L.A. Cardinal to Defy Illegal Immigration Bill

[Lynn-D]

I guess we’re also supposed to help the people described in this article:

msnbc.msn.com/id/11769667/

---

Seems to me that the ‘Immigration Bill’ is not illegal if enacted according to our laws. What is illegal is anyone giving aid and comfort to someone breaking the law. Abetting a criminal when he is committing an unlawful act, (crossing the borders of other nations without permission), is criminal in itself. Do you hear Cardinal Mahoney?
Either you have a nation of law or you invite anarchy.
Lynn-D

 

[Cossack1]

“The Bishops are not police- their job is service to the Faithful”

You quoted my post but apparently you did not read it. I stated that this proposed law does not require priests to be police. It merely forbids them from deliberately acting in an illegal manor.

“if someone is hurt or sick, they should be cared for.”

What is your point? This proposed law would not forbid this.

“I don’t believe he means they are to help anyone evade the INS, but refrain from turning them in.”

There are many churches on the west and east coast that are indeed deliberately harboring ILLEGAL immigrants.

“Christian charity would demand that you give him the benefit of the doubt. I would have to assume that he is acting out of compassion for the poorest among us. “

You can NOT assume this. I have been seeing too many people in the Church automatically acting with knee jerk reactions to causes that on the surface SEEM to be “charitable.” Liberals do this all the time. For example, there are many in the Church that feel it is morally right to raise the minimum wage so that the poor earn more money. I could write a whole post on this, but suffice it to say that raising the minimum wage only works to raise prices overall and the poor end up paying more for goods and services anyway. It is far better to let the market determine the appropriate wage. Or better yet, stress that the poor get a solid education and a solid work ethic like the nuns instilled in me back in my school days.

“Seems to me that the ‘Immigration Bill’ is not illegal if enacted according to our laws. What is illegal is anyone giving aid and comfort to someone breaking the law. Abetting a criminal when he is committing an unlawful act, (crossing the borders of other nations without permission), is criminal in itself. Do you hear Cardinal Mahoney?
Either you have a nation of law or you invite anarchy.”

Bravo, it is good to see that a large number of people in this thread understand this. The way this thread started I thought rational thinking had been abandoned.

 

[seabird3579]

Let he who is without sin, cast for first stone.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Well, it moves the spotlight off his other legal problems.

 

[snoopy]

seabird3579:

Let he who is without sin, cast for first stone.

I’m sure the millions of people who have been waiting patiently for years for their paperwork to clear disagree with you. Also the people who continue the same sin over and over is being very presumptious that the Lord and everyone elso will forgive them. Part of forgiveness is to try diligently to stop the behavior that leads to that particular sin.

 

[gelsbern]

Jimmy Akin did a good write up on this.

jimmyakin.org/2006/03/immigration_cat.html

 

[geezerbob]

MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos Updated: 3:30 p.m. ET March 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - Senators writing an immigration bill broke from the House’s get-tough approach by refusing Monday to make criminals of humanitarian groups or individuals who help illegal immigrants as more than a thousand immigration rights activists rallied outside the Capitol.

The Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that would protect church and charitable groups, as well as individuals, from criminal prosecution for providing food, shelter, medical care and counseling to undocumented immigrants.

msnbc.msn.com/id/12034586/

 

[Brendan]

When I read Matthew 25, I don’t seem to see anything about checking for ‘Green Cards’ first.

Or in John 21, when Christ tells Peter to “feed my sheep”, where exactly are visas mentioned?

Under what circumstances can civil law override Divine Law?

 

[geezerbob]

For starters, it’s not law, it’s a bill and the senate has already changed it.

 

[Lynn-D]

Brendan:

Under what circumstances can civil law override Divine Law?

Even God directed that we are to give to authority where it is established, ‘Give unto Caesar…’
Did not Joseph and Mary suffer hardship and return for the census even though Mary was carrying the baby Jesus in her womb? If they obeyed the laws of the state which were evenly applied then how do we justify breaking laws established to protect our borders and our census and immigration policies.
If we allow anarchy instead of following the rule of law in respect to immigration then maybe we might also turn a blind eye if the state intrudes upon all religious teachings in the name of charity, love or any other excuse in the name of the wider good.
No, lawbreakers and their enablers are in violation of law and they should be held accountable.

Lynn-D

 

[gelsbern]

Brendan:

When I read Matthew 25, I don’t seem to see anything about checking for ‘Green Cards’ first.

Or in John 21, when Christ tells Peter to “feed my sheep”, where exactly are visas mentioned?

Under what circumstances can civil law override Divine Law?

In John 21, are Christs sheep, EVERYBODY, or those who are believing Christians, in the church? I ask this, because if seems to me that the sheep, are the believers in the church, and if that is the case, then we should be only taking in catholics. I think one needs to read the entire chapter in context.

In Matthew 25, you seem to be leaving out the entire first portion of the chapter. Jesus gives 2 parables against bad stewardship, Christ condemned bad stewarship, but you are saying we need to say “You didn’t work hard enough to immigrate here legally, you weren’t a good steward with what God had given you that you come here expecting us to provide? Not a problem, come on in and get the handouts”

Seems to me to be a double standard.

Finally, with a huge influx of people, and the churches give all these handouts to them, what will the response be when the churches have to turn to the government or some other entity and say “we are out of funds(oil), please give us some” Will they say “No, for there may not be enough for us and you…”?

 

[Jeffrey]

What about the legal residents who are hungry? So ship the food to Mexico or the other countries in Latin America.

All the taxes the illegal aliens don’t pay… and all the hospital bills the rack up and don’t pay could go to the poor HERE ( by that I mean legal residents ). All those kids that don’t have insurance etc.

Brendan:

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”?

 

[koda]

Brendan:

When I read Matthew 25, I don’t seem to see anything about checking for ‘Green Cards’ first.

Or in John 21, when Christ tells Peter to “feed my sheep”, where exactly are visas mentioned?

Under what circumstances can civil law override Divine Law?

Excellent point! In fact, the only point that really matters. Following Jesus is suppossed to be our first priority, not trying to prevent a tax hike or limit immigration. Jesus is not ambiguous - the command is clear.

Also, I heard a recent study that most illegals stay away from emergency room for fear of being asked about their status. I was in the emergency room last month and everyone there had been sent by their doctor, including myself. The one indigent woman had gone to a clinic first - they sent her to the hospital because her blood pressue and blood sugar were off the scale. They admitted her. White people with no inurance are the biggest emergency room users.

Illegals also use fictitious ss#'s so they do pay into the system.

 

[rlg94086]

Following Jesus is my first priority, that’s why I want to have a fix to the immigration situation, so immigrants will have a better life here, rather than having to live with the worry they will be deported.

The fact that they fear they will be turned in by emergency room physicians is ignorance about what the physicians will do (I don’t know any emergency rooms that turn in illegals) and knowledge on their part that they are here illegally. If they were legal, they wouldn’t have this fear.

Do you hate white people? Why was that last sentence necessary or relevant? What about black people without insurance? Do they avoid emergency rooms?

The fact that illegal aliens are using forged documents seems more important to me than that they “pay into the system”. If they were legally working under a new program, they either wouldn’t pay in (more money for them) or they would pay in but actually receive the benefits in their old age. Wouldn’t that be better for them?

koda:

Excellent point! In fact, the only point that really matters. Following Jesus is suppossed to be our first priority, not trying to prevent a tax hike or limit immigration. Jesus is not ambiguous - the command is clear.

Also, I heard a recent study that most illegals stay away from emergency room for fear of being asked about their status. I was in the emergency room last month and everyone there had been sent by their doctor, including myself. The one indigent woman had gone to a clinic first - they sent her to the hospital because her blood pressue and blood sugar were off the scale. They admitted her. White people with no inurance are the biggest emergency room users.

Illegals also use fictitious ss#'s so they do pay into the system.

 

[koda]

rlg94086:

Following Jesus is my first priority, that’s why I want to have a fix to the immigration situation, so immigrants will have a better life here, rather than having to live with the worry they will be deported.

The fact that they fear they will be turned in by emergency room physicians is ignorance about what the physicians will do (I don’t know any emergency rooms that turn in illegals) and knowledge on their part that they are here illegally. If they were legal, they wouldn’t have this fear.

Do you hate white people? Why was that last sentence necessary or relevant? What about black people without insurance? Do they avoid emergency rooms?

The fact that illegal aliens are using forged documents seems more important to me than that they “pay into the system”. If they were legally working under a new program, they either wouldn’t pay in (more money for them) or they would pay in but actually receive the benefits in their old age. Wouldn’t that be better for them?

I am white! And I live in Los Angles so this cardinal is my cardinal and I support him totally on us. When I said white people I really meant the “majority” - the ones no one ever blames (did you know there are more white people on welfare than any other race?). And I have no problem with “reform” as long as that is what it really is - not some draconian decree masquarading as an improvement. A law that would make a felon out of anyone who handed a Latino a glass of water without checking his documents first is the later, not the former.

As to reform, a fair system is more than welcome. Illegals are often left in the desert to die or forced into slave labor by those they paid to get them here. Yes, real reform would be nice.

 

[rlg94086]

Well I’m glad you finally agree with Bush on something. I was starting to think there was no hope.

Please use the “majority” when you mean it. Don’t assume that conservatives are racist. It’s not charitable. Of course, there are more white people on welfare, uninsured, etc. Most conservatives I discuss these issues are well aware of that.

Maybe not all liberals are of it…whenever welfare reform is mentioned, they complain that minorities are being targeted. Think about it…

koda:

I am white! And I live in Los Angles so this cardinal is my cardinal and I support him totally on us. When I said white people I really meant the “majority” - the ones no one ever blames (did you know there are more white people on welfare than any other race?). And I have no problem with “reform” as long as that is what it really is - not some draconian decree masquarading as an improvement. A law that would make a felon out of anyone who handed a Latino a glass of water without checking his documents first is the later, not the former.

As to reform, a fair system is more than welcome. Illegals are often left in the desert to die or forced into slave labor by those they paid to get them here. Yes, real reform would be nice.

 

[cathologos]

Cossack1:

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.

This is complete and utter rubbish.

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs. Your argument is bogus; you are either very confused, or you are attempting to use fear where logic fails.

You have separately raised the point of “How dare a Cardinal direct his priests to violate federal law!?” Where would you stand if Congress passed a law (see China) that limited couples to two children, and required them to abort all subsequent pregnancies? If that law required social service agencies, including Church agencies, to report such couples to the authorities – would you expect your priest to turn people in so they could be forced to have abortions?

Civil law – federal or otherwise – does not trump the moral law, nor excuse good Catholics from following the moral law. Cardinal Mahoney was noting that denying people in need basic services violates the moral law – and reminding his priests that the moral law takes precedence even over federal law. And I might add that, while this case really is not a national security matter, even if it were, the requirements of moral law still take precedence. That’s why certain Catholics (see the “Secular News” forum) go to such lengths to try to find a moral basis for American policies that seem to fly in the face of the moral law – because they know that unless they can provide a moral basis for these policies, they have no argument in a Catholic forum.

Cardinal Mahoney is right on this. America needs to come to grips with the concept of social justice – and we have a very long way to go.

logos

 

[seabird3579]

cathologos:

Cardinal Mahoney is right on this. America needs to come to grips with the concept of social justice – and we have a very long way to go.

When will the Bishops and Cardinals call the Mexican government into account on social justice?

When will they call the Chinese and Muslim governments into account on social justice?

When will they say it publicly and through the international Media?

I look forward to the day.

 

[rlg94086]

cathologos:

And I might add that, while this case really is not a national security matter, even if it were, the requirements of moral law still take precedence. That’s why certain Catholics (see the “Secular News” forum) go to such lengths to try to find a moral basis for American policies that seem to fly in the face of the moral law – because they know that unless they can provide a moral basis for these policies, they have no argument in a Catholic forum.

There is no need for rudeness…especially in an unrelated thread.

 

[Ender]

cathologos:

What Cardinal Mahoney is talking about has nothing to do with national security. He’s not talking about helping illegals cross the border – he’s talking about meeting basic human needs

It’s not clear what Mahoney is talking about nor is it clear what part of the bill passed by the House would actually affect his desire to “help people in need.” I have little doubt that he opposes most of the immigration bill and not just whatever part of it he infers would impact him.

We need to be very clear in distinguishing between helping the needy and helping illegal aliens evade immigration laws. I suspect Mahoney is deliberately blurring this distinction.

Ender