Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[Jack_Fisher]

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.

hi again, V.

1. since this is a discussion about hypothetical changes to the law, hypothetical changes to the constitution are fair game. and don’t bet against the possibility of a constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship, given the groundswell of public opinion against unrestrained immigration and unreasonable demands of its proponents. I’m not saying you or the bishops are doing so, but you know there are hardline immigration radicals out there.
2. I’m not proposing denial of citizenship based on** ethnicity**. I’m saying that children born to any illegal alien present in the USA should not be given citizenship or LPR status.

That would be against their civil rights, and for the rest of us who are not of Anglo extraction,

see above. I corrected any misunderstanding on this point. no anchor baby can legally be stripped of citizenship, nor should they be. (naturalized citizens can be, for example, war criminals who lied their way into the country have been stripped. I believe their US born children remain citizens.)

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?

no, see above.

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.

yes, that is what they appear to be saying. what they appear to be doing is making a misleading argument that confuses ** legal permanent residency** with economic opportunities afforded to non-immigrant workers. economic opportunity must work to the mutual benefit of the USA as well as the guest workers, if it does, fine. but** legal permanent residency** is not a **necessary **part of the equation that allows guest workers a chance at economic relief, or others relief from persecution.

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).

please do post the link.

assuming the faithful you refer to are illegal aliens, your statement that they have a right to non-immigrant visas or LPR status and that such right that needs protection is circular reasoning. speaking broadly of immigration rights, they have no such rights, all they have is a claim to due process at their removal hearing.

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.

given the state of the law these days, a green card is usually all you need to function. citizenship does help with family based visa priority, however. oh yes, and you get to vote, too.

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.

who gets LPR status and how that status is obtained is a political question best left to the will of the people as expressed through congress and the executive branch.

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.

that makes sense.

 

[Trader]

Originally Posted by verdigirl
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 could agree if you are only talking about the crime of illegal immigration.

What do you think the bishops would say about those who have committed other crimes while here illegally, including fraud, forgery, tax evasion, smuggling other illegals, prostitution, and drug dealing? To let them off with just a fine would give them rights superior to legal resident aliens and even citizens. It would violate the fundamental concept of equal protection under the law.

That I could not accept. We have more than enough home-grown criminals without importing and excusing additional criminals.

 

[verdigirl]

Originally Posted by verdigirl
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 could agree if you are only talking about the crime of illegal immigration.

What do you think the bishops would say about those who have committed other crimes while here illegally, including fraud, forgery, tax evasion, smuggling other illegals, prostitution, and drug dealing? To let them off with just a fine would give them rights superior to legal resident aliens and even citizens. It would violate the fundamental concept of equal protection under the law.

That I could not accept. We have more than enough home-grown criminals without importing and excusing additional criminals.

Well, obviously they would say that they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I think, however, that you might be under the misguided impression that there are large numbers of undocumented people who are committing these crimes.

In my unscientific sampling among the HUNDREDS that I personally know, I don’t know anyone who is committing tax evasion, smuggling, drug dealing or prostitution. However, to be perfectly fair, it could be argued that using a false social security number might be construed as falsification of documents. I don’t know anyone who is forging their name as “John Smith” or whatever. I should point out that I know people who are either using a bad SSN or are just using an ITIN (individual taxpayer number) that they receive when they file the previous year’s tax return.

I can be objective if you can, ok, brother?

 

[verdigirl]

hi again, V.

1. since this is a discussion about hypothetical changes to the law, hypothetical changes to the constitution are fair game. and don’t bet against the possibility of a constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship, given the groundswell of public opinion against unrestrained immigration and unreasonable demands of its proponents. I’m not saying you or the bishops are doing so, but you know there are hardline immigration radicals out there.

I’m not really worried about the radicals. I honestly do feel that the Bishops are proposing fair and balanced options that don’t endanger any native-born person’s rights. I just encourage American Catholics to accept the teaching of the Bishops to avoid the “cafeteria Catholic” label. It’s weird when it’s applied to conservatives!

1. I’m not proposing denial of citizenship based on** ethnicity**. I’m saying that children born to any illegal alien present in the USA should not be given citizenship or LPR status.

see above. I corrected any misunderstanding on this point. no anchor baby can legally be stripped of citizenship, nor should they be. (naturalized citizens can be, for example, war criminals who lied their way into the country have been stripped. I believe their US born children remain citizens.)

I appreciate the clarification…I honestly thought you were saying these kids could lose their rights as citizens, and as a Hispanic woman, that really ticked me off. Dem’s fightin’ words!

yes, that is what they appear to be saying. what they appear to be doing is making a misleading argument that confuses ** legal permanent residency** with economic opportunities afforded to non-immigrant workers. economic opportunity must work to the mutual benefit of the USA as well as the guest workers, if it does, fine. but** legal permanent residency** is not a **necessary **part of the equation that allows guest workers a chance at economic relief, or others relief from persecution.

In my opinion, we already know that these workers are contributing to our economy, so it’s mutually beneficial to offer at least a temporary worker status. Again, because I have personal experience with so many people in this situation, I know they would also appreciate a better path to LPR that takes into consideration the fact that they have been otherwise honest people and because now they have put down roots. But yes, it **shouldn’t be a given **that just because you’re working here you should receive the LPR status, and I think that’s what the Bishops are saying. It seems clear to me, but maybe I’m just looking at it through a different lens.

please do post the link

. Here you go. I stand corrected, however, on my fact. The number is more like 68 percent.

assuming the faithful you refer to are illegal aliens, your statement that they have a right to non-immigrant visas or LPR status and that such right that needs protection is circular reasoning. speaking broadly of immigration rights, they have no such rights, all they have is a claim to due process at their removal hearing.

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying they should automatically be given access to visas or LPR because they are Catholic. The original question was: is it a sin to immigrate illegally. I say “not necessarily.” I think there’s a separate issue here, and the Bishops are saying that because we have “used” them to build houses and schools and clean and pick produce, honest people should have access to either temporary work visas or LPR, depending on what their goals are. If they are all expelled, we’d all better get ready for higher prices at the grocery store! You are right that currently they don’t have any other rights. That’s the crux of the issue.

given the state of the law these days, a green card is usually all you need to function. citizenship does help with family based visa priority, however. oh yes, and you get to vote, too.

Yes. The issue is getting the “green card” in the first place.

who gets LPR status and how that status is obtained is a political question best left to the will of the people as expressed through congress and the executive branch.

Yes, of course. Hence the need for the Bishops to speak to the faithful, many of whom do vote.

Thanks for the discourse!

 

[Ender]

I honestly do feel that the Bishops are proposing fair and balanced options that don’t endanger any native-born person’s rights. I just encourage American Catholics to accept the teaching of the Bishops to avoid the “cafeteria Catholic” label. It’s weird when it’s applied to conservatives!

Whether or not we agree with our bishops on this issue the label “cafeteria Catholic” does not apply. The bishops are offering opinions on this issue, they are not issuing moral pronouncements, nor can they as by themselves they have no authority to define doctrine. We are quite free to reject their proposals.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

Whether or not we agree with our bishops on this issue the label “cafeteria Catholic” does not apply. The bishops are offering opinions on this issue, they are not issuing moral pronouncements, nor can they as by themselves they have no authority to define doctrine. We are quite free to reject their proposals.

Ender

I previously quoted Canon Law on this very point.

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.

It specifically uses the word “bound.” That means that you are really NOT free to reject their “proposals,” and I would venture to say that the Pope would not be in support of you defying your Bishop.

You can’t just accept the Ordinary’s instruction on some things and not others. Unless I’m missing something here.

 

[catharina]

I previously quoted Canon Law on this very point.

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.

It specifically uses the word “bound.” That means that you are really NOT free to reject their “proposals,” and I would venture to say that the Pope would not be in support of you defying your Bishop.

You can’t just accept the Ordinary’s instruction on some things and not others. Unless I’m missing something here.

I don’t think you’re missing a thing. The bishops’ statements only reflect earlier statements from Rome. (Many have been cited within this thread.) Picking and choosing is the very essence of the stance of the cafeteria catholic. Many politicians who are at least in theory, RC, choose daily to align themselves with works supporting the abortion movement. Indeed, such men and women are ignoring the stand of the bishops and the teaching from Rome.

 

[catharina]

On the same subject, the last I heard the govt is referring to those who are “illegals” (in news-speak) as
“undcoumented men, women and children.”
It’s a far more respectful term than “illegals” or “aliens” and a reminder that the offense is a “paperwork offense.”

 

[Ender]

You can’t just accept the Ordinary’s instruction on some things and not others. Unless I’m missing something here.

What you are missing is that when the bishops speak on faith or morals we are bound to obey but when their declarations are outside matters of faith and morals we are in no way bound by their opinions.

You will never see anything from the USCCB implying that we have a moral obligation to follow their suggestions on prudential matters. Hopefully neither will you hear an individual bishop say that accepting a specific solution on immigration is a moral duty, but a few of them occasionally stray from the reality of their situations.

The best solution to illegal immigration is a prudential question and I no more look to my bishop to solve it than I would look to him to solve problems of inflation or unemployment.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

Human beings are not illegal.

 

[Ender]

Human beings are not illegal.

I’m pretty sure the phrase I used was illegal immigration, not illegal humans. Since you’ve changed the subject I will assume that you concede the point that we have no moral obligation to follow a bishops recommendations on how best to solve the problem of … illegal immigration.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

What you are missing is that when the bishops speak on faith or morals we are bound to obey but when their declarations are outside matters of faith and morals we are in no way bound by their opinions.

You will never see anything from the USCCB implying that we have a moral obligation to follow their suggestions on prudential matters. Hopefully neither will you hear an individual bishop say that accepting a specific solution on immigration is a moral duty, but a few of them occasionally stray from the reality of their situations.

The best solution to illegal immigration is a prudential question and I no more look to my bishop to solve it than I would look to him to solve problems of inflation or unemployment.

Ender

I guess I’d like clarification, then. Are you are saying is that you dismiss the teaching of the Bishops out of hand, without even discerning whether it has any merit?

Isn’t the indentured servitude of some undocumented people a moral issue? Isn’t the fact that there are native-born children in our country today lacking adult supervision because their parents have been deported…isn’t that a moral issue? Isn’t the fact that there are rogue companies in our borders who purposely seek out undocumented workers to circumvent our laws regarding employment taxes just to save a buck…isn’t that a moral issue?

Isn’t the protection of widows, orphans and strangers our moral obligation?

What do you say?

 

[Jack_Fisher]

… avoid the “cafeteria Catholic” label. It’s weird when it’s applied to conservatives!

what exactly is that?

… In my opinion, we already know that these workers are contributing to our economy, so it’s mutually beneficial to offer at least a temporary worker status.

yes, in principle … but setting the “right” number of available visas causes knockdown fights. by the way, there is a way to obtain LPR status through contribution to the economy (EB-5 visas), that’s the investment route, and that involves substantial investment in American business – $500,000 or $1,000,000 committed, depending on location. contributing to the economy with LPR as a reward is something that congress has already considered, and as you can see, the value is far greater than the benefits provided by unskilled labor.

… … I know they would also appreciate a better path to LPR that takes into consideration the fact that they have been otherwise honest people and because now they have put down roots. But yes, it **shouldn’t be a given **that just because you’re working here you should receive the LPR status, and I think that’s what the Bishops are saying. It seems clear to me, but maybe I’m just looking at it through a different lens.

I think we just disagree here. I don’t believe that honesty and presence is alone sufficient for LPR status. non-immigrant status, sure, depending first and foremost on American needs.

…

I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying they should automatically be given access to visas or LPR because they are Catholic. The original question was: is it a sin to immigrate illegally. I say “not necessarily.” I think there’s a separate issue here, and the Bishops are saying that because we have “used” them to build houses and schools and clean and pick produce, honest people should have access to either temporary work visas or LPR, depending on what their goals are. If they are all expelled, we’d all better get ready for higher prices at the grocery store! You are right that currently they don’t have any other rights. That’s the crux of the issue.

of course it isn’t a sin to immigrate illegally in some instances. asylum is often granted to people escaping oppression with nothing but the shirts on their backs. but – escaping from laotian communist death camps is not the moral equivalent of crossing the border for higher wages.

illegal aliens who come into this country to work are doing so voluntarily, knowing the risks and benefits. as far as I know, they’re not being shanghaied or dragged into the US to build houses or pick produce. I’d say, this is the essence of consensual agreement: they work, they get paid. (leaving aside the fact that they undercut american labor in many trades).

… Thanks for the discourse!

and thank you too.

 

[verdigirl]

I’m pretty sure the phrase I used was illegal immigration, not illegal humans. Since you’ve changed the subject I will assume that you concede the point that we have no moral obligation to follow a bishops recommendations on how best to solve the problem of … illegal immigration.

Ender

Not at all. I just responded to you. For the record, I do NOT say that we have no moral obligation to follow the Bishop’s teachings. With all due respect, that is ridiculous. That’s like saying that we can ignore the Ordinary’s instruction on Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, for example, just because we think it’s unnecessary.

Silly, right?

 

[catharina]

V - I agree with you that the bishops’ words on the treatment of undcoument residents couldn’t be more of a reflection on both faith and morals. Our faith tells us to love God and one another. Morality tells us that we are to given a preferential option to (the needs of) the poor. Imagining that people come here for higher wages ignores the fact that many of the most desperate come here for wages, period. Personally, I knew two “little boys” (aged 14 yrs) who walked from the highlands of Guatemala to Denver CO since they had grown too old to be fed at home. Their journey took six months. Their need was for food and/or a means to earn it. Their experience was not atypical from what I saw among clients.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…, I knew two “little boys” (aged 14 yrs) who walked from the highlands of Guatemala to Denver CO since they had grown too old to be fed at home. Their journey took six months. …

that’s quite a hike. have these illegals been deported I mean removed yet?

here is a note about other illegals who hoofed it into the country, and they are definitely not atypical:

"(CNN) – These are some of the facts from tonight’s broadcast that you might find interesting.

ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) conducted a threat assessment survey of all field offices:

“The results of the assessment showed that most major metropolitan areas were experiencing a surge in gang activity. **Additionally, the survey showed that membership of these violent transnational gangs was comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.” **

Source: ICE “Operation Community Shield” Fact Sheet June 6, 2007

• Gang members in the United States: 800,000
• State and local police in the United States: 708,000

Source: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California); hearing testimony June 5, 2007" [emphasis added]

 

[verdigirl]

that’s quite a hike. have these illegals been deported I mean removed yet?

here is a note about other illegals who hoofed it into the country, and they are definitely not atypical:

"(CNN) – These are some of the facts from tonight’s broadcast that you might find interesting.

ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) conducted a threat assessment survey of all field offices:

“The results of the assessment showed that most major metropolitan areas were experiencing a surge in gang activity. **Additionally, the survey showed that membership of these violent transnational gangs was comprised largely of foreign-born nationals.” **

Source: ICE “Operation Community Shield” Fact Sheet June 6, 2007

• Gang members in the United States: 800,000
• State and local police in the United States: 708,000

Source: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California); hearing testimony June 5, 2007" [emphasis added]

Awww…Jackie! You’re not suggesting these kids are gang members, are you? I mean come on, this info comes from Lou Dobbs! How un-objective of a journalist is that?

Do we need to start talking about the causes of gangs?

 

[Ender]

V - I agree with you that the bishops’ words on the treatment of undcoument residents couldn’t be more of a reflection on both faith and morals. Our faith tells us to love God and one another. Morality tells us that we are to given a preferential option to (the needs of) the poor.

You need to distinguish between the goals at which we should strive and the means necessary to achieve those goals. The bishops are right to remind us of the objectives - help the poor, feed the hungry, treat others with justice and compassion - but they have no special insight on the practical steps necessary to achieve them. The task of balancing the security and social needs of the country with the often competing interests of those wishing to come here are best left to those who best understand the complexities of the means, not those who best understand the morality of the ends.

Ender

 

[ANGELIC_PEACE]

i think it would be if the person was able to get documents to enter that country legally…or if that person got refiused entry and still sneaked in…
i think it’s a different matter when people are fleeing from danger and war torn countries and ethnic cleansing etc…on the one hand they are still doing something wrong…on the other hand there lives would be in so much danger if they stayed…and they aren’t doing it to cause trouble…they only want to go somewhere where they will feel safe…

it’s quite a thinker that question

ANGELIC PEACE

 

[verdigirl]

You need to distinguish between the goals at which we should strive and the means necessary to achieve those goals. The bishops are right to remind us of the objectives - help the poor, feed the hungry, treat others with justice and compassion - but they have no special insight on the practical steps necessary to achieve them. The task of balancing the security and social needs of the country with the often competing interests of those wishing to come here are best left to those who best understand the complexities of the means, not those who best understand the morality of the ends.

Ender

Ender, just go read for yourself, ok? justiceforimmigrants.org