"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarcelle said:
You could say the same thing about every country on this earth.

If we go by this, then every law ever given on earth is invalid because at some point in time, someone took land away from someone.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, and people take land by force, and then they try and control it by force. It is just a way that the rich people find to tax the poor.
The French conquered Britain in 1066, William gave his generals chunks of British land to control and tax. Today many of the Lords living in their big estates, can trace their ancestry back to 1066.

By contrast look at God’s law…

Leviticus 19
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

When refugees enter the land of God, they too have to obey the law, so there should not be anarchy.
 
Eric_Hyom said:
40.png
Sarcelle:
You could say the same thing about every country on this earth.

If we go by this, then every law ever given on earth is invalid because at some point in time, someone took land away from someone.
Click to expand...
You are probably right, and people take land by force, and then they try and control it by force. It is just a way that the rich people find to tax the poor.
The French conquered Britain in 1066, William gave his generals chunks of British land to control and tax. Today many of the Lords living in their big estates, can trace their ancestry back to 1066.

By contrast look at God’s law…

Leviticus 19
33 " 'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. 34 The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

When refugees enter the land of God, they too have to obey the law, so there should not be anarchy.
Click to expand...
Dude, you’re not seeing any irony here?
 
Ok that’s not entirely accurate. The French did not invade Britain. The Normans invaded Britain.

Second, obeying the law of the land would mean they can’t just walk into another country without any regard for the laws that country has on immigration. And not everyone coming up through our southern border are “refugees.” Most of them are economic migrants if we’re going to keep the discussion honest.

People consent to having their land governed over. It’s not some cynical ploy by the “rich.” In fact it’s primarily the “rich” and wealthy who benefit from illegal immigration. They can afford to pay significantly less to poor economic migrants and exploit their status as illegal economic migrants. And who are they going to turn to? They won’t tell the Church because the Church doesn’t have the resources to fight that injustice, and even if they did they’d risk being deported back to their home country
 
Yes, not all of them are genuine refugees. A lot more are economic migrants willing to pay thousands of dollars to coyotes to smuggle them across the border. Once inside they buy falsified documents from a black market specializing in identity theft. The victims of these identity theft are US citizens whose identity has been stolen. I was a victim of identity theft. Illegal immigration is not exactly a victimless crime.

A lot of human trafficking and drug smuggling also takes place.

Canada once had an influx of illegal immigrants walking across its border. They issued an announcement to please respect Canada’s immigration law. So why can Canada insist on people respecting its immigration laws but the US cannot?
 
Last edited:
Exactly right. I certainly feel bad that they’ve come to the position that they have to illegally come to the US, but that doesn’t mean I have to agree with their choice to do so.

I understand that the Church teaches us to care for the downtrodden and poor, however we have to be realistic with what we do. If we take in too many poor economic migrants we’ll be harming the working class here in America, of which many are Catholics.
 
Whatever political position is taken by the USCCB or by individual bishops, the church teaches that countries have a right to control their borders. Nor is there anything to suggest that walls are somehow immoral. That should be fairly evident from the fact that Vatican City is completely walled off.

There is also no justification in holding that a more permissive policy is somehow more moral than a less permissive, more controlled one. It is unfortunate that some bishops have labelled immigration a moral issue, as that is not the case. It is a significant issue, an issue that affects a lot of people in life changing ways, but that does not present us with moral choices. Deciding what the best solution is to any problem is simply not a moral question. It is a practical one, and the importance of the question does not change that.
 
Rejecting or listening to the pleas of immigrants fleeing from desperate situation is of course a moral issue.
And listening with empathy.
What to do about it is a moral dilema, about a moral issue ,when you are the crossroads pondering concretely with at least two options at hand.
“ immigrant “ is a person. “ Inmigration “ is a situation involving an immigrant or immigrants ,that interpelates us.
Of course it is a moral issue. And a very concrete one at times. It has always been.

Homeless is a word. Until the situation involving a person with no roof dawns as a moral issue that requires a response from society.
How to pastorally address it may lead to different approaches and for their good.
But a homeless person, an immigrant fleeing will always be a person whose dignity and well being we care about .
And it is the Bishops who are to point to Jesus , to help us open our eyes and heart
 
Last edited:
That is a different issue, Theo.
I am addressing Ender’s statement separating the Bishops or the Church from inmigration issues. Any one, ever since. It is a moral issue.
I should have quoted the specific part in his post.
And probably redirect him to the Compendium.
That isn t me,it is the Church’s . All of us.
 
Last edited:
My wife, from El Salvador, wants to help build the wall. Why? She had to go through the entire rigamarole, as shots were being fired in her home country. Fees. Interviews. Medical test after medical test. More interviews. At the start of a war. Nothing economic about it. She was fleeing war.

Today’s “migrants” are primarily economic seekers. But, if you want “justice” are we forgetting the millions in those same nations who do have the money, health or connections to unlawfully enter the US? What about them? Shouldn’t official activity seek to correct injustices in those nations? We hear precious little about that.

Seems like false compassion, and this focus on justice at the cost of the gospel is absolutely wasted effort. Oh, and where do you suppose the uptick in various diseases is coming from? It is not from those who enter legally.
 
po18guy said:
Oh, and where do you suppose the uptick in various diseases is coming from? It is not from those who enter legally.
Click to expand...
Well, think about planes…or buses for the case. Stuffy as they can get and for hours.
Some reasonable control is ok but if we think of it( and here one should really go nation by nation ) I dare say that in Latin America for example ,vaccines are mandatory at school and they are checked.
I am not defending the “ illegal” , just that sometimes that of which we are afraid of can become quite irrational .
 
Last edited:
We have had international air travel for 80+ years. All the while small pox, measles, mumps, diphtheria were on the decline.

Then, uncontrolled immigration began - and I have dealt with hundreds of them. They are poor, uneducated laborers. Vaccines? AYKM?

We see them urinating on produce as we drive past farms. Where do the ecoli outbreaks originate? It is not from urinating…

Hard to put a positive spin on this, but some still try. NOT against immigration - that’s how DW and I found each other. Uncontrolled, illegal immigration brings as much evil as good. We used to eliminate the evil.
 
International traveling was not that accesible worldwide,po18guy.
I believe you may have seen seen people doing “ their things” anywhere,Hopefully , we all have a bathroom available for anyone working for us even temporarily and of course letting people know they can use it .
As for urinating anywhere, only just yesterday , a man in South by Southwestern in Austin in an improvised parking place in an abandoned lot ( and I have no way to prove his nationality 🙂 )
I understand some issues are more sensitive to some persons than they are to others, as it is diseases. And it may worry you. Nor it is about denying that higiene is related to diseases, but to some point one has to understand that beyond the reasonable , there is much of an unfounded fear deposited on the unknown, on those we haven t met, and that creates an unnecessary distance.
Think of this: we live and share daily in our places with all people alike. We cannot control people’ s higieníc habits 24/7. Legal or illegal if you know what I mean.
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Today’s “migrants” are primarily economic seekers.
Click to expand...
America and its allies have destabilised both Afghanistan and Iraq since 9/11, there are around 4.5 million refuges from these countries.

The US’ failure to establish security in the country after its invasion or prepare effectively for the country’s reconstruction is considered a major reason for the chaos and violence that caused the mass displacement
 
Last edited:
graciew said:
Rejecting or listening to the pleas of immigrants fleeing from desperate situation is of course a moral issue.
Click to expand...
First, most illegals are not fleeing from desperate situations, and while that description does apply to some it assuredly does not apply to most. Second, the question is not whether we should “listen” to them; it is what we should do about them, and that is an entirely practical question. What specific moral choice are we faced with? and if you choose Option A while I choose Option B how do you determine that your choice is more moral than mine?
What to do about it is a moral dilemma, about a moral issue…
Click to expand...
What makes deciding what is best a moral dilemma? Choosing between competing options is done based on the outcomes one expects. If we disagree over the results we anticipate what makes that disagreement a moral choice, and where is the sin in choosing what one thinks is best?
How to pastorally address it may lead to different approaches and for their good.
Click to expand...
Well there you go. That’s all this is about: different approaches and choosing the one that seems best. That being so, how can it be a sin to choose something other than the one a particular bishop prefers? Why should his estimation of probable outcomes be considered doctrine?
And it is the Bishops who are to point to Jesus , to help us open our eyes and heart…
Click to expand...
The bishops are right in telling us what our objectives should be, and the general parameters within which we should operate but they have neither the expertise nor the responsibility to specify particular solutions. That is in fact our duty.
 
Eric, you are comparing numbers of refugees from around the world, and the rest of us are discussing illegal immigrants in the US.
 
Yes, it’s always a complicated discussion, more than can be done well in forum posts.

I’m dead set against enabling illegal immigration but I fully support ‘subsidiarity’ and the implication that we should be working with their existing government and church structure to better serve their people in crisis. But fundamentally it’s their primary responsibility, not mine.

I practice subsidiarity and work to support my legal neighbors needing help and opportunity.
 
graciew said:
Veritatis Splendor may explain it better than I ever could.
Click to expand...
Is whether or not we should build a wall a moral question? It seems clear to me that it is not. Every other specific proposal asks the same question…and none of those questions deals with a moral issue. We are not being asked to decide whether to help or not, but what is the best solution to a particular dilemma? Again, choosing the best solution does not involve a moral choice. If you disagree then give an example of a particular proposal that involves a choice that is moral rather than practical.

The real disagreements are over what is best, not over whether we should do it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top