L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Hmm – it generates the most disapproval in Latin America…
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
We should not be surprised that the question above remains unanswered. Nor should we be surprised that our bishop teach, as they should, that if any peoples, not just immigrants, are in need that justice requires we help always out of our surplus. For those in dire need, charity calls us to care even out of our substance.
Christ taught the “rich young man” exactly so. The bishops, I hope, will never teach us that in the face of human suffering that “less than everything is good enough.” That is not their calling. We must make that judgment. God help us.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Legal immigration to the US is not nearly impossible. My family immigrated. We rectified my husband’s status. People from all over the world immigrate legally. There are restrictions like most other countries have and people don’t want to abide by those restrictions. We have not been able to get my in laws here legally. We won’t bring them illegally. I’m all for reforming the system but it to claim that it’s almost impossible is just dramatic.
blackforest
Well-known member
Could you point me to which parts of the video you found inaccurate and why?
1
13pollitos
Guest
We can start with the title. It is dramatic at best to say that it is “almost impossible” to immigrate to the US when we live in a country that is FULL of immigrants. I dare say everyone on the US knows at least one recent immigrant, and most people know many immigrants. The US military is full of legal immigrants, and if you include military spouses you are looking at even more. My mom came for education and got employer based after that. Most of the immigrants I know came initially with H2A visas (farm work). The costs are way overblown unless they are assuming a lawyer is necessary. Even rectifying my husband’s status from illegal crosser to conditional resident status we didn’t use a lawyer. We filed all papers ourselves in Mexico at the embassy in Mexico City, traveled to the consulate in Ciudad Juárez on our appointment dates, and just followed the instructions given to us. We did not hire or consult attorneys. It wasn’t required and we found it completely unnecessary. The penalty we paid was time outside of the US (total of 18 months) and not monetary. Changing from conditional to permanent resident was done in the US and required interviews. Same with citizenship. Many employers pay the fees for their applicants. Depending on which country you are immigrating from and the type program you are applying for makes a difference, but the video makes it out to be a near impossible task when it really isn’t. In many ways, getting a visitors visa is much more difficult. The reasons are so many overstay visitor visas. That’s why we haven’t been able to get my husband’s family here. They don’t want to immigrate just visit so we haven’t done that. The area they live in has a high instance of visa overstays. We can’t provide proof other than our word that they will go home when it’s time.
It is perfectly acceptable to place rules and limits on immigration. Do I personally think the system needs reform? Yes I do. I think that it will never happen though unless we start enforcing the laws we already have. Then we can start looking at ways to improve things in a fair and safe manner.
As immigrants, my husband and I have felt nothing other than acceptance and kindness from the US. We don’t have negative feelings about the process or system, maybe because we both view it as a chance and not a right. We don’t feel like we are any more worthy as someone else but we did follow the process set in front of us and we chose to do the things asked. Many people choose not to for various reasons.
Even though I take issue with the costs set forth in the video, many of the people opting to come here illegally are paying much higher prices.
It is perfectly acceptable to place rules and limits on immigration. Do I personally think the system needs reform? Yes I do. I think that it will never happen though unless we start enforcing the laws we already have. Then we can start looking at ways to improve things in a fair and safe manner.
As immigrants, my husband and I have felt nothing other than acceptance and kindness from the US. We don’t have negative feelings about the process or system, maybe because we both view it as a chance and not a right. We don’t feel like we are any more worthy as someone else but we did follow the process set in front of us and we chose to do the things asked. Many people choose not to for various reasons.
Even though I take issue with the costs set forth in the video, many of the people opting to come here illegally are paying much higher prices.
blackforest
Well-known member
It sounds like you have a lot of personal anecdotes on the matter. And it’s true that this country was effectively built by immigrants and still has a lot today. But as current law stands, it is nearly impossible. How does one do it more swiftly than she mentioned in the video? What steps do they take? Military service is definitely not an option for many, if not most, people. It really, really is a complicated process. Why Don’t They Just Get In Line? There Is No Line for Many Unauthorized Immigrants | American Immigration Council
I don’t think that in 564 posts, anyone has disagreed with this.
1
13pollitos
Guest
Some people will never qualify to immigrate to the US just as not everyone can immigrate to Canada, Australia, the UK, or any other country. So for some no amount of time or money will spend the process along. What steps do people take to immigrate quickly? That would depend on their circumstances. It depends on what type of visa they are seeking. It depends on the country they are applying from, if they have family or are traveling alone, if they have family in the US already. There isn’t one set answer.
Military service cannot happen until someone is already legally in the US with the ability to work so of course not everyone can join the military. It can be a path to faster citizenship for service members who chose to do that, but not all immigrants want citizenship. Many choose to retain residency instead and others prefer work visas. For instance, H2A has a 9 month work in US, return to home country for 3 months that many like. It allows them the ability to work while still able to go home. It is renewable as well.
Immigration can be very complicated because not everyone has the same process to follow. When my husband and I went to rectify his status we had to apply in Mexico (his home country), but a close friend three years later was able to apply at the office in Louisville, KY. He was able to remain in the US for the entire process but could not work. Another close friend is working with immigration currently for the same thing, and her husband has even been allowed to keep working at his job. They will have to go to the consulate in Ciudad Juárez at the end of the process.
The best advice anyone can really give someone going through the immigration process is to simply follow directions. Submit the paperwork and documents required and make plenty of phone calls. No ones journey is exactly the same. That part should be looked at for reform, but I think that there are probably some legitimate reasons for the differences.
As humans we often complicate things more than necessary. Yes it’s a headache at times but as long as you do what you are asked it’s not really as hard as it’s made out to be.
E
Ender
Guest
If telling us “the border ‘blockade’ enforcement strategy” should be abandoned is not a specific proposal then it’s not clear what it is. How could it not need clarifying if what it says it not what it means? If it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build the wall then explain what is being said here.
Has the meaning changed since it was written? Do the words mean something else today, or are they as applicable in today’s circumstances as they were before?
Why is this so confusing? The church has a doctrine regarding marriage, so no, there is nothing inappropriate in the church defending her doctrines. She has no doctrines about the building of national barriers so comments regarding whether that is a good or bad idea are prudential. They are not doctrinal.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
We are expected to judge evil acts, and we can validly do that for any act that involves condemning the act rather than the person who commits it. Given that we can know that some acts are intrinsically evil, we may condemn them. For all other acts we would have to know the person’s intent in order to know if his action in this case was immoral, and since we are forbidden to judge what we cannot know - why a person does something - we cannot condemn those acts.
blackforest
Well-known member
Now you’re just begging the question, assuming what you never convincingly proved - that building the wall is amoral. The circular reasoning it making me dizzy.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
It is a pastoral statement made in light of Catholic teaching.
It does say what it means.
It was written in 2003, so it is wrong to think of it as a direct response to today’s debate. And even in terms of today’s debate, this document does not say it is immoral to build a wall. It might be a waste of money, but it is not immoral. The document speaks of the overall strategy behind our actions, not any one specific action (such as building a wall). It is entirely possible to have a welcoming policy toward those in need or those seeking a better life, while at the same time having a huge wall at the border. But the combination of having a wall and a policy that is hostile to immigrants is what this document is addressing.
As I have said many many times, this document is not about building national barriers. This document is about the application of Catholic doctrine, just as much as the prohibition against same-sex marriage. In both cases the leaders of our Church take general Catholic doctrines and apply them to our current situation. And the Church does indeed have doctrines on the proper treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers.LeafByNiggle:
Why is this so confusing? The church has a doctrine regarding marriage, so no, there is nothing inappropriate in the church defending her doctrines. She has no doctrines about the building of national barriers…
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Is building a wall intrinsically evil? That answer is of course no. What, then, could make building a wall an immoral act? The only way such an action could be immoral is if ones intention in building it was immoral, but since we cannot know intentions we cannot judge that the people who support it have acted immorally. The consequences of building it do not change its moral character. If we anticipate harmful consequences and build it anyway that goes to the intention.
E
Ender
Guest
If it means what it says then it is in fact a specific proposal of the kind you just claimed they didn’t make.
Does this mean that what was wrong in 2003 is now right today? If in fact they were explaining church teaching then one would expect it to be meaningful for at least a few decades. If it isn’t meaningful today then it cannot be a church teaching, it is merely their personal judgment.
They wrote a simple declarative statement. Whatever the overall document was about doesn’t change the meaning of that sentence. If that statement doesn’t mean what it clearly says then what reason could be given for assigning meaning to anything else?
This discussion is just uninteresting. Denying that “the border 'blockade enforcement strategy” should be abandoned doesn’t mean a wall should not be built is to deny that words have meaning. Nor does it make any sense to argue that saying we shouldn’t have built a wall 15 years ago somehow doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build one today.
If, as you’ve been claiming, the bishops are merely teaching church doctrines then you cannot also claim that what they said 20-30 years ago has no meaning now. Conversely your claim that what they said then doesn’t apply today must mean that it cannot be anything other than prudential judgment. You cannot have it both ways.
This is just painful.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Well, it is specific in that it comments on a specific action of the government. But it does not get into the details of a exactly how this injustice ought to be corrected.LeafByNiggle:
If it means what it says then it is in fact a specific proposal of the kind you just claimed they didn’t make.
I didn’t say it wasn’t meaningful or applicable to today. I just said it was not just about building a wall.LeafByNiggle:
Does this mean that what was wrong in 2003 is now right today? If in fact they were explaining church teaching then one would expect it to be meaningful for at least a few decades. If it isn’t meaningful today then it cannot be a church teaching, it is merely their personal judgment.
It does not radically change the meaning of that sentence, but the context does help to understand what the intended means was (and is).
You are free to bow out at any time.
What is this obsession you have with a wall? I understand that many on the left are equally obsessed with opposing a wall, but I am not one of them, nor do I think this statement from our bishops is obsessed with stopping a wall. It is about an overall policy that is hostile to immigrants. The wall is not the only way this hostility is evident.
Nor have I said that. In fact I think what they said 20-30 years ago is extremely relevant to today. It just nothing to do with building a wall. I think it is much more relevant to how asylum seekers and immigrants in general are or are not being welcomed. It is about refusing to provide adequate processing facilities and horrendous wait times just to get a hearing. It is about inhuman treatment of those caught sneaking over the border. It is about spreading fear-mongering stories about the dangers immigrants pose and the type of people wanting to enter. But this is just my impression of what the document means. You might have a different one.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
You’re just repeating yourself - not terribly compelling.
What is your dog in the fight? Why do you feel so threatened by our current, wall-less status quo?
What is your dog in the fight? Why do you feel so threatened by our current, wall-less status quo?
1
13pollitos
Guest
I’ve been thinking a lot about this. I am wondering if the bishops and pope have been trying to explain the proper ways of treating others and not so much about whether or not we secure our borders. I really don’t know but it seems we have a communication problem with many issues so perhaps this is another one.
E
Ender
Guest
It is these specific proposals that I take great exception to because of what is implied when a bishop makes such a suggestion. As a number of posters have made clear, they take these political pronouncements as church teaching that must be accepted, otherwise one is a cafeteria Catholic. Any number of offensive assertions are made about dissenting from the church if one dares to disagree with the political judgments of a handful of bishops.
I am not obsessed with the wall. What I am is determined to keep the conversation focused on a particular point and not allow it to wander from one topic to another.
The hostility is evident only to those who choose to declare its existence. It is the willingness to presume the worst in others that is the heart of what is wrong with these discussions, and is what bothers me most about the bishops’ involvement in political issues, because that is precisely what is implied.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The statement by the bishops is not something they just made up on their own. It is inspired from the Catechism (CCC 2241), which is official Church teaching. You should not be offended if this teaching disagrees with your view. It is not meant to be offensive. I cannot speak for what other posters have posted on this subject, and whether they drew implications from the bishops’ teaching beyond what is stated. But if some people do misapply the teaching, that is their mistake. The bishops have been clear enough for those who are open to being instructed by them. The bishops have nothing to apologize for if they are misinterpreted. Their statements are not purely political. In fact they are less political than when the bishops advised us to lobby against a specific proposal on same-sex marriage. And before you repeat your mantra about this being different because it deals with an intrinsic evil, I will say that there is nothing that limits a bishop to comments about intrinsic evils. Would you object to a homily against theft because theft is not an intrinsic evil?LeafByNiggle:
It is these specific proposals that I take great exception to because of what is implied when a bishop makes such a suggestion. As a number of posters have made clear, they take these political pronouncements as church teaching that must be accepted, otherwise one is a cafeteria Catholic. Any number of offensive assertions are made about dissenting from the church if one dares to disagree with the political judgments of a handful of bishops.
OK, then neither of us need mention the morality of building a wall any more. The subject, as I take it, is the “Justice for Immigrants” letter.
Or recognize its existence.LeafByNiggle:
The hostility is evident only to those who choose to declare its existence.
No, it has nothing to do with the good or bad intention of others. It is about what is experienced by the immigrants. This can be discussed without any reference to the intentions of people in the US.
R
rufacewori
Guest
It is a “legal channel” to publicly disagree with Donald.
A
Annie
Guest
There are many more applicants to immigrate to the US than there are places or slots. Does that make us unwelcoming? I think the fact that people continue to apply and continue to come shows that it does not.
And the fact that people continue to apply in more numbers than we allow them to come in means that what makes immigration difficult is not necessarily the process but the sheer number of applicants.
What aspects of the process are unwarranted?
If we make the applications process easier, will that mean that people will not have to wait so long? No, because the reason they have to wait so long is that there are so many applicants, and due to the wide spread of the family unification, people are constantly put ahead of them in line as their relatives are allowed in (I personally think there should be less family reunification.)
We currently have cases of women coming to the US solely to give birth and then return to their home countries with a baby who is a US citizen, who may well, to be honest, have little knowledge or understanding of our history, our culture, maybe even our language.
I have met an immigrant who plans to stay here long enough to get his citizenship, then he will return to his home country to marry and live. His babies will all have US citizenship, and be in a similar situation to the babies above, except at least he was here for 5 years instead of 5 weeks or days.
I totally believe in overhauling our immigration system. We need to make decisions such as whether to focus on allowing in people who are in danger in their own countries (and how will we sort through them? Look what happened with the refugees from the ME–a problem with Trump has not yet dealt with!) Or people who will be of immediate net benefit to our economy, and how will all this affect the poor already here?
Anyway, anyone who says it is impossible or close to impossible to get through the immigration process is just not paying attention. I know immigrants who can not read even in their own language, or who barely speak English. And they are here, so clearly it is nowhere near impossible.
- Status