"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[blackforest]

Believe it or not, I have some firsthand experience, too and only wish I could chat with your hubby more. (I totally get not wanting to fall into the CAF hole, though. ) Not as a climber, thankfully, but as a witness. I remember Tijuana well. Before the mid-90s, there was only one wall. The Mexican side of the wall was its own mini-village complete with campfires, black marketeers, and unscrupulous coyotes preying on desperate migrants. Then they fortified everything on the U.S. side with extra militarization and a second border fence.

I also met a number of tijuanenses who crossed the border daily to work in the U.S. - and then came home for a late dinner in Mexico - because they couldn’t earn a survivable wage on the Mexican side.

Here’s the thing: Desperate people do desperate things. And they’re willing to die trying. Like a lot of us well-off gringos, I joke every election season about wanting to move to Canada, but I’ve never been in a state of desperation. I’d love to see the root causes of these migrants’ desperation addressed in a more meaningful way. The Wall is like putting a band-aid on a severed artery.

 

[13pollitos]

Yep it is a band aid and I am not one who wants the wall. I don’t see it as a fix for anything. We do need a more fixable solution and I agree to a certain extent about desperation. What I don’t necessarily believe is that the majority of people are truly desperate. Are quite a few of them? No doubt. But not most. It’s hard to really talk about in this format, but I will say that many—MANY—simply believe the lies fed to them about the US and see it as a simple way to get a step up. My parents immigrated legally but had the same ideas. I can remember just tiny parts of our trip north because I was 5, but the biggest thing I remember is being told how amazing our life was about to become. We all were unpleasantly surprised about many things we discovered instead. My husband came here at 16 because he had been told by his teacher in school when he ran out of money and needed to drop out that in the US, everyone goes to college because it’s free. He wanted so badly to become an engineer but had no way of making that possible in Mexico. Of course, college here is not free and not even a possibility for someone who speaks no English and has no diploma. Was he desperate? No, just saw a path he thought would make things easier. He had food, a place to live, all his needs were met. He says all the time what a wake up call it was to come to this promised land and suddenly being cold, hungry and sleeping in a van. Going to work in a field when he left his fathers house for school all because he didn’t WANT to work in the fields. Most of the immigrants we know have similar stories, and in many ways we are still better off. But I really dispute the notion of it all being desperation. Those kinds of words and ideas bring people to pity others and that is degrading. Please don’t think I feel like you are degrading anyone. I believe you have a true heart of compassion. Just pointing out how hard it is to truly discuss topics like this without somebody getting upset.

 

[blackforest]

Yea, I’m trying to be empathetic, not patronizing. The people fleeing violence and narcoterrorism are desperate. They wouldn’t have crossed thousands of miles and braved so many obstacles if they weren’t. I know I wouldn’t sneak away at night through the woods in snowshoes to get to Canada just to get away from Trump and rush into the welcoming arms of . . . Trudeau. (I’m Catholic and not fond of either). Anyway, the desperation is prevalent among the Central American asylees and, as you said, Mexicans fleeing violence in their own country. It’s the asylees and not immigrants who are making up the so-called “crisis at the border.” Both documented and undocumented immigration rates are down.

On the immigration front, I don’t think the Mexicans I knew (assuming they didn’t have hits on their heads from the drug lords) - the ones living in cinderblock shacks with dirt floors - are being terribly out of line for wanting to rise out of poverty and come to the U.S. I’ve traced my lineage and have both refugees and immigrants in my ancestry - from French Huguenots escaping a bloodbath of persecution to poor Scotsmen who came over to Canada and the U.S. to become thriving businessmen. That they were born in a time before this soil and its most restrictive immigration laws is simply an accident of chance and history. I don’t fault them or consider them bad people. Laws exist, but they’re not always just, and it’s more than OK to question and change them.

 

[Ender]

To me it seems that the desire to make this a political debate instead of the pastoral teaching of our bishops stems from the squeamishness toward saying “I disagree with the teachings of the leaders of our Church.”

But I don’t disagree with the teachings of the leaders of our church. What I disagree with are the political opinions some of them have expressed.

Read the OP citation from the US bishops. And read what specific bishops have said individually on justice for immigrants. It is not political. It is about Catholic teaching.

What does the church teach about the morality of building a wall? Where in church doctrine is the morality of physical barriers discussed? What we are talking about is not Catholic teaching but its application in specific contexts, and its application involves prudential judgment, not moral choices.

If you disagree with it, have the courage to say so, and make your case in that context.

I have been making the case for the disengagement of bishops from political issues for years. I’ve never been reluctant to make that point.

Are you willing to answer these simple questions?

• Is it immoral to build a border wall to prevent people from sneaking into the country?
• Is it immoral to set limits on how many people we allow in each year?

 

[Ender]

Setting aside walls, one could argue using the lose, ambiguous, scripture quotes used to oppose walls that any sort of controlled-area should be a no-no.

Throwing out Scripture quotes to support ones political solutions is an inevitable consequence of looking at problems as moral instead of practical. There is a moral concern: to help where it is needed. That said, choosing the best way to help, and determining what we can and cannot reasonably do have nothing to do with moral choices.

So long as the bishops continue to claim that problems are moral rather than practical, this is how the discussions will go. It will be about showing how good your side is versus the moral swamp represented by the other side with the real, practical aspects of the problem left unaddressed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

To me it seems that the desire to make this a political debate instead of the pastoral teaching of our bishops stems from the squeamishness toward saying “I disagree with the teachings of the leaders of our Church.”

But I don’t disagree with the teachings of the leaders of our church. What I disagree with are the political opinions some of them have expressed.

Were those opinions cited in the OP, or in subsequent comments? I must have missed them.

Read the OP citation from the US bishops. And read what specific bishops have said individually on justice for immigrants. It is not political. It is about Catholic teaching.

What does the church teach about the morality of building a wall?

Nothing. And the article cited in the OP by the USCCB does not say anything about a wall being immoral.

If you disagree with it, have the courage to say so, and make your case in that context.

I have been making the case for the disengagement of bishops from political issues for years. I’ve never been reluctant to make that point.

What you have not stated is whether the US Bishops’ “Justice of Immigrants” cited in the OP constitutes this unwarranted engagement in political issues.

Are you willing to answer these simple questions?

• Is it immoral to build a border wall to prevent people from sneaking into the country?
• Is it immoral to set limits on how many people we allow in each year?

No, and no. I have never said otherwise. Nor have the US bishops.

 

[Ender]

This reminds me of pro-choicers telling pro-lifers that they shouldn’t speak out against abortion because that would mean they’re “judging women.” Your position is immoral. Whether or not your character - i.e. your entire self as a person - is immoral is something I’m unable to determine.

Abortion is always the fall back argument. The difference here, and it is no small difference, is that the church has taken an explicit position on abortion: it is always and without exception immoral. She of course has said nothing whatever about the morality of walls. Supporting abortion is immoral; supporting walls is not. My personal support for the wall may be immoral if my reason for supporting is bad, but there is in fact nothing whatever immoral about building the wall.

It’s a pity that you’re choosing to take this personally.

This is confusing. If immigration is a moral issue, and I am on the other side of that issue from you, and your side is the moral side, are you not implying that I am behaving immorally? And if I’m not behaving immorally how can this be a moral issue given that my positions are contrary to yours (and to a number of bishops)?

If my actions are immoral should they not be condemned? The problem of course is that you can’t actually point to anything specific to condemn, which kind of goes to my point that this isn’t a moral problem, which is what leads to condemnation by innuendo: “Christ said this! Don’t you accept Christ?” Why wouldn’t I take such charges personally?

 

[Ender]

Were those opinions cited in the OP, or in subsequent comments? I must have missed them.

I guess you missed them. They were contained in a link provided in the OP. Here’s a sample:

• A broad based legalization (permanent residency) of the undocumented of all nationalities;
• Reform of our family-based immigration system to allow family members to reunite with loved ones in the United States;
• Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy.

Those are specific, practical proposals to address some of the immigration problems, and not a one of them involves a moral choice. These are all personal, political, opinions.

What you have not stated is whether the US Bishops’ “Justice of Immigrants” cited in the OP constitutes this unwarranted engagement in political issues.

Yes, it does, because it implies exactly what I have contested: that this is a moral issue, that the proposals it makes are moral choices, and to oppose those proposals is immoral.

Ender: Is it immoral to build a border wall to prevent people from sneaking into the country?

No… I have never said otherwise. Nor have the US bishops.

But “the bishops” did say we should abandon “the border “blockade” enforcement strategy.” So what do they mean by that? Either they are implying that the wall is immoral, which contradicts your position, or…not, but if that proposal is not a moral choice then why shouldn’t we assume the same is true for all the others? And if they are all simply personal proposals and not actual church doctrines then where is the issue in disagreeing with them, and why should I be castigated for “disagreeing with the teaching of the leaders of the church” when that “teaching” is political and not moral?

 

[blackforest]

Abortion is always the fall back argument. The difference here, and it is no small difference, is that the church has taken an explicit position on abortion: it is always and without exception immoral. She of course has said nothing whatever about the morality of walls. Supporting abortion is immoral; supporting walls is not. My personal support for the wall may be immoral if my reason for supporting is bad, but there is in fact nothing whatever immoral about building the wall.

Irrelevant to my point. This does not address my point that you’re using the same disingenuous arguments as a pro-choicer - deliberately conflating judging and act with judging a person.

If my actions are immoral should they not be condemned?

What are you currently doing that’s immoral? You support something immoral, but I don’t condemn others for misguided beliefs.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I wonder if the French bishops endorse the yellow vest movement? Because that’s about economic inequality as well, right?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Were those opinions cited in the OP, or in subsequent comments? I must have missed them.

I guess you missed them. They were contained in a link provided in the OP. Here’s a sample:

• A broad based legalization (permanent residency) of the undocumented of all nationalities;
• Reform of our family-based immigration system to allow family members to reunite with loved ones in the United States;
• Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy.

I did not take them to be specific proposals. They are principles - guidelines - goals - that can be achieved with a variety of specific proposals.

What you have not stated is whether the US Bishops’ “Justice of Immigrants” cited in the OP constitutes this unwarranted engagement in political issues.

Yes, it does, because it implies exactly what I have contested: that this is a moral issue, that the proposals it makes are moral choices, and to oppose those proposals is immoral.

If you don’t like the use of the word “moral”, substitute the word “right.” Was Jesus’ parable about the sheep and goats about what is right (and moral) or wasn’t it? Was Jesus just talking about practical solutions to the problems of the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the imprisoned, the sick? Just answer that if you want to explain the difference between moral and practical in this context.

But “the bishops” did say we should abandon “the border “blockade” enforcement strategy.” So what do they mean by that? Either they are implying that the wall is immoral, which contradicts your position, or…not,

I was hoping you would follow your “or…” with some meaningful alternative understandings of “blockage enforcement strategy.” But you did not. Does that mean you do not think it has any alternate meaning? Remember, this document was written around 2003, before the subject of Trump’s wall was in the news. So it is unlikely that they saw into the future to refer to a hot topic of political debate that would not be hot for another decade or so. If you read the original document this refers to you will see it was about a strategy (not a wall) that was adopted in 1994. The document may refer to specific political actions taken and specific factual data, but it analyzes that data and those actions in the light of Catholic Social Teaching. (Yes, there really is such a thing. It was not invented by leftists.) And what the bishops have a pastoral role to interpret actions taken with regard to those political developments in the light of the teachings of the Church. I don’t recall your being outraged that the bishops made statements against the recent moves to allow same-sex civil marriages. But it is very similar. The Church looks at what is happening in our world and comments on it with pastoral letters. Looking outside our own country, there is Saint Óscar Romero, who commented very openly about specific political injustices. We he also “out of line” in doing so?

 

[Ender]

Irrelevant to my point. This does not address my point that you’re using the same disingenuous arguments as a pro-choicer - deliberately conflating judging and act with judging a person.

But a pro-choice person would be justified in using that argument except for the fact that his choice is wrong independent of his intention, while with immigration my choice can be wrong solely on account of my intention. That is the crucial difference: there is nothing intrinsically wrong with building a wall, and my support of building one is immoral only if my reasons for supporting it are immoral.

Abortion is intrinsically wrong so no argument supporting it can be moral. Building a wall is not per se evil, and arguments supporting it can be strong or weak, but it can only be my personal reasons for wanting it that can make my support immoral. Nothing can make the arguments for or against it immoral since it is not a moral choice.

You support something immoral, but I don’t condemn others for misguided beliefs.

What makes a border barrier immoral?

 

[graciew]

Z

But “the bishops” did say we should abandon “ the border “blockade” enforcement strategy. ”

Bear in mind the OP posted some 2003/ 2004 document as I believe I said before.
It is a 16 years old joint criteria for that time, US and Mexican Bishops.
Doesn t sound like they have been paid much attention anyway…

 

[Ender]

• Abandonment of the border “blockade” enforcement strategy.

If this doesn’t mean “don’t build the wall” then their words are too nebulous to have any meaning at all. But this goes to another objection I have: they are willing to imply actions they are unwilling (because they are unable) to specify. They can’t come out and say “Building the wall is immoral” so it is implied we shouldn’t build it because, it is implied, that would be immoral.

After all, if it isn’t immoral and therefore we are morally free to choose on the matter, why are they opining on it? Wouldn’t that demonstrate that this is merely a political opinion? Come on, it has to be one or the other - either it is a moral command, or it is a prudential judgment. Take a position, but if it is a prudential judgment, then were is the moral choice? What makes this a moral issue if their own judgments are practical rather than moral?

If you don’t like the use of the word “moral”, substitute the word “right.” Was Jesus’ parable about the sheep and goats about what is right (and moral) or wasn’t it? Was Jesus just talking about practical solutions to the problems of the hungry, the thirsty, the naked, the imprisoned, the sick? Just answer that if you want to explain the difference between moral and practical in this context.

Jesus told us what to do, but not how to do it. The bishops are trying to tell us how to achieve a particular goal. No, Jesus was absolutely not giving particulars about how best to feed the hungry, etc.

I don’t recall your being outraged that the bishops made statements against the recent moves to allow same-sex civil marriages. But it is very similar.

No, it is not similar and for exactly the same reason I explained to blackforest when he raised the issue of abortion. In both of your examples, you have chosen something that is intrinsically evil, something that is directly counter to serious and explicit church doctrine, something that can be condemned because of its object alone and about which the intent is irrelevant. None of that applies to any issue related to immigration.

I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single aspect of the immigration issue that faces us with a moral choice. That you (and everyone else) have failed to provide one, and instead have to refer to other moral issues that involve acts that are intrinsically evil reinforces the position that no such choice exists.

 

[Ender]

Bear in mind the OP posted some 2003/ 2004 document as I believe I said before.

OK, it’s 16 years old; does that mean it is no longer applicable? If it is a moral observation then it should be as valid today as it was then, but if its age matters then clearly it was just another policy statement from a special interest group.

Which is it? A moral obligation, which would require us to oppose the wall, or a proclamation about the approach they would personally like to see implemented? If it is the former then someone needs to explain what makes a physical barrier immoral.

 

[graciew]

You may remember the context . I don t.
I have so many examples of the Church having had to participate in the here and now among our national crisis in our history, concrete here and now real SOS, and often times called , asked to intervene to help out…
Do you sincerely honestly believe that any year, any national crisis in our whole salad of crisis in my life time here at home is exactly the same and what gives if it was in 2002 for example?

So what was the case back then? What difficulty , crisis, situation where they addressing? I have no clue, and no clue either why a 16 year old situation is brought on to the table today…
So “ blockade” might have meant sth specific back then.
The more I read, the more I realize how much the Church has helped us home in the here and now… but well, ups and downs is our reality in the ends of the earth… It may not be yours.
Give thanks…

 

[graciew]

Sad to hear posters can be so detached from the reality of how our own priests and Bishops walk sites you wouldn’t dare to walk,Jimmy Todler.
Were it so, you would know better. And stop that childish honking

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If this doesn’t mean “don’t build the wall” then their words are too nebulous to have any meaning at all. But this goes to another objection I have: they are willing to imply actions they are unwilling (because they are unable) to specify. They can’t come out and say “Building the wall is immoral” so it is implied we shouldn’t build it because, it is implied, that would be immoral.

This is a weak criticism. If the don’t recommend specific proposals, you say they are unwilling. If they do recommend specific proposals you say they are wading into practical politics. They can’t win with you, can they? Their words have meaning, despite your claim to the contrary. It is up to us, the laity, to decide in each specific instance, how to apply those words to our daily life. I will admit this: For a layperson to listen to these words from the bishops, weigh them in their hearts, and decide that our country still needs to build a wall to stop people from coming over the border illegally, that is well within the bounds of prudential judgement and cannot be condemned as against Catholic teaching. On this point I assume that we agree. But I would not say that the bishops should not proclaim Catholic Social Teaching in the way they have.

Jesus told us what to do, but not how to do it. The bishops are trying to tell us how to achieve a particular goal.

I disagree. The bishops are not telling us how many immigrants should be admitted to the US or what the screening process should be. That would be telling us how to achieve a particular goal.

I don’t recall your being outraged that the bishops made statements against the recent moves to allow same-sex civil marriages. But it is very similar.

No, it is not similar and for exactly the same reason I explained to blackforest when he raised the issue of abortion. In both of your examples, you have chosen something that is intrinsically evil…

[/quote]
No. A civil ceremony that recognizes a legal relations between two men is not intrinsically evil. I think you are straining for “special pleading.” I can illustrate that by the fact the homosexual acts between consenting adults is also intrinsically evil. But it was not so long ago that it was illegal. At the time of its decriminalization, if the Church had come out very strongly against decriminalization, would you have called it an unwarranted venture into practical politics?

I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single aspect of the immigration issue that faces us with a moral choice.

Now that you put it that way, I would say the single aspect of the immigration issue is the degree of consideration that is given to those in need. That is a moral choice. Obviously zero consideration is immoral. But is 0.0001% consideration also immoral? I don’t know. At some point it becomes enough. Where that point is for each person is a personal decision that the Church does not make, and neither does the cited bishops’ statement. But the bishops’ statement gives us guidance on how to make that decision for ourselves.

 

[Victoria33]

They had another article before the one in the OP which said immigrants should respect the “national character” of the nation. Sort of saying, there do not need to be sweeping changes. I agree with that.

So, then, they come out with this 2nd article.

 

[Ender]

If the don’t recommend specific proposals, you say they are unwilling.

No, I have never made that criticism, nor would it make any sense for me to do so since that is the very thing I have for years been objecting to.

Their words have meaning, despite your claim to the contrary.

In general their words are quite ambiguous, which is demonstrated by the failure of even those who cite them to clarify their meaning. For example: what exactly is meant by their assertion that we should abandon “the border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy”? Does that mean we should not build the wall, and if it does is it a moral condemnation of building it, or is it their prudential judgment that it would not be a good solution? If their words have meaning, then explain them.

I would not say that the bishops should not proclaim Catholic Social Teaching in the way they have.

This goes to the very point I’m making: a statement on “border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy” in no way pertains to Catholic Social Teaching and it is unfortunate that they suggest otherwise.

The bishops are not telling us how many immigrants should be admitted to the US or what the screening process should be.

In a sense this is true, but only because their statements are vague enough to suggest a very large number without having to specify it (“A broad based legalization (permanent residency) of the undocumented of all nationalities.”) They can safely leave it to their adherents to argue that anything less is immoral and contrary to the teaching of the church (viz. the USCCB).

if the Church had come out very strongly against decriminalization [of homosexual acts], would you have called it an unwarranted venture into practical politics?

Very possibly. The church has never held that every immoral act should be made illegal, and the choice of which acts to outlaw depends not just on the act but the society to which it applies.

Ender: I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single aspect of the immigration issue that faces us with a moral choice.

Now that you put it that way, I would say the single aspect of the immigration issue is the degree of consideration that is given to those in need.

I have repeatedly said that the only way to find a (rational) act relative to immigration to be immoral is by condemning the intent behind it. Given that there is no possible way to know how much consideration someone has given, how can you judge anyone’s position to be immoral? The only way is to condemn what you cannot know; that is, to judge them rashly and uncharitably. This has been my position from the beginning.

What have I said before? The only moral choice involved in addressing any political issue (that doesn’t involve an intrinsic evil) is that we honestly want to resolve it. After that, all the choices we make are prudential. This is why I view the bishops’ comments on immigration to be purely political position papers.