Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter urban-hermit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bobzills said:
People can be barred from entry on the basis that it is not beneficial for the country as a whole. And this is a matter of opinion, so it is a prudential judgement which is put into effect by a penal law. Lawmakers have an obligation to their constituents and to support the general well being of the country.
Click to expand...
you’re think. but this is not so. how can you put human law against the demand of the bishops to permit almost anyone in economic stress to become LPRs? the bishops – as well as posters here – have proved that the moral right to immigrate transcends the mere concerns of lawmakers for their constituents.

again – if the church welcomes sinners – including thieves, tax collectors, prostitutes and even me – without concern for the well-being of the congregation – on what possible basis can a mere human institution like congress bar the unemployable, plague carriers and seasonal workers – all 12 million of them plus millions more just waiting in the wings?

while I admit it would be better to simply annex central america, dispose of the tinhorn dictators and immoral regimes of every political stripe that generate a continuous flow of refugees and establish an american style economy (which is what all of the paper-challenged persons want to participate in), this is not a viable option, since it would be an affront to something or other, I’m not sure what, but I’m sure the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny are really evil concepts.
 
Jack_Fisher said:
you’re think. but this is not so. how can you put human law against the demand of the bishops to permit almost anyone in economic stress to become LPRs? the bishops – as well as posters here – have proved that the moral right to immigrate transcends the mere concerns of lawmakers for their constituents.

again – if the church welcomes sinners – including thieves, tax collectors, prostitutes and even me – without concern for the well-being of the congregation – on what possible basis can a mere human institution like congress bar the unemployable, plague carriers and seasonal workers – all 12 million of them plus millions more just waiting in the wings?

while I admit it would be better to simply annex central america, dispose of the tinhorn dictators and immoral regimes of every political stripe that generate a continuous flow of refugees and establish an american style economy (which is what all of the paper-challenged persons want to participate in), this is not a viable option, since it would be an affront to something or other, I’m not sure what, but I’m sure the monroe doctrine and manifest destiny are really evil concepts.
Click to expand...
It is prudential and political in my personal opinion, and Catholics don’t have to follow the bishops on political issues. Catholics can simply hold the prudential opinion that it is to the greater good for Americans to help people as they stay in their own countries, and it is to the lesser good to promote unrestricted immigration. I don’t see where it is a mortal sin to disregard the law of fasting in favor of illegal immigration, even though Cardinal Mahony has called for it.
 
Hi Verdigirl - thanks for joining the discussion.

I apologize in advance that I cannot come back frequently to debate this topic, but I wanted to address some of your points.

First of all, I dispute that the bishops have issued any “Teaching” whatsoever, as has already been pointed out in this thread. You need to understand the difference between what the catechism says we MUST do (“care for the poor”) and the best way to DO that (enact laws, including laws governing who can and who cannot immigrate here and when).

The first part (the moral responsibility) is something we must all take seriously and is not optional. We MUST care for the poor.

But the second part (the actual laws governing how we do this) is outside of the bishops’ area of expertise and responsibility. This is the part that we, as a nation, decide upon - the HOW of how we are going to help the poor. Taking into account considerations which affect those poor people who are native-born Americans working jobs where they are not making a living wage. We do not want to make them EVEN POORER in the process of helping the poor from Mexico and other latin american countries.

Most bishops have not worked in the low-wage restaurant industry recently. I have. Like you seem to do, I see this issue through the lens of my own experience. I don’t know if you read it, but earlier in this thread I expressed the objection that doubling or tripling the number of people with whom I have to compete in the labor force was unfair to me. Somebody responded that there will always be younger stronger people and that was that. I agree there will always be younger and stronger people. I accept that as fair. What I feel is unfair is allowing large numbers of people in from other countries who will double or triple (or more?) the amount of competition I have in the labor market. This keeps wages down. I do not care if it keeps prices down. I say let’s follow the law and let business figure out how to keep prices low enough so they can stay in business. I’m sure American Business will figure something out, and we should make sure they stay within the law when they do so. Luring illegal aliens here who will be glad to earn what to them is a good wage but to Americans is not - that’s not the answer. And unless the alien people coming here illegally are really in dire need - and let’s face it NOT ALL OF THEM ARE - this is unfair, and seems rarely to be recognized by their advocates.

You know, I had to laugh a little when I read these recommendations by the bishops:
  • “wages and benefits which do not undercut domestic workers”
  • “Labor-market test to ensure U.S. workers are not harmed”
It’s good that they are at least giving some lip service to these problems (kind of in the footnotes), but let’s be frank: saying those things does not make them happen. And this underscores my previous point: THE BISHOPS ARE NOT EXPERTS ON PUBLIC POLICY. They can say “we should all make fair wages and play nice together and while we’re at it let all these illegal aliens stay here” but thank God we don’t have to live by such vague pipe-dreams. We have a system for making laws that are just, and you can’t just throw that out the window. The bishops should stick to moral concepts and let the voters decide what is the best way to go about BEING moral.
 
Let’s put a “slightly” different perspective on this:

Would it be a sin for priests from third or fourth world countries to come to the United States illegally and start new Roman Catholic parishes, perhaps in store fronts in urban areas where the priest would live in the back, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LOCAL BISHOP?

How would THAT be different from people coming here illegally to be roofers, or dishwashers, or landscapers, or nannies, or health care workers, or even … sex industry workers. No medical exams. No criminal background checks. Working off the books, but using the hospital and other support systems, etc…
 
Al_Masetti said:
Let’s put a “slightly” different perspective on this:

Would it be a sin for priests from third or fourth world countries to come to the United States illegally and start new Roman Catholic parishes, perhaps in store fronts in urban areas where the priest would live in the back, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LOCAL BISHOP?

How would THAT be different from people coming here illegally to be roofers, or dishwashers, or landscapers, or nannies, or health care workers, or even … sex industry workers. No medical exams. No criminal background checks. Working off the books, but using the hospital and other support systems, etc…
Click to expand...
Our local bishop has brought many priests to our diocese from Nigeria, India, and Sri Lanka. Usually their first assignment is in my parish because it is next to the chancery office and there is a lot of paper work to be done. This includes getting valid driver’s lisences for all our new clergy. Even for highly eduated men the regulations are complex, but our bishop insists that all the regulations be followed for his own employees. After all, new priests will be needed for the forseeable future and they have been a great blessing for us.

Your point is an excellent one. Why should the bishops expect anything less than full compliance with the law from anyone else? If the laws need to be changed, and nearly everyone thinks that is the case, we should be doing that through the democratic process.

We have seen how much damage 19 immigrant terrorists can do in a single day. The next attack could be much worse.

There is also a lot of human suffering among illegal immigrants here who have to remain in the shadows. Is that suffering worse than if they had remained in their home countries? Is the suffering caused by their own choice to violate our laws and the natural backlash against possible lawbreakers?
 
Trader said:
There is also a lot of human suffering among illegal immigrants here who have to remain in the shadows. Is that suffering worse than if they had remained in their home countries? Is the suffering caused by their own choice to violate our laws and the natural backlash against possible lawbreakers?
Click to expand...
This line of thinking does fit with contemporary habits of blaming the victim. Blame the impoverished for their poverty and let one’s “natural” feelings guide one’s actions in response. Yet we (RCs) are called to act within a supernatural framework, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, even visiting the imprisoned, without regard to their documentation or lack thereof.
 
Trader said:
We have seen how much damage 19 immigrant terrorists can do in a single day. The next attack could be much worse.
Click to expand...
Let’s be very clear on the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through LEGALLY through CANADA, ok? The border is porous on all sides.
 
verdigirl said:
Let’s be very clear on the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through LEGALLY through CANADA, ok? The border is porous on all sides.
Click to expand...
Not entirely correct.

Some entered directly into the U.S. Some had absurd information on their visa applications and should have been denied; in that sense they were illegal. Some were denied entry as suspected terrorists (and the INS people took a lot of heat for it). Some were suspects but were “protected” by the “Gorelick Wall”. Some overstayed their visas. Some had improper visas. Some had bench warrants. They could have and should have been rounded up on a variety of routine issues and the 9/11 plot would have been disrupted.

There is much more to it than saying that they entered legally through Canada.

There are tons of articles that Google came up with in answer to that question: " were the 9/11 hijackers legally in the United States?".

Here is one interesting article:

911securitysolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=39
 
Al_Masetti said:
Not entirely correct.

Some entered directly into the U.S. Some had absurd information on their visa applications and should have been denied; in that sense they were illegal. Some were denied entry as suspected terrorists (and the INS people took a lot of heat for it). Some were suspects but were “protected” by the “Gorelick Wall”. Some overstayed their visas. Some had improper visas. Some had bench warrants. They could have and should have been rounded up on a variety of routine issues and the 9/11 plot would have been disrupted.

There is much more to it than saying that they entered legally through Canada.

There are tons of articles that Google came up with in answer to that question: " were the 9/11 hijackers legally in the United States?".

Here is one interesting article:

911securitysolutions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=39
Click to expand...
Either way, doesn’t sound like a Mexican problem to me.
 
verdigirl said:
Let’s be very clear on the fact that the 9/11 terrorists came through LEGALLY through CANADA, ok? The border is porous on all sides.
Click to expand...
That is one of the genuine reasons why reform of immigration law is taking so long. In some respects the law need to be tougher because the costs of a mistake are so high.

This is certainly not only a Mexican only problem. Who said it was? We also have illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, as well as South America.and other Central American countries. Even Mexico has its own problems on its southern border as NAFTA, political reform, and other factors have resulted in an economic boom in Mexico.

Are you in favor of eliminating background checks because they have failed in the past?
 
Has anyone expressed the desire to eliminate background checks? Did I miss seeing that statement in this thread?
 
catharina said:
Has anyone expressed the desire to eliminate background checks? Did I miss seeing that statement in this thread?
Click to expand...
yes, the US is morally obligated to eliminate all background checks as we accept the 12 million illegals to legal permanent residency. we have no right to deny criminals what we would not deny sinners.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Let’s put a “slightly” different perspective on this:

Would it be a sin for priests from third or fourth world countries to come to the United States illegally and start new Roman Catholic parishes, perhaps in store fronts in urban areas where the priest would live in the back, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE LOCAL BISHOP?

How would THAT be different from people coming here illegally to be roofers, or dishwashers, or landscapers, or nannies, or health care workers, or even … sex industry workers. No medical exams. No criminal background checks. Working off the books, but using the hospital and other support systems, etc…
Click to expand...
without permission from the immigration authorities, importing religious workers without the appropriate non-immigration permit is also a crime.
 
Jack_Fisher said:
yes, the US is morally obligated to eliminate all background checks as we accept the 12 million illegals to legal permanent residency. we have no right to deny criminals what we would not deny sinners.
Click to expand...
This is nonsense.
 
Jack_Fisher said:
yes, the US is morally obligated to eliminate all background checks as we accept the 12 million illegals to legal permanent residency. we have no right to deny criminals what we would not deny sinners.
Click to expand...
It’s very clear that your fondness for sarcasm and cynicism can only lead to disrupted communications. Maybe you like that.
 
I’m Canadian so I don’t know as much as the rest of us here but I have a question regarding Immigration. Let me describe a situation, say a couple from a foreign country comes to the US and the wife is pregnant and during their visit to the USA she gives birth to a baby. Now its my understanding that the US Government will give (permit) citizenship to that baby. Am I correct?
 
bobzills said:
This is nonsense.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. Jack was so frustrated by the logic(or lack of it) here that he has gone over to the dark side.

He missed one. When I pointed out that the Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend has taken great care to follow immigration law for importing Asian and African priests, he should have claimed that the bishops were morally obligated to disobey every aspect of such an unjust law.

Or maybe he believes that the bishop’s position on immigration has been misrepresented here?😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top