Immigration Laws

[wjp984]

Andrew, I have to say frankly that this attitude is problematic. There is no “official” language of the United States, and if immigrants choose not to learn English that is their prerogative. Spanish is rapidly becoming a major language in the USA, and this is not a bad thing.

My own parish has a huge amount of Spanish speakers, and the Spanish Mass is always overflowing with people.

We should really be compassionate to our Spanish speaking brothers and sisters and make every concession possible to them. You say that they have no interest in learning English. Well, maybe we should be the ones learning Spanish. Gotta get with the times, hermano!

You know what. Just for you I’ll make my attempt in writing this both in English and Spanish and also to see how much I actually know. If some of it does not make sense I apologise.

Pienso que todos en EEUU deben hablar ingles. Sin embargo, en casi todos las paises en el mundo, la gente hablan mas de uno idioama (normalmente ingles) Por eso, pienso que nosotros en EEUU tambien deben aprender otra idiomas. Porque vivimos cerca de Mexico, la otra idioma probablemente debe ser espanol.

Sin embargo, una problema es no es justo porque hispanics puede aprender ingles aqui gratis. Pero Americanos tienen que pagar. No se’ donde hay clases de espanol gratis pero hay muchos clases gratis para aprender ingles.

Para los ninos: Hispanics aprender ingles cuando ellos son ninos gratis en la escuela. Pero Americanos no aprender espanol en la escuela. Americanos puede tomar clases de espanol en la escuela secundria. Sin embargo, nadie presta attencion en secundaria y la clases son mal.

Por eso hay problemas porque la mayoria de hispanics en America saben ambos espanol y ingles. Pero la mayoria de Americanos solo hablan ingles. En mi opinion, este es el razon por la problemas. Pero yo repito. No es justo porque es gratis para aprender ingles pero no es gratis para aprender espanol. En realidad, es muy caro para aprender espanol.

Especialmente ahora, cuando la economia es mal, y no hay trabajos, la problema es peor. En lugares donde hay muchas hispanics (California y el sur oeste) todavia hay muchos personas que no hablan ingles. Por eso, en un economia mal como ahora, es mas dificil para econtrar un trabajo bien si no hable ambos ingles y espanol. Un otra vec. No es justo! La hispanics puede aprender para gratis y cuando son ninos, pero no es gratis para las demas personas.

Y cuando personas no puede encontrar trabajos solamente porque no hablan ambos ingles y espanol, ellos son muy muy enojado. Por ejemplo, aunque puedo escribir este, no puedo hablar espanol y no hay opportunidads para aprender mas gratis. Probablamente necessito estudiar un ano or mas antes de puedo hablar espanol. Tambien en mi opinion, unos hispanics no quieren que yo aprenda espanol porque los hispanics no quieren perdir sus ventaja de mi. Unos hipanics piensen que no es justo para ellos pero pienso que no es justo para nuestro. No hay bastante trabajos.

Por eso, stanczyk, digame la solucion.

Since that took way too much effor to write I’ll just summarize. I said how I think the language barrier is a major reason for the inequality and the fact that there are no jobs makes it even worse. It’s not fair that those who are fluent in spanish and english, simply because they came here as an immigrant or as a first generation child get better jobs or have an advantage over the rest. And what makes it even more unfair is the fact that they get ample opportunities to learn english for free while the rest of us have to pay to learn spanish, and quite a lot of money actually.

The biggest problem is jobs and everyone things the system is against them and I do think the language barrier is a problem here. I’m trying to learn Spanish so I cam be more competitive and I wish it was taught to me in grade school. The spanish speaking kids are all taught English yet they don’t do the same for the English speakers with regards to Spanish. That is what is unfair, the inequality of jobs over this issue. And who knows what the solution is because I sure don’t.

 

[horselvr]

“Then I would respectfully suggest that you take a lesson from Jesus learn how to be more sympathetic.”

Is that the best you can do as a rebuttal?
Where does Jesus say it’s ok to break laws?? Hmmmm???

 

[markomalley]

Then I would respectfully suggest that you take a lesson from Jesus learn how to be more sympathetic.

Jesus said,

[BIBLEDRB]Matt 22:21[/BIBLEDRB]

An interesting thing to note is, though the stay of the tribes of Israel were cited as an example of taking care of illegal immigrants, in fact, they were there legally. They had the permission of the host government to enter:

[BIBLEDRB]Gen 47:3-6[/BIBLEDRB]

(Of course the Egyptians subsequently dealt with them unjustly, but…the point is that they had permission)

On the other hand, look at what happened when they were not granted the right to sojourn:

[BIBLEDRB]Numbers 20:14-21[/BIBLEDRB]

They went another way. They did not go where they weren’t welcome.

Take a look in a modern context:

Venerable John Paul II, on the occasion of this same Day celebrated in 2001, emphasized that “[the universal common good] includes the whole family of peoples, beyond every nationalistic egoism. The right to emigrate must be considered in this context. The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave one’s country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life” (Message for World Day of Migration 2001, 3; cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Mater et Magistra, 30; Paul VI, Encyclical Octogesima adveniens, 17). At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. “The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life” (World Day of Peace 2001, 13).

Pope Benedict XVI, World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2011

Note: the right is to emigrate, not immigrate.

A discussion of how our immigration laws are set up and administered is another discussion altogether. And I think that was the original topic of the thread.

 

[stanczyk]

A discussion of how our immigration laws are set up and administered is another discussion altogether. And I think that was the original topic of the thread.

Whether or not it is a sin to violate an immigration law is not for you or I to judge. Certainly one should render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and I would certainly not advise that anyone break this law. But that being said, we must also remember that Jesus enjoined us to let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. We must be sympathetic even to someone who has sinned, just as our Lord has commanded us. Let’s worry about our own sin, and worry about being compassionate to others.

 

[stanczyk]

“Then I would respectfully suggest that you take a lesson from Jesus learn how to be more sympathetic.”

Is that the best you can do as a rebuttal?
Where does Jesus say it’s ok to break laws?? Hmmmm???

As I said above, Jesus wouldn’t condemn others for breaking the law. Jesus would show them compassion.

I would again respectfully advise you that imitation of Christ in this matter is a good idea. Jesus only ever had harsh words for hypocrites, those who pretended to be holy but hardened their hearts to those truly in need. Any other sorts of sinners, whatever law they broke, received nothing but kind words from our Lord. All are worthy of our compassion, no matter their sins.

 

[markomalley]

Whether or not it is a sin to violate an immigration law is not for you or I to judge. Certainly one should render unto Caesar what is Caesars, and I would certainly not advise that anyone break this law. But that being said, we must also remember that Jesus enjoined us to let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. We must be sympathetic even to someone who has sinned, just as our Lord has commanded us. Let’s worry about our own sin, and worry about being compassionate to others.

Take the following metaphor as a limited example of what I’m trying to communicate:

You can’t be upset with flies for hovering around fresh road kill. They have needs.

The correct action if you don’t want the flies is to remove the road kill.

Metaphor completed.

If people in this country were serious about ending illegal immigration, they’d remove the “road kill” rather than try to block the flies from getting to it. They would go after those people who are attracting the illegals. I don’t just mean large factories, I mean doing so in a comprehensive fashion. To include arresting those who hire folks from the day-laborer line (unless they check ID of those who they allow to get in their trucks).

I mean arrest, prosecute, and jail. They could even let those who get in the trucks go without charge. If an illegal alien uses forged documents to gain government benefits or to fraudulently say that he is here legally, go after the forger. And so on.

This would be far more humanitarian for each individual, as it would allow the person to conclude his/her business and move back home with his/her family.

I have two issues with illegal immigration. Both are based upon distributive justice.

• First, additional individuals present in the labor pool tend to depress wages for everybody in that labor pool. These individuals are willing to work for cash and for a lower wage than those individuals who are here legally. Consider this quote from Rerum Novarum (21):
  Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred.
  Why else would an employer hire an illegal alien, other than to be able to gain work for wages that would not be accepted by legal residents? Is that not cutting down the workman’s wages through fraud?
• Secondly, the expansion of social assistance provided through the government. Our country, whether you agree with it or not, has made the policy decision to provide an almost cradle-to-grave support network available for large segments of the population. While it is out of scope of this thread to debate whether or not we should be doing so, the fact remains that we are. This support network is very costly (The cost, just at the federal level, was over $2 Trillion for fiscal year 2011 alone). Adding additional individuals who should not be the responsibility of this society simply increases the financial burden and makes less available for those who should be able to receive it. A matter of distributive justice

Again, I think it is an entirely valid question to discuss if our laws should be modified to reflect the current realities of our society. But just allowing anybody in (in essence, effectively opening our borders) is not.

 

[stanczyk]

Again, I think it is an entirely valid question to discuss if our laws should be modified to reflect the current realities of our society. But just allowing anybody in (in essence, effectively opening our borders) is not.

You’re just spending too much time fretting about the wrong thing. Millions of honest, hardworking people whose immigration has not been properly documented. We have to extend basic human compassion to them, and allow them to remain in their homes and work to provide for their families. I am all for punishing businesses whose hiring practices violate the law, but we must work to change the law to benefit the downtrodden immigrants, whether they have been properly documented or not.

You have a choice, you can either harden your heart to those in need and fall back on abstraction arguments and enforce the letter of the law. Or you can follow the teaching of Christ and show compassion to your brothers and sisters, and work to ease their burden as they try to make a life for themselves in the United States. If you look carefully, I think you’ll find that there really is no choice, and our conscience as Catholics compels us to support all people who wish to come to this country and work, no matter what language they speak.

 

[markomalley]

As I said above, Jesus wouldn’t condemn others for breaking the law. Jesus would show them compassion.

I would again respectfully advise you that imitation of Christ in this matter is a good idea. Jesus only ever had harsh words for hypocrites, those who pretended to be holy but hardened their hearts to those truly in need. Any other sorts of sinners, whatever law they broke, received nothing but kind words from our Lord. All are worthy of our compassion, no matter their sins.

An example of Jesus’ compassion:

[BIBLEDRB]John 8:2-11[/BIBLEDRB]

Note what he said to the woman: go and now sin no more.

He did not show her compassion with the knowledge that she would continue in her sin. He told her to stop it.

Her sin was adultery. He told her to stop it.

I would think it would be logical to carry that on to other folks:

If you are a murderer. Go and sin no more. Don’t murder anybody else.

If you are a thief. Go and sin no more. Don’t steal.

If you are an adulterer. Go and sin no more. Stay faithful to your wife/husband.

If you are an illegal immigrant working without authorization (not rendering to Caesar): Go and sin no more. Go home and come back the right way.

If that’s what you mean by compassion, I’m right there with you. If you mean that they should continue in their crimes and we should just shut our eyes, then, I don’t see any indication that this is supported Scripturally or by the teachings of the Church.

Show me where I’m wrong.

 

[stanczyk]

If you are an illegal immigrant working without authorization (not rendering to Caesar): Go and sin no more. Go home and come back the right way.

If that’s what you mean by compassion, I’m right there with you. If you mean that they should continue in their crimes and we should just shut our eyes, then, I don’t see any indication that this is supported Scripturally or by the teachings of the Church.

Show me where I’m wrong.

You’re drawing the wrong conclusion from the story of the adulteress. He did indeed tell her to sin no more, but does this mean that if she had sinned again Jesus wouldn’t have forgiven her a second time? Of course not! Even if she sinned a hundred more times, Jesus would have still enjoined against stoning her, because judgment is God’s alone.

Even repeat sinners are deserving of our compassion. So you’re wrong that the proper response to sin is to condemn the sinner. Recall the prodigal son. We must give our compassion even to those who sin. They our still our brothers and sisters, even if they are imperfect. We’re all imperfect, so let’s mind our own yard, focus on our own sin and imperfection, and treat our brothers and sisters – sinners though they may be-- with the compassion that God insists that we treat them with.

 

[markomalley]

You’re drawing the wrong conclusion from the story of the adulteress. He did indeed tell her to sin no more, but does this mean that if she had sinned again Jesus wouldn’t have forgiven her a second time? Of course not! Even if she sinned a hundred more times, Jesus would have still enjoined against stoning her, because judgment is God’s alone.

Even repeat sinners are deserving of our compassion. So you’re wrong that the proper response to sin is to condemn the sinner. Recall the prodigal son. We must give our compassion even to those who sin. They our still our brothers and sisters, even if they are imperfect. We’re all imperfect, so let’s mind our own yard, focus on our own sin and imperfection, and treat our brothers and sisters – sinners though they may be-- with the compassion that God insists that we treat them with.

You are reading into my words. I never said anything about condemning.

[BIBLEDRB]Luke 15:11-32[/BIBLEDRB]

The catechism gives a beautiful explanation of this, in light of forgiveness:

1439 The process of conversion and repentance was described by Jesus in the parable of the prodigal son, the center of which is the merciful father37) the fascination of illusory freedom, the abandonment of the father’s house; the extreme misery in which the son finds himself after squandering his fortune; his deep humiliation at finding himself obliged to feed swine, and still worse, at wanting to feed on the husks the pigs ate; [FIRST] his reflection on all he has lost; **[SECOND]**his repentance and [THIRD] decision to [FOURTH] declare himself guilty before his father; [FIFTH] the journey back; the father’s generous welcome; the father’s joy - all these are characteristic of the process of conversion. The beautiful robe, the ring, and the festive banquet are symbols of that new life - pure worthy, and joyful - of anyone who returns to God and to the bosom of his family, which is the Church. Only the heart Of Christ Who knows the depths of his Father’s love could reveal to us the abyss of his mercy in so simple and beautiful a way.

You will note that first, he realized what he was doing was wrong.

Second, he repented of it

Third, his decision to take action to remove himself from the situation (and come back home)

Fourth, he confessed (declared himself guilty)

FIfth, he actually took the action

THEN his father forgave him and all was as new.

What it appears you are advocating is jumping to the THEN without going through the FIRST through the FIFTH.

And, as you know from the Sacrament of Reconciliation, it doesn’t work that way. As it says in the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.

How in the world do we do anybody any good if we let them think they can receive the benefit of absolution without repentance, conversion, and purpose of amendment? How utterly cruel would that be?

 

[stanczyk]

How in the world do we do anybody any good if we let them think they can receive the benefit of absolution without repentance, conversion, and purpose of amendment? How utterly cruel would that be?

You’re obfuscating the issue. This is about public policy, not absolution. The best thing we can do is extend compassion. You are advocating punishment and condemnation of the wrong-doer. Instead, we must be compassionate to them.

 

[markomalley]

You’re obfuscating the issue. This is about public policy, not absolution. The best thing we can do is extend compassion. You are advocating punishment and condemnation of the wrong-doer. Instead, we must be compassionate to them.

Well, you’re the one that brought up “what would Jesus do” and brought up the story of the prodigal. Sorry if you don’t like the conclusions that are appropriate.

As far as State policy is concerned, the simplest answer is that justice must be served.

Compassionately, but justice must be served. Period. Mercy is done as a consequence of justice (forgoing the satisfaction of that justice). But for mercy to be granted, there must be a reckoning first (and then remission after the reckoning happens).

When we participate in the sacraments, we first acknowledge our sins. Be it the sacrament of baptism or the sacrament of penance. Even in the sacrament of the Eucharist, we still prostrate ourselves (mentally) before God and ask His pardon.

In the law, pardons or paroles are not (well should not be) granted before an admission of guilt and a request for mercy.

And I have already addressed the specifics on policy in earlier posts.

 

[stanczyk]

Well, you’re the one that brought up “what would Jesus do” and brought up the story of the prodigal. Sorry if you don’t like the conclusions that are appropriate.

You’re projecting. The simple lesson of the prodigal son is to accept the sinner no matter how deep the level of sin. Keep in mind that you were saying that if somebody sins a second time they should be condemned. You’re really getting way off base, and frankly it seems like you’re the one who doesn’t like the appropriate conclusions drawn from Christ’s teachings.

I will pray that you soften your heart on this issue, give up your prejudice, and learn to accept the true teachings of Jesus for what they are. God bless!

 

[markomalley]

You’re projecting.

And you’ve lost the argument.

The simple lesson of the prodigal son is to accept the sinner no matter how deep the level of sin. Keep in mind that you were saying that if somebody sins a second time they should be condemned. You’re really getting way off base, and frankly it seems like you’re the one who doesn’t like the appropriate conclusions drawn from Christ’s teachings.

Curious, I’ve been the one to draw upon (and quote) teachings of the Magisterium to back up my assertions and you have drawn upon ??? And I’m the one who’s wrong???

I will pray that you soften your heart on this issue, give up your prejudice, and learn to accept the true teachings of Jesus for what they are. God bless!

I really don’t care much for sanctimony.

But it’s your choice.

 

[freshair]

It breaks my heart to hear Catholics who are so willing to disregard the Church’s teaching on social justice in favor of petty partisan talking points.

I am quite willing to disregard arrogance and stupidity when it does not conform to any doctrine, any teaching of Christ’s or indeed, any “Catholic” principle. Jesus Christ did not sanction suicide, did he? Does the Catholic church now sanction national suicide and economic collapse? If it does, you got that right I’m gonna fight that nonsense with every breath I have. The United States has the most, bar none, most generous immigration laws in the world. You propose anarchy. I say, sir, “NO” in the loudest possible voice I possess.

Sadly, the American Catholic church has been churning out individuals like you who have utterly and completely lost touch with reason and reality, not to mention any understanding of governing principles or any acquaintance with the rule of law. Immigration is not and never has been the province of the Catholic Church. Any sovereign nation, including the United States has not only the right but the duty to citizens to control its borders, traditions and laws. And, for the record, just because our immigration laws or policies were something else entirely 100 years ago, does not mean we need to adhere to them when they no longer serve the interests of THIS COUNTRY. If the bishops and the pope don’t like it, they can open the Vatican to the millions of drug pushers, rapists, pedophiles, murderers and others who come to this country and hurt American citizens and children.

Why aren’t you and other pro-invasion (because 12-20 million people here illegally represent just that, an invasion, not immigration) useful tools honest with yourselves? The corrupt Catholic clergy in America has so denegrated the Church over the pedophile scandals, lost so many good and decent Catholics and through its total arrogance and refusal to REPENT AND ASK FORGIVENESS FOR SIN, that the numbers are dwindling. Illegals who are illiterate, and trusting, fill the bill, the pews and the coffers. Jesus never asked me to check my brain at the door, and like St. Thomas More bub, I’m planning to keep my reason as well as my faith!

 

[DasErlibnis]

Our Diocesan newspaper (Savannah Georgia) has been running a series of stories on the effects of our immigration laws on illegal Mexican and central American immigrants.
It would seem by reading these that their intention is to maybe gain support for a amnesty program or show the hardships these people endure living this way.
My question would be are our current immigration laws unjust? If they were then that would excuse the illegal immigrants from obeying the law? If the laws are just, have these illegal immigrants sinned by breaking them?
Personally, I think our immigration laws are moderate and acceptable. I noticed that our neighbor, Alabama, changed their immigration laws and many have fled that state. Some say that farmers there have lost a valuable resource for harvesting their crops because of this, some say they have not.
I know that in my area of work ( electrician) I am around many illegal immigrants everyday who are block masons, painters and sheetrock hangers and finishers. The problem I have is that many of my friends in these trades sit home without any work because these illegal immigrants will do the work cheaper and I know that the contractor who hires them or subs them is to blame also but this isn’t right.
On a big job a few months back, one of the board members of the building we were doing told the general contractor he was calling immigration because of all the Mexicans on the job, when the GC warned everyone, they all, sheetrockers, painters, landscapers, etc left the job within 15 minutes. Only workers left were us, HVAC guys and the plumbers , all American citizens or work permit?/green card holders.
This whole illegal immigration issue has me confused. I am compassionate toward my fellow humans but they have all done something that was not right too and by that act they are affecting negatively those who work in the same trade as they do, but, who are citizens of this country, Am I wrong?

Right On, Brother.

Why should one person suffer for another person’s gain? Are they not equals? After getting out of the Army, I’ve been working in a kitchen in a restaurant. Everyone I work with is illegal. They show me pictures of the houses they are building back in Mexico, and I know I’ll never have a home as beautiful working at the same salary.

I’m not complaining and I’m not even envious. I’m just saying “this is the case” and I think that there is sin in it, it is exploitation on their part.

Are we exploiting them also? Some are, but as a people, we are not.

The Pope says people have the “right to emigrate”. Don’t confuse it with “immigrate”.
Just because one is free to leave their country doesn’t mean they’re free to enter another if that country has laws for immigration which must be followed to protect its citizens (socially, physically, culturally, and economically), which it has the duty to do.

 

[pnewton]

I believe the immigration laws are unjust. Specifically, their preference for the educated and wealthy over the poor is a direct contradiction to Catholic social teaching. I am fairly liberal on this topic and am in agreement with the bishops.

That being said, I also understand the other side and respect that many good Catholics here disagree on how Christian principles are best implemented in the area of bishops. There is no call for accusing anyone who disagrees with their bishop on the best way to implement immigration reform of being less of a Catholic or disobedient. This sometimes happens.

 

[markomalley]

I believe the immigration laws are unjust. Specifically, their preference for the educated and wealthy over the poor is a direct contradiction to Catholic social teaching. I am fairly liberal on this topic and am in agreement with the bishops.

That being said, I also understand the other side and respect that many good Catholics here disagree on how Christian principles are best implemented in the area of bishops. There is no call for accusing anyone who disagrees with their bishop on the best way to implement immigration reform of being less of a Catholic or disobedient. This sometimes happens.

Let me get some clarification on what you mean as “unjust”

• Do you believe that the State has the moral right to control immigration? In other words, does the State have the right to determine who is and is not allowed to take up residence in this country? (Not whether the rules used to determine who is and is not allowed to immigrate are just, but does the State have the right to make those rules in the first place?)
• Do you believe that the State has the moral right to control who is and is not allowed to work in this country…not whether or not you agree with the current policy, but do you believe that the State has a right to make any kind of a policy along those lines?
• Do you believe that the State has the deport people who are not present in this country legally (again, not whether you believe that they are exercising that right prudently, but do they have the right to do so at all, under any circumstances)?

I’ve heard varying opinions on the subject, from Cardinal Mahony and his Nazi Arizonans comment (yes, he wrote that) and Archbishop Dolan and his “Know-Nothing” and “Ku Klux Klan” comparisons for those who do not like illegal immigration (yes, he wrote that). On the other hand, you have those like Archbishop Gomez who says that he understands people are angry and he, himself, does not like it when the law is flouted (Yes, he said that).

So there is not one voice out of the bishops. So when you say you agree with the bishops, I need a bit more clarification. Am I a Nazi, a Klansman, a Know-Nothing, or am I understandably angry…but we need to still do what is just not only for the country, but for everybody involved. Which am I? (I know there are some who say I am the former)

 

[pnewton]

Let me get some clarification on what you mean as “unjust”

• Do you believe that the State has the moral right to control immigration?

It is a circular question. The state has no moral right to do an immoral thing. This can be taken either way. In the end, we must obey God first. That said, within moral limits, it is the state that should set immigration policy.

I keep hearing how different all the bishops are on this subject, yet I have not seen this divergence. Therefore, at this time, I have not found anything taught by any bishop objectionable, nor mutually exclusive from what other bishops have said. I have found misquotes of bishops everywhere, like in your post.

Archbishop Mahoney does not use the phrase “Nazi-Arizonans”. That is your word, not his. What he did write was," American people are fair-minded and respectful. I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation." Archbishop Dolan does see the anti-immigration movement in an historical perspective, with precursors like the No-Nothings. Finally, no one likes to see the law flaunted, so I agree with Bishop Gomez that we must be understanding with those that get angry at illegal immigration. No one called anyone a Nazi or No-nothing, so there is no need to take offense.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I keep hearing how different all the bishops are on this subject, yet I have not seen this divergence.

pnewton,
The bishops have spoken collectively on the broad issue of migration as a social justice mandate. As a body, they have not taken a stand that all of the U.S. immigration policies are immoral, nor have they declared as a body that illegal immigration is justified, broadly, because of imperfections in legal immigration laws.

Frankly, you have often on these threads over-interpreted policy statements to indicate much more than what the bishops have issued in their documents.

Here is an example:

I believe the immigration laws are unjust. Specifically, their preference for the educated and wealthy over the poor is a direct contradiction to Catholic social teaching. I am fairly liberal on this topic and am in agreement with the bishops.

Where in a USCCB document is it declared that there can never be any preference for the educated and wealthy? Do you actually understand the general principles of immigration policy? That several considerations are in play? That some of these are humanitarian (such as escape from poverty or natural disasters), others are idealistic (such as political refugees from tyranny or persecution), still others are utilitarian from the point of view of the host country (skills brought to the country)? And that even in the latter case, it is by no means true that only the educated are favored? Do you understand that immigration policies consider needs for unskilled/low-skilled labor in a certain percentage, as well as very high-skilled?

The point of immigration policies is to PLAN. It is unplanned immigration that threatens the stability of the immigrant, more than anything or anyone else. And anyone who does not understand this simply does not live in a heavily immigrant community, as I do. The underpinning of immigration policy in this country is actually, overall, rather social-justice oriented, in that the government is looking at policies which will most ensure for the immigrant a successful transition and eventual assimilation.

Thus, an oversupply of highly educated immigrants, given that some regions are already oversupplied with erudite, accomplished, muti-degreed citizens, is not an enlightened policy. Rather, the policy that is adopted is one which will admit only those among the former whose particular high-level skills do not duplicate (or are less likely to duplicate) those already “indigenous” to the country – and thus also to whatever region is likely to become their home. And the other planned immigration includes those with varieties of levels of education and occupations, proportional to the projected needs of the country and the likelihood of the success of these newcomers. It is understood, given the history of immigration, that educated and well-to-do citizens need and value laborers for tasks that they cannot do themselves and/or choose not to do, given professional responsibilities. But such additions to the immigration pool cannot overwhelm, proportionally, because otherwise (as has happened and is continuing to happen), this oversupply of laborers will not be sufficiently employed, because not enough people will be able to afford such labor.

Social justice must always have a strong responsibility component, on the part of those “supplying” the supposed justice. Legal immigration makes that possible, because some analysis and projections are involved, not to mention intake and some follow-up. With illegal immigration, ignorance and emotion often unrealistically drive the desire, with disastrous results. I will tell you that many years ago, when I traveled to Mexico for two extended stays, I was shocked to encounter the level of fantasy about the United States. My sister and I were dirt-poor students traveling in a broken-down car, yet they assumed we were some rich folk like those traveling to Acapulco or Cabo San Lucas, only because we were American, and for no other reason. Years later, too many Mexicans believe that America, post-Wall-Street meltdown of 2008, contiguous with Occupy movements and exhausted extensions of Unemployment Benefits, is the same Land of Opportunity that is an antiquated myth.

It is indeed the Land of Opportunity for the skilled, educated, and lucky. And it must be all three. The cost of living, relative to earned income, makes it treacherous for those emigrating from semi-literate rural environments to succeed even modestly in 21st century America. When they come driven by a lack of realism, and therefore also no official guidance or support from the host country, it is a disaster waiting to happen. The foreclosure crisis has affected every race & ethic group, and even economic class in this country, but within regions of high illegal immigration, it has disproportionately affected recent immigrants from Latin America, relative to their overall percentage of population.