Morality of DREAM Act

[dafalax]

usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-147.shtml

I’m pretty sure I don’t agree that this is the right and moral thing to do. I don’t care if these kids are in trouble through no fault of their own. You don’t reward illegal behavior by providing benefits for their kids. That creates even more of an incentive for illegal immigration. I also hate the fact that there are two ways of looking at this and the US Bishops have labelled my way as immoral by default. I think it is immoral to take taxes and create a welfare state that people can suckle off of and become entrenched by. We either need to get rid of welfare or reform it to where it is a hand up instead of a handout. By not expecting our citizens to overcome economic hardship and eventually contribute to the common good, we are dooming ourselves and depriving them of their full dignity. By doing it to people who aren’t even citizens, it is no less wrong. Further, it is also wrong for the government to have charitable programs like this funded by taxes because it deprives the citizenry of doing it themselves. No one feels charitable on April 15 thinking of all the hungry children that will be fed by WIC and TANF. We are called to be generous, not to set up a government that will force us to do it.
I know this doesn’t exactly deal with why educating illegal children and giving them legal status is bad, but I think the bishops in this country are using false compassion to try to change laws. They aren’t taking into consideration what is best for our country and its legal citizens. They also aren’t making the parents responsible for the bad position they put their own children in. If Mexico and other South American countries are really so bad, we need to allow people from those countries to come here as refugees. If it’s not that bad, they need to suck it up and stop breaking our laws. Some of them aren’t starry-eyed opportunity seekers with a heart full of dreams, either. Many people who come here illegally are murderers, drug dealers, and pedophile rapists. We need to know who is entering our country and why in order to protect our citizens. Creating an incentive program for illegals is not going to accomplish that.
Anyway, I know this stuff has been discussed a lot already, but I thought if it’s going to stay in the news, why not discuss each new angle as they come along? Would it really be a good “investment” to educate and legalize the children of illegal immigrants? Am I really immoral for saying this incentive program is bad policy? Discuss.

 

[aurora77]

I dislike the part of the DREAM Act that allows for in state tuition for illegals, but not for U.S. citizens of other states. How is that just—someone who shouldn’t be here gets better treatment than those born and raised here? It’s immoral and I have a major problem with the USCCB supporting such a thing.

Of course children of illegals have done nothing wrong, they shouldn’t be punished because their parents broke the law. But, why reward them because of their illegal status? Makes no sense to me.

 

[rpp]

This is an example that demonstrates that, while the Magisterium is infallible, the USCCB is not.

I agree with the essentials of the original post; it is wrong to reward illegal activity.

 

[SoCalRC]

It is hard for me to see what other Christian conclussion the Bishops could have arrived at. Matt 25:37-40 seems pretty crystal clear and, as we can see from Matt 25:32, it is in the context of nations. The exact same themes are reiterated in Luke 10:25-37, in the context of what must we, as individuals do to find salvation.

We can argue as to rather or not Christ’s teachings are practical, but Princes of the Church have no such luxury.

In terms of ‘incentives’ it seems important to remember that, with Latin America in particular, we have historically considered it our right to mettle for our own self interest. Once you’ve been involved in a genocide in Guatamala or exposed a long history of weapons and aid to a controversial figure like Augusto Pinochet, it is hard to claim that you are just an innocent bystander down the road. I liken it to the bull-in-the-China-shop analogy we now hear with Iraq. Having played a role in the origins of a situation, we inhereit responsibility.

I would agree with the original poster about the need for reforms, acceptance of refuges, and so on. We are too often slaves to the greed of special interests or our own political process. As the USCCB noted last year, the refugee problem for Iraq’s displaced Christians is horrible. The Pope specifically brought up the matter earlier this year with the President. But fear of political fallout has kept us from allowing more than a tiny trickle of Iraq refuges into the US and our desperation on the military front has led us to essentially ‘switch sides’ and begin arming and assisting the same Sunni militant groups that are driving hundreds of thousands of Christians from their homes.

Again, this shows the difference between a purely Christian perspective and a pragmatic national one.

 

[dafalax]

It is hard for me to see what other Christian conclussion the Bishops could have arrived at. Matt 25:37-40 seems pretty crystal clear and, as we can see from Matt 25:32, it is in the context of nations. The exact same themes are reiterated in Luke 10:25-37, in the context of what must we, as individuals do to find salvation.

We can argue as to rather or not Christ’s teachings are practical, but Princes of the Church have no such luxury.

In terms of ‘incentives’ it seems important to remember that, with Latin America in particular, we have historically considered it our right to mettle for our own self interest. Once you’ve been involved in a genocide in Guatamala or exposed a long history of weapons and aid to a controversial figure like Augusto Pinochet, it is hard to claim that you are just an innocent bystander down the road. I liken it to the bull-in-the-China-shop analogy we now hear with Iraq. Having played a role in the origins of a situation, we inhereit responsibility.

I would agree with the original poster about the need for reforms, acceptance of refuges, and so on. We are too often slaves to the greed of special interests or our own political process. As the USCCB noted last year, the refugee problem for Iraq’s displaced Christians is horrible. The Pope specifically brought up the matter earlier this year with the President. But fear of political fallout has kept us from allowing more than a tiny trickle of Iraq refuges into the US and our desperation on the military front has led us to essentially ‘switch sides’ and begin arming and assisting the same Sunni militant groups that are driving hundreds of thousands of Christians from their homes.

Again, this shows the difference between a purely Christian perspective and a pragmatic national one.

The Princes of our Church need to support a response that is both good for the citizens of this country and moral and for the illegal non-citizens. There is no such thing as a Christian solution that rewards defiance of a nation’s just laws.
Also, just because this country may have done some exploitative things in Latin America does not mean we let them exploit the innocent taxpayers of this country. That’s neither pragmatic nor Christian.

 

[SoCalRC]

The Princes of our Church need to support a response that is both good for the citizens of this country and moral and for the illegal non-citizens. There is no such thing as a Christian solution that rewards defiance of a nation’s just laws.

From a strictly pragmatic point of view, it could be argued that the USCCB’s position is good for the country. A massive problem of undocumented workers will continue to exist regardless. It is fueled by two basic human behaviors, a desire for a a better existance and a tendancy to exploit the weak for personal gain.

The USCCB pointed out that it believed an investment in these youth will be a net gain for society on multiple fronts. Look solely at health care services. We now spend about 16% of our GDP on health care. To get an idea of how huge that is, think of administrative costs alone, which now are running about 30%. 16 times .3 = 4.8. So, out of every dollar in our economy we now spend about one nickle on simply moving paper related to health care. Because of their status, the undocumented workforce utilizes the health care system in the most expensive and least effective manner. That is, we spend the most giving them the poorest care.

Of course, this is just one example. Deterring violent crime and all its direct and indirect costs would be another example.

The question of ‘just laws’ and their priority is an interesting one. As I already noted, the Pope, the undisputed moral leader of our Church (per Church Dogma, First Vatican Council), has directly questioned rather some of our immigration policies and/or their application is just. However, even if we remove this factor the relative priority of secular law remains clear. Again, simply look at the two Scriptural references I already used. Not only are clear obligations presented, their priority over secular law and practices is emphasized in both passages.

Look at yesterday’s (Sunday’s) reading. The Bishops cannot serve two masters.

Also, just because this country may have done some exploitative things in Latin America does not mean we let them exploit the innocent taxpayers of this country. That’s neither pragmatic nor Christian.

Unless the taxation is without representation, the taxpayers cannot be “innocent” in a democracy for how their taxes are used. Similiarly, investors in a corporation have shared responsibility for its actions around the world. Put simply, if you are willing to profit from slavery, genocide, forced abortions, lead paint on children’s toys, etc., you are partially responsible for those crimes against God and fellow man.

From a pragmatic point of view, failure to accept responsibility for one’s actions would seem to be a recipe for perpetual failure. The fact that two of the most notorious names in the US, Saddam and Osama, were once ‘pragmatic’ US allies is probably a case in point. The fact that two of our ‘allies’ in our latest fight are actually the major sources of Islamic fundementalist terrorists and funding is probably another.

From a Christian point of view, accepting personal responsibility is a first, essential, step in seeking redemption - a core belief in our Faith.

 

[rpp]

Illegal immigration is a crime. Yes, some people enter the the USA illegally for “good” reasons, but that does not make it wrong to deport them. In many cases, deportation will actually protect them.

Before I go on, let me anticipate the posts.

“What! Did he actually say ‘protect’?!!! That is crazy! Are you nuts, rpp? Are you off your rocker? That is just crazy.”

Se here is what we are protecting “well-meaning” illegal aliens from.

Exploitation. Abuse. Crime. Intimidation.

Since such people cannot generally go to law enforcement and cannot get a real job as they cannot produce proper ID, they get work which is exploits them. When they are the victim of a crime, they do not go to law enforcement for fear of deportation. Deportation protects them from these very serious crimes.

Of course, that protection works both ways. Those who are here legally, whether by birth or legal immigration, are protected from the inevitable criminal element with the illegal alien population. Also, legitimate jobs are protected and more employers are paying proper taxes based on employing legal workers.

No, sheltering illegal aliens is **not **the only method to extend Christian charity. In fact, sheltering actually works against charity by cultivating an underground economy based on the criminal exploitation of the illegal workforce.

And from a “strictly pragmatic view”, it cannot be argued that the large scale exploitation of an entire group of people, which we have now, can ever be good for America.

 

[dafalax]

From a Christian point of view, accepting personal responsibility is a first, essential, step in seeking redemption - a core belief in our Faith.

I do accept responsibility for changing the immoral policies of our country. I don’t accept stupid new laws as atonement for old ones.
As for the pope questioning some of our immigration policies’ justness, I would gladly listen to our beloved Pontiff’s view and submit to his official teaching as the Vicar of Christ. However, I don’t think he was down on us for expecting people to come here legally. If he was, he’s got a lot of other countries without sanctuary cities he ought to be talking to first. Why is America the only country in the world people are expecting to offer legal status to illegal immigrants, complete with educational opportunities and free health care? I don’t get in-state tuition status. Also, did you know that Mexico deports people coming across their southern border? Where is the outcry from that country’s bishops? They’re probably busy trying to keep abortion illegal, a battle many of our bishops abandoned long ago.
Incidentally, speaking of accepting personal responsibility, why don’t we make people who break our laws accept personal responsibility for their actions? If it’s such an essential Christian step and all.

 

[SoCalRC]

Illegal immigration is a crime. Yes, some people enter the the USA illegally for “good” reasons, but that does not make it wrong to deport them. In many cases, deportation will actually protect them.

I would agree that both those statements are true. However, deportation is not always used justly. Just as a million displaced people from Iraq represent a political dilemna for the current administration, refugees from El Salvadore represented a difficult political situation for the Reagan administration and refugees from Haiti represented a difficult situation for the Clinton administration.

Ultimately, the US ended up being, to varying degrees, complicant in torture/murder of human beings in all those cases. Rather the decisions behind such involvement were truly in the national interest, or just the interests of a small segment of the population is a question for historians. But, regardless, such decisions do carry long term consequences.

No, sheltering illegal aliens is **not **the only method to extend Christian charity.

I don’t think anyone, including the USCCB, has claimed it is. In fact, the USCCB has a long history regarding human rights, human trafficing, and exploitation of the working poor.

In fact, sheltering actually works against charity by cultivating an underground economy based on the criminal exploitation of the illegal workforce.

That is where you lost me. The workforce exists because of desperation and greed. There is nothing to suggest that charitable acts in response to the oppression that is already occuring is a significant causal factor at all. In fact, the USCCB is noting that, by focusing on children, charitable acts may help to break a generational cycle of oppression.

And from a “strictly pragmatic view”, it cannot be argued that the large scale exploitation of an entire group of people, which we have now, can ever be good for America.

On that, I am sure the USCCB would wholeheartedly agree. The bone of contention would be - is it correct to point the finger at people who attempt to answer Christ’s seemingly direct plea regarding the oppressed, poor, stranger, or the folks who are profitting from the exploitation…

 

[SoCalRC]

Incidentally, speaking of accepting personal responsibility, why don’t we make people who break our laws accept personal responsibility for their actions? If it’s such an essential Christian step and all.

Well, in large part because of the close relationship of money and power. After getting caught systematically exploiting known illegal labor Walmart was allowed to write up its own ‘punishment’…

Why do you suppose that, on immigration, when push came to shove, the GOP ended up giving the conservative movement the proverbial finger recently? It’s a no brainer, cheap, exploitable labor is a key ingredient in some very large business interests.

One could actually argue that it is now in our national interest. The Pentagon estimates that at least 16% of the US forces in Iraq are “undocumented”. So ‘fighting for the US’ can be added to ‘picking crops’ and ‘scrubbing toilets’ on the list of jobs that many Americans think is beneath them… Sorry, that one really gets to me.

I know what you were driving at, but the answer above still fits. Look at what hte USCCB had to say about Saipan, then look at all the money that flowed from those horrible practices into US politics.

 

[dafalax]

I would agree that both those statements are true. However, deportation is not always used justly. Just as a million displaced people from Iraq represent a political dilemna for the current administration, refugees from El Salvadore represented a difficult political situation for the Reagan administration and refugees from Haiti represented a difficult situation for the Clinton administration.

Ultimately, the US ended up being, to varying degrees, complicant in torture/murder of human beings in all those cases. Rather the decisions behind such involvement were truly in the national interest, or just the interests of a small segment of the population is a question for historians. But, regardless, such decisions do carry long term consequences.

I don’t think anyone, including the USCCB, has claimed it is. In fact, the USCCB has a long history regarding human rights, human trafficing, and exploitation of the working poor.

That is where you lost me. The workforce exists because of desperation and greed. There is nothing to suggest that charitable acts in response to the oppression that is already occuring is a significant causal factor at all. In fact, the USCCB is noting that, by focusing on children, charitable acts may help to break a generational cycle of oppression.

On that, I am sure the USCCB would wholeheartedly agree. The bone of contention would be - is it correct to point the finger at people who attempt to answer Christ’s seemingly direct plea regarding the oppressed, poor, stranger, or the folks who are profitting from the exploitation…

Archbishop Chaput (whom i love dearly) said that because the US has come to rely on illegal immigrant labor, we should support amnesty for them. This is bad. It would create an underclass of unskilled laborers who would continue earning low wages w/o benefits. I don’t see how granting legal status to them would change that. You’re not helping those who are currently exploited or cracking down on the exploiters. That’s why i think the compassion is false or at least not well thought out.
Also, i think it’s naive to pretend that all the illegals currently using our emergency rooms unnecessarily and at taxpayer expense are just hoping for legal status so they can get their own health insurance. Illegal immigrants are from other countries, not other planets. They’re just as likely to be slothful or dishonest as our own citizenry, moreso if they come here enticed by sanctuary cities and the promise of free health care, welfare, and educational opportunities.

 

[rpp]

I am among those who believe the immigration laws of this country have good and bad points. I will concede that some of those laws are enforced unjustly in some cases. While I do not believe the laws are inherently unjust, the times, type and source of immigration has changed and, therefore, an overhaul of the US immigration laws is well in order.

The DREAM Act does not do this. It just makes an already complicated and easily misunderstood system more complex. And who exactly is it that is raising these children? And where are they getting their money from?

But until our politicians have the courage to do it, all people need to abide, as best as possible, with the current laws. These were laws made with good intentions to protect both those who already live here and those who are immigrating.

As a side note, I do not believe that the USCCB should be encouraging anyone to violate US law by encouraging the sheltering illegal immigrants from deportation.

When dealing with the whole spectrum of human behavior combined with the whole spectrum of family bonds and relationships, it is very difficult to put together a system of laws and enforcement that will be just in every situation. Because I think the possible combinations of circumstances exceeds human ability to anticipate or even conceive of then in advance. I will not pretend to have a solution; I am not that smart.

 

[SoCalRC]

Archbishop Chaput (whom i love dearly) said that because the US has come to rely on illegal immigrant labor, we should support amnesty for them. This is bad. It would create an underclass of unskilled laborers who would continue earning low wages w/o benefits. I don’t see how granting legal status to them would change that. You’re not helping those who are currently exploited or cracking down on the exploiters. That’s why i think the compassion is false or at least not well thought out.

FWIW, if you have legal status, you have legal recourse. You can demand minimum wage, you can use a union for collective bargaining, have recourse via the LRB, etc.

Much of the oppression occurs because illegal status inherently puts one party in a position of weakness. That said, the most sensible argument that I have heard against amnesty is that it addresses the needs of one group of oppressed people, but does nothing to address the systemic situation that created it.

In another thread someone noted our current low unemployment rate - but wages are static. That indicates that, for some reason or another, the labor market is being inhibited from responding to normal supply and demand. The same may well be true for sub minimum wage occupations. That is, instead of forcing employers to pay decent wages, amnesty might just displace the current undocumented workers in favor of a new batch of illegal workers.

Certainly, the desire to maintain some form of the status quo is high, that is why we see proposals like ‘guest worker’ programs, that literally institutionalize abuse. Politicians surely know that most Americans are opposed to such industrial subsidies, but the money involved is generally too large for them to ignore.

Also, i think it’s naive to pretend that all the illegals currently using our emergency rooms unnecessarily and at taxpayer expense…

Not sure where that is from. The USCCB just pointed out possible pragmatic benefits in societal costs - which often seems to coincide with Christian Social Justice.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Hmmm, could it be that the “Post Reply” is now on the top of the
page and now on the bottom left? I posted a problem to the
Mod about this, but when I wanted to post a reply to this topic
I found it on the top of the page.
Sorry, to get off topic.
My sentiments to “dafalax” is that I agree completely. I work with
many legal and illegal immigrants and see a very different mindset. I see the poor of both, but a respect and gratitude (for
this country and the benefits they receive) mostly from the former
and rarely from the latter.

 

[Ender]

I also hate the fact that there are two ways of looking at this and the US Bishops have labelled my way as immoral by default.

No, they haven’t. However they may package their opinions about what should or shouldn’t be done about immigration (or most of the topics on which they issue their manifestos), accepting or rejecting them is not a moral question.

I fault them not only for straying outside of their areas of competence but also for giving Catholics like yourself the impression that their opinions are moral imperatives. They have an obligation to be clear that this is not the case.

Ender