LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
LeafByNiggle:
Last edited:
- Status
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
It’s not some sort of vague “fear” – it’s actual concern and disapproval about actual problems.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I’m sure there are billions of such people. Is that your only criterion for entry? You would accept literally every soul on the planet who is innocent and hard-working?
The building trades have been inundated with foreign workers, filling jobs Americans used to have and lowering wages for everyone involved. I had some tile work done recently. The man who did it said he was getting about 1/3 what he used to be paid for the same job, and in some cities - Miami notably - it was down to half that. Any solution that focuses solely on aliens and ignores their impact on America and Americans is invalid.
And again with the personal swipe (an attitude engendered by the bishops words on the morality of the issue). Let’s be clear: nothing about me or my personal actions in any way changes the strength of my arguments. My comments are either accurate or inaccurate, and whether I am a saint or a sinner doesn’t change that.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Personally speaking, I have helped with charities working with the poor, including poor refugees and asylees. I also know countless others who have done the same if not more.
The problem is, no way can we help all of the poor in the world. However from what I am gathering here, we are still being chastised for not being able to help everyone in spite of the fact that we do help some.
If as you say, are not for open borders, you do realize that some will be turned away right? Are we still going to be accused of indifference because not everyone was helped?
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
We agree that migrants whose lives are threatened are welcome. And, human nature being what it is, the host country ought to retain the right to verify the claimants status. Which we do. Presently, the resources allocated to do this vetting are insufficient to the surge in immigrants presenting themselves for asylum. We must separate the truly life-threatened from those migrants that seek a better life to whom we do not have a moral obligation to accept.
While individuals have the right to move in search of a safe and humane life, no country is bound to accept all those who wish to resettle there (Catholic Social Teaching on Immigration and the Movement of Peoples, USCCB).
Of course we are called to sell the old driver as well to feed the hungry
Only human acts in the abstract are morally neutral. All acts in the concrete have moral content. The moral case for building a wall the wall along our southern border goes as follows:
- The act of building a wall is not evil in its object.
- The intent or end in view to build the wall is to control our border, ie reduce illegal immigration.
NB: Building a wall does not reduce the number of possible lawful migrants who seek to enter or limit the number of those who seek asylum.
- The circumstances affecting the morality of the act. None.
… people have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families (ibid. USCCB). We do not have a duty to those who seek entry to improve their lives. Who judges the severity of the migrants circumstance? The host country and we’re broke.
Those who argue against the wall, I think, are really arguing for more funding to speed up the processing of migrants and a change in our immigration laws to accommodate a greater number of legal immigrants. Call your congressional rep and senators.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I actually understand your difficulty; it is one I suspect most people share, but I think a large part of the concern comes from how we look at problems.
The church teaches us what we should strive for and how we should behave toward others; that’s why she tells us to heal the sick, feed the hungry, help the poor. What she does not tell us, however, is specifically what we are to do to achieve those goals. She proclaims the ends, but she is silent on the means. Disagreements over how to solve the “immigration problem” are not about whether to help (which the church commands us to do), but are really about how we are to do it. What concrete, specific actions should we take to address the issues?
Those who disagree with my claim here do so generally by contending that one side really doesn’t want to help, and the proposals they make show they are racist, xenophobic, selfish, uncaring…whatever. That is, it is not the proposals that are being judged; it is the people who make them.
Assume for a moment that I am a good person trying to address this complex problem in the best way I know how, and I say “Build the wall”. Where is my moral error? In fact if you actually believed I was good the worst you could say of me was that I was uninformed, misinformed, ignorant, or just too stupid to understand the problem…but what you could not say was that I sinned in taking that position.
Conversely, if you believe immigration is a moral problem and I take a position contrary to what you believe is obviously the best solution, what are you likely to think of me? Well, if yours is the moral position and mine is the opposite, then I must be behaving immorally. This is where all the charges about “What would Jesus do” flow from: a rash and uncharitable judgment of ones opponents.
Of course people can make immoral choices, but the immorality of an action comes from only two sources: the act is intrinsically evil, or my intent in committing it is evil. If the act is not in fact intrinsically evil (think building a border wall) then the only way to condemn my supporting it is by condemning my motives. And let’s be very clear about that: we are expressly forbidden to make such a judgment.
“Thou shalt not judge.” (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things… (Aquinas, ST II-II 60 2,2)
E
Ender
Guest
You just can’t honestly identify a problem can you? You just have to set it up so that it is a choice between what is obviously a good objective, and what is obviously a bad motivation. Why can’t you just frame the problem as “how do we help poor refugees fleeing drug violence”? As I wrote to graciew, everything in your position flows from how you judge your political opponents. And, contrary to what what we are supposed to do, your judgments are rash and uncharitable.
I gave you the option of doing that. Why do you find it so hard?
OK, yes, this is exactly what you have done. What I meant was that you could not find an example of a moral choice involved in solving a political problem except by postulating that someone doesn’t really want to solve the problem in the first place.
I think what you’re demonstrating is the validity of my charge that there are no moral choices involved in solving problems, only in choosing whether or not to honestly solve them. That people can choose a solution for an immoral reason does not mean the solution itself is immoral, and you cannot rationally condemn a particular proposal by condemning the person who supports it, and condemning people is all that’s been going on here.
E
Ender
Guest
People may reasonably disagree over whether this concern is valid or invalid, but the key point is that if one believes it is true, and acts accordingly, whether the concern is valid or invalid does not change the morality of the choice. The consequences of acting in accord with ones convictions do not change the morality of the act, so while two people may loudly disagree over the point, and may propose diametrically opposite solutions, neither proposal is immoral.
A reasonable discussion over the accuracy of the concern is justifiable. Moral condemnation of someone for believing it is not.
blackforest
Well-known member
I know it’s a long thread, so I’ll be patient re-explaining everything I’ve laid out.
- Nobody is making the claim that we can help absolutely everybody who needs help. Recall the saying, “We can’t do everything, but each of us can do something.” As I said above, when people cry out for help, and the only response from the U.S. is a militarized border and wall, then it is immoral. A small fraction of expenditures for militarization could go to humanitarian aid and lawyers to help process the claims from asylees.
- As I stated above, I support turning away drug runners, human traffickers, terrorists, gang members, etc. Most of them enter legally and uneventfully, so it’s not much of an issue at the border.
Billions currently seeking admission - right now, camped out - at the Mexican border?
No. Re-read my exchange with o_mlly.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I think you’re confusing judging acts with judging people. It is perfectly acceptable, both fundamentally and as part of the Catholic faith, to judge actions as moral and immoral. It’s part of the Scriptures, Magisterial teaching, and our everyday decision-making. I’m incapable of knowing where someone’s heart is, even if they’re committing the immoral action. That is for God to judge.
blackforest
Well-known member
Your response to my question is irrelevant to the strength or weakness of your arguments. Independently of that, I was just curious if you were paying blah-blah-blah lip service to the Gospel commandment to serve the poor . . . or if you actually took it seriously. Whom do you consider worthy recipients - i.e. “suffering enough” - to receive such Biblically mandated aid, and how do you respond?
This is the last time I’ll ask; I’ll just make a mental note if you refuse to answer.
E
Ender
Guest
If you wouldn’t let everyone in, and I wouldn’t let everyone in, how is it that you can condemn me for keeping someone out? Here is your claim:
I would consider it immoral to turn away innocent, hard-working people intending to make an honest living.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot contend it is immoral to turn away innocent etc people and justify doing exactly that. Either we are both immoral (for recognizing reality) or your claim is false. In either case, what applies to me applies to you as well.
And how do you judge an act to be immoral? If you cannot know a person’s motivation then while it might be simple to judge an act as unwise it is rare that you could judge it immoral. That being the case, where is the moral choice involved in immigration that allows one to say “That’s an immoral proposal” as distinct from “That’s a foolish proposal”?
Given the insulting nature of the question I have little doubt as to the mental notes you are making. Everything about your comments relates to judging others, and this one is no exception. I give out very little information about myself for the simple reason that virtually none of it is relevant. It is proper to debate my comments. It is not appropriate to discuss anything about me personally.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Very good post.
I happen to believe that most people are honestly attempting to align their actions with their view of the gospel. My husband and I (both immigrants from different Latin American countries who arrived in different ways) are mostly in opposing sides on this issue. I have no doubt that both he and I come at this with love for God and our fellow man as the center of our belief and yet we don’t come to the same conclusions. So not all Latinos, not all immigrants, and not all Catholics will be able to agree. Maybe by attempting to zero in on common ground we might begin to find success.
E
Ender
Guest
I imagine you and your husband can at least discuss the issues civilly, and both surely accept that the other is acting in good faith, however misguided one may view the proposals being made. This is the difference: you two are unwilling to condemn each other as acting immorally for holding competing positions. That concession is demonstrably absent from most discussions on political topics.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Yes usually we can. There have been times, but usually it is due to aggravation over other parts of life. During those times we’ve been known to argue on subjects where we are in agreement with each other even. Age has taken us past those ridiculous self made situations though. We have come to agree not to discuss issues when we are frustrated. Maybe that is something society will learn eventual too. Guess that’s wishful thinking
blackforest
Well-known member
Part of civility lies in honestly representing your opponents. Who in here condemned you as immoral?
I can only say this in so many ways and so many times. Provided there are job openings and opportunities available for them, as there indeed are, (discussed upthread - I’m not repeating myself), it would be immoral to turn them away and respond with a wall rather than aid.
Pretty easy. I look to the Ten Commandments, the Gospels, and Church teaching.
You’re confusing morality with practicality. The question I am addressing is: “Is it moral to turn away an entire crowd of people seeking help for their basic needs by building a wall?” My answer is yes, it is an immoral proposal. I’m sorry you feel otherwise. I stand with my Bishops, not angry laity posting anonymously on CAF.
Perhaps we can find some common ground here: Who among these throngs of asylees should be granted permission to enter. How many? Anybody? Some people? No people? A lucky remnant? How do they qualify? What makes them worthy? What is the proper Catholic response to those who are turned away?
I’m going to question this part of it.
Yes, there are jobs. But there’s a mismatch between the jobs available and the people.
If there were infinite jobs available for them to take, I’d agree; it would be a win-win for them and for the U.S. if there could be some kind of accommodation so that they could be admitted legally and take the jobs legally.
But, as I said before, the illegal aliens are not all valedictorians and rocket scientists; they tend to be the least skilled, least educated, least literate, and least likely to assimilate. One of the “Angel Moms” made the point that there are only so many jobs for dishwashers, housekeepers, and babysitters.
1
13pollitos
Guest
These are excellent questions to start with. It’s important not just to ask questions but to also listen prayerfully and patiently to responses. I can give you my responses and also my husband’s responses to these questions.
- Husband: The migrants should be vetted for security and also legitimate claims for asylum. Those that pass should be allowed to file a claim to be reviewed.
Mine: same response
Mine: no set number but a priority to those in extreme danger with children
- Husband: They qualify by applying in their home country and submitting all necessary documents. If the documents are not available they can submit alternative forms. Once the forms and documents are submitted they will be reviewed and a determination will be made. Criminal records and other obvious threats will be reviewed on a case by case basis. Level of personal danger will be ranked with those at most risk given priority. Economic migrants will be placed at bottom of the list. All decisions can be appealed.
Mine: very similar but I think they should be allowed to apply at any point of entry. - Husband: Worthy? Not sure what you mean because not one of us is worthy of living at all but God granted us that gift. It’s not up to anyone to tell the worth of another person so you just see if they fit the criteria for help.
Mine: His answer made me change my mind on my answer. As long as the criteria is met they will be ranked accordingly - Husband: Catholics should always pray and proclaim the truth. If you have the resources send material support. But most people don’t have the resources.
Mine: Same as he said but I would add education and political pressure on the governments
G
graciew
Guest
Nothing… that we make mistakes but we thought of it in good conscience and as best as we could within our possibilities…
And we may still be talking about moral issues and trying to solve a problem ethically in good faith. Making decisions within what we believe in good faith to be teaching And be both very misinformed , or ignorant or dumb .
From there to accuse each other of sinning there is a stretch. Off side…
Thanks for the long answer, Ender
blackforest
Well-known member
I posted upthread some links indicating that the crackdown on immigration and migration has resulted in labor shortages in various industries, including meat, produce, and construction. Native-born gringos aren’t rushing to fill these jobs.
I’m OK with all of this.
A concrete number with some give-or-take flexibility would be a nice guideline. How did he come to this number? I like the idea of prioritizing family with children.
“Worthiness” refers to whether or not they should be granted entry not according to the government, but according to our own assessment of what ought to be. There have been veiled accusations that some of them are just selfishly seeking more money when they would still be well off making less money elsewhere. I see their situation as more precarious than, say, just trying to get a three-car garage instead of a two-car garage. These would be the “unworthy” petitioners. I’d hope that everyone would agree that a family with children fleeing narcoterrorism should be worthy of entry.
I would agree with your assessment here.
These are very thoughtful answers and provide hope that we can ease the polarization - thank you!
Last edited:
- Status