. Our present immigration policy favors the already favored: those with first-degree relatives here or those with highly specialized skills.

Other than the existing temporary worker programs (not sure what their capacity is
or how well they meet the demand for farm workers) there exists NO LEGAL WAY for the average adult without specialized education or parents in the U.S. to immigrate here.

So it’s not simply a question of people waltzing in here illegally because they feel they have a right to - many have no legal method of entry open to them and what continues to feed the flow of job seekers, is economic pressure rather than lack of respect for the law.

The unskilled jobs exist, but no legal path (other than guest worker programs) for those who seek to fill them. That is the inequity that must be addressed, not just for immigrants but also from an economic perspective.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seekerz,

So, the solution is simply break the law, join the ranks of those engaged in human trafficking, push aside those who are trying to obey the law - and laugh at their efforts when law breaking is rewarded with ‘victim-hood’ as opposed to law-breaker.

As I understand what you have said, there is no real line that should be drawn and all those wishing to enter this country should be allowed to do so. The issue of economic justice will then be solved in their home country by simply leaving the problem for others to fix?

I think this is a very flawed system you are proposing - and one that will lead to anarchy and violence (like Mexico is now experiencing, even though Mexico’s problems are from narco-terrorists rather than illegal immigraiton from Central and South America).

God bless

This is an issue that is widely misunderstood but which our Church seems to appreciate very well. Our present immigration policy favors the already favored: those with first-degree relatives here or those with highly specialized skills.

Other than the existing temporary worker programs (not sure what their capacity is
or how well they meet the demand for farm workers) there exists NO LEGAL WAY for the average adult without specialized education or parents in the U.S. to immigrate here.

So it’s not simply a question of people waltzing in here illegally because they feel they have a right to - many have no legal method of entry open to them and what continues to feed the flow of job seekers, is economic pressure rather than lack of respect for the law.

The unskilled jobs exist, but no legal path (other than guest worker programs) for those who seek to fill them. That is the inequity that must be addressed, not just for immigrants but also from an economic perspective.

 

[d97c]

Our nation, not the illegals, not Mexico, have the right to decide how many and whom to allow in. We dont need any more high school and under, poor workers. We should allow, like we have before, people who will improve the “common good.” If we need educated people from India, technical workers with education , thats our call, not anyone else’s.
Once again, the Catachism nails it—we should allow people to come here to fulfill the Catachism’s exhortation to accommodate persons who want to migrate…TO THE EXTENT WE ARE ABLE…it commands… That “extent” is up to US, not the illegal. That can be modified during the unemployment we have now…we become “less able” so to speak…we need to employ OUR citizens. By the way-- these illegals are commiting a sin by taking what doesnt belong to them. Coming in here to get money because you have a “need” is the same as someone stealing because he has a “need.” Lying to get Social Security numbers, taking benefits from tax payers…getting in here to have babies who become citizens (due to a tortured interpretation of the 14th Amendment,)…come on !! just who do they think they are DEMANDING we give them anything?? Violating a law is an offense against God. The woman who aborts a child because she feels the need to avoid the obligation or feels she cant “cope” is still (I would argue) committing a sinful act. Illegals, regardless of their intent , have defrauded and cheated law abiding Mexicans who want to be citizens , obey the law, and show good faith. These Catholics who trivialize the fraud and cheating against others by the illegals are un-believable !!
If I commimt a robbery…get away with it for 5 years, and then I am caught??..should I get the judge to just forgive me because I have not done it again??Try that argument in court. The 12 -20 million person robbery by illegals is wrong…
Here is the answer----stop violating the laws…Go home…get in line…stop taking what doesnt belong to you !

 

[seekerz]

Hi, Seekerz,

So, the solution is simply break the law, join the ranks of those engaged in human trafficking, push aside those who are trying to obey the law - and laugh at their efforts when law breaking is rewarded with ‘victim-hood’ as opposed to law-breaker.

Surely you did not get these ideas from my post? All I’m saying is that the present immigrations laws largely exclude the poor. Most foreigners who have a parent in the US or have specialized training are hardly likely to be desperately poor in their own countries - and those are the virtually the only ones that the law allows to immigrate here. These legal immigrants are also less likely to do the often menial jobs that illegal immigrants have traditionally done.

As I understand what you have said, there is no real line that should be drawn and all those wishing to enter this country should be allowed to do so. The issue of economic justice will then be solved in their home country by simply leaving the problem for others to fix?