Yes, if the lesson is you can’t call someone who violates our immigration law an illegal then it is very silly. So you are saying if we use the term ‘illegal’ we are vile Nazis who will eventually commit genocide? I’ll just say I strongly disagree with that.
You need to separate your personal goodness from that of the secular state. You need to also recognise that when you don’t, other people pay the cost for what you think is your personal goodness.
False. National borders can exist even in a totally communistic country where there is no private property.
The common good is what underlies the concept of national borders.
But in your “proof” you ignored the benefit that the presence of these immigrants gives to our society. You would have to weigh that benefit against the costs you mentioned.
Non-academics are frauds far more often than academics.
And the services they render? The taxes they pay?
Never said that. Straw man argument.
I do separate them already. I am saying what’s wrong with having both?
The communist country, like monarchs, conceive of their land as being their property which they own. You are again focusing on ‘private’ property in a narrow sense which I have said to drop if it causes toruble in understanding.
National borders contribute to national defense. I don’t have to explain why national defense is part of the common good, do I?
The labor they produce over their lifetime is much more than the $10,000 x years of schooling worth.
I should point out that poor citizens also consume these resources, so they would also be a terrible deal for society. You have not shown that immigrants are that much worse a deal than citizens.
They are not technically illegal, they ARE illegal. Period. Why not change all types of laws so those currently lawbreaker wouldnt be so?
I agree 100% with Trump. But I dont think he is going to run all illegals off. He wants to get rid of the problem illegals. There are murders, rapist, and thieves among them and we need to send those back to their country.
What are some of these ways that are better than letting immigrants live here?
As like all liberals, You use your feeling to justify your position. I don’t have that luxury, I have to use facts. Facts are, the American middle-class hasn’t seen a real raise since 1970. Fact is 95 million Americans make left the job markets, of those 95 million, at least 50 million would love to have a job and cant find one. We have illegals keeping wages low and companies lay off their trained staff and replace them with low paid workers.
Borders create the need for defense. You don’t need to defend something that doesn’t exist. It isn’t some abstract common good that borders are created to defend. It is object things like persons and property. National borders exist because of our property and personal rights.
The problem with the church leadership is HOW they want to implement the Gospel. I believe we need to help the poor, but it’s not helping them by allowing them into this country no matter what. If you want to help the poor in other countries we need to make ways for those countries to improve the county itself. Not send their social problems to the USA.
No, the need for defense was there before there were borders. Borders are one of the means for defense, not the cause of the need for defense.
Common good is not abstract. It is concrete. And borders were created to foster that concrete common good.
Sigh… Repeating it does not make it true.
No, I just say you have not proven they take more than they receive.
So you have two groups of people - illegal immigrants and poor citizens. Both consume resources. But to one group you say “deport them” and to the other group you say “employ them”. Same problem. Two different solutions. Why?
I would be very reluctant to start a sentence with “The problem with the church leadership is…” unless I was a pope or something. The Church leadership is not our elected representatives. They are our shepherds, guides, and teachers.
When the Good Samaritan came upon the man beaten on the road, he said to himself “The better way to help this man is to station more guards on the road and improve the conditions on this road. I will make a note to do that as soon as I get home.”
Since we did it become Catholic doctrine that We are under no circumstance to question our leadership. What they say is now absolute and we are to accept it and follow it without question. If that is the case, I will stop being catholic today.
The man on the road did nothing wrong. Those in this country are illegally here.
So, if the Samaritan knew the man was also an adulterer, he would have left him there on the road?
To find better ways, first we need to look at facts. There are 4 billion people on this earth that live on less than $2 day. These people live in extreme poverty. These number grow by about 30 to 40 million every year.
Is it in your power to give liberty, freedom, and accountability to these people? Is it in your power to give them cheap energy? Or are these just things we can wish for them, all the while** not** doing what is clearly in our power to do for them.
Of course they apply; they directly address the question you asked whether “citizens have a morally superior claim on those job opportunities.” A job is a good which goes to one person only, and the citizen - as Aquinas stated - has preference.
The fact that you uncharitably judge those who disagree with your prudential solutions does not make immigration a moral issue. You are in fact not judging competing positions, you are judging the people who hold those positions. Yours is precisely the kind of judgment we are forbidden to make. You violate the obligation of charity even as you accuse others of moral failures.
We have a general obligation to aid the suffering. The priest and the Levite failed that obligation, the Samaritan fulfilled it. The prudential decision was in determining what kind of aid to provide; it was not in choosing whether or not to help.
There is nothing in the catechism that tells us what specific actions to take. 2241 gives general rules. Within those guidelines one option is as moral as any other, and the morality of that option is not changed even if a person selects it because he sees it as the worst choice. His action becomes immoral because of his intent, but the option itself is unchanged.