"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[o_mlly]

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

If the remarks are direct quotes (from Trump’s lips) then give us the source so we can verify.

No need to be sorry as I do not think you are evil and did not post that you are. I did post specific acts which Catholic teaching tells us are 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.

NBC news. Here's What th

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.

The analogy holds because all those people you listed follow protocol – they knock. Those who knock to gain entry to the U.S. are received; only those who try to-break in are not.

Most people have doors on their homes because they know that not all men are angels, ie, fallen human nature persists.

 

[blackforest]

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.

These considerations are relevant and salient regardless of how interesting you personally find them.

What I don’t accept is that there are moral choices involved in solving these problems.

There are no moral issues in solving the immigration problem?

Of course there are moral questions or you wouldn’t have spent so much energy in this and other threads defending their morality. The bishops and Pope have already condemned facets of immigration policy such as separating families, so the burden is now on you to make a moral case for it.

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

Nobody is proposing treating the overstayers in such a dehumanizing manner. There families haven’t been split up, and they’re not being shipped to detention centers. So no, our bishops who rightfully preoccupy themselves with human rights concerns are not speaking out against the treatment of overstayers.

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.

Why not start with the 58%? That’s a greater number.

If the remarks are direct quotes (from Trump’s lips) then give us the source so we can verify.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trump+dehumanizing+language+immigrants

The analogy holds because all those people you listed follow protocol – they knock . Those who knock to gain entry to the U.S. are received; only those who try to-break in are not.

Do you turn nearly all of them away at your door step away? Are 100% of them trying to break in to do you harm? The Incredibly Complicated Process Behind Legal Immigration to the US

Most people have doors on their homes because they know that not all men are angels, ie, fallen human nature persists.

Mine keeps my house warm and my cat from wandering outdoors.

Fallen angels are all over the place; no border wall will stop that. Can you provide evidence that the majority of people seeking work and/or citizenship in the U.S. are committing or intending to commit crimes?

 

[Ender]

These considerations are relevant and salient regardless of how interesting you personally find them.

Try to respond to the point I’m making. I never said they weren’t relevant; what I said is that they aren’t relevant to the question of whether this is a moral issue.

There are no moral issues in solving the immigration problem?

Pretty much.

Of course there are moral questions or you wouldn’t have spent so much energy in this and other threads defending their morality.

You have this exactly backwards. I spend my time defending the position that there are no moral choices involved in finding the best solutions to the immigration problems.

The bishops and Pope have already condemned facets of immigration policy such as separating families, so the burden is now on you to make a moral case for it.

Had the pope and bishops raised this as a moral concern when it was occurring under the previous administration I would be more impressed, but I still wouldn’t accept it. What is the moral issue here? Separating families? That’s already part of every nation’s legal process. If the parents are arrested the children are not arrested with them. We may agree or disagree on whether it is necessary in these cases, but separation is not immoral in itself regardless of who objects to it.

Why not start with the 58%? That’s a greater number.

The order in which the government decides to address its problems is a practical choice, not a moral one.

 

[o_mlly]

LMGTFY

That’s it? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims that Trump is a racist?

If so, it says: “I got nothing.” Shame.

Do you turn nearly all of them away at your door step away? Are 100% of them trying to break in to do you harm?

Those who knock are not turned away. Those who attempt to break-in will be resisted. Those who break-in will be expelled.

Can you provide evidence that the majority of people seeking work and/or citizenship in the U.S. are committing or intending to commit crimes?

Who claimed that? Nobody.

Immigrants who seek legal entry into the U.S. are not arrested.

Absent the commission of the actual criminal act, intent alone is not illegal or punishable. With the commission of a criminal act, intent may escalate the culpability and therefore the punishment as in “assault with intent to commit murder.”

 

[De_Maria]

Sarcelle:

It’s like rewarding people who break the law while denying those who take care to follow the law. That is unjust in and of itself.

First see what God said about refugees.

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.
.
Ezekiel 47
21 “You are to distribute this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. 22 You are to allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the foreigners residing among you and who have children. You are to consider them as native-born Israelites; along with you they are to be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. 23 In whatever tribe a foreigner resides, there you are to give them their inheritance,” declares the Sovereign LORD.

Leviticus 24
You are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.

Exodus 22:21
"Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt.

Leviticus 19:10
Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God.

All the land belongs to God, no where in the Bible does it suggest building walls to keep refugees out.

On the contrary, God commanded the Jews to separate themselves from gentiles. The foreigners mentioned in the verses you produced are converts. Not gentiles.

But gentiles were treated as UNCLEAN. And they weren’t the only ones treated that way, so were people who had communicable diseases. They were cast out of society.

Deuteronomy 7
When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them:…

Lev 13:45 And the leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall cry, Unclean, unclean.
46 All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be.

And God had nothing against walls:

Isaiah 62:6 I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem , which shall never hold their peace day nor night: ye that make mention of the Lord, keep not silence,

 

[blackforest]

Try to respond to the point I’m making. I never said they weren’t relevant; what I said is that they aren’t relevant to the question of whether this is a moral issue.

The point that I’m making is that your own personal lack of interest in these considerations makes them no less salient or relevant.

Pretty much.

This is inaccurate and incorrect. Church leaders and theologians have spoken multiple times on the moral dimension of immigration policies.

https://thedialog.org/featured/mexican-archdiocese-companies-that-work-on-border-wall-are-traitors-immoral/

Opinion | The ‘Ethics’ of Trump’s Border Wall - The New York Times

Trump border wall challenges America’s moral values: Catholic theologian

You may disagree with them until you’re blue in the face. Heck, even Trump himself has claimed that it’s moral, i.e. “not immoral.” As long as people are making arguments back and forth on the morality of the wall, it is disingenuous to claim that a moral dimension doesn’t exist. If you choose to disagree with eminent theologians on the issue, including the Pope himself, the burden is on you to present a moral case - in this case, for the border wall. I’ll wait.

The order in which the government decides to address its problems is a practical choice, not a moral one.

Good thing you don’t care about practicality. But in case you’re wondering,the government hasn’t made a practical choice.

 

[Ender]

The point that I’m making is that your own personal lack of interest in these considerations makes them no less salient or relevant.

Do you really not understand what I’m saying? Of course practical considerations are important; they make all the difference in the effectiveness of whatever is implemented…but they make NO difference in whether or not there are moral choices involved. I have been discussing the morality of (e.g.) building a wall and objecting to the characterization that it is immoral to do so.

Church leaders and theologians have spoken multiple times on the moral dimension of immigration policies.

True enough, and all it does is encourage personal condemnation and create a greater divide between the two sides. The Mexican archdiocesan publication called Trump a fanatic. Should we believe that too simply because some Mexican cleric says it?

In the Times article, Cardinal Tobin asks: “Is the border wall ethical?..To answer this we have to consider its effect on humans.” Determining its effect is a prudential judgment, which means that opposing positions are justifiable, and support for building the wall is no less morally justified than opposing it. There is nothing immoral in doing what one thinks is best.

In your final article, Rev. Groody asserted: “the wall would lead to a loss of life as migrants are forced to find other ways to escape poverty across the border.” Again, this is an evaluation of what he believes will happen. It is a prediction, and his personal view that something bad will be the outcome does not mean that building the wall is in fact immoral.

If you choose to disagree with eminent theologians on the issue, including the Pope himself, the burden is on you to present a moral case - in this case, for the border wall.

The argument being made is this: “We think bad things will happen if the wall is built. It is immoral to intentionally do bad things. Therefore building the wall is immoral.” But understand: the entire argument rests on an assumption about the consequences - that they will be harmful. That assumption is entirely prudential; it is a judgment, and one I disagree with as I am morally free to do. In my estimation the greater harm will come from not building the wall, therefore, since I am required to do what I think is best, I have a moral obligation to support the wall.

Building the wall is morally neutral; it is only in ones reason for supporting or opposing it that a moral choice is made.

 

[blackforest]

I have been discussing the morality of (e.g.) building a wall and objecting to the characterization that it is immoral to do so.

Yes, yes, and yes. I get it. I see the difference. I nonetheless find it baffling that you’re cavalier about both facets of the debate.

Building the wall is morally neutral; it is only in ones reason for supporting or opposing it that a moral choice is made.

All inanimate objects like a wall are morally neutral. A wall, a gun, and an abortionist’s cannula are all morally neutral objects. It’s what is done with them and the intent behind them that matters.

Pro-choicers attempt to portray the act of abortion as “morally neutral.” My choice of breakfast cereal this morning was morally neutral. But morally neutral = morally acceptable. You have failed to put up a case for the moral acceptability of the wall’s repercussions - environmental devastation, fractured diplomacy with Mexico, ignoring the human needs of the asylees and immigrants that the wall is turning away.

From the NYT article, do you consider these factors morally acceptable? (Emphasis my own).

Some people who cross the border are in desperate search of work to support their families. A wall would probably drive them into more remote areas of the desert or mountains, possibly to their deaths, as the forces driving them — violence, persecution and extreme poverty — are more life threatening than a risky border crossing.

A wall would prevent asylum seekers from asking for protection at any point along our border — their right under the law — and would leave many of them at the mercy of drug cartels and other criminal groups in northern Mexico.

You can scream “prudential judgment” from the mountaintops. You can continue to pretend that the aforementioned concerns somehow don’t matter. But let’s make one thing crystal clear: You absolutely cannot call yourself a Catholic in good standing and disregard these people crying out for help. If you advocate for a wall and take away their right to seek help at any border point, then how - as a practicing Catholic - do you intend to respond to their needs?

 

[Ender]

I nonetheless find it baffling that you’re cavalier about both facets of the debate.

I focus on one point at a time. The topic if this thread is “Justice for Immigrants” and USCCB. That is, it is about the moral aspect of the wall, and that is what I have been addressing.

All inanimate objects like a wall are morally neutral. A wall, a gun, and an abortionist’s cannula are all morally neutral objects. It’s what is done with them and the intent behind them that matters.

I agree, and what I have been complaining about are the rash and uncharitable judgments as to why people support the wall.

Pro-choicers attempt to portray the act of abortion as “morally neutral.”

The difference here is that the church has declared abortion to be intrinsically evil, so a person’s intent in having one is irrelevant; the act is always immoral. The church has no such prohibition against nations building walls, so the only thing that can make such construction immoral is the intent: why does someone want it built?

Declaring that building a wall is immoral is not a statement that wall building is per se evil, because that would not be true; it is a judgment of others intentions and declaring them to be evil. I have said this before but clearly it bears repeating: that is a rash judgement. It is uncharitable and it is an offense against truth.

You have failed to put up a case for the moral acceptability of the wall’s repercussions - environmental devastation, fractured diplomacy with Mexico, ignoring the human needs of the asylees and immigrants that the wall is turning away.

You simply assert these as if your predictions of the outcome are naturally occurring facts. I disagree with all of it. That you perceive harmful consequences puts no burden on me to agree with you.

From the NYT article, do you consider these factors morally acceptable?

I don’t consider their concerns any more reasonable than yours. If I agreed that these consequences were likely, and still supported the wall, then I would be committing an immoral act, because I would be doing something even though I expect it to be harmful. Given that I don’t accept any of their harmful predictions, and have my own set of the harm that will follow if we don’t build the wall, I am morally bound to do what I think is best…build the wall.

You absolutely cannot call yourself a Catholic in good standing and disregard these people crying out for help.

And this is why I so resolutely oppose the bishops’ comments in calling immigration a moral issue. All it leads to in the end is this: “I’m good, you’re evil.” This is the bottom line “argument” being made. It should come as no surprise that I find it unacceptable.

 

[Pattylt]

May I ask what consequences you DO see occurring if the wall is built? I may have missed that post so, please redirect me if I have.

I understand your denial of potential immoral consequences that cannot be shown at this time but what potential benefits do you see happening whether moral or amoral?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Ender]

May I ask what consequences you DO see occurring if the wall is built? I may have missed that post so, please redirect me if I have.

I understand your denial of potential immoral consequences that cannot be shown at this time but what potential benefits do you see happening whether moral or amoral?

I don’t want to sound pedantic, but it is important to be clear: consequences are neither moral nor immoral. They are beneficial, harmful, or neutral. If I commit an act that I believe will be harmful, even if it turns out well I have committed a sin. Conversely, if I commit an act that I believe will be beneficial, even if it turns out badly I have not sinned. The consequences do not determine the morality of the act.

So the whole argument about immigration being a moral issue really turns on that point: the belief that the consequences are so obvious, and so obviously beneficial (or harmful), that the only reason to oppose that position is because a person doesn’t want the good consequences or does want (or is indifferent to) the harmful ones.

I realize I haven’t answered your question, and I’m not inclined to do so, at least not yet. I really don’t want to go to that argument until this one has been settled. I am willing to argue the merits of various proposals, but what I totally reject and resent are the assertions that one proposal is more moral than another, or that you cannot be a good Christian unless your predictions of the consequences of (e.g.) building a wall agree with those of your moral superiors.

This thread started as a discussion of immigration as a moral concern, and that’s the topic I have stuck with.

 

[Pattylt]

I accept your definition of beneficial, neutral or harmful as they are better terms for my questions. Since the question would be off topic, may I PM you the question? I’m interested in your thoughts.
Thanks.

 

[Ender]

Sure, I’m fine with that.

 

[blackforest]

I agree, and what I have been complaining about are the rash and uncharitable judgments as to why people support the wall.

But you’re missing the point that it’s what we do with the inanimate objects that can be sinful - in this case, iron and concrete.

The church has no such prohibition against nations building walls, so the only thing that can make such construction immoral is the intent: why does someone want it built?

Exactly. In ages past, cities were walled - only sometimes successfully - to keep armies from storming in, raping the women, beheading the denizens, killing the royalty, stealing the valuables . . . That’s a far cry from building a wall to stop people from picking your apples and cleaning the poolside at your favorite hotel.

Intent DOES matter. Thank you for agreeing, as there was some disagreement about it upthread.

In this case, we have hoards of people in need of clean water, work, shelter, medical care, blankets, shoes, etc. We can serve them as were are commanded, or wall them off. The latter is immoral and antithetical to our faith.

Which brings us back to my question that you haven’t yet addressed:

If you advocate for a wall and take away their right to seek help at any border point, then how - as a practicing Catholic - do you intend to respond to their needs?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course practical considerations are important; they make all the difference in the effectiveness of whatever is implemented…but they make NO difference in whether or not there are moral choices involved. I have been discussing the morality of (e.g.) building a wall and objecting to the characterization that it is immoral to do so.

The choice to build a wall is a moral choice when that choice is made instead of offering sanctuary. That is because such a choice is not between two practical solutions to the same problem. It is choice of which problem is more important. And that is certainly a moral choice.

 

[Ender]

In this case, we have hoards of people in need of clean water, work, shelter, medical care, blankets, shoes, etc. We can serve them as were are commanded, or wall them off. The latter is immoral and antithetical to our faith.

Either we let in literally everyone in the world who wants to come here, or we don’t. If we had completely open borders a billion people would be shipped in. That is obviously unreasonable so some limits have to be in place, but as soon as you put a limit on who can come, the objection you raised above applies to you. We cannot serve everyone, all we are arguing about is where to draw the line, and it is unreasonable to insist that the most moral person is the one who would let in the largest number.

If you advocate for a wall and take away their right to seek help at any border point, then how - as a practicing Catholic - do you intend to respond to their needs?

Can we help everyone in the world? Where do you draw the line between those we help and those we don’t help? It is simply irrational to insist that we can provide for the needs of everyone; I’m sure you agree with that. What is being discussed is the point at which we say this much and no more, and determining where that point is is (again) not a moral decision; it is a prudential one. There is nothing whatever that justifies your claiming to be more moral than me simply because we disagree on where that line should be drawn.

 

[Ender]

The choice to build a wall is a moral choice when that choice is made instead of offering sanctuary.

Are we to offer sanctuary to literally everyone who comes to the US and asks for it?

 

[o_mlly]

If you advocate for a wall and take away their right to seek help at any border point, then how - as a practicing Catholic - do you intend to respond to their needs?

But no one has advocated that. Building a border wall does not eliminate legal immigration or end the asylum program.

If your argument is to expand both programs then make the case. How many immigrants per day would satisfy your sensibilities as a caring Catholic? Let’s assume that the laws are changed to exactly meet your numbers and funding comes from cutbacks in other programs. And then the number seeking legal immigration and asylum exceeds your new legal limits. What do you do?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The choice to build a wall is a moral choice when that choice is made instead of offering sanctuary.

Are we to offer sanctuary to literally everyone who comes to the US and asks for it?

Jesus:

• 
  "..then the just shall say 'Lord, when did we welcome you away from home or clothe you in your nakedness? When did we visit you when you were ill or in prison?' Then king will answer them: 'I assure you, as often as you did it for one of my least brothers, you did it for me.' "

Ender:

• 
  "But Lord, are we to offer welcome to literally everyone who comes to us in need?"

Jesus:

• 
  What?

Ender:

• 
  I mean, the decision of who to help is not really a moral decision, is it? It really comes down to practical considerations on how best to solve the problems of war and famine and terrorism and gang violence and corruption. You and I may differ on how best to solve these problems, but your solution is no more or less moral than mine, right?

Jesus:

• 
  Ender, Ender, listen again: When the Son of Man comes....he will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats.....

 

[Ender]

Ender, Ender, listen again: When the Son of Man comes…he will separate them into two groups, as a shepherd separates sheep from goats…

This really isn’t all that complicated, so I’ll try again: Are we to offer sanctuary to literally everyone who comes to the US and asks for it? How hard is it to answer such a simple question?