"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[Bre6785]

Watch this if you think u want government run healthcare.

 

[blackforest]

Yes. Restated without the pejoratives: It is lawful to tax residents in order to fund lawful projects.

It is lawful to tax citizens to fund Planned Parenthood. Lawful =/= moral, so my pejorative language in this case stands.

Yes. The eminent domain power of the United States allows.

I didn’t ask if it was allowed. I asked if it was moral.

Objectively, yes. But only immigration policy that blocked migrants of certain races is racist. We do not.

Actually, the current administration does. It is placing a lot more energy and resources into targeting poor people of Latino/indigenous ancestry crossing the border on foot and barely breathing a word about affluent people arriving by commercial carrier and overstaying their visas.

I see protection of citizens and protection of our welfare system from bankruptcy as two good effects.

I don’t need protected form migrants, asylees, and refugees seeking jobs. We’ve long had a protected border; the Right has failed to make a case for further militarization. And my pragmatic concerns expressed in Post 391 were dismissed/dodged.

There are much more humane ways to “protect the welfare system from bankruptcy” without dinging the common taxpayer for an inefficient wall - e.g. tax the corporations not paying taxes so that they pay their fair share, and ensure living wages so that people aren’t going on welfare.

Which welfare programs did you have in mind? Undocumented immigrants can’t apply for welfare unless they need emergency medical care, (per EMTALA, I believe). Here are the non-citizens who can apply for SNAP. SNAP Policy on Non-Citizen Eligibility | USDA-FNS

And other programs: Overview of Immigrants' Eligibility for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP | ASPE

Watch this if you think u want government run healthcare.

Please stay on topic.

There is in fact nothing racist or in any way immoral about building the wall. Whether it is a good or a bad idea is an entirely different - and an entirely practical - question. Judge proposals, not people.

The proposal is racist because of its unilateral focus on poor, dark people at the expense of plenty of affluent white and Asian immigrants.

 

[blackforest]

If the project is seen as both practical and necessary, then eminent domain in fact gives the government the right to take possession of private property - with compensation.

Passive voice. WHO sees it as practical and necessary? I already addressed the practicality, which you dismissed as unimportant. Immigration rates were plummeting even before Trump took office, thereby eliminating the alleged necessity.

Nor is there a moral consideration involved in doing something perceived to be good that later turns out catastrophically bad. Think Urban Renewal.

So shoot first, aim later? Unintended moral and human rights consequences should absolutely be considered.

 

[Bre6785]

Please stay on topic

This was actually a topic this person and I were discussing.

Sounds like this whole thread may be in vain, as per our president, soon we may be letting every single immigrant, asylum seeker, who comes to the border in, they will even recieve a free bus trip to one of our beloved sanctuary cities!!! Problem solved. Everybody should be absolutely thrilled, I know I am. Though the USCCB will certainly be busy. Pretty sure sanctuary cities aren’t subsidized, so it may not be a “high priority” anymore.

 

[o_mlly]

It is lawful to tax citizens to fund Planned Parenthood. Lawful =/= moral, so my pejorative language in this case stands.

No, I think you confuse categories as to the species of the acts. The specific project addressed was the building of a border wall. Building a border wall, as I posted, is not inherently evil. Planned Parenthood’s operations as an abortion mill are inherently evil.

I didn’t ask if it was allowed. I asked if it was moral.

Yes. Citizens have a moral duty to follow all laws that are not immoral in themselves. In the U.S., all land is first the property of the public as it serves the common good. Private ownership is secondary to the common good. The philosophy follows Church teaching regarding the universal destination of goods.

Actually, the current administration does. It is placing a lot more energy and resources into targeting poor people of Latino/indigenous ancestry crossing the border on foot and barely breathing a word about affluent people arriving by commercial carrier and overstaying their visas.

Do you have citations showing written orders by those in public authority directing operatives to target poor people and not affluent people, to target one race and not another? Such evidence could disclose both illegal and immoral actions. If, however, the orders are to deploy resources to uphold the immigration laws in the most efficacious manner then such directions are both legal and moral.

I don’t need protected form migrants, asylees, and refugees seeking jobs. We’ve long had a protected border; the Right has failed to make a case for further militarization. And my pragmatic concerns expressed in Post 391 were dismissed/dodged.

There are much more humane ways to “protect the welfare system from bankruptcy” without dinging the common taxpayer for an inefficient wall - e.g. tax the corporations not paying taxes so that they pay their fair share, and ensure living wages so that people aren’t going on welfare.

Vote those into power who accord with your views. Protest legally against policies you oppose until the next election.

 

[blackforest]

Building a border wall, as I posted, is not inherently evil. Planned Parenthood’s operations as an abortion mill are inherently evil.

Do you have citations showing written orders by those in public authority directing operatives to target poor people and not affluent people, to target one race and not another?

This is an inaccurate and incorrect way of viewing the matter. I suggest you read what the Catechism says about the role that intention plays in sinning. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

It isn’t inherently sinful to clean my house and decorate it with nice things. But if I’m doing it in hopes of looking superior and making my visiting sister envious, I’m in a state of sin. If the U.S. builds a wall in hopes of keeping out “swarms,” “animals,” “illegals” . . . and if the elected leader strips them of their dignity and worth by stereotyping them as “criminals,” “rapists,” and bearers of HIV/AIDS, then yes, it is a spite fence and a sinful action.

Do you have citations showing written orders by those in public authority directing operatives to target poor people and not affluent people, to target one race and not another?

That is like asking me if I can provide evidence that any of my neighbors sexually abuse children. Like racism, abuse happens in secret and is covered up passive-aggressively. Nobody struts about town wearing t-shirts announcing, “My intentions are racist,” and “I sexually abuse children.” Unlike your typical child abuser, however, Trump has outed his own intentions as racist through his speech, and those who follow him unabashedly are just as guilty.

Vote those into power who accord with your views. Protest legally against policies you oppose until the next election.

Done and done. Fortunately, most of the country agrees with me.

Let’s hope that in the next administration, the money is directed instead to assist others with legal immigration by sending more lawyers and social workers to the border.

 

[o_mlly]

This is an inaccurate and incorrect way of viewing the matter. I suggest you read what the Catechism says about the role that intention plays in sinning. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

It isn’t inherently sinful to clean my house and decorate it with nice things. But if I’m doing it in hopes of looking superior and making my visiting sister envious, I’m in a state of sin. If the U.S. builds a wall in hopes of keeping out “swarms,” “animals,” “illegals” . . . and if the elected leader strips them of their dignity and worth by stereotyping them as “criminals,” “rapists,” and bearers of HIV/AIDS, then yes, it is a spite fence and a sinful action.

I see nothing evil in intending to protect citizens from “swarms, animals and illegals.” Our dignity is inherent; no one can remove it. Do you have the citation that evidences the administration intends evil ends with the construction of the wall? If not then claiming so is calumny at worst, and detraction at best – both evil acts.

Because you are the subject of your own acts, you and God know your intention and can judge the sinfulness of the act.

That is like asking me if I can provide evidence that any of my neighbors sexually abuse children.

Exactly. Accusations of evil doing by others requires evidence.

Trump has outed his own intentions as racist through his speech, and those who follow him unabashedly are just as guilty.

Evidence?

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t need protected form migrants, asylees, and refugees seeking jobs. We’ve long had a protected border; the Right has failed to make a case for further militarization. And my pragmatic concerns expressed in Post 391 were dismissed/dodged.

Maybe you don’t but the poor already here in this country do.

With increasing automation, jobs that were within reach of those poorer and less skilled are getting increasingly scarce. Add to that competing with loads of illegal immigrants who are more than willing to work for far less wages and in far less humane conditions and our poor don’t have a chance.

Also add to that a thriving black market in identity theft and drug smuggling which accompanies human trafficking across the border.

Illegal immigration destabilizes the country especially if the cartels which destabilized Central America uses the flow of illegal immigrants as a Trojan horse to get into the country.

 

[Ender]

WHO sees it as practical and necessary? I already addressed the practicality, which you dismissed as unimportant.

Well, pretty much half of the nation sees it as both. That you find it impractical hardly means that those who disagree with you sin in seeing things differently.

Unintended moral and human rights consequences should absolutely be considered.

If it was possible to foresee unintended consequences they wouldn’t be called unintended. Neither is there such a thing as a moral consequence. There are good consequences and bad ones, but there are no moral or immoral ones. Morality applies to our actions, not the results of those actions. If we do a thing for a good reason and with reasonable expectations but it turns out badly we have erred; we have not sinned.

 

[o_mlly]

If it was possible to foresee unintended consequences they wouldn’t be called unintended. Neither is there such a thing as a moral consequence. There are good consequences and bad ones, but there are no moral or immoral ones. Morality applies to our actions, not the results of those actions. If we do a thing for a good reason and with reasonable expectations but it turns out badly we have erred; we have not sinned.

It is possible to foresee that the consequences or effects of an act are both good and bad. In this special case, as I believe you already know, the actor must make 3 judgements with respect to those effects: 1) That the bad effects although foreseen are not intended, 2) that the good effects do not follow from (caused by) the bad effects, and 3) that the proportion favors the good effects. If the act itself is not evil in its object and the 3 conditions above are true then the act is moral.

How is constructing a border wall morally different than putting a door on a house?

 

[Pattylt]

How is constructing a border wall morally different than putting a door on a house?

It interferes with the migratory patterns of animals.

 

[o_mlly]

It interferes with the migratory patterns of animals.

While Catholic teaching insists upon the merciful treatment of animals, it does not place kindness towards them on the same plane of duty as benevolence towards our fellow-men, i.e. the people in the house.

 

[o_mlly]

It is reasonable to argue that the absence of a physical barrier to prevent illegal immigration increases the expectation of success for those who would attempt to enter illegally. Reducing or at least tampering that expectation would save the lives and anguish of those migrants who are exploited long before reaching our border. That number is not insignificant:

To reach the U.S.-Mexico border, migrants must survive a gauntlet of extortion and criminality at the hands of Mexican officials, smugglers, and bandits. The violators can be indistinguishable to migrants and, indeed, often overlap. Central Americans face dangers at Mexico’s southern border that may exceed those they encounter at the U.S.-Mexico border region. Between 1997 and 1999, the bodies of more than 300 unidentified migrants were found near the main border crossing between Mexico and Guatemala. More than 120 Central American migrants died near the southern Mexico border last year. Migrants have drowned, been run over by trains and murdered by bandits. Thousands of Honduran migrants have lost touch with their families; some have not survived the journey, others have suffered severe injuries, and still others live in shame that they failed to reach the United States and cannot send money home.

Chaos on the U.S.-Mexico Border: A Report on Migrant Crossing Deaths, The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC).

 

[Theo520]

Per the below story, we spend $5b deporting illegal immigrants.
Enhanced border enforcement seems like a good investment.

https://blog.chron.com/immigration/2011/01/ice-reveals-cost-for-deporting-each-illegal-immigrant/

 

[blackforest]

I won’t be able to respond to every post this late . . .

It is reasonable to argue that the absence of a physical barrier to prevent illegal immigration increases the expectation of success for those who would attempt to enter illegally.

There’s no absence of a physical barrier. Can you show me where in this thread somebody has proposed such an idea?

How is constructing a border wall morally different than putting a door on a house?

At the door to my home, I follow Christ’s commandment to welcome the stranger. Yes, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses who came over the other day.

The door to my home isn’t installed in treaty-protected Native lands, someone else’s private property, an established wildlife habitat, or a flood plain so as to create flooding behind it.

Our dignity is inherent; no one can remove it.

Do you have the citation that evidences the administration intends evil ends with the construction of the wall?

Evidence?

Exactly. Accusations of evil doing by others requires evidence.

I’ve cited examples of his language. Plug them into your favorite search engine to find links.

Well, pretty much half of the nation sees it as both. That you find it impractical hardly means that those who disagree with you sin in seeing things differently.

I already differentiated for you the practical vs. moral cases. You told me that you didn’t care about the former and deny the inherent racism of the latter.

With increasing automation, jobs that were within reach of those poorer and less skilled are getting increasingly scarce. Add to that competing with loads of illegal immigrants who are more than willing to work for far less wages and in far less humane conditions and our poor don’t have a chance.

If automation drives out the poor who are currently citizens, it will most certainly drive out the poor who are not.

Also add to that a thriving black market in identity theft and drug smuggling which accompanies human trafficking across the border.

These are immense problems but hardly unique to the physical border. Trafficked humans and drugs arrive in very creative ways and very often by commercial carrier.

Illegal immigration destabilizes the country especially if the cartels which destabilized Central America uses the flow of illegal immigrants as a Trojan horse to get into the country.

I don’t want drug cartels in here any more than you do. I want it easier for people seeking an honest living to enter, apply to work, and work their way toward citizenship. Another name for this is a [Just Path to Citizenship]

(Serving immigrants is a moral issue - Arkansas Catholic - November 15, 2008).

 

[o_mlly]

There’s no absence of a physical barrier.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

At the door to my home, I follow Christ’s commandment to welcome the stranger. Yes, even the Jehovah’s Witnesses who came over the other day.

Did the strangers open your door and let themselves in? Did they then move in?

I’ve cited examples of his language. Plug them into your favorite search engine to find links.

Can’t find a thing that is not hearsay or worse. I guess your sources are the same. Giving currency to gossip is evil.

 

[Ender]

How is constructing a border wall morally different than putting a door on a house?

I think the only difference is that most people can recognize putting a door on a house is not a moral choice.

 

[Ender]

I already differentiated for you the practical vs. moral cases. You told me that you didn’t care about the former and deny the inherent racism of the latter.

I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. On the one hand you acknowledge that walls exist, and I think even you would have a hard time arguing they don’t work where they have been installed, yet you perceive problems in installing more walls that apparently don’t exist with the existing ones. So, no, I’ve seen nothing to convince me that building more barriers is a bad idea.

As for the racism charge, I find it beyond ridiculous, and I will point out yet again that even if it was true that Trump was a racist it doesn’t mean it is immoral to support building the wall.

 

[blackforest]

Can’t find a thing that is not hearsay or worse. I guess your sources are the same. Giving currency to gossip is evil.

They’re from direct quotes. I’m sorry you think I’m evil.

Nice pic, by the way? What is the source of the photo? I’m surprised not to see hoard of immigrants passing through . . .

If Trump wants to continue on with that fence, so be it.

Did the strangers open your door and let themselves in? Did they then move in?

Are the JWs, lawncare salespeople, and neighborhood children who knock on my door desperately fleeing poverty, violence, and persecution in search of new work and a new life . . . that they can (somehow) find in my living room? Voila. There’s the gaping hole in your analogy.

I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. On the one hand you acknowledge that walls exist, and I think even you would have a hard time arguing they don’t work where they have been installed, yet you perceive problems in installing more walls that apparently don’t exist with the existing ones. So, no, I’ve seen nothing to convince me that building more barriers is a bad idea.

Address my specific points in Post 391 and then get back to me. Or don’t. This thread has gone on for quite some time.

In the meantime, here’s a little useful reading on the Vatican Wall. Trump’s Vatican wall excuse for the border wall doesn’t make sense - Vox

 

[Ender]

Address my specific points in Post 391 and then get back to me

Most of your objections are practical. Whether or not they are reasonable is (at the moment) not all that interesting. All I’m interesting in showing is that disagreeing with your practical objections is not a moral concern. I’m sure there are any number of practical considerations that need to be addressed; I accept that. What I don’t accept is that there are moral choices involved in solving these problems.

(Post 391…)Above all, the wall won’t stop the 58% of undocumented immigrants who are visa overstays.

Well, stopping 42% would be a good start, and since those are two completely disconnected sources there is no solution that would resolve them both. Again, it’s like saying we shouldn’t fix the roof because it doesn’t address the plumbing problems.

Given the utter lack of moral outrage over this last fact…

Even the bishops haven’t raised a moral concern about this one. This is over the top.

…compared to all of the panic in this thread and elsewhere over the poor, dark people at the border fence, the motivation for a wall is racist and therefore immoral.

I’m pretty sure no one has raised a concern about the color of the people streaming across the border, only that they are coming over in massive numbers. It is their number, not their nationality that is the concern.

Our Pope has already condemned it as un-Christian, and I whole-heartedly side with him in this matter.

I haven’t seen anything from the pope about our building a wall and I doubt that what he might have said supports your contention. You provide the citation and I’ll respond to it.