LA prelate ‘deeply concerned’ about Trump on immigration

[Ender]

Have you not paid attention? When has Pope Francis NOT mentioned the poor, the sick or the immigrants?

I already gave you quotes from the Bible. You know Pope Francis is on board with this. The Bishops too. What exactly more are you looking for?

What I’m not looking for are more generalities and guidelines. We are told to heal the sick - does that mean we must support or oppose Obamacare? The church doesn’t say. We are told to help the poor - does that mean we must support or oppose raising the minimum wage? The church doesn’t say. We are told to welcome the immigrant - does that mean we must support or oppose building a wall? In fact the church tells us nothing whatever about the specific proposals being suggested as fixes for all of these social issues. Not only does the church not specify what solutions we are to implement she expressly leaves those choices up to the laity.

So I’ll ask again: what is the church’s doctrine on what our immigration laws ought to be? No more “welcome the stranger” vagueness. We have to implement specific laws. Are deportations per se immoral? No. Therefore if I support deporting a lot of those who are here illegally am I violating some church teaching? Again - no. Do you disapprove of my choice? Probably so, but that hardly makes my choice contrary to moral doctrine. It only means that what I believe is necessary differs from what you believe.

Where is the moral choice? I’m OK with your trying to demonstrate that my position is mistaken, but I utterly reject your suggestion that my position may be immoral.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

That’s not very charitable at all. I’m not lazy and I’m certainly not rude for calling an invader an illegal.

There you go again, misusing words. Here is the definition of “invade”:

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
   Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
   {certainly not what most immigrants do}

2.to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
{certainly not what most immigrants intend}

1. to enter as if to take possession:
   to invade a neighbor’s home.
   {nope. not that one either.}
2. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
   viruses that invade the bloodstream.
   {not even close}

5.to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
{no, they don’t do that}

6.to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
{citizens do not lose any of their rights to immigrants}

7.to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.
{well, maybe in localized concentrations they might be said to do this}

8.to penetrate; spread into or over:
The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
{they aren’t that ubiquitous, unless you look in a mirror and realize that almost all us are a people that “invaded” this nation in earlier waves of immigration.}

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So I’ll ask again: what is the church’s doctrine on what our immigration laws ought to be? No more “welcome the stranger” vagueness. We have to implement specific laws. Are deportations per se immoral? No. Therefore if I support deporting a lot of those who are here illegally am I violating some church teaching? Again - no. Do you disapprove of my choice? Probably so, but that hardly makes my choice contrary to moral doctrine. It only means that what I believe is necessary differs from what you believe.

Where is the moral choice? I’m OK with your trying to demonstrate that my position is mistaken, but I utterly reject your suggestion that my position may be immoral.

Minor difference in policy can correctly be attributed to prudential judgement. But there are conceivable differences large enough that no reasonable person would call that a prudential variation of caring for the poor or welcoming the stranger. Since you have not put forth any specific alternative proposals regarding immigration yet, I cannot say at this time if your position is moral or not. But there must be some level at which it would be immoral, otherwise how could the story of the rich man and Lazarus have a moral ending?

 

[Ender]

Are you sure you are not relying on vagueness to support your position on immigration?

I haven’t expressed an opinion on any specific proposal; all I have done is reject the idea that one proposal is morally superior to another.

The most specific alternative you suggested was to “do the best for all involved.” Kinda hard to tell if this represents a just alternative for immigrants or not.

How would you judge if Proposal X is just? Suppose you believe it is too harsh, or unnecessarily restrictive, does it become unjust because you prefer Proposal Y? Why do you insist on characterizing a position in moral terms instead of simply arguing that it is merely a bad alternative? Can you even consider the problem in non-moral terms?

You have reduced the abortion question to its simplest form: legalize or not legalize. That is like reducing the immigration question to its simplest form and saying we should either help those in need or not help them. Obviously you don’t want me to pretend that the immigration question boils down to good vs. bad, but at the same time you seem to want to hang on to boiling down the abortion question to just these terms.

Abortion is fundamentally different than immigration. Any number of positions are arguable with regard to the latter that are utterly irrelevant with regard to the former. I don’t violate any church doctrine by supporting or opposing any particular laws on immigration, but I do violate doctrines if I support laws permitting abortion.

How about we just agree that in both questions there are positions people can take that, while paying lip service to the good they pretend to do, are actually not doing good by it at all?

Well this is exactly what you (and several others) have been doing: judging - and condemning - the intentions of others. I don’t need to judge one’s intentions with regard to abortion since with regard to those laws the intention is irrelevant.

This would allow you to maintain that those who support legalizing abortion are doing so immorally, and allow me to maintain that those who oppose all effective means of helping those in need are doing so immorally too.

We are not forbidden to make all judgments, we are only forbidden to make rash or uncharitable ones. If someone commits an immoral act, an act that is immoral by its very nature, I can judge it to be immoral because it is so by definition. That is what can be done with regard to those who support abortion. With regard to immigration, the only way an act can be judged immoral is by judging the intent, which is something you cannot know and is something you are explicitly forbidden to judge.

Yes, there are surely those who base their immigration proposals on base motives, but you cannot know who they are based solely on the proposals they make.

Ender

 

[gracepoole]

I’m not lazy and I’m certainly not rude for calling an invader an illegal.

Pnewton provided a definition of the term “illegal” which supports the claim that it’s pejorative when used as a noun. It may not be the intent to be “rude” but it may be the result regardless.

 

[Ender]

Pnewton provided a definition of the term “illegal” which supports the claim that it’s pejorative when used as a noun. It may not be the intent to be “rude” but it may be the result regardless.

It is a pejorative, what of that? If we’re going only by dictionary definitions then the use of a pejorative to describe people who are in our country illegally is quite acceptable, given that a pejorative is “a word expressing contempt or disapproval.” exnihilo is not alone in expressing disapproval of illegal immigration. Is that no longer permitted? Is it rude to do so?

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I haven’t expressed an opinion on any specific proposal; all I have done is reject the idea that one proposal is morally superior to another.

Since you haven’t said what this “other” proposal is, we don’t know if one or the other is morally superior. Suppose the proposal was to take any illegal immigrant we find and lower him by his toes into a den of cobras and fire ants? Is that proposal morally equivalent to a proposal that grants limited amnesty? I don’t think so.

How would you judge if Proposal X is just?

Uncertainty over borderline cases does not imply uncertainly over extreme cases, like the one I described above.

Abortion is fundamentally different than immigration. Any number of positions are arguable with regard to the latter…

I don’t think you could argue in favor of the position I described above - with the cobras and fire ants.

I don’t violate any church doctrine by supporting or opposing any particular laws on immigration…

I think the position I described above violates several Church doctrines.

Well this is exactly what you (and several others) have been doing: judging - and condemning - the intentions of others.

You are the one who characterized my position as being about intention. But if you insist on casting this in terms of intention, I might point out that we can say the same thing about intention in a policy on abortion. I am not referring to the intention to do some nebulous good through having an abortion. That is the only kind of intention that is irrelevant in the abortion question, because we cannot do evil so that good might come of it. But if I sincerely believe that policy X will stop abortions and policy Y will not stop them, my intention is to stop abortions by favoring policy X. Just to be specific, suppose that policy X was to give every pregnant woman a $5,000 bonus for bearing a child, and policy Y was to levy a $100 fine for any woman having an abortion. Although policy X keeps abortion legal and policy Y makes it technically illegal (but imposed an inconsequential fine), I am quite confident that policy X would make for fewer abortions than policy Y. And if the political situation was such that those were the only choices available to me, my intention to favor policy X over policy Y is not an immoral one.

We are not forbidden to make all judgments, we are only forbidden to make rash or uncharitable ones. If someone commits an immoral act, an act that is immoral by its very nature, I can judge it to be immoral because it is so by definition. That is what can be done with regard to those who support abortion.

The irrelevance of intention regarding having an abortion does not automatically extend to an irrelevance of intention regarding policy about abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Voting for a policy that legalizes abortion (as I showed above) is not. (Although in most specific instances it would be evil, but not intrinsically so. Therefore intention matters.)

With regard to immigration, the only way an act can be judged immoral is by judging the intent, which is something you cannot know and is something you are explicitly forbidden to judge.

Yes, there are surely those who base their immigration proposals on base motives, but you cannot know who they are based solely on the proposals they make.

If someone made the proposal with the cobras and fire ants, I would definitely know that they had immoral intentions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have admittedly not read every post, so perhaps someone has come up with some kind of viable and specific program that applies to all categories of illegal immigrants and potential immigrants, both legal and illegal.

It’s okay to speak of kindness and helping one’s neighbor, and we ought to do that. We ought to do it even if it is costly to us. But we don’t have a right to deprive our other neighbor or neighbors out of our own sense of compassion. So, if allowing unrestricted, illegal immigration or even legal immigration costs citizens their jobs, am I acting morally in fostering that, or only if it takes away my own job, assuming I don’t have a responsibility to others like children to keep my job?

And upon what basis should I foster immigration of any kind? Should it be based on the interests of those already rightfully here (which would include a lot of immigrants too), solely on the interests of those who want to come here, or is some balancing of interests proper?

And what should be the criteria for admission if we don’t care about the jobs of those already here? What level of comparative economic deficiency should guide us? Should we allow Mexicans, whose earnings are about 1/3 what they are here, or should we bar them in favor of Haitians who are incomparably worse off until no more Haitians want to come here? Should we bar Haitians until all those fleeing violence have come here? If so, it would likely be a very long time Haitians would have to wait. Who in the Horn of Africa, for example, cannot claim to be fleeing violence? Who in Syria, Iraq or Yemen couldn’t legitimately claim that?

The problem with all discussions of this nature is that it’s a complicated thing and a balancing of values if not of morals as well. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that the borders should be open to all people in the third world. But if not that, then what? Do we require that, say, only those Mexicans who can hire coyotes can stay, but we won’t be sending any boats to pick up Haitians? Do the walkers-in have priority over those who overstay visas, or is it the other way around? Do we somehow manage to reward those whose efforts are legal prior to those whose efforts are illegal, knowing as we surely do, that doing the opposite really isn’t just?

Ultimately, the whole thing is up to the legislators and to the executive. Eventually, one supposes they will come up with some kind of imperfect solution to what has so far proved an intractable and nearly insoluble problem. And a significant segment of the population won’t like the solution, no matter what it is, and a significant number of those who speak of it as a moral question won’t either.

 

[gracepoole]

It is a pejorative, what of that? If we’re going only by dictionary definitions then the use of a pejorative to describe people who are in our country illegally is quite acceptable, given that a pejorative is “a word expressing contempt or disapproval.” exnihilo is not alone in expressing disapproval of illegal immigration. Is that no longer permitted? Is it rude to do so?

Ender

Synonyms for pejorative: defamatory, abusive, insulting, slanderous.

Doesn’t seem that any Christian should engage in such language.

 

[exnihilo]

There you go again, misusing words. Here is the definition of “invade”:

1. to enter forcefully as an enemy; go into with hostile intent:
   Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
   {certainly not what most immigrants do}

2.to enter like an enemy:
Locusts invaded the fields.
{certainly not what most immigrants intend}

1. to enter as if to take possession:
   to invade a neighbor’s home.
   {nope. not that one either.}
2. to enter and affect injuriously or destructively, as disease:
   viruses that invade the bloodstream.
   {not even close}

5.to intrude upon:
to invade the privacy of a family.
{no, they don’t do that}

6.to encroach or infringe upon:
to invade the rights of citizens.
{citizens do not lose any of their rights to immigrants}

7.to permeate:
The smell of baking invades the house.
{well, maybe in localized concentrations they might be said to do this}

8.to penetrate; spread into or over:
The population boom has caused city dwellers to invade the suburbs.
{they aren’t that ubiquitous, unless you look in a mirror and realize that almost all us are a people that “invaded” this nation in earlier waves of immigration.}

I’m not misusing the term at all. Anyone familiar with La Raza, Reconquista and Islamic history knows invader can be a most appropriate term. I’d say the change in my lifetime where suddenly everything written or spoken has to be presented in Spanish is a sign of an invasion.

 

[exnihilo]

Pnewton provided a definition of the term “illegal” which supports the claim that it’s pejorative when used as a noun. It may not be the intent to be “rude” but it may be the result regardless.

So let’s through out the words trespasser, criminal, felon, convict, outlaw, brigand, and scofflaw. I’d hate for such people so appropriately described by that noun to be offended.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

So let’s through out the words trespasser, criminal, felon, convict, outlaw, brigand, and scofflaw. I’d hate for such people so appropriately described by that noun to be offended.

You don’t have to throw out those words. Just restrict their use to where they truly apply.

 

[gracepoole]

So let’s through out the words trespasser, criminal, felon, convict, outlaw, brigand, and scofflaw. I’d hate for such people so appropriately described by that noun to be offended.

Look up the definition of a word like criminal. There is no entry that will claim that the term is abusive. There’s a reason for that. Being a criminal doesn’t negate one’s humanity but illegal does when used as a noun.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…It’s okay to speak of kindness and helping one’s neighbor, and we ought to do that. We ought to do it even if it is costly to us. But we don’t have a right to deprive our other neighbor or neighbors out of our own sense of compassion. So, if allowing unrestricted, illegal immigration or even legal immigration costs citizens their jobs, am I acting morally in fostering that, or only if it takes away my own job, assuming I don’t have a responsibility to others like children to keep my job?

[snip for length]

And what should be the criteria for admission if we don’t care about the jobs of those already here? What level of comparative economic deficiency should guide us? Should we allow Mexicans, whose earnings are about 1/3 what they are here, or should we bar them in favor of Haitians who are incomparably worse off until no more Haitians want to come here? Should we bar Haitians until all those fleeing violence have come here? If so, it would likely be a very long time Haitians would have to wait. Who in the Horn of Africa, for example, cannot claim to be fleeing violence? Who in Syria, Iraq or Yemen couldn’t legitimately claim that?

The problem with all discussions of this nature is that it’s a complicated thing and a balancing of values if not of morals as well. I don’t think anyone would seriously argue that the borders should be open to all people in the third world. But if not that, then what? Do we require that, say, only those Mexicans who can hire coyotes can stay, but we won’t be sending any boats to pick up Haitians? Do the walkers-in have priority over those who overstay visas, or is it the other way around? Do we somehow manage to reward those whose efforts are legal prior to those whose efforts are illegal, knowing as we surely do, that doing the opposite really isn’t just?

Ultimately, the whole thing is up to the legislators and to the executive. Eventually, one supposes they will come up with some kind of imperfect solution to what has so far proved an intractable and nearly insoluble problem. And a significant segment of the population won’t like the solution, no matter what it is, and a significant number of those who speak of it as a moral question won’t either.

This is one of the more thoughtful posts in this thread. You raise some good questions - the right questions to ask - and I don’t have any pat answers to them.

I think it is right to balance the cost to those already in the community with the good that we might do for those who would like to belong. And it is also right to recognize that we cannot help everyone, or even a small fraction of those needing help. And I don’t think we have a obligation to try to do the impossible.

When the Good Samaritan came upon the man beaten on the road, he only helped that one man. There may have been others in need traveling on the road that same day. He didn’t help them, and that’s OK. This one act (fictional though it was) could not be seen as substantially improving the overall conditions of the road to Jericho. Similarly, we need not shrink from helping some people just because we cannot help** all** people.

As for balancing harms, both internal and external, this needs to be done as objectively as possible, based on a realistic assessment of harms to both the citizens here and the immigrants who might be deported. It is not enough to simply say “I don’t feel safe” without some attempt at justifying that fear with reason. I think some of the views expressed in this thread have tried to make the point that whatever someone feels about their own welfare is sufficient reason to reject the risk of helping those in need.

As for open borders and unrestricted immigration, that is an exaggeration that is not really a position anyone takes seriously. There is nothing contradictory in having a tight border, maybe even with Trump’s big wall, and a reasonable deportation policy, together with a partial amnesty for some (not all) of the illegal immigrants here now. I know people say that an amnesty encourages more attempts at crossing the border illegally, and maybe that’s true. But we should not be relying exclusively on disincentives for trying. For one thing, disincentives can be maintained by who the amnesty applies to. If it is perceived as something for which it is difficult to qualify, the incentive for illegal entry is reduced. Secondly, if we really thought disincentives were the way to go, the border would not be a wall, but a band of land mines followed by a river of swamp adders.

While I cannot answer the very specific questions you ask, I will offer just one guiding thought. We recognize that this entire world was given to us by God - not because we earned it or merit it in any way, but because it pleased God to do so. In particular, the region of the world we now inhabit is part of the undeserved gift - of which we are stewards, not absolute owners. (This is not to deny the concept of private property in human affairs.) It was not too long ago that this land was inhabited by a different people. The land did not belong to them either, even though they were here longer than we Europeans have been here. We don’t create the land - we find it. We improve it, as I’m sure you know better than I do in your ranching. But those improvements are what God expects of us as faithful stewards. It still belongs ultimately to Him. And as stewards, we are charged with presenting God with a return on His investment. Sharing the blessing of God’s gift rather than hoarding it does seem to be something God has encouraged us to do.

How all this informs immigration policy is hard to say, but I think it should at least be kept in mind as we make these decisions.

 

[Ender]

Suppose the proposal was to take any illegal immigrant we find and lower him by his toes into a den of cobras and fire ants? Is that proposal morally equivalent to a proposal that grants limited amnesty?

Although I have not done it in every instance, I have in a number of posts indicated that extreme proposals such as this one are exceptions. Clearly one can invent immoral positions. The relevant point is that in the real world there are no such proposals. How often do I need to say this?
*Political issues, of which immigration is one, do not involve moral choices beyond simply choosing to honestly address the problem. (#205)

As I said, once the decision has been made to honestly address a political issue, there are no moral choices to be made. (#210)

intent with regard to political issues such as immigration is (pretty much) all that matters. (#214)*
I think the fact that you have had to dream up such an outlandish situation, which in no way could be considered an honest approach, reinforces the validity of my position.

You are the one who characterized my position as being about intention. But if you insist on casting this in terms of intention, I might point out that we can say the same thing about intention in a policy on abortion.

Even if your argument was valid about abortion it does not invalidate my argument about immigration. Regardless of what may be said about abortion, it is still true that the only way a person can be considered to have acted immorally on immigration is if his intent is judged to be immoral (so long as the proposal does not obviously exceed rational limits - a caveat that should not have to be repeated.)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Synonyms for pejorative: defamatory, abusive, insulting, slanderous.

Doesn’t seem that any Christian should engage in such language.

The synonyms are irrelevant. He was charged with using a pejorative term. Since the definition of that particular term means (among other things) expressing disapproval, it is hardly something a Christian should refrain from. This entire argument is just another form of the same personal disparagement approach that is so characteristic of this debate. If you really are that concerned about a pejorative even when properly used perhaps you could work up some dudgeon about a poster being called lazy and rude.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Although I have not done it in every instance, I have in a number of posts indicated that extreme proposals such as this one are exceptions. Clearly one can invent immoral positions. The relevant point is that in the real world there are no such proposals. How often do I need to say this?
*Political issues, of which immigration is one, do not involve moral choices beyond simply choosing to honestly address the problem. (#205)

As I said, once the decision has been made to honestly address a political issue, there are no moral choices to be made. (#210)

intent with regard to political issues such as immigration is (pretty much) all that matters. (#214)*
I think the fact that you have had to dream up such an outlandish situation, which in no way could be considered an honest approach, reinforces the validity of my position.

Extreme positions, like the one I made up, are useful in disproving general assertions that are made without qualification, like your assertion that all immigration policies are morally equivalent. You say that in the real world no one is making such outlandish proposals that might be objectively immoral positions. But I have seen right here in this thread someone taking the position that the US cannot afford to allow one single immigrant into our country. “Outlandish” positions are not that unheard of.

If you had said that there are **some **immigration proposals short of amnesty that are morally neutral, I would not have disagreed with it. If you had said that most people with differing views on immigration still have good intentions toward being fair to immigrants, I would not have disagreed with that either. But you criticized Archbishop Gomez for even commenting on this issue because you claim it cannot have a moral dimension - that there is no one out there who harbors an unjust and unloving attitude toward immigrants - no one who needs to reminded that we should look for merciful solutions. I think there are definitely some out there who do harbor such attitudes, and they need to hear that admonition. Maybe it is true what you say that none of us can see into the heart of others and discern their evil intent. Fine. I will not judge the evil intent of any specific proposal. And I don’t think I have yet, other than my made-up extreme proposal. But I do not need to judge anyone’s intent to say there are likely people out there with evil intent. I don’t know who they are. Only they and God know for sure. And as long as such people exist - even if we do not know who they are - it is appropriate for Archbishop Gomez to speak to them as he has. If you read the OP, I don’t think you will find him endorsing one concrete proposal. He is open to a diversity of merciful solutions.

As for extreme cases exceeding rational limits, there is a principle in mathematics called continuity. As I gradually dial back on the outlandishness of my proposal, at what point does it become “within rational limits” and at what point does my conclusion about there being a discernible evil intent become invalid? I suggest that the first transition happen long before the second one.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is one of the more thoughtful posts in this thread. You raise some good questions - the right questions to ask - and I don’t have any pat answers to them.

I think it is right to balance the cost to those already in the community with the good that we might do for those who would like to belong. And it is also right to recognize that we cannot help everyone, or even a small fraction of those needing help. And I don’t think we have a obligation to try to do the impossible.

When the Good Samaritan came upon the man beaten on the road, he only helped that one man. There may have been others in need traveling on the road that same day. He didn’t help them, and that’s OK. This one act (fictional though it was) could not be seen as substantially improving the overall conditions of the road to Jericho. Similarly, we need not shrink from helping some people just because we cannot help** all** people.

As for balancing harms, both internal and external, this needs to be done as objectively as possible, based on a realistic assessment of harms to both the citizens here and the immigrants who might be deported. It is not enough to simply say “I don’t feel safe” without some attempt at justifying that fear with reason. I think some of the views expressed in this thread have tried to make the point that whatever someone feels about their own welfare is sufficient reason to reject the risk of helping those in need.

As for open borders and unrestricted immigration, that is an exaggeration that is not really a position anyone takes seriously. There is nothing contradictory in having a tight border, maybe even with Trump’s big wall, and a reasonable deportation policy, together with a partial amnesty for some (not all) of the illegal immigrants here now. I know people say that an amnesty encourages more attempts at crossing the border illegally, and maybe that’s true. But we should not be relying exclusively on disincentives for trying. For one thing, disincentives can be maintained by who the amnesty applies to. If it is perceived as something for which it is difficult to qualify, the incentive for illegal entry is reduced. Secondly, if we really thought disincentives were the way to go, the border would not be a wall, but a band of land mines followed by a river of swamp adders.

While I cannot answer the very specific questions you ask, I will offer just one guiding thought. We recognize that this entire world was given to us by God - not because we earned it or merit it in any way, but because it pleased God to do so. In particular, the region of the world we now inhabit is part of the undeserved gift - of which we are stewards, not absolute owners. (This is not to deny the concept of private property in human affairs.) It was not too long ago that this land was inhabited by a different people. The land did not belong to them either, even though they were here longer than we Europeans have been here. We don’t create the land - we find it. We improve it, as I’m sure you know better than I do in your ranching. But those improvements are what God expects of us as faithful stewards. It still belongs ultimately to Him. And as stewards, we are charged with presenting God with a return on His investment. Sharing the blessing of God’s gift rather than hoarding it does seem to be something God has encouraged us to do.

How all this informs immigration policy is hard to say, but I think it should at least be kept in mind as we make these decisions.

I would feel a lot better about immigration if responsibilities went along with it. Specifically, I would feel better if more people were willing to sponsor an immigrant or an immigrant family. Maybe a lot do, but I am informed that it’s extremely difficult to get people to do it because there is a lot of potential liability to the government that attends it. And yet, people are much more willing to put the “sponsorship” on the nation as a whole, unconscious or unheeding of the fact that’s simply putting the burden on the “unseen neighbor” who pays for all things we don’t want to personally pay for; the taxpayer. I am almost afraid to ask how many parishes or diocese do it. Seems like the center of their argument is always to ask the “unseen neighbor” to pay for it; “that fellow over there with no name”.

When it comes to some immigrants, there’s really no need of sponsorship by anyone; the Indian IT person, the Mexican bricklayer, the Guatemalan who knows how to milk dairy cows or keep a poultry house operating, the Macedonian who already knows how to run a restaurant. Technically, such people could become a burden on society, but the likelihood is almost zero, and those are the ones who pay taxes besides.

But for some, there is an economic hazard. If society knew the true costs of various kinds of immigration, I think sober thought could be given to it. But I think the unwillingness to face the costs of some (but not all) kinds of immigrants and immigration lead to a certain air of unreality about it. Since nobody really knows how much of it works out on the ground, we seem to resort to making what should be a practical decision based on a sort of ideological speculation that’s not fact-based.

That’s not to say there is no place for society to allow some immigration out of sheer charity. But there are no agreed criteria for determining who should be the best objects of that charity.

 

[gracepoole]

The synonyms are irrelevant. He was charged with using a pejorative term. Since the definition of that particular term means (among other things) expressing disapproval, it is hardly something a Christian should refrain from. This entire argument is just another form of the same personal disparagement approach that is so characteristic of this debate. If you really are that concerned about a pejorative even when properly used perhaps you could work up some dudgeon about a poster being called lazy and rude.

Ender

Of course synonyms are relevant. They help to give context and meaning to language. There’s no point in being a martyr here. This isn’t “some personal disparagement approach,” which should be obvious by the fact that folks keep referring to actual dictionary entries instead of their “feelings” on the topic.

When one refers to an immigrant as an “illegal alien,” they are using the term as a noun. They are effectively saying that the individual, as opposed to any actions that the individual has taken, is illegal. The term “illegal alien” implies that a person’s existence is criminal. I’m not aware of any other circumstance in our common vernacular where a crime is considered to render the individual – as opposed to the individual’s actions – as being illegal. We don’t even refer to our most dangerous and vile criminals as being “illegal.”

nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

Being a criminal doesn’t negate one’s humanity but illegal does when used as a noun.

When everyone knows the term “illegal” refers to a person, just as the term criminal refers to a person, does it really?