LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[Ender]

Marginally helping those who are already comfortable while hurting those who are in great need is not a moral choice.

You keep trying to find some way to condemn those who oppose your positions as immoral instead of merely mistaken. Frankly, this is one of my greatest objections to the involvement of bishops in political matters: they encourage just this kind of uncharitable characterization.

Do you honestly perceive that great harm is being done by letting an immigrant live here who has always paid his way, works hard, and functions as part of the community?

I think there is great harm in treating laws as optional, and that we may ignore them when we can convince ourselves that we are justified in doing so. I disagree entirely with your characterization of the problem, and I will point out yet again that our positions are morally indistinguishable. One of us may well be totally in error as to what ought to be done, but neither of us sins in reaching our respective conclusions.

If you were willing to accept that others are equally as interested in justice as you, we would be having an entirely different discussion about what needs to be done, but as long as you continue to judge that your opponents positions stem from immoral motives there can be no progress. Even though you know we are forbidden to make rash and uncharitable judgments you persist in treating this as a contest between the good and the bad, the just and the unjust. Cooperation is not possible in such an environment.

Ender

 

[exnihilo]

An yes, the United States also has a responsibility to the world. We are the rich man of the world in the parable of Lazarus. We dare not follow his path into perdition.

Historically, this has not happened. Immigration has paved the way a greater economic future. Having too much labor is as odd as having too much capital, or too many natural resources. Immigration has always had its detractors who have engaged in nativist fear-mongering, predicting disaster from all the Irish, Polish, Chinese, and now the Mexicans.

The situation today is nothing new. We have been through this before.

Are we the rich man? We are a very heavily indebted nation. We are like third generation rich, living high off of past accomplishments. We don’t produce very much. What sustains us is the global Dollar standard and our military. This will all collapse quickly one day and our day to day living will reflect the reality of our existing poverty.

When you invoke history you have to keep in mind that things were different historically. We didn’t have a massive social welfare state. When immigrants came they had to sink or swim. Now they can live off the dole. And as had been stated elsewhere we pay citizens not to work. That isn’t how it was in the past you ask us to look to.

Also in the past you could use social pressure to force integration. This meant you could in some way force immigrants to become Americans. With the current political correctness, various civil rights laws and courts this is now an impossibility. This means we end up with a highly costly and doomed to fail multicultural state.

If you want to look to the past look at ancient empires who in their days of collapse offered citizenship to those who would fight in their army.

 

[Adonia]

Excuse me, I didn’t vote. And I’m an immigrant myself. But I’ve managed to make myself a contributor, both as an innovator and a consumer, to a society which at least gave me a chance. I doubt if Trump would have given my family a chance.

And please don’t ask me if we were legal or not. We might not have been according to today’s mean-spirited populist world. That’s how bad I see things.

What does that last line of yours mean? You either came here legally like thousands of others do after waiting on line or you snuck across the border without legal authorization. If it’s the latter I’m sorry, but you violated our laws and should be returned to your place of origin. The fact that you are a net contributor to our society is besides the point.

 

[Ender]

They are ridiculously small. They also are immoral, according to Catholic social doctrine.

Yet again the moral club is brought out to beat on ones opponents. It’s always “you’re immoral”, never “you’re mistaken”, probably because it is so much more difficult to rationally debate a position than it is to simply dismiss ones opponents as morally deficient. There is nothing in Catholic social doctrine that specifies the range of immigrants this or any other country should admit. Is it really too much to expect an argument to be more than “I’m the good guy, everybody who opposes me is evil”?

Exaggeration is not conducive to discussion.

How conducive to discussion is this persistent moral condemnation?

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is immoral. It is a direct violation of Catholic social teaching that demand a preference for the poor.

More of the “You’re just evil people” approach.

An yes, the United States also has a responsibility to the world. We are the rich man of the world in the parable of Lazarus. We dare not follow his path into perdition.

Perdition? No! Is there no end to our evillity?

Immigration has always had its detractors who have engaged in nativist fear-mongering…

Ah, some of the different flavors of evil: nativists, and fear-mongerers. Nasty people, just all nasty.

The situation today is nothing new. We have been through this before.

This “argument” is nothing new. It is unchanged for the last half century. We have become so accustomed to this approach we no longer even recognize how pernicious it is. It doesn’t even register as an insult on CAF.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You keep trying to find some way to condemn those who oppose your positions as immoral instead of merely mistaken. Frankly, this is one of my greatest objections to the involvement of bishops in political matters: they encourage just this kind of uncharitable characterization.

I am not condemning anyone. I am criticizing unwelcoming behavior. The fact that you group me with the bishops is a source of great comfort to me.

I think there is great harm in treating laws as optional, and that we may ignore them when we can convince ourselves that we are justified in doing so.

I am hoping the laws will be changed so that no one will be treating laws as optional.

If you were willing to accept that others are equally as interested in justice as you, we would be having an entirely different discussion about what needs to be done, but as long as you continue to judge that your opponents positions stem from immoral motives there can be no progress.

I am totally open to the possibility that others are equally as interested in justice. But their positions do not seem compatible with that assumption at this time.

Are you open to the possibility that people who favor the pro-choice position in abortion are just as interested in justice as those who favor strict penalties for abortion?

 

[Sarcelle]

I am not condemning anyone. I am criticizing unwelcoming behavior. The fact that you group me with the bishops is a source of great comfort to me.

I am hoping the laws will be changed so that no one will be treating laws as optional.

I am totally open to the possibility that others are equally as interested in justice. But their positions do not seem compatible with that assumption at this time.

Are you open to the possibility that people who favor the pro-choice position in abortion are just as interested in justice as those who favor strict penalties for abortion?

I agree with you here.

Immigration law needs reforming.

 

[Ender]

What you seem to be asking is for us to lay down our Christian morality in political discussion and insulting our Christian morality as political correctness.

No, what is being objected to is your characterization of your position as moral, and by extension your opponents’ position as immoral. You make your choice based on what you perceive to be the best option, and naturally see opposing proposals as either less helpful or positively harmful. The problem arises when you condemn those proposals as sins rather than errors. You do what you think is best, what you think your faith calls you to do. What you should not forget is that your faith calls you to assume the same of others. You are obliged to interpret their choices in the best possible way. You have in fact chosen to interpret them in the worst possible way.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I am not condemning anyone.

Marginally helping those who are already comfortable while hurting those who are in great need is not a moral choice.

*Immigration is a moral issue… In fact it is about whether or not to help them at all. That makes it a moral issue. *

No, I am judging the decision to do nothing to help these people.

Marginally helping those who are already comfortable while hurting those who are in great need is not a moral choice.
If you judge choices over different proposals as moral choices, how is it not moral condemnation to judge people to have chosen wrongly? If these are moral choices, and I choose wrongly have I not sinned? If yours is the moral choice and I reject it have is not my choice obviously immoral? Of course you’re condemning people. By turning this into a moral debate you condemn everyone who opposes you as a sinner. They are not merely mistaken. They are evil.

I am totally open to the possibility that others are equally as interested in justice. But their positions do not seem compatible with that assumption at this time.

Nonetheless you have a moral obligation to assume the best.

Are you open to the possibility that people who favor the pro-choice position in abortion are just as interested in justice as those who favor strict penalties for abortion?

Abortion is an intrinsic evil so regardless of someone’s motivation the act of supporting abortion is evil. The only way taking a position on immigration can be evil is if the reason for taking it is evil. That is, with regard to immigration it is the intent that matters. With regard to abortion the intent is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Millie123]

No, what is being objected to is your characterization of your position as moral, and by extension your opponents’ position as immoral. You make your choice based on what you perceive to be the best option, and naturally see opposing proposals as either less helpful or positively harmful. The problem arises when you condemn those proposals as sins rather than errors. You do what you think is best, what you think your faith calls you to do. What you should not forget is that your faith calls you to assume the same of others. You are obliged to interpret their choices in the best possible way. You have in fact chosen to interpret them in the worst possible way.

Ender

You are mischaracterizing what it is that I am objecting to. What I am objecting to is that I am tired of having my “christian morals” flippantly dismissed and insulted because somehow they are disagreeable to your point of view.

What I am specifically objecting to is this:
“When you mistakenly cite Christian morality for political ends you are going to get a very angry push-back. People are sick and tired about being lectured to on a moral level about political issues”

Honestly, our we so tender hearted nowadays that our “Christian morals” have to muted because they dont mesh with your morality. What I object to is this attitude : “Don’t speak of your morals to me, they dont mesh with my morality. They have no place in political discussion” It is that attitude that I find erroneous.

 

[Ender]

You are mischaracterizing what it is that I am objecting to. What I am objecting to is that I am tired of having my “christian morals” flippantly dismissed and insulted because somehow they are disagreeable to your point of view.

What I am specifically objecting to is this:
“When you mistakenly cite Christian morality for political ends you are going to get a very angry push-back. People are sick and tired about being lectured to on a moral level about political issues”

Honestly, are we so tender hearted nowadays that our “Christian morals” have to muted because they dont mesh with your morality. What I object to is this attitude : "Don’t speak of your morals to me, they dont mesh with my morality. They have no place in political discussion" It is that attitude that I find erroneous.

You misunderstand what is objected to. No one objects to you doing what you believe your faith calls you to do. What is offensive is being told your preference is clearly the Christian choice, and other options are…not. If we are both Christians, how do you expect me to react when you claim my morality is somehow un-Christian because my political position differs from yours?

abucs was very specific in his objection: he is “sick and tired about being lectured to on a moral level about political issues.” This is what I have been addressing in my last several posts to LeafByNiggle and pnewton. Political issues, of which immigration is one, do not involve moral choices beyond simply choosing to honestly address the problem. If you assumed your political opponents were, like yourself, looking for the most just solution you would have no inclination to morally condemn them for their proposals. That you condemn their choices as immoral simply means you have assumed their intentions are immoral. You have failed your obligation to charity that requires you to assume the best.2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Ender

 

[Convert_in_99]

Yet again the moral club is brought out to beat on ones opponents. It’s always “you’re immoral”, never “you’re mistaken”, probably because it is so much more difficult to rationally debate a position than it is to simply dismiss ones opponents as morally deficient. There is nothing in Catholic social doctrine that specifies the range of immigrants this or any other country should admit. Is it really too much to expect an argument to be more than “I’m the good guy, everybody who opposes me is evil”?
How conducive to discussion is this persistent moral condemnation?

Ender

More of the “You’re just evil people” approach.
Perdition? No! Is there no end to our evillity?
Ah, some of the different flavors of evil: nativists, and fear-mongerers. Nasty people, just all nasty.
This “argument” is nothing new. It is unchanged for the last half century. We have become so accustomed to this approach we no longer even recognize how pernicious it is. It doesn’t even register as an insult on CAF.

Ender

I find this very sad. Jesus indeed taught our first concern should be for the poor, the immigrants, the widows and orphans. This is basic Catholic Teaching 101. Why is it hard to understand?

 

[Millie123]

You misunderstand what is objected to. No one objects to you doing what you believe your faith calls you to do. What is offensive is being told your preference is clearly the Christian choice, and other options are…not. If we are both Christians, how do you expect me to react when you claim my morality is somehow un-Christian because my political position differs from yours?

abucs was very specific in his objection: he is “sick and tired about being lectured to on a moral level about political issues.” This is what I have been addressing in my last several posts to LeafByNiggle and pnewton. Political issues, of which immigration is one, do not involve moral choices beyond simply choosing to honestly address the problem. If you assumed your political opponents were, like yourself, looking for the most just solution you would have no inclination to morally condemn them for their proposals. That you condemn their choices as immoral simply means you have assumed their intentions are immoral. You have failed your obligation to charity that requires you to assume the best.2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Ender

Again you are reitterating what it is that I am objecting too.
ABUCS is “sick and tired of being lectured on a moral level on political issues” I think that is erroneous…I wholeheartedly believe that the morality of political issues need to be thoroughly discussed ad nauseum. And then discussed some more. It was he that created that dichotomy of the opposing morals as being “Christian morals” vs his. When he said: “When you mistakenly cite Christian morals for political ends”
—Again, I believe that morality of political issues need to be discussed ad nauseum. And if you get offended because you cite my morals as being Christian, and no longer want to speak of these morals because they don’t mesh with yours. Then it is you who is in error.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Abortion is an intrinsic evil so regardless of someone’s motivation the act of supporting abortion is evil.

Someone could say their support of pro-choice laws is not actually condoning abortion because they want to discourage abortion in other ways, just as some say their support of strict immigration laws is not actually being unwelcoming to the stranger in need because they want to help those in need in other ways.

 

[ProVobis]

Your average illegal is in no grave danger if they return. I could claim the same and reference the dangers of life in Chicago.

However, if they have legitimate cause, urge them to apply for refugee status.
If you are concerned about their return trip, step up and buy them a plane ticket.

I have stood in those shoes. Went abroad without work when I was young, had to find work and make myself legal. Their desire to risk it all for greater wealth is not justification to break our immigration laws. The smartest thing we can do is take away the carrot, so they stop taking the terrible risks you imply.

But you can’t fault the Church for this. The Archdiocese of Chicago has done marvelous work helping immigrants assimilate into the American culture. Same goes for other dioceses.

You just can’t throw them back.

 

[Ender]

I find this very sad. Jesus indeed taught our first concern should be for the poor, the immigrants, the widows and orphans. This is basic Catholic Teaching 101. Why is it hard to understand?

If our only concern was to be about immigrants why does the church teach that countries may control their borders? Why does she teach that "nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner"? You should at least recognize that there can be competing interests here, those of the nation and those of people wishing to immigrate to it. We are not obliged to ignore the former to accommodate the latter.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

Illegal is short for illegal immigrant. Illegal is used as a noun just to be short with our words. The best solution to those who are offended by the word is to deport all the illegals so we have no more use for the word.

Speeding does also break the law. But this isn’t hypocrisy for those who speed to complain about illegals. Speeding laws fall into the category of infraction whereas illegals are committing at least a misdemeanor. Infractions are basically legal trifles. It is sort of like the difference in a venial and mortal sin. Except we’d need a third category if we wanted to include speeding and we don’t have that since it is as I said basically a trifle.

I wouldn’t trivialize speeding for it can endanger lives. Just sayin’

 

[Ender]

ABUCS is “sick and tired of being lectured on a moral level on political issues” I think that is erroneous…I wholeheartedly believe that the morality of political issues need to be thoroughly discussed ad nauseum.

Well here’s the problem: except for a handful of moral issues that have political implications, there are no political issues that present us with moral choices. As I said, once the decision has been made to honestly address a political issue, there are no moral choices to be made.

—Again, I believe that morality of political issues need to be discussed ad nauseum.

Name one moral choice that confronts us for any political issue that does not involve an intrinsic evil like abortion. Pick anything you like.

And if you get offended because you cite my morals as being Christian, and no longer want to speak of these morals because they don’t mesh with yours. Then it is you who is in error.

Again you see this as a confrontation between your morals and mine, but since our moral standards are not involved in deciding which of several proposals is for the best it is a false comparison. You are doing what you think is best, as am I. The choices we make are not based on whether we want to do right, but on which approach we think is most likely to lead to the most just result even as we disagree on what that result would be.

Ender

 

[ProVobis]

What does that last line of yours mean? You either came here legally like thousands of others do after waiting on line or you snuck across the border without legal authorization. If it’s the latter I’m sorry, but you violated our laws and should be returned to your place of origin. The fact that you are a net contributor to our society is besides the point.

Depends on what you mean by illegal. We’ve all done illegal things of some kind. Technically if I overextend my visa, I’m illegal but if I’ve asked for an extension, is that reason enough to deport me immediately?

 

[Ender]

Someone could say their support of pro-choice laws is not actually condoning abortion because they want to discourage abortion in other ways…

It doesn’t matter *why *they support permissive abortion laws. You may not commit an evil act to achieve a good end. No one is permitted to support a law allowing abortion unless it is in preference to an even more permissive law. As I said before, intent with regard to abortion is irrelevant while intent with regard to political issues such as immigration is (pretty much) all that matters.

Ender