J
Jack_Fisher
Guest
thanks, V.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Understood. Will you urge your legislative representatives for fair resolution of this matter, based on the teachings of the Bishops?
First we must differentiate between what true teaching is. A teaching comes from the Church. A bishop and/or a group of bishops can have opinions—but his opinion do not over–ride the Church.
Think of this verdigirl. The solution to the problems with immigration is not based on our laws . No matter what this gov’t does—illegal immigration will happen. Why—the source. It is immigrants countries and gov’t of origin that is the problem. It is their gov’ts that do not meet the peoples needs.
The help these people need is in their home domain. Anyone who is really serious to help --should them be urging the gov’ts of these countries to help their own people and meet their needs .
V
verdigirl
Guest
Ok, my brother. Here’s what Canon Law says:
First we must differentiate between what true teaching is. A teaching comes from the Church. A bishop and/or a group of bishops can have opinions—but his opinion do not over–ride the Church.
Think of this verdigirl. The solution to the problems with immigration is not based on our laws . No matter what this gov’t does—illegal immigration will happen. Why—the source. It is immigrants countries and gov’t of origin that is the problem. It is their gov’ts that do not meet the peoples needs.
Can. 212 ß1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
and also:
Can. 222 ß1 Christ’s faithful have the obligation to provide for the needs of the Church, so that the Church has available to it those things which are necessary for divine worship, for apostolic and charitable work and for the worthy support of its ministers.
ß2 They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the Lord’s precept, to help the poor from their own resources.
Here’s what the Catechism says:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
and also:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
So, from what I gather, the Bishops are in lock step with the official teaching of the Church, from the Catechism. And we are bound to accept it and act upon it according to Canon Law.
Thank you for listening.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Ok, my brother. Here’s what Canon Law says:
Can. 212 ß1 Christ’s faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show Christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.
and also:
Can. 222 ß1 Christ’s faithful have the obligation to provide for the needs of the Church, so that the Church has available to it those things which are necessary for divine worship, for apostolic and charitable work and for the worthy support of its ministers.
ß2 They are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the Lord’s precept, to help the poor from their own resources.
Here’s what the Catechism says:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, **to obey its laws **and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
and also:
2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s."48 “We must obey God rather than men”:49
When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50
So, from what I gather, the Bishops are in lock step with the official teaching of the Church, from the Catechism. And we are bound to accept it and act upon it according to Canon Law.
Thank you for listening.
The above is speaking of the citizens of their own country—which is what I was saying. The people who break the law to come here–should be fighting to reform their own country–so that their country can see to their needs. The above does not say–that these people have the right to come here illegally and then try to reform ours.
Those who are caught here illegally have a right to be treated humanly. They are to be fed and sheltered–given medical attention if needed --until they are returned to their country.
V
verdigirl
Guest
And yet the Bishops are saying that the current immigration laws are unjust. In fact, the Catechism quote DOES say that they have the right to come here to provide for themselves, in spite of their home country’s situation, and that we have the obligation to assist them in that endeavor.
The above is speaking of the citizens of their own country—which is what I was saying. The people who break the law to come here–should be fighting to reform their own country–so that their country can see to their needs. The above does not say–that these people have the right to come here illegally and then try to reform ours.
Those who are caught here illegally have a right to be treated humanly. They are to be fed and sheltered–given medical attention if needed --until they are returned to their country.
And so I have two questions for you.
- Will you follow the teaching of the U.S. Bishops?
- Will you press your legislators for a mutually fair and just resolution of the immigration problem?
J
Jack_Fisher
Guest
[emphasis added]…
Here’s what the Catechism says:
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of **the right to immigrate **subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens…
this seems ambiguous on the issue of temporary vs. permanent visas.
the first paragraph can refer to either temporary non-immigrant work or temporary asylum visas or visas that lead to legal permanent resident status (“LPR”). either temporary or LPR track visas will fulfill the mandate to provide security and means of livelihood.
the second pararaph, on the other hand, refers to “the right to immigrate”, which is apparently being used in the LPR sense, not the temporary sense.
am I reading that accurately?
does the Church agree that a refugee here on an asylum visa be sent home after the reasons for asylum alleviate?
does the Church demand are all persons here in the US for work be entitled to claim LPR status?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
And yet the Bishops are saying that the current immigration laws are unjust. In fact, the Catechism quote DOES say that they have the right to come here to provide for themselves, in spite of their home country’s situation, and that we have the obligation to assist them in that endeavor.
And so I have two questions for you.
It really does just boil down to that, my brother.
- Will you follow the teaching of the U.S. Bishops?
- Will you press your legislators for a mutually fair and just resolution of the immigration problem?
Yes the CCC does say the following—but it is qualified with the second paragraph. It is based on the lawfull entry into a country. Once a person makes a lawfull entry–that person is bound to obey the laws of this country (this includes the laws on immigration) A person who immigrates illegally is already starting by breaking the law.
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Well, the Bishops’ take on that aspect of the Catechism is to urge the government to provide for a fair path to legalization for those already here (including fines to pay for breaking the laws!!), as well as a temporary worker program.[emphasis added]
this seems ambiguous on the issue of temporary vs. permanent visas.
the first paragraph can refer to either temporary non-immigrant work or temporary asylum visas or visas that lead to legal permanent resident status (“LPR”). either temporary or LPR track visas will fulfill the mandate to provide security and means of livelihood.
the second pararaph, on the other hand, refers to “the right to immigrate”, which is apparently being used in the LPR sense, not the temporary sense.
am I reading that accurately?
does the Church agree that a refugee here on an asylum visa be sent home after the reasons for asylum alleviate?
does the Church demand are all persons here in the US for work be entitled to claim LPR status?
I guess that you could say that the government is allowing for “the right to immigrate” under the LPR sense, but it ignores the entire problem of what to do about the people already here. The other issue that interferes with “the right to immigrate” is the tremendous backlog in the application processing system, as well as the limited numbers of visas available for the categories in which most immigrants find themselves.
I am not sure whether the Bishops say an asylee should return should the situation warrant it. To me, that sounds reasonable.
As far as whether all should receive LPR, the Bishops are NOT advocating for blanket amnesty. They are saying that if you came illegally, you should pay a fine and then be allowed to stay legally while you go to the back of the LPR line.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Ok, so the Bishops are advocating a fair path to legal residency that INCLUDES a fine for having broken the immigration laws in the first place. Here’s their position: justiceforimmigrants.org/bishops_call.html
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
And I ask the question of YOU again. What will you do?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I will tell you. I will continue my research and based on that make a decision.Ok, so the Bishops are advocating a fair path to legal residency that INCLUDES a fine for having broken the immigration laws in the first place. Here’s their position: justiceforimmigrants.org/bishops_call.html
And I ask the question of YOU again. What will you do?
J
Jack_Fisher
Guest
thanks V.Well, the Bishops’ take on that aspect of the Catechism is to urge the government to provide for a fair path to legalization for those already here (including fines to pay for breaking the laws!!), as well as a temporary worker program.
I guess that you could say that the government is allowing for “the right to immigrate” under the LPR sense, but it ignores the entire problem of what to do about the people already here. The other issue that interferes with “the right to immigrate” is the tremendous backlog in the application processing system, as well as the limited numbers of visas available for the categories in which most immigrants find themselves.
I am not sure whether the Bishops say an asylee should return should the situation warrant it. To me, that sounds reasonable.
As far as whether all should receive LPR, the Bishops are NOT advocating for blanket amnesty. They are saying that if you came illegally, you should pay a fine and then be allowed to stay legally while you go to the back of the LPR line.
regarding those here illegally, would justice be served by legalizing all – let’s just call them out of status persons – with non-immigrant visas (usually work visas) where merited with LPR status possible upon their return to their home country and reapplication through existing tracks? those who don’t qualify for these visas could depart voluntarily without penalty (no fine, no disqualification from reentry) but those caught and removed (the modern euphemism for “deported”) would be disqualified from reentry. spouse/minor child could stay with the worker, “anchor child” no longer a citizen. let’s say that non-immigrant work visas would be fairly easy to get.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Wonderful! A girl couldn’t ask for anything more!I will tell you. I will continue my research and based on that make a decision.
Peace and blessings to you, brother!
V
verdigirl
Guest
I appreciate the continued dialogue!thanks V.
regarding those here illegally, would justice be served by legalizing all – let’s just call them out of status persons – with non-immigrant visas (usually work visas) where merited with LPR status possible upon their return to their home country and reapplication through existing tracks? those who don’t qualify for these visas could depart voluntarily without penalty (no fine, no disqualification from reentry) but those caught and removed (the modern euphemism for “deported”) would be disqualified from reentry. spouse/minor child could stay with the worker, “anchor child” no longer a citizen. let’s say that non-immigrant work visas would be fairly easy to get.
I think that justice could be served in the way that you describe above if the time lag or steps required are not unreasonably cumbersome. However, I don’t agree that their children born American citizens (do we also apply “anchor children” to first-generation Irish Americans) should lose their citizenship. That would be prejudice on the basis of the national origin of the parent, and is in my estimation, clearly against the Constitution. That would be the very discrimination that the Catechism is against.
Aside from that, I think we solved it! Yippee!
C
catharina
Guest
Verdigirl, I had to leave for work today at noon. Since I only came home now, I must thank you for exercising the patience to state (once more) many things that were already stated (if scattered) within this thread. I am quite certain that I would not have had the patience to do so. Having worked with undocumented children and with adult refugees over the years, I guess this issue is much too personal for me and it’s very wearying to explain any of it in a climate that has turned hostile for no reason known to me.
Again, my thanks. God bless you. I’ve been on this site for only one day.
Again, my thanks. God bless you. I’ve been on this site for only one day.
J
Jack_Fisher
Guest
V, thanks for the response.I appreciate the continued dialogue!
I think that justice could be served in the way that you describe above if the time lag or steps required are not unreasonably cumbersome. However, I don’t agree that their children born American citizens (do we also apply “anchor children” to first-generation Irish Americans) should lose their citizenship. That would be prejudice on the basis of the national origin of the parent, and is in my estimation, clearly against the Constitution. That would be the very discrimination that the Catechism is against.
Aside from that, I think we solved it! Yippee!
I was ambiguous on the problem of anchor children. while no american citizen in that category should be (or could be, for that matter) stripped of citizenship, I think citizenship should be restricted to children born of legal permanent residents (LPRs) or citizens or otherwise naturalized in the usual way. no more new anchor babies.
now, tell me why the bishops think that a non-immigrant work permit should lead to legal permanent residency?
from the site: Catholic Bishops’ Call for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
bishops’ statement refers to that fact that immigration is caused by “economic necessity in order to provide even the most basic of needs for [immigrants] and their families.”
to do this, the bishops want a:
"Temporary worker program: …
the bishops call for a temporary worker program that includes:
Path to permanent residency which is achievable/verifiable … "
demanding that guest workers be put on the road to citizenship is far afield of what appears to be the stated purpose and suggests to me that there is a social/political agenda here beyond mere immigration reform.
again, why do the bishops go so far as to demand citizenship (which is what LPR status leads to)? determining who is or is not eligible for LPR status and US citizenship is the job of Congress and is not a necessary aspect of alleviating economic necessity that drives foreigners to immigrate.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Unless we’re ready to change the US Constitution, it would be discrimination to deny citizenship to anyone born within our borders simply on the basis of ethnicity. That would be against their civil rights, and for the rest of us who are not of Anglo extraction, it sets a precedent that our citizenship could be stripped as well. Citizenship on the basis of legal status of the parent then calls everyone who is not Native American into question, unless you have Ellis Island legalization papers. Can you imagine what could happen to Japanese or Chinese Americans, for example? Or Irish Americans? Or even African Americans?V, thanks for the response.
I was ambiguous on the problem of anchor children. while no american citizen in that category should be (or could be, for that matter) stripped of citizenship, I think citizenship should be restricted to children born of legal permanent residents (LPRs) or citizens or otherwise naturalized in the usual way. no more new anchor babies.
I think that what the Bishops are saying is that for those who want to make a new life here in the US, there should be steps that they take to achieve that.now, tell me why the bishops think that a non-immigrant work permit should lead to legal permanent residency?
bishops’ statement refers to that fact that immigration is caused by “economic necessity in order to provide even the most basic of needs for [immigrants] and their families.”
to do this, the bishops want a:
"Temporary worker program: …
the bishops call for a temporary worker program that includes:
Path to permanent residency which is achievable/verifiable … "
demanding that guest workers be put on the road to citizenship is far afield of what appears to be the stated purpose and suggests to me that there is a social/political agenda here beyond mere immigration reform.
I don’t think the Bishops are demanding anything. I think this is their recommendation, and consequently, their teaching to us, the faithful. Remember, according to Canon Law they cannot hold office, so this is as far as they can go. They are, however, qualified to speak for the rights of their faithful, especially since around 75% of the people who are affected by this are their faithful (Pew Center research…I’ll post the link if you like).again, why do the bishops go so far as to demand citizenship (which is what LPR status leads to)? determining who is or is not eligible for LPR status and US citizenship is the job of Congress and is not a necessary aspect of alleviating economic necessity that drives foreigners to immigrate.
LPR doesn’t necessarily lead to citizenship. It can, but it doesn’t have to. My own father has been here as an LPR since 1963, and he only this year sent in his citizenship application. I think the bottom line is that they are recommending that if you are undocumented but want to finish out your days here, you should be able to receive LPR after paying a fine, passing language tests, and proving that you don’t have a record either here or in your home country. If you want to become a citizen, you can. People with LPR status have to wait 5 years before applying for citizenship. You know what? Nearly everyone I know personally has either gotten their citizenship after receiving LPR or is counting the days until that 5 year period is up.
The other recommendation the Bishops are making is that if you truly don’t want to live out your days here, but if you are an honest person who just wants to help your family survive, you should be able to apply for a temporary worker visa.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Keep Amendment 14 of the Consitution in mind, please:
- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I voted maybe so. There are some cases where it would be a sin such as purely for personal gain. There are other cases such as to help feed family back home where it would not be a sin.
C
catharina
Guest
I voted Maybe So also.I voted maybe so. There are some cases where it would be a sin such as purely for personal gain. There are other cases such as to help feed family back home where it would not be a sin.
In some situations, the answer could be yes.
In other situations, the answer would be no.
Albania had “Nobody Out, Nobody In” laws for generations.
Dreadful. I believe that was Mother Teresa’s homeland.
V
verdigirl
Guest
Yes, Holly, I’m with you 100 percent! The Bishops would not support that scenario.I voted maybe so. There are some cases where it would be a sin such as purely for personal gain. There are other cases such as to help feed family back home where it would not be a sin.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.