LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s really not that benign. The poor citizen is forced to compete for low wage jobs with people who have no just claim to them, and all of us subsidize those at the low end of the economic ladder, which, at least initially, includes most of those who come here illegally.

If you are claiming that it unfair to subject poor citizens to job competition from currently illegal immigrants, wouldn’t that same claim apply to competition from legal immigrants? Or for that matter, to competition from citizens from Mississippi who decided to move to North Carolina? Underlying your argument is as assumption that citizens have a morally superior claim on those job opportunities, which you made quite explicit with the phrase “people who have no just claim to them.” I don’t think you have established that assumption yet.

The church allows nations to control their borders for a reason. There are limits to the number of immigrants a country can absorb.

Yes, and pope has apparently confirmed this principle recently. But the 11 million or so illegal immigrants to this country have already been absorbed with no undue ill effects, other than to them because of their continued undocumented status which makes it much easier for employers to take unfair advantage of them. If they were documented, they would bargain for higher wages, which would lessen the downward pressure on wages and result in higher wages for the “poor citizen” too. If you are really concerned about the plight of the poor underpaid citizen, you would welcome an amnesty for their sake.

Open borders - or the deliberate failure to enforce the laws that control access to the country - is a failure of government.

I would not mind seeing improved border security.

Trump is not yet even officially elected and already the bishops are trying to influence his policies. I am not really interested in the political pronouncements of the clergy.

Oh, yes, I forgot. Any pronouncement other than on abortion is just political.

 

[exnihilo]

If you are claiming that it unfair to subject poor citizens to job competition from currently illegal immigrants, wouldn’t that same claim apply to competition from legal immigrants? Or for that matter, to competition from citizens from Mississippi who decided to move to North Carolina? Underlying your argument is as assumption that citizens have a morally superior claim on those job opportunities, which you made quite explicit with the phrase “people who have no just claim to them.” I don’t think you have established that assumption yet.

The United States is the United States. It is a union of states. I’m all for secession but I don’t see your point about labor within the existing political union. The whole point of the creation of the US was to allow free movement between the various states even though each is sovereign. A Mississippian has the right to work in NC because he is an American. An illegal has no such right.

Doesn’t a man have the obligation to employ his own family before strangers? If a stranger needs a job but his cousin does as well shouldn’t he first employ his cousin? States are just a much larger family.

Yes, and pope has apparently confirmed this principle recently. But the 11 million or so illegal immigrants to this country have already been absorbed with no undue ill effects, other than to them because of their continued undocumented status which makes it much easier for employers to take unfair advantage of them. If they were documented, they would bargain for higher wages, which would lessen the downward pressure on wages and result in higher wages for the “poor citizen” too. If you are really concerned about the plight of the poor underpaid citizen, you would welcome an amnesty for their sake.

How do you know they have been absorbed since they are ‘undocumented’? It seem to me like voter fraud. It is declared not to be a problem even though since there is no way of guaranteeing the integrity of the system there is no way to know how much fraud is going on. But it seems to me we can see lots of ill effects. Just one is massive numbers of citizens unemployed and on welfare.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If someone breaks into your house what do you call them? If someone is on your land illegally what do you call them? I’d call them an intruder.

Most illegal immigrants do not break into people’s houses or squat on other people’s land. They are living in houses they own or rent just like any citizen would do. They are contributing to our society just like a citizen would do. No one calls them intruders.

It has everything to do with private property. Our nation is the private property of its citizens.

That is an oxymoron. Public property and private property are opposites. Most illegal immigrants stay on property they pay for or public property. There is no private property issue here.

There is nothing exaggerated about it. If you don’t support the enforcement of our immigration laws then you are in effect calling for the consequences of it not being enforced. In that case it is allowing illegals who came and or come to stay. That is open borders.

There you go again, exaggerating. I did not say we should not enforce our immigration laws. I said we should modify them.

I don’t think this is a counterexample. The parents home has nothing to do with it. The fact that the child is an American citizen allows them to freely engage in all the activities a citizen can do. My mention of private property had nothing to do with grounding rights. It had to do with the fact that this nation is the private property of its current inhabitants who can make the laws concerning access.

First, you have to start using the term private property. Private property is not property that is managed in common for all people. That is called public property.

The only reason I mentioned the parents’ home is because you did. You used the parents home as a justification of why citizens have a morally superior right to inhabit the land when you said:

exnihilo:

What makes those born here entitled to live here is basic private property rights and respect for the family.

So either you have to explain that justification better, or accept that I found a counterexample.

 

[Theo520]

I don’t think this is a counterexample. The parents home has nothing to do with it. The fact that the child is an American citizen allows them to freely engage in all the activities a citizen can do. My mention of private property had nothing to do with grounding rights. It had to do with the fact that this nation is the private property of its current inhabitants who can make the laws concerning access.

Children are not allowed to freely engage in all the activities an adult citizen can do, they are wards of their parents. I’m fine with them coming back when they are adults, but as children they should remain with their parents.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The United States is the United States. It is a union of states. I’m all for secession but I don’t see your point about labor within the existing political union. The whole point of the creation of the US was to allow free movement between the various states even though each is sovereign. A Mississippian has the right to work in NC because he is an American. An illegal has no such right.

You are speaking only of current US law, and on that score, of course you are right. But I am speaking only about where we stand with God.

How do you know they have been absorbed since they are ‘undocumented’?

We are fairly sure they are here and in the numbers I gave. The only question is the negative effect. I think the burden would be on those who claim there is harm to show it.

But it seems to me we can see lots of ill effects. Just one is massive numbers of citizens unemployed and on welfare.

The trouble with that observation is that the “massive numbers” are not much different from when the number of illegal immigrants was much lower. Can you point to immigrants being the cause?

 

[exnihilo]

Most illegal immigrants do not break into people’s houses or squat on other people’s land. They are living in houses they own or rent just like any citizen would do. They are contributing to our society just like a citizen would do. No one calls them intruders.

I don’t know what illegals do, since they are illegal. But they aren’t intruders only if they invade a house. They are intruders on the land of our nation. That is unless you don’t believe we have the right to control who enters and stays in our nation.

That is an oxymoron. Public property and private property are opposites. Most illegal immigrants stay on property they pay for or public property. There is no private property issue here.

Not really. All property is owned whether it be by an individual, a group, or the state. If ‘private’ causes you problems then lets drop that word. It is a property issue.

So either you have to explain that justification better, or accept that I found a counterexample.

The family is the foundation of all civil government. The family has obligations to its own first and foremost. A child of a nation has privilege in his nation above those of another. The nation has the right to control its borders just as a family has the right to control its borders for its property.

 

[Ender]

If you are claiming that it unfair to subject poor citizens to job competition from currently illegal immigrants, wouldn’t that same claim apply to competition from legal immigrants?

Yes it would, but we’re not bringing in low end workers. The legal immigrants are generally here because they bring skills that are in demand, nor do they take jobs at lower wages than are offered to citizens.

Underlying your argument is as assumption that citizens have a morally superior claim on those job opportunities, which you made quite explicit with the phrase “people who have no just claim to them.” I don’t think you have established that assumption yet.

Yes, citizens have a morally superior claim to the benefits their country offers them than non-citizens.*Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens… *(Aquinas ST II-II 26 - Charity)

“Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us.” (II-II 31 - Beneficence)

But the 11 million or so illegal immigrants to this country have already been absorbed with no undue ill effects, other than to them…

I disagree, but let me point out that determining which of us is right is not a moral question. You, my, and the bishop’s position are all equally prudential. There is no moral distinction between any of them.

Oh, yes, I forgot. Any pronouncement other than on abortion is just political.

It’s simpler than that: pronouncements on political issues without moral considerations are political, pronouncements on moral issues are moral regardless of whether there are political considerations. Abortion - and a handful of other topics - are moral issues. Immigration, health care, the budget, gun control et al are not.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

I don’t know what illegals do, since they are illegal.

People aren’t “illegal.” Here you go: youtube.com/watch?v=vehgRK3ieVM

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t know what illegals do, since they are illegal. But they aren’t intruders only if they invade a house. They are intruders on the land of our nation. That is unless you don’t believe we have the right to control who enters and stays in our nation.

OK, go ahead and use the word “intruder.” It does not advance your point anyway.

Not really. All property is owned whether it be by an individual, a group, or the state. If ‘private’ causes you problems then lets drop that word. It is a property issue.

OK, how is “property” being violated by having someone pay for it who happens to be an illegal immigrant? The landlord still gets their money. As long as the tenant is respectful of the property, why should the landlord mind if the tenant is an illegal?

The family is the foundation of all civil government. The family has obligations to its own first and foremost. A child of a nation has privilege in his nation above those of another.

Wait a second. “A child of a nation”? Have you been reading Hillary’s “It Takes a Village”?

You say the child has a privilege. Is that a privilege the exists only because of US law? Or is it the consequence of Natural Law or morals? You can’t use US law as the basis of justifying the morality of US law. That’s circular.

The nation has the right to control its borders just as a family has the right to control its borders for its property.

They are not exactly the same. But I am not disputing the right of a nation to control its borders. I am suggesting that this nation consciously invite some of those living here illegally to live here legally. That does not usurp anybody’s rights.

 

[exnihilo]

People aren’t “illegal.” Here you go: youtube.com/watch?v=vehgRK3ieVM

Sure they are. That is a silly oratory trick. I guess people aren’t criminals either?

 

[exnihilo]

OK, how is “property” being violated by having someone pay for it who happens to be an illegal immigrant? The landlord still gets their money. As long as the tenant is respectful of the property, why should the landlord mind if the tenant is an illegal?..

You say the child has a privilege. Is that a privilege the exists only because of US law? Or is it the consequence of Natural Law or morals? You can’t use US law as the basis of justifying the morality of US law. That’s circular.

The property being violated is not the property that an illegal occupies such as a specific house. The property being violated is the entire nation they are illegally in. Property rights is the broad category under which a nation has the right to exclude people.

By the way most landlords and employers don’t mind illegals at all. That is because the cost of illegals is socialized. That is they get the fruits of their cheap labor while the costs of medicine, schooling etc, is born by others, specifically the taxpayer.

A child of a nation has privilege in his nation from Natrual Law. The US law should reflect it and does in as much as it excludes others via immigration law.

 

[Adonia]

I don’t understand why conservatives are so opposed to sanctuary cities. It is not the job of state and local police to enforce federal immigration law. In my mind it is federal overreach that will only hurt the communities that play along willingly or give in to threats of losing federal funds.

Because sanctuary cities only aid and abet the lawbreaking. Those cities are so far to the left, they do not even want to turn CONVICTED criminals over to the Feds. But our new President will seek to end this madness by denying Federal funds to those cities who continue to shelter illegal aliens. It will be their choice - obey Federal law or lose their Federal funding.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The property being violated is not the property that an illegal occupies such as a specific house. The property being violated is the entire nation they are illegally in. Property rights is the broad category under which a nation has the right to exclude people.

You have broadened the concept of private property so much that any implications of that designation are no longer applicable. It was too far a reach. Try again.

Again, no one is disputing the legal right to exclude anyone from the nation. What is being proposed is voluntarily welcoming those already here to participate fully in the life of the nation. If this is done voluntarily, no one’s property rights are being violated.

By the way most landlords and employers don’t mind illegals at all. That is because the cost of illegals is socialized.

You imply, without proof, that there is a cost to society of having illegals here. Isn’t there also a cost to society of having citizens here too? Costs that are also subsidized? Do we not already take care of our poor if they are unable to provide for themselves? Maybe we should deport the poor too, since they are a cost burden.

That is they get the fruits of their cheap labor while the costs of medicine, schooling etc, is born by others, specifically the taxpayer.

The same can be said of a large fraction of citizens.

A child of a nation has privilege in his nation from Natrual Law. The US law should reflect it and does in as much as it excludes others via immigration law.

OK, that’s the part I would like you to explain, rather than just claim without proof - that Natural Law grants a privilege of inhabiting this land to those that have been legal recognized and does not grant this privilege to those who are not so recognized. And while you are at it, please try to do this from the perspective that the land itself is an undeserved gift from God, given to us as stewards, and not something we earned through our own merit. And, go…

 

[gracepoole]

Sure they are. That is a silly oratory trick. I guess people aren’t criminals either?

Silly, eh? I’ve genuinely never heard of someone describing a lesson from the Holocaust as “silly”. But to each his own, I guess.

Still, no – it’s incorrect to call people illegal because of the ramifications of doing so. They may be here illegally; that doesn’t make them, as humans, illegal. Classification is the first necessary condition for genocide. I like to stay away from that sort of thing myself…

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Because sanctuary cities only aid and abet the lawbreaking. Those cities are so far to the left, they do not even want to turn CONVICTED criminals over to the Feds…

If by CONVICTED criminals you mean people with too many parking tickets, I side with the sanctuary cities. If you mean murder and rape, the cities do not shelter those convicted of those crimes.

 

[abucs]

I pray that Trump will clean up this whole mess of illegal immigration and he might give a few European leaders the balls to do the same.

Too many people have outsourced their own personal goodness to a secular humanist politically correct state.

What works on the voluntary personal level is often disastrous on the mandatory state level. Especially a state taken over by secular politically correct values. The fact that the church takes state money to implement such policies is something i cannot comment on because of forum rules. Needless to say the church does not come off morally well in such an arrangement.

Forcing people to pay for your own mis-placed ideas of goodness is not admirable but creates division and a lack of respect for law and for fellow citizens.

In the long run, that is what your politically driven, secular state money will buy you.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, citizens have a morally superior claim to the benefits their country offers them than non-citizens.*Wherefore in matters pertaining to nature we should love our kindred most, in matters concerning relations between citizens, we should prefer our fellow-citizens… *(Aquinas ST II-II 26 - Charity)

“Since one cannot do good to all, we ought to consider those chiefly who by reason of place, time or any other circumstance, by a kind of chance are more closely united to us.” (II-II 31 - Beneficence)

You know these statements by Aquinas and Beneficence do not apply to the present case. They apply to cases where a certain good can only be given to one or the other, and in that case we are advised to give that good to fellow-citizens or close family in preference to outsiders. But with immigration, no citizen is prevented from living here just because some Mexican is allowed to live here too. It’s not a case of one or the other.

I disagree, but let me point out that determining which of us is right is not a moral question. You, my, and the bishop’s position are all equally prudential. There is no moral distinction between any of them.

It’s simpler than that: pronouncements on political issues without moral considerations are political, pronouncements on moral issues are moral regardless of whether there are political considerations. Abortion - and a handful of other topics - are moral issues. Immigration, health care, the budget, gun control et al are not.

Ender

Immigration is a moral issue. You can pretend that it is all about differences of opinion over how best to help those in need, but that is a fiction. In fact it is about whether or not to help them at all. That makes it a moral issue.

The parable of the Good Samaritan is an example of what you would call prudential judgment. The Samaritan could have decided that the man beaten on the road could be better attended to by someone with more resources, or maybe the man’s own family, and passed him by. Do you think Jesus would take the trouble to talk about a question that has no moral dimensions to it?

The Catechism addresses this issue in CCC 2241. There are more than a “handful” of moral issues recognized by the Church.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Too many people have outsourced their own personal goodness to a secular humanist politically correct state…

Having a state-sponsored response to a moral problem does not preclude people exercising personal goodness. Why do you insist on good works being reserved exclusively for individual action when we could have both and do even more good?

As for immigration, there is no opportunity for an individual to do what the state can do in granting legal status. There are plenty of individuals who would like to sponsor an immigrant - private charities that want to give them homes, a chance for a new start. But unless the state allows them to come here, those individuals cannot exercise their personal goodness in the way they think is most effective.

 

[Sarcelle]

Silly, eh? I’ve genuinely never heard of someone describing a lesson from the Holocaust as “silly”. But to each his own, I guess.

Still, no – it’s incorrect to call people illegal because of the ramifications of doing so. They may be here illegally; that doesn’t make them, as humans, illegal. Classification is the first necessary condition for genocide. I like to stay away from that sort of thing myself…

People are not illegal but they do illegal things.

What I see here is the willingness of some to reward law breakers by automatically granting them citizenship. What incentive is there for following the law if illegal immigrants are given first priority when it comes to citizenship ahead of others who have been waiting for years if not decades to immigrate legally?

As I said before if immigration law is so difficult to follow and fundamentally unjust, focus on reforming it, not encouraging others to ignore it.

 

[exnihilo]

You have broadened the concept of private property so much that any implications of that designation are no longer applicable. It was too far a reach. Try again.

Again, no one is disputing the legal right to exclude anyone from the nation. What is being proposed is voluntarily welcoming those already here to participate fully in the life of the nation. If this is done voluntarily, no one’s property rights are being violated.

You imply, without proof, that there is a cost to society of having illegals here. Isn’t there also a cost to society of having citizens here too? Costs that are also subsidized? Do we not already take care of our poor if they are unable to provide for themselves? Maybe we should deport the poor too, since they are a cost burden.

The same can be said of a large fraction of citizens.

OK, that’s the part I would like you to explain, rather than just claim without proof - that Natural Law grants a privilege of inhabiting this land to those that have been legal recognized and does not grant this privilege to those who are not so recognized. And while you are at it, please try to do this from the perspective that the land itself is an undeserved gift from God, given to us as stewards, and not something we earned through our own merit. And, go…

Private property and ownership are the principles which underly the idea of national borders. If you reject that then you reject borders and necessarily favor open borders. If you disagree I’d be interested to know what you claim underlies borders.

I didn’t imply illegals cost society I clearly stated it. I did offer proof in stating several areas where they cost us money. Proof doesn’t always mean elaborate studies, which if done by academics are often frauds. Anyone who thinks for a minute and has some common sense knows illegals use our hospitals and send their kids to our schools. A single illegal kid is probably a $10,000 a year cost to society. A single hospital visit is hundreds or thousands of dollars.

If you think Natural Law doesn’t support the idea of borders then how would it support the idea of nations, which of necessity rely one borders? If borders don’t have any meaning then what is the point of them? What exactly do they do?