Immigration reform becomes a Catholic ‘pro-life’ cause

[HappyCatholic01]

Not at all, but favoring increased immigration plus the virtual amnesty of those already here does seem to be the policy favored by a number of high profile prelates. Everyone is pretty much agreed that our immigration policies are broken; the dispute is over what to do about it, and to that end the political opinions of bishops are not helpful.

Ender

Many of the Bishops are the ones primarily responsible for the problems in our Church that we are having to dig out of.

“The path to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops,” paraphrasing St. John Chrysostom.

Also, stpeterslist.com/7334/the-path-to-hell-is-paved-with-the-skulls-of-bishops-8-quotes-and-sources/

I’d suggest continuing to repeat the same tired meme without advancing the debate is pointless. Unless we define immigration reform and identify what the holdups are, the debate will never advance, and no one will be served.

They also need to be honest with their flock in speaking about the parties involved here. Admit that one side wants a large push for amnesty not because they care about immigrant peoples, but because they want their vote and want power. The other side is loathe to do anything because they know it is a vote getter for their opponents which will not the serve the country in the long run, and will get more people killed much quicker. To be coy and not address the specific realities is frankly wasting everyone’s time.

Everyone can get behind immigration reform. There have been proposals ready for a vote. But as soon as the Democrats balk at securing the borders first as part of a plan, the effort goes no where.

Can the Bishops address that? Can they speak in reality in 21st century terms? Their bemoaning no immigration reform ultimately ends up being used by the left to bludgeon the right, but the Bishops need to address specifically what the hangups are.

Among those hangups the Bishops should address (if they decide to remain political), the need for tighter border security and the need for the right to be able to trust the word of the left, including the President.

By showing himself to be a man without integrity (to say nothing of Harry Reid, who makes the President look classy and honest), the President has done all those he claims to care about a great disservice. If anyone thought they could trusty the man, immigration reform would have been much farther along. But he has shown is not worthy of trust, and as such, we sit.

It is too bad for those of us who want to see real reform and change for our country’s problems that we have leaders who cannot be trusted. I wouldn’t make any deals with them either.

 

[seekerz]

Many of the Bishops are the ones primarily responsible for the problems in our Church that we are having to dig out of.

“The path to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops,” paraphrasing St. John Chrysostom.

Also, stpeterslist.com/7334/the-path-to-hell-is-paved-with-the-skulls-of-bishops-8-quotes-and-sources/

I’d suggest continuing to repeat the same tired meme without advancing the debate is pointless. Unless we define immigration reform and identify what the holdups are, the debate will never advance, and no one will be served.

They also need to be honest with their flock in speaking about the parties involved here. Admit that one side wants a large push for amnesty not because they care about immigrant peoples, but because they want their vote and want power. The other side is loathe to do anything because they know it is a vote getter for their opponents which will not the serve the country in the long run, and will get more people killed much quicker. To be coy and not address the specific realities is frankly wasting everyone’s time.

Everyone can get behind immigration reform. There have been proposals ready for a vote. But as soon as the Democrats balk at securing the borders first as part of a plan, the effort goes no where.

Can the Bishops address that? Can they speak in reality in 21st century terms? Their bemoaning no immigration reform ultimately ends up being used by the left to bludgeon the right, but the Bishops need to address specifically what the hangups are.

Among those hangups the Bishops should address (if they decide to remain political), the need for tighter border security and the need for the right to be able to trust the word of the left, including the President.

By showing himself to be a man without integrity (to say nothing of Harry Reid, who makes the President look classy and honest), the President has done all those he claims to care about a great disservice. If anyone thought they could trusty the man, immigration reform would have been much farther along. But he has shown is not worthy of trust, and as such, we sit.

It is too bad for those of us who want to see real reform and change for our country’s problems that we have leaders who cannot be trusted. I wouldn’t make any deals with them either.

Your post would make a greater impression on me if not for facts far beyond your control: the failure to pass immigration reform preceded the advent of Obama administration. Few people had much idea who Obama was when Bush and some leaders on the Right similarly tried - and failed - to pass reform. The “Left” is just the convenient whipping boy for some politicians’ consciences now.

 

[pnewton]

Entering this country illegally is a crime; it is not an infraction of civil codes. Overstaying a visa may be a civil infraction but sneaking across the border is something altogether different. It is a criminal act and it is morally wrong.

No, it is not, at least the first time. It is illegal, not criminal.

 

[pnewton]

If it is wrong to demonize people for their race, creed, or religion, it is equally wrong to demonize them simply for adhering to different solutions.

I do not recall ever hearing that people who oppose immigration reform are more murderous, more likely to rape or more likely to have abortions. It is not demonizing to oppose ideas.

 

[pnewton]

Many of the Bishops are the ones primarily responsible for the problems in our Church that we are having to dig out of.

“The path to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops,” paraphrasing St. John Chrysostom.

No need to go Jack Chick. This topic is based on a story about Bishop O’Malley. Dredging up a quote from the Fourth Century to insult bishops today, to the point of damning to Hell, is extremely uncharitable. I am highly offended when* anyone* applies this sort of proof-text tactic as anti-Catholic propaganda.

 

[ChevalierdeJohn]

Since when is immigration law a religious issue? Being a Bishop doesn’t qualify one to talk authoritatively about things completely unrelated to the faith. We certainly ought to be charitable to those who illegally cross the border. That’s why it is imperative that we deny them residence and insist on legal immigration only.

The primary reason why 99% of people from Central America come to the U.S. is because they expect fairness. Mexico and parts South are extremely racist - unimaginably so to Americans who seem to think that they are the only country in the world to struggle with racism. Correction - the U.S. is the only country in the world to struggle with racism. Save for South Africa’s apartheid-by-another-name, the U.S is the only country in the world that cares about racial equality. Everybody else on the planet is quite happy with things being unequal - at least, those in power are. Such as white Mexicans. How many white Mexicans sneak across the border in the middle of the night, desperate to start new lives?

Above all else, Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. hope to be fairly dealt with by the law. They want to live in a country where people are shocked and appalled to discover a judge has taken bribes. That’s why it is imperative that anyone entering the country illegally be deported quickly and humanely. Because breaking the law to enter a country in which one hopes to be treated fairly by the law necessitates only one sentence. Allowing law-breaking border-crossers to remain in the country is the same thing as giving alms to a heroin addict.

Is it charitable to give alms to a drug addict? Of course not. It might make you feel good about yourself if you suffer from a myopic egotism, but the only thing giving money to an addict does is pave the road to further addiction and suffering. The charitable thing to do for an addict is to help them out of their addiction. Likewise the charitable thing for the U.S. to do would be to push for better equality and fairness before the law in Mexico and further South.

I live among a number of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation legal immigrants and 99.9% of them agree with promoting legal immigration and preventing (and punishing) illegal. They also, however, expect to be able to send money to help their extended families back home, and would like to be able to bring the members of their immediate families here with them. That’s a Catholic attitude - respecting and loving your parents and siblings - isn’t it? We ought then, in the consideration of granting immigration visas, to consider people as persons, complete with filial obligations, and not simply as “labor”. Currently we grant visas for labor, assuming that the immigrant will cut all ties to their family once they enter a new country. Instead we should consider - and welcome - the immigration of entire families. But a person-based immigration policy must also not shirk from retaining those values that attract immigrants in the first place, the primary being fair and unrelenting enforcement of the existing laws.

 

[Ender]

No, it is not, at least the first time. It is illegal, not criminal.

It is a Class B misdemeanor … which is a crime.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is not demonizing to oppose ideas.

If the bishops’ side is the “pro-life” side, what is the other side? Are not those of us who oppose his political solutions part of what Cardinal Dolan referred to as the “globalization of indifference”? Are we not the ones he referred to as showing "periodic spasms of “anti-immigrant” fever"? The “Nativists of the 1840’s, who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s who wanted to deny the vote to everyone except white”?

The inappropriateness comes from characterizing the bishops’ opinions as doctrines of the church and those who oppose them as somehow having divorced our faith from our political views. It is wrong, it is divisive, and the bishops cooperate in this failure by enabling it with the implications of their comments.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

It is a Class B misdemeanor … which is a crime.

Ender

Only the second time, re-entry after deportation, unless the law has changed recently. I will look it up.

 

[pnewton]

If the bishops’ side is the “pro-life” side, what is the other side? Are not those of us who oppose his political solutions part of what Cardinal Dolan referred to as the “globalization of indifference”? Are we not the ones he referred to as showing "periodic spasms of “anti-immigrant” fever"? The “Nativists of the 1840’s, who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s who wanted to deny the vote to everyone except white”?

These are questions each must answer for themselves. All must look into their own heart to see if their motives are charity or Mammon.

 

[pnewton]

It is a Class B misdemeanor … which is a crime.

Ender

As far as I know, you could be an expert on immigration law. Title 8, section 1325 state, “Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.” This code does not state that illegal entry is a class B misd. I do know that immigration has for decades divided deportess into criminal and non-criminal. Has your experience working with immigration been different?

I found this from the Supreme Court ruling on the Arizona law:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. See §1227. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter.

supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

 

[Ender]

These are questions each must answer for themselves. All must look into their own heart to see if their motives are charity or Mammon.

This is true and pretty much makes my point: it is not the proposals we support that make our actions moral or immoral but our reasons for supporting them. The problem with the bishops making specific recommendations on immigration is that it reinforces the belief that those who oppose them do so for immoral reasons; that is, it encourages just the sort of uncharitable judgment about motivations we are forbidden to make.

Ender

 

[Ender]

As far as I know, you could be an expert on immigration law.

I’m not an expert on any kind of law; I use the internet like most everyone else.

Title 8, section 1325 state, “Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.” This code does not state that illegal entry is a class B misd.

True, I read from another source that it was a misdemeanor. Let me point out, however, that 8 USC 1325 has three sub-sections and the citation you provided is from sub-section (b) which does outline the civil penalties. Sub-section (a), however, provides for a prison sentence, which moves it out of the category of civil and into the category of criminal.
*Entering the United States without being inspected and admitted, i.e., illegal entry, is a misdemeanor or can be a felony, depending on the circumstances. 8 U.S.C. § 1325.

• (ACLU website - aclu.org/files/assets/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf)

If even the ACLU recognizes that illegal entry is a crime, I’m willing to bet that it is.

Ender

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Since when is immigration law a religious issue? Being a Bishop doesn’t qualify one to talk authoritatively about things completely unrelated to the faith. We certainly ought to be charitable to those who illegally cross the border. That’s why it is imperative that we deny them residence and insist on legal immigration only.

The primary reason why 99% of people from Central America come to the U.S. is because they expect fairness. Mexico and parts South are extremely racist - unimaginably so to Americans who seem to think that they are the only country in the world to struggle with racism. Correction - the U.S. is the only country in the world to struggle with racism. Save for South Africa’s apartheid-by-another-name, the U.S is the only country in the world that cares about racial equality. Everybody else on the planet is quite happy with things being unequal - at least, those in power are. Such as white Mexicans. How many white Mexicans sneak across the border in the middle of the night, desperate to start new lives?

Above all else, Hispanic immigrants to the U.S. hope to be fairly dealt with by the law. They want to live in a country where people are shocked and appalled to discover a judge has taken bribes. That’s why it is imperative that anyone entering the country illegally be deported quickly and humanely. Because breaking the law to enter a country in which one hopes to be treated fairly by the law necessitates only one sentence. Allowing law-breaking border-crossers to remain in the country is the same thing as giving alms to a heroin addict.

Is it charitable to give alms to a drug addict? Of course not. It might make you feel good about yourself if you suffer from a myopic egotism, but the only thing giving money to an addict does is pave the road to further addiction and suffering. The charitable thing to do for an addict is to help them out of their addiction. Likewise the charitable thing for the U.S. to do would be to push for better equality and fairness before the law in Mexico and further South.

I live among a number of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation legal immigrants and 99.9% of them agree with promoting legal immigration and preventing (and punishing) illegal. They also, however, expect to be able to send money to help their extended families back home, and would like to be able to bring the members of their immediate families here with them. That’s a Catholic attitude - respecting and loving your parents and siblings - isn’t it? We ought then, in the consideration of granting immigration visas, to consider people as persons, complete with filial obligations, and not simply as “labor”. Currently we grant visas for labor, assuming that the immigrant will cut all ties to their family once they enter a new country. Instead we should consider - and welcome - the immigration of entire families. But a person-based immigration policy must also not shirk from retaining those values that attract immigrants in the first place, the primary being fair and unrelenting enforcement of the existing laws.

The only thing I really disagree with in your post is the idea that immigration, or anything else, is unrelated to our faith. Our faith isn’t deemed universal just because it encompasses all of humanity, it’s also deemed universal because it encompasses every aspect of life. “Render unto Caesar” does not equate to some issues being equal to and/or independent of and/or outside the teachings of the faith.

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t, and we tried this the last time in 1986. Reagen gave amnesty, and I’ve heard the democrats didn’t keep up their end of the bargain.

We’re not going to get anywhere with this unless the following happens:

1. More conservative/traditional/homegrown folks need to WAKE UP regarding demographics. People, namely Caucasians, African-Americans and Native Americans are NOT having kids. For instance, the idea of having a kid at 18-19, getting married because of the kid at 20, and getting divorced at 23 and moving back in the parents will NOT cut it as a model for society. Children and families need stablity and the culture needs to stop pretending that having all sorts of combinations of families other than traditional families is a great thing.
2. Those who have a problem with lots of different people around should look at themselves and how many kids they have and start connecting the dots. If Americans (ie Catholics) were having reasonable sized families, immigration would not be as big of an issue. People come here because there is demand for work and because some will just give them handouts in many cases for their own nefarious purposes. This must STOP.
3. Liberals need to stop this strategy of relying on immigrants, minorities and single women to bolster their numbers because the incentive to win elections (in some cases with illegal votes) is interfering with solving this issue.

Frankly, a lot of folks on the left don’t want this solved so they can party on the rest of their lives while immigrants do all the heavy lifting.

In short, Americans, STOP the excuses and the personal selfishness, just like with any other issue on the docket!

Really, it’s not rocket science!

Just to clarify things, you mentioned immigrants as one of the main supporters of the liberal left. Do you mean illegal or legal immigrants?

I wonder how legal immigrants feel when they see people who skirt the law get rewarded while they have to wait years in order to immigrate here the legal way.

Another thing I observed is that immigration often means illegal immigration on this forum.

 

[Sarcelle]

People seem to assume we’re talking about some Mexican couple who eat off garbage dumps in Guadalajara or somewhere and come to the U.S. in order to live at all.

There might be some, but first of all about half the illegal immigrants are not Hispanics at all. They come from all over the place. Yes, there are the ones who cross the Sonoran desert, but there about as many who get visas to come here as tourists or students, and never leave. A lot of those are from the Middle East. Remember the 911 murderers? They were all “illegals” who came here on visas and overstayed. Can anyone really doubt why they did that? What is the compelling reason to let them stay?

Secondly, Mexico is not “third world”. It’s about 13th in average income worldwide, and higher than it is in any Eastern European state. People in Central America try to get into Mexico to work. Wages there are about 1/3 there what they are here, but so is the cost of living. Unemployment is lower there than here.

Yes, they can make more here, and a lot of them work here just to be “ahead of the Joneses” when they return home with U.S. money, which has a lot more value than Mexican money in Mexico. Should I be deemed to have a “right” to work in Lichtenstein, where wages are much higher than in the U.S. just so I can be better off than my countrymen?

Definitely it has a corrupt and dysfunctional government. But is the answer to that to drain off the workers? Perhaps the populace of Mexico and other places needs to solve their own governmental problems, something their coming here will not do.

Immigration policy is a very tough national problem, but romanticism won’t solve it.

I agree not all illegal immigrants are from Mexico.

Coreect me if I’m wrong, but I have heard that the majority of people here illegally are those who came here legally but overstayed their visas?

Personally I know one young man from New Zealand who came in on a student visa and then overstayed

 

[Sarcelle]

Mexican cartels are brutal so we should question the moral fiber of Hispanic immigrants? Can you explain how this could not be seen as an argument from bigotry?

I don’t think people are questioning the character of legal Hispanic immigrants. However with illegal immigrants, of whatever nationality it is not unreasonable.to worry about the criminal element among them.

 

[Path_Finder]

Mexican cartels are brutal so we should question the moral fiber of Hispanic immigrants? Can you explain how this could not be seen as an argument from bigotry?

Who said a thing about the moral fiber of illegal immigrants, I’m not content to see innocent Americans killed by foreigners not in this country legally if it is preventable.

Being an illegal alien is a Federal crime and that law should be enforced. According to Rep. Steve King, illegal aliens commit 12 murders every day in the U.S. and kill another 13 daily through drunken-driving incidents. That’s more than 9,000 people killed every year by illegal aliens. This means more Americans are murdered by illegal aliens in one year than have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan war since the inception. Rep. King also notes on the average, eight children are sexually abused by illegal aliens every day, that’s over 2,920 annually.

That’s just a small portion of the illegal alien crime wave. (4.1 million crimes by illegal aliens.) Some 325,000 criminal illegal aliens are in state and federal prisons in the fiscal year. This does not include illegal alien criminals who are not incarcerated.

desertdispatch.com/articles/illegal-167-aliens-rasmussen.html

Wherever Rep. King gets his data, something like this does happen nonetheless.

I don’t believe immigrants coming through a place with so much violence, transported by Human Trafficking Cartels, Organized Crime, does bode well.

If 19 of 20 undocumented workers are of high moral fiber, would it excuse the 1 of 20 who might end up killing someone on the highway or however?

Can you tell me the amount of violent crime committed by people we know nothing about you find acceptable to occur within the borders of the United States from people not legally here?

 

[Path_Finder]

You have whole criminal gangs in the US.

If 9 of 10 illegal aliens are of high moral fiber does that excuse the one who might go out drinking and driving and cause carnage on the highway?

 

[Path_Finder]

Mexican cartels are brutal so we should question the moral fiber of Hispanic immigrants? Can you explain how this could not be seen as an argument from bigotry?

Can you tell me the amount of violent crime committed by people we know nothing about you find acceptable to occur within the borders of the United States from people not legally here?