Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[verdigirl]

There may be circumstances that require a person to leave his homeland, but there are legal structures in the US for genuine refugees.

Maybe you should also ask if it is a sin to use forged documents to avoid just taxes, and to gain an employment advantage over a person who has obeyed the law.

Maybe you should ask if it is a sin to drive without a license and insurance, which unfairly puts the lives, health, and property of others at risk.

Very rarely is immigration itself the only criminal act involved with illegal immigration.

These are interesting questions. Here’s what the Bishops have to say about the tax issue:

Immigrants don’t pay taxes

Immigrants pay taxes, in the form of income, property, sales, and taxes at the federal and state level. As far as income tax payments go, sources vary in their accounts, but a range of studies find that immigrants pay between $90 and $140 billion a year in federal, state, and local taxes. Undocumented immigrants pay income taxes as well, as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” (taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers), which grew by $20 billion between 1990 and 1998

(Source: immigrationforum.org/about/articles/tax_study.htm))

What’s impossible to ignore is that undocumented immigrants who have used falsified documents to get a job are actually paying payroll taxes and therefore are contributing to Social Security…and they will NEVER reap the benefits.

Regarding driving without a license or insurance, according to my understanding of my local civil law, these are misdemeanors. Therefore, your assertion that these are “criminal” acts are incorrect.

It is true that some people without licenses (like those convicted of DUI) and without insurance are driving around and potentially wreaking havoc. However, let’s be fair about this and keep in mind that not all people under these circumstances are undocumented immigrants. In fact, I would like to see the statistics of people without insurance. I would guess that the majority are just the working poor who can’t afford health insurance either.

Is it a sin? Depends on the individual’s motivation, don’t you think? If it’s necessary to drive because you need to feed your family at an honest menial job, then I guess that’s questionable. Again, we can refer back to what the Church says about the right to provide for one’s family, etc.

You can’t just ignore what the Church says about this particular issue just because it doesn’t fit conservative politics. Isn’t that the mirror definition of “cafeteria Catholic”?

 

[verdigirl]

And by the way, as Catholics, we need to be very careful that our reactions to this issue are not motivated by racism, which IS a sin, according to the Catechism.

1935
“The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: ‘Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.’”

1938
“There also exist sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel: ‘Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.’”

I’m not saying that anyone here in particular is racist, but rather that this topic presents a great opportunity for personal discernment, starting with me.

 

[Trader]

Regarding driving without a license or insurance, according to my understanding of my local civil law, these are misdemeanors. Therefore, your assertion that these are “criminal” acts are incorrect.QUOTE]

A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by a maximum of one year in prison. A felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. If you attend a traffic court session, whenever a person is accused of a misdemeanor, the judge will inform him of his rights. This is not done for most traffic offenses, which are infractions, not crimes.

Your assertion that a misdemeanor is not a crime is factually incorrect.

 

[verdigirl]

verdigirl;2733457:

Regarding driving without a license or insurance, according to my understanding of my local civil law, these are misdemeanors. Therefore, your assertion that these are “criminal” acts are incorrect.QUOTE]

A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by a maximum of one year in prison. A felony is a crime punishable by more than one year in prison. If you attend a traffic court session, whenever a person is accused of a misdemeanor, the judge will inform him of his rights. This is not done for most traffic offenses, which are infractions, not crimes.

Your assertion that a misdemeanor is not a crime is factually incorrect.

Maybe I should have been more clear. It’s not a felony, which is sometimes equated with the term “criminal.”

Unless I’m wrong about that…?

 

[Trader]

Trader;2733560:

Maybe I should have been more clear. It’s not a felony, which is sometimes equated with the term “criminal.”

Unless I’m wrong about that…?

Yes, you are wrong about that. A criminal is a person who commits a crime. Both felonies and misdemeanors are crimes so the person who commits either a felony or a misdemeanor is a criminal.

Most first time domestic batteries are treated as misdemeanors. Most people would consider the person convicted of a misdemeanor battery against a spouse to be a criminal. Employment applications cannot ask if you have been arrested, but they can ask if you have been convicted of a crime. A person who falsely answers that question on an application commits fraud, which is also a crime.

You are correct that many illegal immigrants pay some taxes, but we don’t know if the amount paid is correct or criminal tax evasion unless a return is filed. Many people who have more than one job may owe additional tax because withholding is based on each individual job and the two salaries combined may push total income into a higher bracket.

Also no one, legal or illegal, is entitled to social security payments unless they work the required number of quarters. Paying into Social Security in lesser amounts does not qualify you for benefits. Personally I would like to see drastic reform of the Social Security system, but that is another issue.

 

[verdigirl]

verdigirl;2733656:

You are correct that many illegal immigrants pay some taxes, but we don’t know if the amount paid is correct or criminal tax evasion unless a return is filed. Many people who have more than one job may owe additional tax because withholding is based on each individual job and the two salaries combined may push total income into a higher bracket.

So this is an issue that spreads across the entire American spectrum, don’t you think? It’s not something that is exclusive to undocumented immigrants. I would venture to say that there are LOTS of American-born workers who are incorrectly reporting their taxes.

With all due respect to you, I honestly think that you’re splitting hairs regarding legal definitions of “criminal” actions. Either we go by the legal definition or not. Your point that some people consider certain offenses to be criminal is somewhat immaterial here.

My response was regarding the “criminality” of driving without a license, etc. I say that it would not be fair to label undocumented drivers as “criminal” because their actions are misdemeanors, not felonies. Instead, the word “criminal” is being used in a subjective sense, in the context of whether or not their actions are sinful in light of the injustice of immigration laws.

How about if we just agree on the point that these actions are against the current laws?

Again, we need to be careful that we’re not exhibiting racism or prejudice here by needlessly focusing certain issues on undocumented workers. We need to be objective.

 

[catharina]

A criminal is a person who commits a crime. Both felonies and misdemeanors are crimes so the person who commits either a felony or a misdemeanor is a criminal.

There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified as a “criminal” under Roman law. In no way did that make Him a criminal or sinful. Many “criminals” under the law in Nazi Germany were, in fact, saintly and not criminal despite what their government called them or judged them to be according to law.

The laws of a nation are not necessarily binding or moral. This nation lost its right to claim the moral high ground 30+ years ago.

 

[Trader]

Trader;2733881:

So this is an issue that spreads across the entire American spectrum, don’t you think? It’s not something that is exclusive to undocumented immigrants. I would venture to say that there are LOTS of American-born workers who are incorrectly reporting their taxes.

With all due respect to you, I honestly think that you’re splitting hairs regarding legal definitions of “criminal” actions. Either we go by the legal definition or not. Your point that some people consider certain offenses to be criminal is somewhat immaterial here.

My response was regarding the “criminality” of driving without a license, etc. I say that it would not be fair to label undocumented drivers as “criminal” because their actions are misdemeanors, not felonies. Instead, the word “criminal” is being used in a subjective sense, in the context of whether or not their actions are sinful in light of the injustice of immigration laws.

How about if we just agree on the point that these actions are against the current laws?

Again, we need to be careful that we’re not exhibiting racism or prejudice here by needlessly focusing certain issues on undocumented workers. We need to be objective.

My point is that the law considers certain actions to be criminal and that is not dependent on what certain people think. I believe in “equal protection under the law” and that is the very antithesis of racism. The law should never be intrepreted according to your feelings. It is not subjective to call a person who commits of a misdemeanor a criminal, it is the law.

Another point is that even minor violations of laws can have serious consequences because they support organized crime. If you know your history, you should know that the minor offense of drinking beer during prohibition supported the major criminal organizations of Al Capone and his rivals. Illegal immigrants also support a huge network of smugglers, forgers, pimps, drug dealers, money launderers, and other dangerous criminals.

Maybe it would surprise you, but I would like to see significant reform in our immigration laws. Many more immigrants should be legally admitted to our country than are permitted under current law. We are very fortunate that so many people want to live here. We are very different from the former East Germany that had to put up walls to keep people from leaving. We can afford to be picky about which immigrants we accept. We should accept only those immigrants who show respect for just laws.

 

[yessisan]

Well, since many of us that subscribe to these fora are orthodox, which means we accept the teaching of the Bishops, here is what they say on the entire matter:

The Church believes that current immigration laws and policies have often led to the undermining of immigrants’ human dignity and have kept families apart. The existing immigration system has resulted in a growing number of persons in this country in an unauthorized capacity, living in the shadows as they toil in jobs that would otherwise go unfilled. Close family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents must wait years for a visa to be reunited. And, our nation’s border enforcement strategies have been ineffective and have led to the death of thousands of migrants.
From the Justice for Immigrants campaign website at justiceforimmigrants.org/faq_cath_position.html

The Bishops also content that illegal entry into the US is not a criminal act, so in my mind, this is akin to a parking ticket.

Jesus used to poke at the Pharisees quite a bit, and would tell them often that they were more interested in the law and not interested in love or compassion. That’s really the issue here. Yeah, we’ve got laws, but they’re not just, and as Catholic Christians, we need to be concerned with finding a balanced solution that covers the needs of all, including our own workers. This is about justice.

Did you enjoy the clean public bathroom you may have used recently? How about the clean floors at Walmart? Or the landscaping job you may have admired recently?

If we work together, we can find a solution that benefits ALL.

AMEN to this comment!!!:extrahappy: My point and thoughts exactly.

 

[verdigirl]

verdigirl;2733963:

We should accept only those immigrants who show respect for just laws.

And therein lies the rub. Even the Bishops are calling the current immigration laws unjust.

I’m not surprised at all…I think you and I agree on a lot more than we might think. As Church, we will figure this out!

Pax tecum, frater.

 

[AndyF]

???

As with any entity bound to Devine law, society has an obligation to make fair laws. The going trend today for societies is to go it alone without God it would seem. In such an escalating situation individuals will find themselves increasingly in moral conflict with civil law.

The individual must remain steadfast, and do the right thing by observing God’s law first and place his trust in God.

Perhaps hypothetically in this situation there remains no time to establish an immigration timetable for a family in peril. In this case the father can take action under God’s law and sanction.

Each situation presents it’s own unique case.

AndyF

 

[catharina]

Does the following say it all?

If you want peace, work for justice. JP II

If you want justice, defend life. JP II

 

[sprout]

Yes, you are wrong about that. A criminal is a person who commits a crime. Both felonies and misdemeanors are crimes so the person who commits either a felony or a misdemeanor is a criminal.

I don’t know about this. So you’re saying if I get a traffic ticket then I’m a criminal?

From what I’ve read regarding “criminal” vs. “civil” immigration proceedings there are 2 issues involved. There is unlawful “entry” and unlawful “presence”.

Unlawful entry is when an alien is apprehended at a border crossing. The vast majority of aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol unlawfully entering the United States are either removed or (far more often) permitted to voluntarily depart in lieu of removal without being criminally prosecuted.

The SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA has said:

1. A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine a person’s eligibility to remain in this country. The purpose of deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws. Consistent with the civil nature of a deportation proceeding, various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing.

Although a federal statute does say that “improper entry” by an alien may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to six months (a misdemeanor in the criminal statutes), Homeland Security officials say the offense is usually handled with deportation under the civil code.

Officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security stress that entering the country illegally is “an administrative violation.” Although a federal statute does say that “improper entry” by an alien may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to six months (a misdemeanor in the criminal statutes), Homeland Security officials say the offense is usually handled with deportation under the civil code.

Unlawful Presence (all those undocumented workers living amongst us - those not caught “red handed” crossing the border) are subject to “Removal hearings” which are not criminal proceedings. Whereas criminal cases are conducted through judicial trial, removal cases are usually conducted through administrative proceedings before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice. Though orders of removal may be reviewed by a federal court, statute and court jurisprudence generally provide that such review is limited in scope and largely deferential to the administrative authorities charged with implementing immigration laws. The constitutional rights accorded to an alien in a removal hearing are generally less than those to which the accused is entitled in a criminal proceeding. Among other things, in a criminal case the accused often has a right to both a trial by jury and appointed counsel, while an alien in a removal hearing does not. So, as the SCOTUS, and the Dept. of Homeland Security have said in both cases “Unlawful entry” and “Unlawful presence” are handled as administrative proceedings. The alien is not tried as a criminal, not given the protections of a criminal trial by jury, therefore not found “guilty of a crime”, therefore “not a criminal”.

 

[Trader]

I don’t know about this. So you’re saying if I get a traffic ticket then I’m a criminal?

I specifically addressed traffic tickets in the earlier post. Most traffic violations are offenses, not crimes. Speeding is an offense and does not carry the possibility of jail time. However, reckless driving and drunk driving are misdemeanors, which are crimes and do carry the possibility of jail time. Repeat offenders for those crimes can be charged with a felony. If you are convicted of those crimes, you are a criminal.

Also traffic laws vary by state. There are very few federal laws that cover driving. Here in Indiana if you are found to be an habitual traffic offender, you are guilty of a felony. A truck driver here was recently found guilty of felony manslaughter when he fell asleep at the wheel, crossed the median, and hit a van full of college students. Evidence showed that he had been driving for 20 hours, which is 8 hours more than permitted by his commercial driving license.

Using forged documents to obtain a license is not an offense, it is a crime.

 

[sprout]

**There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified as a “criminal” under Roman law. In no way did that make Him a criminal or sinful. ** Many “criminals” under the law in Nazi Germany were, in fact, saintly and not criminal despite what their government called them or judged them to be according to law.

The laws of a nation are not necessarily binding or moral. This nation lost its right to claim the moral high ground 30+ years ago.

Amen sister!

 

[Jack_Fisher]

There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ was crucified as a “criminal” under Roman law. In no way did that make Him a criminal or sinful. Many “criminals” under the law in Nazi Germany were, in fact, saintly and not criminal despite what their government called them or judged them to be according to law.

this generalized comparison of American laws to those of Nazi Germany as a justification to pick and choose which laws you think you can disobey is a classic error in reasoning. the analogy is pointless. even the Nazis had ordinary criminal laws that applied to ordinary criminals probably not too different than many American penal codes.

The laws of a nation are not necessarily binding or moral. This nation lost its right to claim the moral high ground 30+ years ago.

the laws of a nation are binding by actual or implied consent of the governed. unless you choose the route of civil disobedience and are prepared to accept the consequences, at which point you can thank God you (presumably) live in the (apparently immoral, according to you) United States, whose laws guarantee you won’t be exiled to a gulag or stood in front of a wall and shot.

whether laws are moral or not is a misleading argument. by far, most statutes and regulations regulate commerce, which people participate in voluntarily,

speaking of the moral high ground, for a while, at some time in the last “30+ years”, I was one of the ones who stood watch to safeguard your first amendment right to worship God as a Catholic. this right, you may be surprised to learn, is among among many, many other rights Americans take for granted that are not universally guaranteed in this world.

just because your personal ox is being gored is no reason to condemn the United States and her system of jurisprudence. since you think this country lacks the moral high ground, I remind you that you have the right to emmigrate to whatever country has the “moral high ground”.

 

[catharina]

**this generalized comparison of American laws to those of Nazi Germany as a justification to pick and choose which laws you think you can disobey is a classic error in reasoning. ** the analogy is pointless. even the Nazis had ordinary criminal laws that applied to ordinary criminals probably not too different than many American penal codes.

the laws of a nation are binding by actual or implied consent of the governed. unless you choose the route of civil disobedience and are prepared to accept the consequences, at which point you can thank God you (presumably) live in the (apparently immoral, according to you) United States, whose laws guarantee you won’t be exiled to a gulag or stood in front of a wall and shot.

whether laws are moral or not is a misleading argument. by far, most statutes and regulations regulate commerce, which people participate in voluntarily,

speaking of the moral high ground, for a while, at some time in the last “30+ years”, I was one of the ones who stood watch to safeguard your first amendment right to worship God as a Catholic. this right, you may be surprised to learn, is among among many, many other rights Americans take for granted that are not universally guaranteed in this world.

just because your personal ox is being gored is no reason to condemn the United States and her system of jurisprudence. since you think this country lacks the moral high ground, I remind you that you have the right to emmigrate to whatever country has the "moral high ground".

There is so little in your statement that deserves a worthy response. That you would choose to make so many false assumptions about me speaks for itself. Nevertheless, I assure you that I have worked for both the Dept of Defense and the Dept of Justice and my record and bearing as a citizen is both flawless and based in gratitude to God for the rights accorded to me as a citizen. Also as a citizen I recognize my DUTY to speak and work against laws that are clearly unjust and quite often based in this nation’s longstanding sin of racism. If you have an argument to present then you might want to work on basing it in something other than ridiculous and untrue personal attacks.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

There is so little in your statement that deserves a worthy response. That you would choose to make so many false assumptions about me speaks for itself. Nevertheless, I assure you that I have worked for both the Dept of Defense and the Dept of Justice and my record and bearing as a citizen is both flawless and based in gratitude to God for the rights accorded to me as a citizen. Also as a citizen I recognize my DUTY to speak and work against laws that are clearly unjust and quite often based in this nation’s longstanding sin of racism. If you have an argument to present then you might want to work on basing it in something other than ridiculous and untrue personal attacks.

thanks for addressing nothing of substance. your evasive response to my thorough dismantling of both your false Nazi analogy (the most overblown argument on the internet) and flawed argumentation is noted.

immigration laws in the United States apply to everyone equally, regardless of race, sex, country of origin, creed, political belief. the fact that the majority of the illegals are from Mexico (as are the majority of legals) does not, by itself, does not invoke legal protections against racial discrimination. this too is flawed reasoning and a standard push-the-hot-button debate tactic. the fact that invocation of race has been effective as an attention getter does not validate the argument itself, legally or morally.

since you worked for the DoJ, I presume you can find online versions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. rather than bloviate about your “DUTY” to speak out against unfair, unjust, racist immigration laws, why don’t you point out specific statutes or regulations so that the Board knows what you are referring to, and how they should be amended/repealed to conform to your understanding of moral requirements.

 

[catharina]

thanks for addressing nothing of substance. your evasive response to my thorough dismantling of both your false Nazi analogy (the most overblown argument on the internet) and flawed argumentation is noted.

immigration laws in the United States apply to everyone equally, regardless of race, sex, country of origin, creed, political belief. the fact that the majority of the illegals are from Mexico (as are the majority of legals) does not, by itself, does not invoke legal protections against racial discrimination. this too is flawed reasoning and a standard push-the-hot-button debate tactic. the fact that invocation of race has been effective as an attention getter does not validate the argument itself, legally or morally.

since you worked for the DoJ, I presume you can find online versions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. rather than bloviate about your “DUTY” to speak out against unfair, unjust, racist immigration laws, why don’t you point out specific statutes or regulations so that the Board knows what you are referring to, and how they should be amended/repealed to conform to your understanding of moral requirements.

I am responsible for my conscience before God as you are for yours. Blessed be God. If “the Board” asks for specific statutes from me, I might respond. At this point in relation to you (who has insulted me without benefit of apology) I think it’s safe to say that I recognize your mind is closed, at least on this issue.

In any event, God bless you.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Fisher
thanks for addressing nothing of substance. your evasive response to my thorough dismantling of both your false Nazi analogy (the most overblown argument on the internet) and flawed argumentation is noted.

immigration laws in the United States apply to everyone equally, regardless of race, sex, country of origin, creed, political belief. the fact that the majority of the illegals are from Mexico (as are the majority of legals) does not, by itself, does not invoke legal protections against racial discrimination. this too is flawed reasoning and a standard push-the-hot-button debate tactic. the fact that invocation of race has been effective as an attention getter does not validate the argument itself, legally or morally.

since you worked for the DoJ, I presume you can find online versions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act and relevant parts of the Code of Federal Regulations. rather than bloviate about your “DUTY” to speak out against unfair, unjust, racist immigration laws, why don’t you point out specific statutes or regulations so that the Board knows what you are referring to, and how they should be amended/repealed to conform to your understanding of moral requirements.

I am responsible for my conscience before God as you are for yours. Blessed be God. If “the Board” asks for specific statutes from me, I might respond. At this point in relation to you (who has insulted me without benefit of apology) I think it’s safe to say that I recognize your mind is closed, at least on this issue.

In any event, God bless you.

---

I have to agree with Jack Fisher—you are using evasive responses— and by your prior response—are using a flawed understanding to promote what you call “sin of racisim”.