Immigration Reform in 2010

  • Thread starter Thread starter fish90
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Bishops will appeal for amnesty cloaked as human rights. More illegal Hispanics keep their numbers up. The bottom line is we the American people regardless of particular faith should not treat are nation as a hotel for the third world nor reward illegal behaviour that comes as a detriment to citizens and legal immigrants.
 
God bless the Bishops for their efforts!

My prayers are with them and with the poor individuals struggling to correct their legal status.
:gopray:
 
God bless the Bishops for their efforts!

My prayers are with them and with the poor individuals struggling to correct their legal status

I agree. When Christ said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. nationality or immigrant status did not come into play.
 
Legal immigration reform, both foreign and domestic, is needed for those seeking to lawfully enter the United States in order to work for a better future but find themselves caught in the maze of bureaucracy and at the mercy of corrupt immigration officials that seek to bleed them financially dry. Illegal immigration needs to remain illegal for the sake of those who are here lawfully.

In his book On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration, Father Patrick Bascio writes, "The Christian leadership of this country, not really comprehending the wide-ranging problems connected with illegal immigration has blessed violating the sovereignty of our nation, depressing the wages of American workers, encouraging the growth of the most violent gangs in America, driving up black unemployment and draining the best and brightest of the Third World, leaving it helpless. How could the church possibly desire that this state of affairs continue?"

"Groups that favor illegal immigration often invoke the Almighty and wrap themselves in the mantle of compassion as their justification for turning a blind eye to the terrible consequences to America of our porous borders. If simply giving somebody something they want without making them earn it is compassion, then laziness is next to godliness. The American and Mexican bishops should use their good intentions and powerful influence to remind the Mexican government that it has a responsibility for its citizens."
 
rep140 said:
When Christ said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. nationality or immigrant status did not come into play.
Click to expand...
Charity begins at home. Charity is also the responsibility of individuals and organizations, not governments. If I choose to help a hungry, naked or homeless person, I am following the Gospel of Christ. When the taxman forcibly takes from me for what I have worked to give to another who has not worked, he is enforcing the Gospel of Karl Marx.
 
I don’t see what the negative reactions to this statement are about. The statement is very clear that migration must be a choice, not a necessity. It is speaking about a greater reality here. Our nation has a moral obligation to treat immigrants, legal and illegal, as human beings. That’s the first point.

There is also another important point. Our nation has to stop supporting criminal governments that strip their people of resources. When people have no resources, they are forced to migrate, legally or ilegally.

This is not a matter of taking money from us to give to someone else. This is a matter of having just laws in our country, while at the same time we stop filling the pockets of foreign politicans who are corrupt and hurt their people. Our government has a history of this.

I remember bein stationed in Ecuador in 2000 when the government was peacefully over thrown, because it had drained the banks and the money was in the pockets of the President and his friends. Within 24 hours the US sent Ambassador Romero to Ecuador with the demand that the Ecuadorian people restore the constitutionally elected government or face an embargo. The opposition backed down. The Vice President became president and his party remained in power. The economy of that country continued to suffer. Today, 10 years later, that same government is now headed by a Socialist president who has nothing but contempt for the USA. And interestingly, one of his talking points is the fact that the USA threatened them when they tried to rescue their economy. I remember that the number of Ecuadorians leaving their homeland for the USA, Spain and Chile was in the millions.

There was no need for this. The overthrow of the government took place without a single bullet being fired. The military, national guard and the police were called out by the President. The heads of all three conferred and then presented themselves at the presidential palace and told the President that they would not fire upon their brothers and sisters. President Mahuat left the country that night. Today, he is a legal resident of the USA and professor of Government at Harvard University. He also took with him over $30 million from the state treasury and deposited it in Miami banks.

Yes, I agree that the bishops and all people of faith have a moral right to demand that our legislators deal justly with immigration reform by addressing two issues.
  1. How to deal justly and humanely with illegal immigrants. Justice must be determined by the Gospel, not by civil law that has proven ineffective.
  2. And to decide what kind of relations the USA has with governments that strip their people of their resources. How can we give special trading status to such nations or not challenge them in the international public arena?
While the bishops of South America are challenging the unscrupulous policies of those governments. the government of the USA, our large corporations and other organizations are giving them money. How much did the USA send abroad under the Mexico City policy? It was not donated for charitable works. Our government has demanded that Colombia find and punish drug cartels. This is moral and just. But at the same time, we allow those in posession of drugs to walk the streets. The point is that our government seems to have a strong hand in dealing with other nations when it protects the resources and security of the wealthy, not of the vulnerable, not at home and not abroad. Look at the violations against human dignity and justice in China and then look at the US government’s silence on China’s policies.

Let us pray that our legislators may open their eyes and realize that they cannot morally justify punishing illegal immigrants unless they also refrain from supporting those governments who push their people to despair.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Hello Brother,

The negative reactions about immigration reform come from its connotation with amnesty from what I understand. People are upset that people who have committed a crime are given a “free pass.” Why should the person who came to this country illegally and possibly guilty of other crimes like severe freeloading be given a free ride or a minimal punishment, while a person who wishes to immigrate from another country waits to come here legally?

The other concern you bring up is certainly difficult to answer. A stop in free trade between these countries could lead to even more poverty.

Maybe illegal immigrant camps in Texas, in Mexico or in the north could satisfy the interests of human needs and civil law. The international community would not do so well with stopping abuses in China or South America due to money issues.

I do not know all the answers.

Best,
fish90
 
fish90 said:
Hello Brother,

The negative reactions about immigration reform come from its connotation with amnesty from what I understand. People are upset that people who have committed a crime are given a “free pass.” Why should the person who came to this country illegally and possibly guilty of other crimes like severe freeloading be given a free ride or a minimal punishment, while a person who wishes to immigrate from another country waits to come here legally?

The other concern you bring up is certainly difficult to answer. A stop in free trade between these countries could lead to even more poverty.

Maybe illegal immigrant camps in Texas, in Mexico or in the north could satisfy the interests of human needs and civil law. The international community would not do so well with stopping abuses in China or South America due to money issues.

I do not know all the answers.

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
As to whether they committed a crime by crossing the border illegally is a moral question. I’m not claiming to be a moral theologian. I’m not. My area is Mystical Theology. From my studies of moral theology, in the seminary, there is a point in Catholic moral theology that says that no crime has been committed when one breaks the law out of necessity. In such cases, the state is commiting the crime for prosecuting, not the person who broke the law. We have to understand the rule. Necessity is the operative word. I believe this may be why the bishops say that migration should be a choice not a need.

The language implies that there are those among illegal immigrants who had a real need to break the law. In which case, as Catholics we must accept the moral teachings of the Church. When there is a need, the law can be broken, because any law that interferes with human rights, is an invalid law. Every human being has the right to eat, to live in peace, to protect his family and property. When there are laws in other nations that, as I said before, strip citizens of their resources, something must be done by those who have some power.

As you say, there is money involved here. I don’t think that any good theologian would tell you that free trade should be stopped to punish Latin American corruption. As you say, that would cause greater despair and suffering. But there are other things that governments do for each other, which can be stopped and will not hurt the poor. The whole Mexico City thing was one of those courses that our government could have followed. We did not need to fund abortion and planned parenthood in other countries. That’s a lot of money that could have been used to help poor people in this country or in the countries where we send the Mexico City funds.

We do not need to pay the Colombian government trillions of dollars to fight the drug cartel. We can cut off the demand at this end for less money. The remaining money can be used for our own people who are in need. But we’re doing very little to stop the demand in this country. As long as we have free drug distributers and consumers, we will be paying Colombians to fight a drug war. The Lord knows that the cost of the drug war has been wasted money. But some people in government can’t seem to connect the dots.

The same happens with immigration. They don’t seem to connect the dots there either. As long as you give money by way of grants, loans, subsidies, etc to corrupt governments, you are not stopping ilegal immigration. Why not give those funds to trusworthy organizations? There are many good organizations that get no government assistance to help the poor at home or abroad. We send money abroad to support planned parenthood, when we know what planned parenthood does with it. But we will not give money to nuns who run group homes for troubled and orphaned children in those countries. According to politicians and many citizens, that’s separation of Church and State. But this so called separation, which is not even in the Constitution, is not helping anyone.

I don’t have all the answers either. I’m not an anthropologist, sociologist, social worker or political scientist. I’m only speaking form my 10 years as a missionary in developing nations. I saw the other side of the USA when I was there and it was embarassing. I always found myself telling people the same thing, “Do not judge Americans by what you see the American government doing or by what you see big American corporations doing. The American people don’t even know this is going on. Our people back home are good, honest, hardworking people just like you.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
JReducation said:
As to whether they committed a crime by crossing the border illegally is a moral question. I’m not claiming to be a moral theologian. I’m not. My area is Mystical Theology. From my studies of moral theology, in the seminary, there is a point in Catholic moral theology that says that no crime has been committed when one breaks the law out of necessity. In such cases, the state is commiting the crime for prosecuting, not the person who broke the law. We have to understand the rule. Necessity is the operative word. I believe this may be why the bishops say that migration should be a choice not a need.

The language implies that there are those among illegal immigrants who had a real need to break the law. In which case, as Catholics we must accept the moral teachings of the Church. When there is a need, the law can be broken, because any law that interferes with human rights, is an invalid law. Every human being has the right to eat, to live in peace, to protect his family and property. When there are laws in other nations that, as I said before, strip citizens of their resources, something must be done by those who have some power.
Click to expand...
As usual Brother, your keen intellect and word use shuts me up.😃

Best,
fish90
 
fish90 said:
As usual Brother, your keen intellect and word use shuts me up.😃

Best,
fish90
Click to expand...
I’m not that smart. I just happen to be a Franciscan Brother of Life. Life issues are near and dear to the heart of St. Francis.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top