Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[catharina]

Verdigirl, regarding those photos?

My Jesus, mercy.

 

[verdigirl]

Verdigirl, regarding those photos?

My Jesus, mercy.

Amen.

 

[bobzills]

You are very comfortable calling employees who employ illegals (at least those who hire off the books) corrupt - and I neither disapprove nor disagree. So what about those who facilitate and profit from that corruption? Are they not corrupt as well?

Yes, I think so.
There are two ways to stop illegal entry. On way is by patroling the borders. There is a lot of pressure from politicians to keep the borders safe and patrolled. Washington is in favor of spending more money on border guards. On average, one out of three entering illegally is caught and sent back to Mexico. Buth there is nothing to prevent that person from making a second try. So in the end, he will be able to enter the country, even if more money is spent on border patrol. But there is a second way, and that is by enforcing the law against illegal workers in factories or other businesses. But no one wants to do that, because now businesses and corporations are able to hire illegal people at low salaries and with no one checking, it is advantageous. So nothing is done on that end, which will work if enforced. Everything is done on the border patrol which can’t work.

 

[verdigirl]

But there is a second way, and that is by enforcing the law against illegal workers in factories or other businesses. But no one wants to do that, because now businesses and corporations are able to hire illegal people at low salaries and with no one checking, it is advantageous.

Believe it or not, I agree with you about enforcing the law with businesses. They’re a big part of the problem.

The other part of the issue is to raise minimum wage and ensure that everyone has health care and other benefits so that native-born and naturalized citizens and legal residents can actually AFFORD to work at those jobs.

There is a statistic that says that everywhere a Walmart opens up, the strain on the public health system in the area becomes greater. That means that though people are taking those hopelessly low-paying jobs, they can’t afford the pittance of a health insurance offered there. So it’s cheaper to go on welfare and other public assistance. Be happy to post a link. Let me know.

If legal workers can afford to take these jobs in the first place, there won’t be any left over for undocumented workers to take.

And then people won’t be dying in the desert.

End of story.

But we still have to humanely deal with the people who are here.

 

[bobzills]

But we still have to humanely deal with the people who are here.

It is a prudential decision and Catholics can arguably take various stands on this issue, including one which recommends that illegals be sent back home.

 

[verdigirl]

It is a prudential decision and Catholics can arguably take various stands on this issue, including one which recommends that illegals be sent back home.

No, actually I think the mandate for Catholics is crystal clear.

We are called to act with justice. There are so many facets to this issue, and each one requires justice and compassion.

For example, sending American citizens to Mexico is not justice. It’s discrimination.

 

[bobzills]

No, actually I think the mandate for Catholics is crystal clear.

We are called to act with justice. There are so many facets to this issue, and each one requires justice and compassion…

That may be your opinion, but I don’t think that Catholics are required to follow your opinions on this. It is a prudential matter and different points of view are arguable within the Catholic framework.

 

[catharina]

That may be your opinion, but I don’t think that Catholics are required to follow your opinions on this. It is a prudential matter and different points of view are arguable within the Catholic framework.

I suppose there is that possibility especially if one feels free to ignore the recommendations of the bishops and the words spoken (written) by His Holiness John Paul II. Many such relevant statements have been clearly quoted in this thread.

 

[verdigirl]

That may be your opinion, but I don’t think that Catholics are required to follow your opinions on this. It is a prudential matter and different points of view are arguable within the Catholic framework.

My dear, it isn’t just my opinion. If you would be so kind as to read through the entire thread, it’s also the opinion of the Bishops of the US as well as spelled out in the Catechism.

How easy it is for some Catholics to sidestep their responsibility to the marginalized and hide behind the split hairs of “ex cathedra or not.”

 

[catharina]

My dear, it isn’t just my opinion. If you would be so kind as to read through the entire thread, it’s also the opinion of the Bishops of the US as well as spelled out in the Catechism.

How easy it is for some Catholics to sidestep their responsibility to the marginalized and hide behind the split hairs of “ex cathedra or not.”

Also, how often it seems that such decisions “fit” when folks are determined to protect their own levels of personal comfort.

 

[Ender]

You know, to you and to others who like to trot out all these supposed economic reasons to shut down the border and all these Scriptural and catechetical quotes to prove why you DON’T have to work for justice, all I have to say is “if the shoe fits, wear it.”

Well then the shoe obviously doesn’t fit since I have not quoted any economic reason to close the border and have not quoted scripture or the catechism in a single instance. Before calling me a racist you ought to at least know what I’ve said.

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Oh I doubt that I’ve protested enough; I think I’ve taken your uncharitable allegation a great deal more mildly than it deserves. Still, unpleasantness or your part would not excuse it on mine.

It’s just so questionnable, this “correctness” or “logic” of your arguments (or of anyone else who doesn’t think the current situation needs improvement).

I’m quite sure almost everyone feels the current situation needs improvement. The debate is over what constitutes improvement.

If you were an unrepentant racist, your “facts” would be questionnable because they would be void of objectivity…as well as love, which is entirely material to a discussion of issues that affect fellow Catholic Christians.

You need to take a deep breath and think about this. Facts are neutral, arguments may be devoid of objectivity but a statement of fact is either correct or incorrect and love has nothing to do with it. If you cannot refute facts and a logical argument is doesn’t necessarily mean that your position is wrong, but it certainly means that you are unable to properly defend it.

Sin completely skews perception.

I wouldn’t know, but you need to be more careful with what you say unless you’re looking to have the editors close down the thread.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

Well then the shoe obviously doesn’t fit since I have not quoted any economic reason to close the border and have not quoted scripture or the catechism in a single instance. Before calling me a racist you ought to at least know what I’ve said.

I’d like you to paste in where I called you a racist.

I’m quite sure almost everyone feels the current situation needs improvement. The debate is over what constitutes improvement. You need to take a deep breath and think about this. Facts are neutral, arguments may be devoid of objectivity but a statement of fact is either correct or incorrect and love has nothing to do with it. If you cannot refute facts and a logical argument is doesn’t necessarily mean that your position is wrong, but it certainly means that you are unable to properly defend it.

Semantics. I don’t know how you can say I can’t refute facts, when all along this thread I’ve brought in data and facts and citations galore. Is there a particular fact that you’d like me to refute?

I think you’re (others on this thread too) spending WAY too much time trying to present reasons why we, as a society, cannot be compassionate. You and others in this thread keep going back to “well, we don’t have to accept the Bishops’ teaching on this matter,” instead of trying to examine ways to remedy the situation to the mutual benefit of ALL.

It’s this tap dancing away from moral obligation to find a just resolution to this situation that is affecting the marginalized that is so disappointing. This situation is calling for your compassion, your conversion, and all you can do is protest, “hey, don’t call me a racist.”

If you aren’t a part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

I wouldn’t know, but you need to be more careful with what you say unless you’re looking to have the editors close down the thread.

Ender

Scare tactics. Nice try. Try harder.

"For Zion’s sake I will not be silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I will not be quiet, Until her vindication shines forth like the dawn and her victory like a burning torch.

Nations shall behold your vindication, and all kings your glory; You shall be called by a new name pronounced by the mouth of the LORD.

You shall be a glorious crown in the hand of the LORD, a royal diadem held by your God.

No more shall men call you “Forsaken,” or your land “Desolate,” But you shall be called “My Delight,” and your land “Espoused.” For the LORD delights in you, and makes your land his spouse.

As a young man marries a virgin, your Builder shall marry you; And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you."

Isaiah 62:1-5

 

[fnr]

That may be your opinion, but I don’t think that Catholics are required to follow your opinions on this. It is a prudential matter and different points of view are arguable within the Catholic framework.

Actually, Catholicism is based fundamentally on a preferential option for the poor, or as John Paul II said, a preferential love of the poor. Simply because something is prudential and not ex cathedra does not disobligate a Catholic from trying to follow it. I highly doubt that, for instance, “accumulate money as fast as I can, regardless of the human toll,” would be compatible with Catholic social teaching, even if you could argue that in the long term it might create more jobs in the yacht factory.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_27101999_en.html
midwestaugustinians.org/justpaxprefopt_aug.html
ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/06/on-preferential-option-for-poor.html

Matthew 19: 17-18
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Amen, I say to you, it will be hard for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
18 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

 

[catharina]

fnr, thank you so much for posting the above links. From the first, I take these words of John Paul II:
"In the developing reflection on the theme of poverty, the latter acquires a religious value. God speaks of “his” poor (cf. Is 49: 13) who are identified with the “remnant of Israel”, described as a humble and lowly people by the prophet Zephaniah (cf. 3: 12). It is also said of the future Messiah that he will take the poor and the oppressed to heart, as Isaiah states in the famous text about the shoot that would sprout from the stump of Jesse: “With righteousness he shall judge the poor, and decide with equity for the meek of the earth” (Is 11: 4).

1. This is why in the New Testament the good news of deliverance is announced to the poor, as Jesus himself stresses, applying to himself the prophecy of the Book of Isaiah: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord” (Lk 4: 18; cf. Is 61: 1-2).

To possess the “kingdom of heaven”, it is necessary to have the interior attitude of the poor (cf. Mt 5: 3; Lk 6: 20). In the parable of the great feast, the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame - in a word the most suffering and marginalized social categories - were invited to the banquet ( cf. Lk 14: 21). St James would later say that God has “chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him” (Jas 2: 5).

1. “Evangelical” poverty always implies great love for the poorest of this world. In this third year of preparation for the Great Jubilee, we must rediscover God as the provident Father who has compassion on human suffering in order to relieve all who are afflicted. Our charity too must be expressed in sharing and in human development understood as the integral growth of each person.

…

1. Here I can only stress again that the poor represent today’s challenge especially for the wealthy peoples of our world, where millions of people are living in inhuman conditions and many are literally dying of hunger. We cannot proclaim God the Father to these brethren without the commitment to work together in Christ’s name to build a more just society."

To pretend that we cannot share our wealth is absurd.
That wealth begins with our faith.
Have a welcoming heart.

 

[bobzills]

My dear, it isn’t just my opinion.

I never said it was just your opinion. I said it was your opinion. As a prudential opinion, Catholics are not obligated to follow a prudential political opinion. And the other side is arguable from a Catholic viewpoint. There is a deacon at a local Church who is outspoken and who strongly opposed to illegal immigration and this is known by everyone. There has been no push of the part of anyone to get rid of him.

 

[bobzills]

Actually, Catholicism is based fundamentally on a preferential option for the poor, …

Oh, really? Is that so? So according to you, I must have a preferential option for a low character no-good criminal because he is financially poor over my mother and father or else I will go to hell?

 

[verdigirl]

I never said it was just your opinion. I said it was your opinion. As a prudential opinion, Catholics are not obligated to follow a prudential political opinion. And the other side is arguable from a Catholic viewpoint. There is a deacon at a local Church who is outspoken and who strongly opposed to illegal immigration and this is known by everyone. There has been no push of the part of anyone to get rid of him.

My point is that I share the same opinion with the Bishops, so it’s not just me on this soapbox.

You can argue all you want about whether this viewpoint is prudential or whatever…but at the end of the day, what are you doing to work for true justice, especially for these people who are your Catholic brothers and sisters?

 

[catharina]

Oh, really? Is that so? So according to you, I must have a preferential option for a low character no-good criminal because he is financially poor over my mother and father or else I will go to hell?

How can you imagine one would negate the other?

Our duty to our parents is based in the fourth commandment. Our duties to one another are based in commandments 5-10.

That the Church speaks so covincingly of our need to serve the poor should in no way alter your duty to your parents.

 

[bobzills]

My point is that I share the same opinion with the Bishops, so it’s not just me on this soapbox.

You can argue all you want about whether this viewpoint is prudential or whatever…but at the end of the day, what are you doing to work for true justice, especially for these people who are your Catholic brothers and sisters?

What I would do is to send them all home and offer them help there.

 

[verdigirl]

What I would do is to send them all home and offer them help there.

And some of their children are already home. What then? Are you willing to violate the civil rights of American citizens by discriminating on the basis of national origin of their parents?

How is this just?

What kind of help are you offering to those already there?