"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Their words have meaning, despite your claim to the contrary.
Click to expand...
In general their words are quite ambiguous, which is demonstrated by the failure of even those who cite them to clarify their meaning.
Click to expand...
That’s because they don’t need clarifying. They don’t recommend specific proposals because they are not supposed to.
For example: what exactly is meant by their assertion that we should abandon “the border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy”?
Click to expand...
As I said, this was in response to a change in policy in 1994. Did you read section 79 of “Strangers no Longer”? It is explained there.
This goes to the very point I’m making: a statement on “border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy” in no way pertains to Catholic Social Teaching…
Click to expand...
Well, the bishops thought otherwise, and I agree with them on that point.
The bishops are not telling us how many immigrants should be admitted to the US or what the screening process should be.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That is the nature of the teaching of general principles. One principle is that we should pray to God often. But how often? Once a day? Every hour? Once a week? I don’t know. The teaching is just vague enough to imply lots of time in prayer without having to specify how much. See how easy it is to do what you just did?

…continued…
 
…continuing:
40.png
Ender:
if the Church had come out very strongly against decriminalization [of homosexual acts], would you have called it an unwarranted venture into practical politics?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
And yet you are quite sure that it is proper for the Church to oppose another immoral act - two men pretending to be married. Clearly there are some topics on which you don’t mind seeing the Church get involved in commenting on civil policy. And the excuse that “it is intrinsically evil” is special pleading that does not hold up, since you just said there is another intrinsic evil that you do not think the Church should comment on with regard to civil policy - namely, homosexual acts.
Ender: I have repeatedly asked you to identify a single aspect of the immigration issue that faces us with a moral choice.

LeafByNiggle: 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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
But the bishops are not judging anyone to be immoral.

And the issue of justice for immigrants does not depend on anyone’s intent. If immigrants are denied just treatment because of our ignorance of their situation or because of other causes unrelated to intent, the effect on the immigrants is just the same as if the denial of justice was due to evil intent. it is experienced as an evil outcome by the victims of this injustice, whether there is evil intent behind it or not. As a matter of human dignity, we should care about this injustice are work to correct it, regardless of the cause.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I have ever mentioned morality with respect to a wall at our border is when the choice is made (as it sometimes is) to build a wall instead of offering sanctuary.
Click to expand...
I think we agree that the two acts, build a wall and offer sanctuary, are not mutually exclusive. That is, both acts can happen at the same time. If true then it appears the question is only one of determining the morality of sanctuary (we agreed the wall is moral).

Sanctuary, defined as providing protection of illegals from arrest and prosecution, seems on the face to be immoral unless the laws broken are immoral. Is that the issue: our immigration laws are immoral?
LeafByNiggle said:
It is easy to agree to that in the abstract, as long as one is still free to classify anyone as not being in dire need without any objective criteria. That I believe is what is happening.
Click to expand...
What objective criteria do you suggest that would indicate a dire need exists?
 
Theo520 said:
Virtually nobody from mexico qualifies for asylum.
Click to expand...
Yea. We get that. This was already covered in my exchange with @13pollitos
Ender said:
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,
Click to expand...
It is a logically bankrupts argument regardless of which issue is being addressed.
Loud-living-dogma said:
I wonder if the French bishops endorse the yellow vest movement? Because that’s about economic inequality as well, right?
Click to expand...
They acknowledge the economic injustice spawning the movement but disagree with violent protest. https://cruxnow.com/church-in-europ...cautious-in-response-to-yellow-vest-protests/
JimmyTolder said:
No American Bishop will ever have to worry about an immigrant taking his job. Until they do, I reserve the right to gently explain that they have no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Are you jealous because you were vying for a 12-hour shift on the killing floor of the meat-packing plant? Were you hoping to risk death by heat stroke while harvesting tobacco in North Carolina? I’m sorry to hear that immigrants took these job opportunities away from you . . .

That said, people actually get jobs, they don’t “take” them away. They apply with an application, resume, and interview and compete with you for the position. Just so you know, quite a few priests are immigrants. You may reply, “But . . . but . . . they’re legal.” Legal immigrants get jobs, too . . . jobs for which native-born citizens are far more likely to apply.

Finally, the U.S. government took more jobs away by sending labor abroad with NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements. Corporations take away jobs with frequent lay-offs, cheap outsourcing, and importing immigrants to fill positions at lower wages. If you’re outraged at “job thieves,” you might want to look in other directions.
 
blackforest said:
Are you jealous because you were vying for a 12-hour shift on the killing floor of the meat-packing plant? Were you hoping to risk death by heat stroke while harvesting tobacco in North Carolina? I’m sorry to hear that immigrants took these job opportunities away from you . . .
Click to expand...
Maybe the conditions and hrs are bad because the employer can hire illegal workers. If they had to entice legal workers, both the pay and conditions would likely improve.
 
It is not the case of “build the wall and stop illegal immigraion”. We can and most likely would have both. (Since most illegal immigration is from overstaying visas. And however high the wall is, ladders are one foot higher.)
 
This is one more argument for a just path to citizenship. The cost of your meat may go up, but fewer workers will be exploited.
 
blackforest said:
This is one more argument for a just path to citizenship. The cost of your meat may go up, but fewer workers will be exploited.
Click to expand...
We already have just path to citizenship.

We are like the most popular team in the league, which has a 20yr wait list for season tickets. We just don’t have the seats to sell for all the people who want them.
 
blackforest said:
Are you jealous because you were vying for a 12-hour shift on the killing floor of the meat-packing plant? Were you hoping to risk death by heat stroke while harvesting tobacco in North Carolina? I’m sorry to hear that immigrants took these job opportunities away from you . . .

That said, people actually get jobs, they don’t “take” them away. They apply with an application, resume, and interview and compete with you for the position. Just so you know, quite a few priests are immigrants. You may reply, “But . . . but . . . they’re legal. ” Legal immigrants get jobs, too . . . jobs for which native-born citizens are far more likely to apply.

Finally, the U.S. government took more jobs away by sending labor abroad with NAFTA and other “free trade” agreements. Corporations take away jobs with frequent lay-offs, cheap outsourcing, and importing immigrants to fill positions at lower wages. If you’re outraged at “job thieves,” you might want to look in other directions.
Click to expand...
Excellent points because this is the reality.
 
Yeah, I guess just everyone who wants to move here should just be able to easily? Is that your (and MTV’s point)?
 
Because you say so? If anything, we should have a (larger) guest worker program. Then inspect the hell out of employers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top