Open border fanatics completely ignore Church teachings on ‘subsidiarity’. Primary responsibility for the poor in Mexico etal belongs to their local Church and their wealthy people. Yes we can help them but expecting the US to supplant them destroys subsidiarity, which works quite well when practiced.
What is regrettably overlooked in the calls to care for the migrant is consideration of the impact they will have on the existing population, a consideration the church has not overlooked even though it is regularly ignored by those who argue against controlled entry.
Coincidentally there are a lot of people in my town from Laos.
The suspicion of overreach on immigration policy goes higher than the USCCB.
And the good Samaritan did not take the man into his house but to a Motel 6.
This is exactly the point: a balance must be struck between what is good for those wishing to immigrate, and what is good for the receiving population. As you say, it is a prudential concern. It is not a moral choice and it is extremely unhelpful to suggest that those who raise concerns about the negative effects on the country are somehow immoral or unchristian.
Jesus didn’t tell that story in the context of US immigration; you did, presumably for a reason. If you’d like to share with us what you meant to imply by that post in this context that would probably be helpful.
It may be worthwhile to review in exactly what context did tell that story. It was in response to a lawyer who asked Jesus “…then who is my neighbor?” It was not a very specific context. It is applicable any time the question comes up as to who is my neighbor. That is a reasonable way to look at the issue of immigration, because we would treat immigrants differently if we truly considered them to be our neighbors. The story of the Good Samaritan describes two people of different political identities, belonging to different cultural and governmental entities. The parallels are right there. It is not a stretch to see them.LeafByNiggle:
Jesus didn’t tell that story in the context of US immigration; you did, presumably for a reason. If you’d like to share with us what you meant to imply by that post in this context that would probably be helpful.
He also didn’tLoud-living-dogma:
And the good Samaritan did not take the man into his house but to a Motel 6.
Bre, save your energy .I do not need to be “ convinced” you are not hateful as a people. In fact, quite lovable.
door?
He wasn’t trespassing.
The man was not reported to be unemployed or lazy.
This diatribe as a progression of nonsensical claims as emanating from the Good Samaritan parable is quite irrational. Do you have a point?
You will never make me feel embarrassed for siding with the clergy of our Church.
The story is about someone in extreme distress at your literal feet.