Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[Jack_Fisher]

Awww…Jackie! You’re not suggesting these kids are gang members, are you?

I’m surprised they weren’t described as escaping across the frozen Ohio River.

but the point is, anecdotes are better left to the Readers Digest.

 

[verdigirl]

I’m surprised they weren’t described as escaping across the frozen Ohio River.

but the point is, anecdotes are better left to the Readers Digest.

I agree! I prefer facts myself. It keeps things objective.

 

[catharina]

Jack Fisher;2748385]that’s quite a hike. have these illegals been deported I mean removed yet?

Rather than answer such a disrespectful question, I’ll offer some unsolicited advice. You might want to be more careful about mocking the poor. Jesus lived His entire public life as a poor man.

 

[catharina]

Generally true re hard “facts” vs anecdotes - but since I knew these children - and many others - it’s quite factual to me.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Jack Fisher;2748385]that’s quite a hike. have these illegals been deported I mean removed yet?

Rather than answer such a disrespectful question, …

hardly. any attorney with a pulse could get them asylum given conditions in guat. I was wondering if they’d been competently represented.

 

[catharina]

hardly. any attorney with a pulse could get them asylum given conditions in guat. I was wondering if they’d been competently represented.

It was mpossible for me to determine your “hidden” question.

RE status, yes, they had competent representation (1998) and remained in the States with an uncle. (Boys were cousins to each other.)

 

[verdigirl]

It was mpossible for me to determine your “hidden” question.

RE status, yes, they had competent representation (1998) and remained in the States with an uncle. (Boys were cousins to each other.)

Thank God! Now that’s what I call compassion!

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Thank God! Now that’s what I call compassion!

see, the system works. illegals obtained their legal status by playing by the rules.

 

[Ender]

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

OK, I went to that site and then selected the “Learn the issues” tab and found this in the first paragraph:

“The bishops offer a comprehensive set of **recommendations **for changing U.S. laws and policies to reflect the principles contained in Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching and to bring about a more humane and just immigration system in the United States.”

This would seem to confirm my comments that the bishops are not presenting their views to us as moral commands but as practical suggestions which we may choose to accept or reject. Understand that I have not said that I disagree with them, only that we are not morally obliged to accept their recommendations.

Ender

 

[anthony022071]

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?

The teaching of those bishops has merit,but it is a dubious thing to conflate Christian morality with public policies and social causes. The bishops were wrong to suggest fines for illegal immigrants,and they were also wrong to say that the jobs that illegal immigrants have would not be filled otherwise.

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?

Those things all involve moral concerns. But the response to those moral concerns should remain,as much as possible,specifically Christian and personal.

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

What do you say?

Yes,it is. But it is primarily a moral obligation of a personal kind,before that of a governmental kind.

 

[verdigirl]

OK, I went to that site and then selected the “Learn the issues” tab and found this in the first paragraph:

“The bishops offer a comprehensive set of **recommendations **for changing U.S. laws and policies to reflect the principles contained in Scripture and Catholic Social Teaching and to bring about a more humane and just immigration system in the United States.”

This would seem to confirm my comments that the bishops are not presenting their views to us as moral commands but as practical suggestions which we may choose to accept or reject. Understand that I have not said that I disagree with them, only that we are not morally obliged to accept their recommendations.

Ender

Their recommendations are for the legislative community, since again according to Canon Law, they cannot hold office. However, I think the implications for the faithful are crystal clear.

If you are comfortable splitting hairs while injustice exists (for both sides of the issue!), you are free to do that. I, on the other hand, would prefer to live out Christ’s mandate to protect the marginalized. I will not let party lines dictate to me what is just.

You are my brother in Christ, regardless, and I appreciate your brief review of the Bishops’ statement.

 

[verdigirl]

verdigirl;2748271:

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?

The teaching of those bishops has merit,but it is a dubious thing to conflate Christian morality with public policies and social causes. The bishops were wrong to suggest fines for illegal immigrants,and they were also wrong to say that the jobs that illegal immigrants have would not be filled otherwise.

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?

Those things all involve moral concerns. But the response to those moral concerns should remain,as much as possible,specifically Christian and personal.

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

What do you say?

Yes,it is. But it is primarily a moral obligation of a personal kind,before that of a governmental kind.

That’s so convenient…to say that these viewpoints shouldn’t affect public policy. Are you invoking the separation of church and state rule of our country?

If that’s the truth, I hope you aren’t anti-abortion. Your logic would not hold out.

I remind you again that you have a duty as a Catholic Christian to protect the marginalized…of both sides. Again, more splitting hairs. It’s a convenient excuse to hide behind the current laws. You are washing your hands of the matter.

You are also my brother in Christ, and I hope for the sake of your own soul that you are not ignoring your responsibility because of racism.

 

[verdigirl]

Immigration issues the focus of USCCB Labor Day statement

Bishop DiMarzio said, “There are some 2 million undocumented people among us, most of whom are workers. Our economy and communities depend on them. They bus our dishes, pick our vegetables, clean our offices and homes, and care for our children among other jobs.” These, he added, were some of the “inescapable facts” about immigration.

“The immigration status quo is unacceptable and unsustainable. The ‘system’ is broken. We need far-reaching and comprehensive reform,” he added. “There is no fence long enough or high enough that can wall out the human and economic forces that drive immigration.”

read the rest of the article from The Denver Catholic Register

 

[Ender]

Their recommendations are for the legislative community, since again according to Canon Law, they cannot hold office. However, I think the implications for the faithful are crystal clear.

Evidently they are not clear enough. If you can find **any **statement by the bishops where they say that we have a moral obligation to adopt their statements on immigration I will rethink my position. The bishops don’t normally present us with moral requirements in the form of suggestions.

If you are comfortable splitting hairs while injustice exists (for both sides of the issue!), you are free to do that.

It is not splitting hairs to insist on a proper understanding of the bishops role and of our obligations.

I, on the other hand, would prefer to live out Christ’s mandate to protect the marginalized.

As I’m sure you realize this is quite an offensive statement. You infer that the only reason I could oppose your solutions is because I don’t care about Christ’s mandates. A more charitable assumption would be that I care just as much as you but I believe that different approaches would result in a better solution. That we might disagree over the means does not mean that we disagree over the ends. If you care about all of Christ’s mandates then you need to recall the obligation to interpret another’s words as charitably as possible.

Ender

 

[verdigirl]

As I’m sure you realize this is quite an offensive statement. You infer that the only reason I could oppose your solutions is because I don’t care about Christ’s mandates. A more charitable assumption would be that I care just as much as you but I believe that different approaches would result in a better solution. That we might disagree over the means does not mean that we disagree over the ends. If you care about all of Christ’s mandates then you need to recall the obligation to interpret another’s words as charitably as possible.

Ender

Ender, I hope you will forgive me for crossing the line with you. You are absolutely right to call me out on that.

I hope that you will take time to read through the rest of the thread.

Peace!

 

[Ender]

I haven’t taken a firm position on how the immigration problem needs to be resolved other than insisting that the illegal flow over the borders be stopped and that amnesty not be automatically granted. I neither accept nor reject what various bishops are suggesting as I am not familiar with the details of their proposals.

I entered the discussion at this point only to insist that there is no moral obligation on any Catholic to adopt any specific proposal whether recommended by a politician or a bishop (I’m assuming there won’t be any suggestions such as shooting illegals on sight which we would have the obligation to oppose) as all such proposals are by their nature prudential.

Ender

 

[anthony022071]

That’s so convenient…to say that these viewpoints shouldn’t affect public policy.

It’s fine if they affect public policy.

But Are you invoking the separation of church and state rule of our country?

No,but I do believe that the Church should not get entangled in secular government. The Church may need to rebuke and defy secular government where its laws are unjust,but the Church should not try to reform government into its own moral image,and it should not ask for assistance from the government to help with its charitable work. The Church should remain on the outside. It would be different if this were a country where most people already shared the morality of the Church,but that is far from the case.

If that’s the truth, I hope you aren’t anti-abortion. Your logic would not hold out.

I remind you again that you have a duty as a Catholic Christian to protect the marginalized…of both sides.

Yes,in my personal life. Unless I’m a lawmaker,I don’t have jurisdiction over thousands of illegal immigrants.

Again, more splitting hairs. It’s a convenient excuse to hide behind the current laws. You are washing your hands of the matter.

I don’t know how inhumane the laws are in regard to illegal immigrants. It seems more a matter of how and where and if those laws are applied. Those who are caught and in custody can be separated for a long time from their relatives and abused,while on the other hand the majority of illegal immigrants seem to get away with it and are given jobs.

You are also my brother in Christ, and I hope for the sake of your own soul that you are not ignoring your responsibility because of racism.

I have a responsibility to help those in need where I come upon them. But I don’t necessarily have a responsibility to get involved in a huge social cause. The personal aspect of charity is more important than the social aspect.

 

[verdigirl]

I have a responsibility to help those in need where I come upon them. But I don’t necessarily have a responsibility to get involved in a huge social cause. The personal aspect of charity is more important than the social aspect.

Unfortunately, too many Americans have that attitude. The thing is that if the laws are skewing toward injustice, at the very least you can contact your legislators to heal this issue…ESPECIALLY if your representatives call themselves Christian.

This issue doesn’t present a quick fix like handing a homeless person on the street a dollar. We are called to act with justice and not find convenient excuses to justify not getting involved.

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day,and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it?

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works.

You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble."

James 2:14-19

 

[catharina]

see, the system works. illegals obtained their legal status by playing by the rules.

The system worked for these boys (and others) because they were in this country. Had they tried the LEGAL route from their homeland I have little doubt they would still be in Guatemala. Both boys learned Spanish on the way to the United States and learned English while in the States. At home, they spoke a native language that is little known outside their village.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

Unfortunately, too many Americans have that attitude. The thing is that if the laws are skewing toward injustice, …

I don’t buy this argument.

1. economic relief (non-immigrant, temporary work visa) and relief from political repression (non-immigrant asylum visa) do not require legal permanent residency, yet the drafters of the bishops’ position paper deliberately blur or ignore this distinction. why? because they are not interested in the alleviation of temporary conditions, they are effectively demanding US citizenship for all illegals present and all foreigners who want to come in – the vast, vast majority for low wage jobs – without regard for the interests or consent of American citizens and taxpayers. this is simply unacceptable. if, on the other hand, America expresses her desire through congress to allow virtually unrestricted immigration of this kind of economic immigrant, so be it. but don’t hold your breath.
2. while a long time illegal resident might legitimately be permitted some leeway in immigration reform, reforms benefiting these individuals cannot be used as a model for immigration policy for the world as a whole. neither nicaraguan forest peasants nor british subjects residing in london have any right whatsoever to immigrate to America except those rights given by congress, which has the obligation to American citizens to control the borders and set sane immigration quotas.