Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

[WilliamWalsh]

You ask what would be unjust in removing those who broke our laws, and you gave an example concerning the stolen goods from the Nazi era. A very good comparison, because it helps me clarify my thoughts. I meant by settled, families long established here. Although the mere passage of time does not legitimize theft, the duty of restitution does not attach to people as if they were stolen from Mexico. I think of families whose parents came here twenty or thirty years ago. Amnesty, or other related legislation should be off the table until the border is secure. The current state of affairs is fast approaching a “state of emergency”. The criminal element in Mexico seems amassed at the border, threatening the lives and safety of our citizens. The Obama Administration seems nonetheless disposed to prioritize the politics of the matter, rather than protecting Americans living in the Southwest.

 

[Tigg]

Let me be clear. The new policy would state, clearly, that employers can no longer hire illegals under the table…period. Pushisable crime–enforced…IF ENFORCED, can stop these illegals and employers from defeating the system. If NOT enforced, we are in the same sorry shape we are in today.

You’ve got it, but please do not expect any change! To enforce the law would be antithetical to the goals of the elitists who know far better than we, what is good for us.

 

[graciew]

You’ve got it, but please do not expect any change! To enforce the law would be antithetical to the goals of the elitists who know far better than we, what is good for us.

Don´t get discouraged,Tigg.Changes may not be THE change,but every little step counts,enviewed to fostering sustainable peace,Trust me.Especially in time of crisis.

 

[Ender]

You’ve got it, but please do not expect any change! To enforce the law would be antithetical to the goals of the elitists who know far better than we, what is good for us.

Change will come if politicians are provided with sufficient incentive. Despite what the Feds do, states (go Arizona!) can pass their own laws. We don’t have to just sit around and complain. Agitate for passage of some form of SB 1070 in your state. One reason a lot of politicians are reluctant to stand up on this issue is the fear of losing the Hispanic vote. Maybe if they come to see that what they gain by acting is greater than what they lose they’d have the courage to do something. Support for the Arizona law is above 60%. Harass your state representatives and encourage them to act.

Ender

 

[graciew]

Hi,

I realize that this is more an exercise of imagination rather then will … but, if you would please, think about your homeland - and then think that some precious commodity (gold, oil, diamonds, etc…) was found - and thousands and thousands of people from the US came into your country to make this wealth theirs. These people were not doing well in the US and saw coming in to your country as the best solution to their problems. Most did not speak your language and found your immigration laws difficult - so, they just cross over illegally. Now, these are basically good people who mainly want to work and send money back to their families back home. But, their sheer numbers are putting a strain on local schools, highways have become congested, more housing is needed, and yes - not enough hospitals for these newly arrived people. Based on your knowledge of your own country, how do you think your country would respond to this challenge? Can you identify WHY you think it would act in this manner? Such a question may be helpful in allowing you to formulate a written response that takes us farther than ‘…my heart knows…’

God bless

Tom,here is my greatest effort of synthesis to answer your questionsur president was so
“thrilled and excited” when posing for a foto with Fidel Castro(with a top- brand handbag…) that I think Chavez became envious.
Would it matter to them?Yes,as long as they can add to their personal bank account.

God bless

 

[graciew]

. The current state of affairs is fast approaching a “state of emergency”. The criminal element in Mexico seems amassed at the border, threatening the lives and safety of our citizens in the Southwest.

Here is another point I have wondered about.
Violent criminals are a threat for legal and illegal innocent persons ,( as to themselves).
As well as securing the borders,there is a need to stop the untrackable criminal.
As I have come to know,within the illegal community,there is knowledge of who these people are,where they are and what they do.How would they approach the police for help or even say who these people are if they can´t cause it would disclose their own situation of illegality?Is there a way?
God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

Thank you for your effort.

I admit politicians - in every country - seek to enlagre their bank accounts at the expense of the people they serve. We have a Congress that tries very hard to exempt themselves from the laws they make for us! The hypocrites Christ complained about - are alive and well (at least in this life) - and they are in goverment. We, in the US, have Congressmen who have been convicted of their greed and dishonesty and now are serving prison time. Maybe we don’t have the most corrupt crop of elected leaders - but, no one should have to put up with a corrupt government!

My last question to you was more involved with average people - not leaders - who take it upon themselves to leave one country and go to another without complying with the laws of the ‘host’ country. More specifically, if millions of US nationals were to come into your country without complying with your country’s laws - how do you think you would respond?

God bless

Tom,here is my greatest effort of synthesis to answer your questionsur president was so
“thrilled and excited” when posing for a foto with Fidel Castro(with a top- brand handbag…) that I think Chavez became envious.
Would it matter to them?Yes,as long as they can add to their personal bank account.

God bless

 

[Tigg]

Change will come if politicians are provided with sufficient incentive. Despite what the Feds do, states (go Arizona!) can pass their own laws. We don’t have to just sit around and complain. Agitate for passage of some form of SB 1070 in your state. One reason a lot of politicians are reluctant to stand up on this issue is the fear of losing the Hispanic vote. Maybe if they come to see that what they gain by acting is greater than what they lose they’d have the courage to do something. Support for the Arizona law is above 60%. Harass your state representatives and encourage them to act.

Ender

I didn’t mean for my comment to sound so despairing, only realistic. And actually, our local paper two weeks ago did report that the GOP in our state (CO) met with AZ legislators to work on an enforcement measure nearly identical to theirs. So, where are we now? The feds, in bringing a lawsuit against SB1070, are advocating for a foreign government against its own citizens in yet another display of abuse of power. Does it get any crazier?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tigg,

Glad you asked… YES. it can get crazier!

How about the Departmant of Homeland Security - making us LESS SECURE by refusitng to prosecurte those who have broken immigration laws (the same laws these guys swore to uphold!) Here is a link: mysanantonio.com/news/state/feds_alter_efforts_to_deport_suspects_101444729.html

And, yes, this is both depressing and realistic (at least in the sense of identifying what is ACTUALLY taking place.)

God bless

I didn’t mean for my comment to sound so despairing, only realistic. And actually, our local paper two weeks ago did report that the GOP in our state (CO) met with AZ legislators to work on an enforcement measure nearly identical to theirs. So, where are we now? The feds, in bringing a lawsuit against SB1070, are advocating for a foreign government against its own citizens in yet another display of abuse of power. Does it get any crazier?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

Here is a link on how to report crimes without engaging in self-disclosure: crimestopusa.com/

Truly, where there is a will there is a way. These criminals abuse and kill illegal immigrants - and, really, at some point someone will have to decide just on whose side these illegals are going to stand with. Mexico does not ahve the problem with illegals (like the US has) but the issue is that those who want good governemtn are not standing up to those who want narco-terrorism to stand unopposed. Yes, it is hard - but, what are the alternatives?

God bless

Here is another point I have wondered about.
Violent criminals are a threat for legal and illegal innocent persons ,( as to themselves).
As well as securing the borders,there is a need to stop the untrackable criminal.
As I have come to know,within the illegal community,there is knowledge of who these people are,where they are and what they do.How would they approach the police for help or even say who these people are if they can´t cause it would disclose their own situation of illegality?Is there a way?
God bless

 

[Tigg]

How about the Departmant of Homeland Security - making us LESS SECURE by refusitng to prosecurte those who have broken immigration laws (the same laws these guys swore to uphold!) Here is a link: mysanantonio.com/news/state/feds_alter_efforts_to_deport_suspects_101444729.html

And, yes, this is both depressing and realistic (at least in the sense of identifying what is ACTUALLY taking place.)

Well, there you have it! I rest my case.

 

[graciew]

Hi, Graciew,

Here is a link on how to report crimes without engaging in self-disclosure: crimestopusa.com/

God bless

Thanks for the info,Tom.
God bless

 

[graciew]

One reason a lot of politicians are reluctant to stand up on this issue is the fear of losing the Hispanic vote.

Ender

Maybe it is not only Hispanic vote,but Hispanic support which would mean fostering communist discourse in many south american countries and fueling the “anti-yanki” sentiment.This sentiment has fostered many times “deporting” “vampires” who made our "nations"collapse under the flag “Yankis go home”.Hard.And I wish I could provide data but it is all in Spanish so you would not be able to read.Needless to say,that it is not only the “word” that may slap,but the hatred beyond it.And I do not support this hatred at all,please, let it be clear.
By calling us Hispanics,you have been addressing to us Spanish speakers down to Antarctica(cause this is what Hispanic is,a condition of the language you speak)excluding Brazil,mainly and Guyanas
.And I only mean to help you see,there is much beyond the picture .Not that I share the sentiment.But I went to school,I was not fed by “support-coming from the politicians” to get votes in exchange,nor was I taken by bus and paid for, to engrosse the amount of “supporters” of their political shows.
There is a vast mass of hungry and poor population who is being led by the nose with words of compassion,but no compassion at all.Please do not disregard this.
It reminds me of an example I gave my American friends here.Guess I came here to US looking for kangaroos and Queen Elizabeth…
Maybe,a background amnesty as the article says,has more to do with the international picture.I do not know,I am not a politician,but is is a possibility in view to what is actually happening too in the international picture.
God bless.And take care.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Graciew,

There have been problems that pre-date the Spanish-American War (1898)! But, let me see if I understand what you are saying here:

Maybe it is not only Hispanic vote,but Hispanic support which would mean fostering communist discourse in many south american countries and fueling the “anti-yanki” sentiment.

You object to Endar’s use of “Hispanic” - but, offer no substitute. In my opinion the word was used appropriately (and, yes, it does cover quite a lot of people and countries) - but, it is not a slang or derogatory term as 'Yanki" is.

This sentiment has fostered many times “deporting” “vampires” who made our "nations"collapse under the flag “Yankis go home”.Hard.And I wish I could provide data but it is all in Spanish so you would not be able to read.Needless to say,that it is not only the “word” that may slap,but the hatred beyond it.And I do not support this hatred at all,please, let it be clear.

This ‘hatred’ really needs to be assessed. Starting off this post with a reference to the Spanish-American War was to identify early on that over 112 years ago, these ‘Yankis’ were seen as liberators from the brutality of Spain. Admittedly, a lot has changed in that time - but, the idea of fleeing one’s homeland to go to the homeland of ‘hated Yankis’ will take more explanaiton than you have provided here.

By calling us Hispanics,you have been addressing to us Spanish speakers down to Antarctica(cause this is what Hispanic is,a condition of the language you speak)excluding Brazil,mainly and Guyanas

Is that a problem? If so, please explain.

.And I only mean to help you see,there is much beyond the picture .Not that I share the sentiment.But I went to school,I was not fed by “support-coming from the politicians” to get votes in exchange,nor was I taken by bus and paid for, to engrosse the amount of “supporters” of their political shows.
There is a vast mass of hungry and poor population who is being led by the nose with words of compassion,but no compassion at all.Please do not disregard this.

I agree, whole-heartedly! The guy who came immediately to mind was famed 'benefactor of the poor, the current President of Venezuela who seems to be so devoted to Marxism that even tremendous oil reserves, membership in OPEC and a new friendship with Russia have not slowed his desire to gain more power, and deceive more of his nation’s poor that Atheistic Communism works. Would this be considered an appropriate example to offer to your post?

It reminds me of an example I gave my American friends here.Guess I came here to US looking for kangaroos and Queen Elizabeth…
Maybe,a background amnesty as the article says,has more to do with the international picture.I do not know,I am not a politician,but is is a possibility in view to what is actually happening too in the international picture.
God bless.And take care.

Now, not to put too fine a point on it… but, I am still waiting for a response on how you would respond to millions of illegal immigrant US nationals coming to your former homeland, setting up homes, crowding classrooms in school, doing any kind of work while trying to evade the police - and, don’t forget, demanding that English be used in official documents! Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

 

[MarieaGrace]

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)

America gives to all countries and the ones coming into this country are selling drugs nd doing criminal things as to hurt others and cause dismay for neighborhoods etc. Feed them in their own countries what they are doing is sinful they are breaking the laws of this nation. We have never refused to feed or cloth anyone ever in the history of the USA.They come here to have there babies and abortions because it is all free and theyu have to pay in their country justy like you and me do here.It is not nice to use people to gain.It is not nice to enter through the back door of a house or country.Pray for them to get their needs and give to them but no sneaking in.

 

[MarieaGrace]

…and which line would that be exactly that you would like illegal immigrants to get in?

Get in step man! Get with the program they know they are doing something wrong or they would come in at the front door what don’t you understan about this?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Seekerz,

You know, anyone listening to you would get the idea that all those people being granted US Citizenship at public ceremonies are a fantasy… and you know this isn’t the case!

There really are people who stand in real lines established by the US State Dept. for the purpose of allowing people into the US legally - and, for those who seek US Citizenship - there are more lines. The fact that these people want to be US Citizens tears such vague arguments about ‘…which line…’ to bits. The US has not barred immigration or for a way to become a citizen. What the U]S has done is make such a path dependent on law and not on whim.

By the way, the US is not the only country with immigration laws. At the root of all these laws is the recognition that there really are boarders that stand for something.

God bless

…and which line would that be exactly that you would like illegal immigrants to get in?

 

[d97c]

My opinion is that the USA doesnt OWE any immigrant anything, per se. Once this nation passes laws, we get to say what immigrants WE want in here, which ones we dont, and we dont owe anyone any explanation. There have been plenty of citations and articles justifying the belief why we dont want illegal immigrants. They lie to stay here, undercut US workers’ wages, steal SS #s, are a net drain on the economy, take Americans’ jobs, and are a potential permanent drain on the fabric of never-ending welfare and entitlements. They have NO RIGHT to demand that we keep them, and they have no right to keep the jobs they got after lying to get here or overstay a visa. NOTHING in the Church laws, history or tradition requires that we allow 12-20 million illegals. NOTHING in the Bible’s statements about “welcoming the stranger” can in any fathomable way refer to 12-20 ILLEGAL aliens, and I really resent anyone quoting that when discussing 12-20 million “strangers.” To quote the catachism…we are not “able” to care for them.
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.
We must recognize 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.

 

[jseidel]

The first post on Immigration, Deportation and Catholicism says that a country has a right to protect its boarders against illegal immigration but not to economic reasons. I believe this is against God’s law. The church is apposed to socialism because it denies one the rights to his property. With illegal immigration into the United States, the illegals are coming for social programs, food, housing, schooling, medical. These are all supplied with social government programs. The U.S. citizen has nothing to do with providing the benefits to the illegals. Politicans provide the benefits for votes. When the church supports illegal immigration, it is denying my property rights. The church is endorcing socialism. I do not blame the illegal immigrant for entering this country. I blame the government for not doing their job - protecting the country.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jseidel,

Welcome to CAF, it is good to see new posters join the thread…

The first post on Immigration, Deportation and Catholicism says that a country has a right to protect its boarders against illegal immigration but not to economic reasons. I believe this is against God’s law. The church is apposed to socialism because it denies one the rights to his property. With illegal immigration into the United States, the illegals are coming for social programs, food, housing, schooling, medical. These are all supplied with social government programs. The U.S. citizen has nothing to do with providing the benefits to the illegals. Politicans provide the benefits for votes. When the church supports illegal immigration, it is denying my property rights. The church is endorcing socialism. I do not blame the illegal immigrant for entering this country. I blame the government for not doing their job - protecting the country.

This is really a complex issue - not made simpler by the apparent lack of clairty from US Bishops and the Vatican. It looks like the Vatican is saying one thing (in a bit of a vague manner) and the US Bishops are saying something quite different. There is some real confusion - at least in my mind - as to what the Church’s position is on this.

My understanding is that immigration laws are set by the host country. Those breaking the laws are subject to the penalty of law. Now, it SHOULD go without saying that a country with valid laws would enforce them - or - repeal them … but, to do neither invites every imaginable abuse. And, you have clearly identified several of those abuses. On the other hand, wholesale deportation (and, this is where I think of the Germans Nazis deporting (to concentration camps) those they found unfit( to live). Our current inept government is simply following the examples set by their predecessors (both Democratic and Repulican)

God bless