Is it a sin to immigrate illegally?

[verdigirl]

Here’s my take:

If it’s a sin to immigrate illegally, do people who immigrate LEGALLY get extra grace? Or are they foolish for obeying the law?

I might be going out on a limb here, but I think the consensus is that it’s not necessarily a sin to immigrate illegally, especially if you really, really need to feed your family. No one is saying that illegally crossing gives you any grace. Obeying the law is not foolish, unless by doing so you are fostering injustice, per the Church’s teaching.

If there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA, how many people are there who want to LEGALLY immigrate to the USA?

In my unscientific random sampling among the hundreds of people in this category I personally know, I would say ALL of them want to immigrate LEGALLY.

In view of the huge bureaucratic delays experienced by LEGAL immigrants, in addition to medical exams, criminal background checks, then is the citizenry of the USA committing a sin by delaying their entry?

Not necessarily, I think. I think we can completely circumvent that by optimizing the whole process and removing the unnecessary encumbrances to legal residency. We need to do that in order to eliminate the porousness of our borders anyway, so we’ll be killing two birds with one stone.

Should all those people who WANT TO OBEY THE LAW be given preferential treatiment for immigration purposes?

Unequivocally, absolutely, YES!

We’re got people patiently waiting in line for years to come here legally. What should we do about them?

Bump them up to the head of the line, optimize the system so we can eliminate the backlog of approving legal entry to qualified, honest people.

 

[bobzills]

A country’s right to secure is border is a right of natural law as well.

correct. And those who are break the law are criminals and should be punished accordingly. When I break the law I am subject to prosecution and punishment. Why should it be any different for people who are not citizens?

 

[verdigirl]

A country’s right to secure is border is a right of natural law as well. Perhaps is it is Mexico and other countries are the ones who are break natural laws by not allowing thier people to earn a living wage. The US is the most generous nation when it comes to LEGAL immigration. We admit about a million legal citizens yeach year about another million temporary workers (green cards). This is far more than other countries. If this is too low an amount then the law should be changed not broken.

Yes, agreed on all ponts.

Just as a matter of accuracy, “green cards” are for legal permanent residency, not temporary worker cards.

This is all prudent regarding any new arrivals, but we have to figure out a just way to deal with the people who are already here, especially those who have children who are American citizens.

Hence, the Bishops’ recommendations at justiceforimmigrants.org

 

[verdigirl]

correct. And those who are break the law are criminals and should be punished accordingly. When I break the law I am subject to prsecution and punishment. Why should it be any different for people who are not citizens?

What do you consider adequate punishment?

 

[thedavidwilson]

Yes, agreed on all ponts.

Just as a matter of accuracy, “green cards” are for legal permanent residency, not temporary worker cards.

This is all prudent regarding any new arrivals, but we have to figure out a just way to deal with the people who are already here, especially those who have children who are American citizens.

Hence, the Bishops’ recommendations at justiceforimmigrants.org

I have noticed the Bishops’ recommendations are slightly marxist and I would not agree with most of them.

As for the folks who are already here I would:
*Enforce the border
*Enforce employment laws or create new ones that provide prison time for the the owners of the companies (there would need to be a means to verify people’s status)
*Up the number of legal immigrant slots greatly. We need their work, they need the jobs.

Most people on the anti-ILLEGAL imigration side are not against immigrants but against the disregard for the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected then other laws (like freedom of religion) will then be disregarded. This is why I don’t understand the Bishops’ stance. Often I wonder if all they want is to legallize the folks so to fill pews and increase the offertory, just as politicians want legalization because it mean more votes.

 

[verdigirl]

I have noticed the Bishops’ recommendations are slightly marxist and I would not agree with most of them.

As for the folks who are already here I would:
*Enforce the border
*Enforce employment laws or create new ones that provide prison time for the the owners of the companies (there would need to be a means to verify people’s status)
*Up the number of legal immigrant slots greatly. We need their work, they need the jobs.

Most people on the anti-ILLEGAL imigration side are not against immigrants but against the disregard for the rule of law. If the rule of law is not respected then other laws (like freedom of religion) will then be disregarded. This is why I don’t understand the Bishops’ stance. Often I wonder if all they want is to legallize the folks so to fill pews and increase the offertory, just as politicians want legalization because it mean more votes.

Marxist seems a bit of a stretch, doesn’t it? I mean, Marx said that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” I’m not sure that applies to a group of bishops.

I totally agree with your ways to deal with the issue.

I also hear what you’re saying about the rule of law. However, the Bishops are saying that the civil infraction of crossing the border illegally can be dealt with by paying a decent fine.

And anyway, what’s wrong with a few extra Catholics up in here? Latin-American Catholics are pretty orthodox!

 

[bobzills]

I have noticed the Bishops’ recommendations are slightly marxist and I would not agree with most of them.

At one time Catholics were taught to oppose Marxism, now Catholics are taught to embrace certain tenets of Marxism. This seems to be a radical change in Catholic teaching.

 

[verdigirl]

At one time Catholics were taught to oppose Marxism, now Catholics are taught to embrace certain tenets of Marxism. This seems to be a radical change in Catholic teaching.

I guess feeding the poor, worker’s rights and defending the marginalized are pretty radical, huh?

Come on brothers, can we be objective here and not resort to cheap platitudes?

 

[Trader]

Did you know about the case in which a Walmart store hired a janitorial contractor to clean floors after hours, but refused to pay overtime? Legend also has it that in one case, instead of paying the contractors, they locked them in the store and called immigration, just to get out of the cleaning bill and preserve the store overhead. Read it for yourselves: wakeupwalmart.com/facts/#immigrants

Walmart is already notorious for their ridiculously low salaries and cost-prohibitive health insurance. Keep reading that site…it will show data that clearly states that where there is a Walmart, the strain on public services go up. I will NEVER set one foot in a Walmart!

If WalMart is the problem, would it follow that places like New York that have very few WalMarts don’t have problems with health care and public services costs?

Has Compton, California become a worker’s paradise since they were able to keep WalMart from opening a store there?

Instead of complaining about big business, why don’t you start your own company that provides goods and services at prices people are willing to pay? Hire thousands of low skilled workers and give them a wage and benefit package that allows many of them to retire as millionaires. When you are fined by INS for hiring illegal immigrants who lied on their applications and used false documents, pay your fines cheerfully and be forgiving of the people who deceived you. It is dificult, but it can be done in a single lifetime. It has been done before.

Sam Walton did it.

 

[verdigirl]

Instead of complaining about big business, why don’t you start your own company that provides goods and services at prices people are willing to pay? Hire thousands of low skilled workers and give them a wage and benefit package that allows many of them to retire as millionaires. It is dificult, but it can be done in a single lifetime. It has been done before.

Sam Walton did it.

Actually, no. Sam Walton’s store is a huge problem, and that’s the point of all that legal action against them.

And as far as companies that do what you suggest, try Costco or Starbuck’s.

 

[pieta05]

correct. And those who are break the law are criminals and should be punished accordingly. When I break the law I am subject to prosecution and punishment. Why should it be any different for people who are not citizens?

:yup:

 

[Ender]

And those who are break the law are criminals and should be punished accordingly. When I break the law I am subject to prosecution and punishment. Why should it be any different for people who are not citizens?

The original topic asks whether an illegal immigrant has committed a sin. The relatively few cases where the illegal is fleeing persecution presents a special case that is not relevant to the thrust of the topic; the overwhelming majority of illegals come here for financial reasons.

I think most people are comfortable with the claim that it is immoral for employers to hire illegals off the books; It also seems plainly immoral for employers to knowingly hire illegals in an attempt to keep wages low and eliminate complaints about working conditions even if they pay social security wages.

So my question is this: if the employers who knowingly hire illegals are sinning what does this mean about the illegals who both facilitate the immoral behavior and profit from it? Since illegals are in formal cooperation with the immoral behavior of the employers this seems to unequivocally answer the question as to whether illegal immigrants have committed a sin.

Ender

 

[blacktiger057]

It’s a sin, and it’s also ILLEGAL!

 

[verdigirl]

So my question is this: if the employers who knowingly hire illegals are sinning what does this mean about the illegals who both facilitate the immoral behavior and profit from it? Since illegals are in formal cooperation with the immoral behavior of the employers this seems to unequivocally answer the question as to whether illegal immigrants have committed a sin.

Ender

Well, as has been stated before several times, people who immigrate illegally may not necessarily be sinning if they are doing it to survive and feed their families.

We’ve provided quotes from the Catechism on this. Let me know if you need those again.

 

[verdigirl]

It’s a sin, and it’s also ILLEGAL!

:sigh:

From the Catechism:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

I stumbled across these as well:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

Here’s more:

From The Instruction Erga migrantes caritas Christi:
a Response of the Church to the Migration Phenomenon Today

1. Rights of families in migration

Erga migrantes caritas Christi upholds family reunification, first by recalling the attention that the Magisterium of the Church pays to the unity of the family and the protection of minors, which are often put in danger by migration (no. 30). It also commends “acts of welcome in its full sense … in particular the commitment undertaken for family unification [and] education of children” (no. 43). In spelling out the tasks of the lay faithful, the Instruction includes “advising about and writing out laws aimed at facilitating reunification of migrant families and assuring them equal rights and opportunities … [which] means giving them access to essential goods, work and wages, home and school and enabling them to participate in the life of civil society” (no. 87). In juridical terms, it asserts that the lay faithful should “do all they can to ensure that … [migrants’] rights, especially those concerning the family and its unity, are recognised and protected by the civil authorities” (Juridical Pastoral Regulations, art. 2, §1).

 

[bobzills]

I guess feeding the poor, worker’s rights and defending the marginalized are pretty radical, huh?

Come on brothers, can we be objective here and not resort to cheap platitudes?

Was it hate when the Church opposed Marxist Communism?

 

[bobzills]

The original topic asks whether an illegal immigrant has committed a sin. The relatively few cases where the illegal is fleeing persecution presents a special case that is not relevant to the thrust of the topic; the overwhelming majority of illegals come here for financial reasons.

I think most people are comfortable with the claim that it is immoral for employers to hire illegals off the books; It also seems plainly immoral for employers to knowingly hire illegals in an attempt to keep wages low and eliminate complaints about working conditions even if they pay social security wages.

So my question is this: if the employers who knowingly hire illegals are sinning what does this mean about the illegals who both facilitate the immoral behavior and profit from it? Since illegals are in formal cooperation with the immoral behavior of the employers this seems to unequivocally answer the question as to whether illegal immigrants have committed a sin.

Ender

Illegals are not respecting the laws of the country in which they are living illegally. Is it all right for Catholics to go around and violate the laws of the country in which they are residing or is it wrong according to a command which binds us to obey the just laws of the country?

 

[bobzills]

Erga migrantes caritas Christi upholds family reunification,

That’s not a problem at all. We can reunify the criminal illegal aliens with their families by sending them all home.

 

[verdigirl]

Was it hate when the Church opposed Marxist Communism?

Sorry, I don’t follow your question. Please clarify.

 

[verdigirl]

That’s not a problem at all. We can reunify the criminal illegal aliens with their families by sending them all home.

So how do you propose we do that?

It’s amazing how you can distill all that teaching from the Church into one negative statement. If that’s not cafeteria Catholicism, I don’t know what it.