L.A. Cardinal to Defy Illegal Immigration Bill

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Jeffrey:
I dunno… we need to get illegal’s to either come over legal… or leave… not give them an incentive to cross illegally IMO.
Click to expand...
Illegal or not, the Church has a Mandate from God to care for the poor.

Civil Law cannot trump that.

Read Matthew 25, the part about the sheep and the goats.

When God asked you if you gave food to the hungry, or drink to the thirsty, do you really think you can say to God “Uh, no, he didn’t have a green card”?
 
How do you defy a bill? A bill has no effect unless and until it becomes law. Has anyone posting here read the bill? Without having read it, how can anyone make an informed comment on it? Sounds like “the sky is falling” talk, scary but no substance.
 
I agree that no one should be forced under penalty of law to ask for proof of immigration status before giving aid to someone in need.

But if the Church acts to promote illegal immigration by acting as a conduit for illegals and aiding them in breaking the immigration laws, then I couldn’t support that. (And I suspect this may go on.) The government does have the duty, and moral obligation to its citizens, to regulate immigration for our protection and preservation of order. To oppose the just use of this government authority is immoral in itself.
 
40.png
oldfogey:
I agree that no one should be forced under penalty of law to ask for proof of immigration status before giving aid to someone in need.

But if the Church acts to promote illegal immigration by acting as a conduit for illegals and aiding them in breaking the immigration laws, then I couldn’t support that. (And I suspect this may go on.) The government does have the duty, and moral obligation to its citizens, to regulate immigration for our protection and preservation of order. To oppose the just use of this government authority is immoral in itself.
Click to expand...
That’s the same thought I was having in trying to imagine some sort of compromise. The Church needs to help those who need it, but it should not to do so to the point that it becomes accessory to illegal immigration.
 
I am surprised that the state is making this a matter of criminal law. That makes martyrs.

It would be simpler and harder to fight if they simply removed tax-exemption for those entities which serve illegal immigrants. It is hard to find an argument as to why the state should subsidize such activity. Also many fear loss of their tax-exempt status much more than a criminal prosecution.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
Kirane, what is your religion?
Click to expand...
I am a guest of Catholic Answers and as such I try to observe the rules laid down by the people in charge of Catholic Answers. According to the rules as I read them:” Do not pad your post count with chatty or off-topic messages.” And
“Messages posted to threads should be on-topic.”
The topic as I read it to be is “Theology and Illegal Aliens” and does not pertain or have anything to do with the information you asking about.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Of course not, even Mahony isn’t radical enought for Sacramento.

I mean, what could a celibate, heterosexual white male have to say that might be of interest to anyone in Sacramento.

I don’t fault Mahony for the cool reception there, I fault the electorate of CA in general, and the Bay Area in particular.
Click to expand...
One of the times Mahoney and his associates were sent home was when they had the nerve to go to Sacramento. To stop the legislaturte from passing tough new child protection laws ! The legislature passed the new much tougher child protection laws.
 
It would be simpler and harder to fight if they simply removed tax-exemption for those entities which serve illegal immigrants. It is hard to find an argument as to why the state should subsidize such activity. Also many fear loss of their tax-exempt status much more than a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you’re saying the Church should have its tax-exempt status removed?
 
I would like to see the servants of the Church deal more with the imortality of the soul then the passings of this age.
 
40.png
marvin:
Just to be clear, you’re saying the Church should have its tax-exempt status removed?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t necessarily ADVOCATE removing the Church’s tax-exempt status, but it’s a no-brainer that the Church must always choose fulfilling its mission over not paying taxes. If the government ever forces the issue, the Church will start paying taxes.
 
40.png
marvin:
Just to be clear, you’re saying the Church should have its tax-exempt status removed?
Click to expand...
  1. There seems no reason whythe state should exempt funds used for illegal purposes from taxation.
  2. Our Church leaders seem to respond quicker to threats to their tax exemption than to any other argument.
 
Joe Kelley said:
1. There seems no reason whythe state should exempt funds used for illegal purposes from taxation.
  1. Our Church leaders seem to respond quicker to threats to their tax exemption than to any other argument.
Click to expand...
You’re Catholic?
 
Joe Kelley said:
1. There seems no reason whythe state should exempt funds used for illegal purposes from taxation.
  1. Our Church leaders seem to respond quicker to threats to their tax exemption than to any other argument.
Click to expand...
So you personally advocate removing the Church’s tax-exempt status if this bill passes and the Church continues to fulfill its mission of charity to all.
 
I have two thoughts on the issue.
  1. The Church should encourage its members to obey state and federal laws, and
  2. The Congress shall make no law …“preventing the free exercise of religion.”
Although as Christ’s Church we seek to help everyone in need, it should not prevent us from encouraging even the needy to obey the civil laws of the nation they are in. At the same time, Congress could really overstep it’s bounds by attempting to meddle in the Church’s business. The U.S. government should remember that they have no business dictating to the Church how to serve it’s members.
 
I am appalled that so many of you support the idea of a Catholic bishop expressly telling his priests to disobey a law of this country. This bill is not about the priests being police it simply prohibits the deliberate act of harboring or hiding ILLEGAL immigrants from authorities. NOTE: Contrary to the good bishop’s use of just “immigrant” I called them what they are; ILLEGAL IMIGRENTS. A country is literally defined by its borders and what Mahony has suggested would negate the law and make the Church his partner in crime. This is outrageous and all of you who support him are either misinformed or are the types who support criminals and terrorist.

It amazes me when bishops and priests are so arrogant that they consider themselves infallible experts in matters of war, terrorist, and crime. ANY terrorist willing to strap a bomb on himself and kill thousands of innocents would have no problem trekking through the desert or swimming the Rio Grande to get into this country. We are talking NATIONAL SECURITY here and Mahony is ignoring the safety of all of us.

What the illegal immigrants do is a slap in the face to the many of LEGAL immigrants who come to this country by filling out the correct forms, paying the fees, taking the tests and background checks, etc. Why do all that when you can just scoot over a fence and people like Mahony will welcome you with open arms? He and all his supporters should be ashamed of themselves.
 
Cossack1,

I agree with the essence of what you’re saying but not the tone. Let me explain.

I don’t believe Cardinal Mahoney is being arrogant or deliberately disobeying laws, I believe he actually thinks he is choosing a higher moral by caring for the desparately needy. Most of us have no idea what these wantonly impoverished people have been through. So in that regard, every Christian must do everything at their disposal to help one’s neighbor, however…

much in line with what you were saying, every country has the right to have borders and to make sure that those borders are respected. Particularly in this day and age when active threats exist that could potentially threaten the lives of millions of people. It is imperative that the laws regarding crossing the border be strictly observed, however painful that may turn out to be in the short run for those wishing to come here.

We are not morally obligated to follow an “immoral” law. But many of us believe that at this time, following the border regulations are in keeping with the current national threat that exists. In fact, I believe to not check every I.D. at the border to weed out potential threats is a neglect of citizenry.

I understand the Cardinal’s compassion, but I think it is short-sighted when it comes to the overall threat to an entire country.

If those crossing would allow themselves to be identified, finger-printed and assessed for risk before being allowed in the country, then I have no problem with them being here. I actually believe that most of them are not a risk, but a small number might be and they have to be stopped at the border and turned away.
 
For the second time, there is no such law. It is only a bill pending in the US House. You can’t violate a law that hasn’t been passed by both houses and signed by the president. At the present time, this is much ado about nothing. If you want to influence the vote, write your congressman (after reading the bill, of course).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top