"Justice for Immigrants" and USCCB

[LilyM]

LilyM:

Those moaning about migrants not “doing it the legal way” might want to ponder why the ‘legal way’ now too often involves a mazelike, incomprehensible bureaucracy like something out of Catch-22 or Yes Minister. And I say that having studied immigration law.

It is known as “elder brother syndrome” and Christ warned us against this sort of thought. In fact he warned us more than once, with the parable of the Prodigal Son and with the parable of the late workers in the vineyard.

Sadly, it has become part of the “bootstrappers” talking points

Except in my case it’s more like the Prodigal Son - the one who had it easy - noting that the elder brother has it harder. Or the last-minute hired worker expressing concern for those who have been slaving in the sun all day. A “bootstrapper” is quite the opposite - one who, possibly because they had it hard themselves, expects everyone else to “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”.

The system burdens me not a bit. If anything, I could in theory make a mint from the increased legal work involved in immigration now.

Some more words of Jesus to ponder:

Luke 11:46 "And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.”

Worth thinking about whether we, who as a community influence what laws are made, are putting unnecessary burdens on the backs of poor prospective immigrants, and if so whether the costs to them and us do not outweigh the benefits.

 

[graciew]

My parents, when they immigrated (not to the US) were not refugees. Although they were finding life in communist Eastern Europe difficult.

They wanted a better life for themselves and their families. You could call them economic migrants or economic refugees.

That is most likely the case of a majority of immigrants at that time.
America , the Americas, were seen as lands of opportunity. Thanks God.
I do not know what was different 40 years ago, but as communications developed, and transport of all sorts became more accessible and quick,much more is known so as to choose where to go with much more info than there used to be.
Also , I think… terrorism added to restrictions in some places.
In fact, we are all concerned about it. And fortunately sharing info internationally.
That is a good thing. It concerns us all.

 

[Ender]

Unfortunately I do not ascribe to the notion of black and white thinking on such matters. I can envision circumstances in which building a wall would be immoral, and I can envision circumstances under which building a wall would be moral.

If you can envision such a circumstance then share it with us, but let me first say that you have to distinguish between the act (building a wall), and the intention behind the act. Any specific action becomes immoral if the intention motivating it is immoral, but that is an entirely different question than whether the act in general is immoral.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because people who tic the “Catholic” box on a survey answer a question a certain way, that does not make it a teaching of the Church.

There are Catholics who choose which doctrines they will embrace.

The Church has condemned use of the bomb. That is enough for me.

American city code inspectors have been known to shut down food pantries where people donate their time to give hot food to the hungry living on the street. These American code inspectors can harass and give tickets and make problems for people wanting to help the poor.

I know that these very rare things get splashed all over the papers/internet. In the mean time, thousands of feeding programs go on every day, following the laws of their community and serving the least of these.

The Just War doctrine does not involve turning the other cheek, does it?

The Just War doctrine says that there are very specific limits on when war is just. It is nuanced.

The USA is not a Catholic nation, it’s laws are not based on Catholic teachings. The Constitution was written to ensure a secular, neutral government. While it would be wonderful to live in a country that fully followed the Catholic social doctrines, it is not possible for me.

So, I live where I was born. I work for change in the place I can influence, right in front of me.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Worth thinking about whether we, who as a community influence what laws are made, are putting unnecessary burdens on the backs of poor prospective immigrants,

Agree completely.

The “system” is broken, it ignores the poor.

 

[Ender]

The Church has condemned use of the bomb. That is enough for me.

That a particular pope condemned the use of the bomb is not exactly the same thing as saying the church has condemned it. It was a prudential decision made by Truman with which this pope disagrees.

This doesn’t have anything to do with immigration, but I thought the point needed clarification.

 

[signit]

My parents, when they immigrated (not to the US) were not refugees. Although they were finding life in communist Eastern Europe difficult.

They wanted a better life for themselves and their families. You could call them economic migrants or economic refugees.

And I would like to know exactly what is wrong with welcoming someone who is coming in because they want to raise their standard of living. Such people start and grow businesses, employ other people, buy goods and services from other businesses and, in short, lift their communities up along with themselves. They are most often a blessing to the places they migrate to, and not a burden, and more of the former than native-born citizens tend to be.

My parents were fortunate - they had skills that were, and remain, very much in demand in many parts of the world. However, in the 40 years since they migrated, I have seen the legal requirements for people with those selfsame, still-just-as-much-in-demand skills, changed out of all recognition.

Today’s migrants - for the same jobs my parents had - are set requirements in terms of English tests, citizenship tests, abilities to financially self-support, that my parents simply would not have been able to meet. And our country is missing out on a lot of keen, skilled, needed and well-suited migrants who could be real assets as a result. I am confident that the same is true of the US.

Very good question.

In my case it was my grandparents and great-grandparents who came to the U.S., in about the late 1800s.

The difference, as I see it, is that there’s a big difference between people coming to a country of 50 million when employers needed employees and people coming to a country of 300+ million where there aren’t jobs for them.

My grand-uncle found a job at the local mill, which provided him with enough of an income that he could support a family.

Today those jobs are gone. People who come to this country without job skills have only so many jobs available to them, and, as one commentator recently said, there are only so many jobs for dishwashers, housekeepers, and babysitters.

And I don’t think it’s right for people to come here just to collect public assistance.

 

[Theo520]

We are the United States of America, we are supposed to be an example for something better.
Florida would have far fewer Cubans living in that state now had we turned those fleeing Castro many years ago.

You are still deflecting

And Cuban’s were rightly considered as legal refugees when their feed touched on US soil.

You need to research what qualifies one as a legal refugee.

 

[TheLittleLady]

And I don’t think it’s right for people to come here just to collect public assistance.

Which programs are available for undocumented people?

 

[signit]

signit:

And I don’t think it’s right for people to come here just to collect public assistance.

Which programs are available for undocumented people?

People who are not here legally are generally not allowed to receive public assistance.

But that doesn’t prevent them from getting it illegally.

Like in this story in the news yesterday:

article

This individual is being investigated to determine his immigration status. He “has been using a MassHealth insurance card” and “has also been receiving state assistance.”

From the article:

Police are more frequently seeing cases of illegal immigrants, often Dominican nationals involved with drug cartels, fraudulently presenting biographical information to a government agency, such as the RMV, to obtain ID. Upon receiving that ID, the impostor can legally drive, register vehicles, travel by air, vote, receive state and federal benefits and be arrested, booked and fingerprinted under their assumed identity.

 

[SeekSalvation]

TheLittleLady, you are trying so hard to push that square peg through a round hole. To be honest, a simple internet search, or even google maps proves what you are saying is not fact. Why continue arguing?

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because I have physically been to the Vatican. I have seen with my own eyes how much of the area is open to the public. There are tours of the Vatican grounds, gardens (I believe I have posted the link where you can go make reservations for one of those tours yourself). More of the Vatican State is open to the public than St Peter’s/St Peter’s Square.

Yes, there are walls that have historic importance. These walls are not in any way similar to the “southern border wall” in that is proposed by some politicians.

It is against forum rules to make personal insults, kindly express your opinions without the inferred personal insult.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

LilyM:

Worth thinking about whether we, who as a community influence what laws are made, are putting unnecessary burdens on the backs of poor prospective immigrants,

Agree completely.

The “system” is broken, it ignores the poor.

Ahh! I guess we’re supposed to prioritize the poor of another country over the poor of our own country? Because illegals doing work under the table certainly hurt our own poor.

 

[niceatheist]

To the extent that the builders of such a wall would carry no more blame than, say, soldiers in an unjust war, certainly. But that seems like a peculiar way to try to create a dividing line. I won’t blame the engineers and builders, but if the wall’s intent is fundamentally immoral (such as say, to cage desperate people from the aid they may need), then the people who ordered the wall’s construction are still committing an immoral act.

 

[Ender]

To the extent that the builders of such a wall would carry no more blame than, say, soldiers in an unjust war, certainly. But that seems like a peculiar way to try to create a dividing line. I won’t blame the engineers and builders, but if the wall’s intent is fundamentally immoral (such as say, to cage desperate people from the aid they may need), then the people who ordered the wall’s construction are still committing an immoral act.

Sure, if one’s intent in committing any action is immoral then the action is immoral, but that certainly does not mean that the same act carried out with a good intent is immoral. This goes to a point I made earlier: the emphasis on making immigration a moral issue has to do with condemning the people who hold specific positions instead of condemning the positions themselves.

It is literally nothing more than rashly and uncharitably judging people as being immoral for holding contrary political beliefs. You don’t know why people support building a wall, and while there may be some who take that position for immoral reasons, building the wall itself is not an immoral act and it is wrong to suggest that it is.

 

[niceatheist]

This looks like nothing more than attempt to cloak a questionable act under the shield of “political differences”. First of all, the very justification is based largely on innuendo and hyperbole, and that makes everything that flows from the justification questionable. The United States has, historically, been a welcoming country, even if elements (like the 19th century Know-nothings) certainly held decidedly different views. But the American economic engine has long relied upon a fairly liberal immigration policy. We can certainly debate that, but the US is suffering the same demographic pressures most other industrialized nations are, save for a few groups, and frankly, when we rip off the cloak of “political differences”, all I see is the same old Know Nothing xenophobia.

 

[Theo520]

Which programs are available for undocumented people?

each anchor baby qualifies for welfare and medicaid

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

To the extent that the builders of such a wall would carry no more blame than, say, soldiers in an unjust war, certainly. But that seems like a peculiar way to try to create a dividing line. I won’t blame the engineers and builders, but if the wall’s intent is fundamentally immoral (such as say, to cage desperate people from the aid they may need), then the people who ordered the wall’s construction are still committing an immoral act.

Oh, is that what we’re in favor of? Caging desperate people from the aid they need? Does that apply to everything? Everyone can just go grab the resources they need? Healthcare? Should Canada throw open its borders and policies for everyone (in the world?) who needs (free) healthcare? Ditto for every rich country for every resource? Food, healthcare, jobs, cars, housing, utilities, are you going to accuse all rich countries if they don’t provide all these to everyone who wants them?

 

[AlNg]

the very justification is based largely on innuendo and hyperbole,

I think it is a prudential decision as to whether or not it is moral or immoral to build a wall. Some say it is immoral to build a wall. Others will say it is immoral not to build the wall because, for one example, by not building the wall you are allowing illicit drugs to come through and that will result in destroying the lives of innocent young people in the US and others as well. With a wall, you still have a door that is open to those with the proper papers and who have been checked and verified.

 

[niceatheist]

Let’s be brutally honest here. Those drugs will get through one way or the other.