More torn feelings: this time over immigration

[JackVk]

I made a similar thread a few weeks ago about how I am ambivalent on the death penalty. But now I’ve been thinking about the immigration issue, and again, I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.

I’m against amnesty for illegal aliens. I think it’s unfair for people to just come across the border and live on welfare checks of a foreign country. I don’t blame anyone for wanting a better life. I understand that Mexico is a dangerous third-world country, full of poverty, drug cartels, gang violence, and corrupt government. But that doesn’t mean someone should just get a free pass. Plus, “anchor babies” are obviously wrong, because US citizenship is the only reason the parents want the children.

There’s a conflict between the civil rights of the poor and the safety of America’s current citizens. We can’t just let everyone in; the last thing our nation’s children need is more drugs, crime, and moral decay.

 

[1ke]

I made a similar thread a few weeks ago about how I am ambivalent on the death penalty. But now I’ve been thinking about the immigration issue, and again, I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.

What teaching of the Church, specifically, do you not agree with? Is there a document you are referring to, or particular paragraphs in documents? Can you articulate what you believe the Church’s teaching to be?

I’m against amnesty for illegal aliens. I think it’s unfair for people to just come across the border and live on welfare checks of a foreign country.

Do you have evidence that people “just come across the border and live on welfare checks”? On what are you basing this assumption?

I don’t blame anyone for wanting a better life. I understand that Mexico is a dangerous third-world country, full of poverty, drug cartels, gang violence, and corrupt government. But that doesn’t mean someone should just get a free pass.

What free pass are you referring to?

Plus, “anchor babies” are obviously wrong, because US citizenship is the only reason the parents want the children.

And you know this is the “only rason” the parents want the children, how exactly? You are making a very large assumption.

An equally plausible alternative is that parents love their children and both want to have children and want their children to have a better life (which US citizenship will give them).

A third plausible situation is one in which an illegal immigrant becomes pregnant while in the US, either with a US citizen, legal resident, or another illegal immigrant and has her child where she happens to be at the moment: in the US.

I am not making an assertion as to whether the parents actions are right or wrong, as it pertains to the law. I am, however, challenging your assertion regarding the motivation of **all **illegal immigrants who have children in the US. I don’t believe you can ascribe **one **motive to every single person.

There’s a conflict between the civil rights of the poor and the safety of America’s current citizens. We can’t just let everyone in; the last thing our nation’s children need is more drugs, crime, and moral decay.

You have made yet again another assumption that those who immigrate illegally are all guilty of drugs, crime, and moral decay.

Can you prove this in any way?

I think you are tilting at windmills. You say you “don’t agree” with the Church’s teaching, but you never indicate what this teaching is you don’t agree with.

You then spend the rest of your posts making unfounded assertions.

Doesn’t seem like a well-reasoned argument to me.

 

[manualman]

Well I suppose everyone who goes off the path of the faith starts that with a first false step. I mean, really, does anybody wake up in the morning and say to themselves “Self, I’m bored with this status quo. I think we should defy Christ to liven things up.”

Don’t worry, dissention gets easier the more you do it…

On the other hand, maybe it bothers you for a reason. Maybe instead of dismissing the bishops you should try a bit to figure out what YOU would do if you were a penniless Mexican with no hope for a future for your kids where you are at and a shot at something better for them if you just break a ridiculous law… Have you spent time with any illegals?

Why not recognize that nearly every American is the beneficiary of previous US open immigration policies. I know for sure that Mayflower Americans grumbled and resented my Polish and Irish forefathers when they came here and “drove down wages for them.” They just weren’t able to make immigration of unskilled, unconnected impoverished folks illegal through miniscule quotas back then.
We’re MUCH more skilled in our institutional bigotry today!

Perhaps there is a third option. Instead of amnesty for all or deportations for all, how about a plea bargain with commuted sentence and significant community service hours, a more realistically high immigration quota and THEN tighter enforcement of the borders.

 

[JackVk]

Well I suppose everyone who goes off the path of the faith starts that with a first false step. I mean, really, does anybody wake up in the morning and say to themselves “Self, I’m bored with this status quo. I think we should defy Christ to liven things up.”

Don’t worry, dissention gets easier the more you do it…

On the other hand, maybe it bothers you for a reason. Maybe instead of dismissing the bishops you should try a bit to figure out what YOU would do if you were a penniless Mexican with no hope for a future for your kids where you are at and a shot at something better for them if you just break a ridiculous law… Have you spent time with any illegals?

Why not recognize that nearly every American is the beneficiary of previous US open immigration policies. I know for sure that Mayflower Americans grumbled and resented my Polish and Irish forefathers when they came here and “drove down wages for them.” They just weren’t able to make immigration of unskilled, unconnected impoverished folks illegal through miniscule quotas back then.
We’re MUCH more skilled in our institutional bigotry today!

Perhaps there is a third option. Instead of amnesty for all or deportations for all, how about a plea bargain with commuted sentence and significant community service hours, a more realistically high immigration quota and THEN tighter enforcement of the borders.

Like I said, I have no problem with someone wanting a better life, and Mexico today is no place for children. Maybe it’s not so much the Church’s word, but the fact that I’m having trouble making a Christian opinion. My feelings say “they’re just looking for a handout”, but I know that their lives are so much worse than mine, and that I have no right to deny them the kind of living I am blessed with.

 

[puzzleannie]

I made a similar thread a few weeks ago about how I am ambivalent on the death penalty. But now I’ve been thinking about the immigration issue, and again, I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.

I.

you are against the Catholic bishops’ stand that US immigration laws need a complete overhaul? you are satisfied with the laws as they stand and as they are administered, that is, you think the administration and homeland security are handling immigration, drug traffic and related issues properly?

where please is the citation of the Church document which calls for amnesty for all illegal immigrants and which directs us “to let anybody in.” I spend a lot of time with this issue and don’t recall the US bishops or the pope making such statements.

 

[St_Francis]

This is my view, which is quite different from the view I started out with:

1. The way the illegal immigrants got here in the first place was they were “invited” in by companies wanting cheap labor and by our government’s ignoring the laws and what was going on. I know that it is illegal, but when the government does not enforce the law, if we ourselves are not taking the law seriously, why should they?
2. If illegal immigrants are getting welfare, etc, then again that is our government’s fault. I don’t think all that many really are getting it, because it involves going to a higher level of being in trouble if caught, if you see what I mean, so they tend to move or return to Mexico when things fall apart.
3. I no longer mind the idea of paying a fine and letting them stay, due to the above. However, I do believe that, aside from the changes in the immigration laws which obviously need to be made, we need to enforce whatever we end up with.

 

[SalesianSDB]

I’m torn on immigration. I was pretty tough when it came to immigration, and I’m hispanic. But then I spent a week with poor migrant kids and now I am honestly torn on the issue of immigration because now it’s not just “illegal immigrant criminals!!” now when I think of immigration I think of these kids smiling at me.

Many cases it’s not people coming here for a better life, but people coming here for life. In Guatemala the government is slaughtering the Mayan people. So they have no choice. It’s either come here and live or stay and have your children killed. It’s a pretty obvious choice.

As much as I love Glenn Beck, one thing he said that really really upset me was when he was talking about how easy it is to cross from Guatemala to Mexico to the US. He made it sound as if it were a stroll in the park. That upset me. Tell that to those poor kids I saw who saw people left to die on the journey towards freedom.

However, I must say that these immigrants are very very hard working people trying to live their life and trying the best they can to raise their kids.

But like I stated before, immigration is the hardest issue for me and one where I haven’t made up my mind yet.

 

[rodomonte]

Obama has stopped enforcing immigration laws and has failed to secure our southern border, both violations of his oath of office. He should be impeached.

According to The Houston Chronicle:

"The Department of Homeland Security is systematically reviewing thousands of pending immigration cases and moving to dismiss those filed against suspected illegal immigrants who have no serious criminal records, according to several sources familiar with the efforts.

In some instances, the article notes, illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes will be allowed to stay in the country as long as these crimes do not involve a DWI, family violence or sexual assault. But other than those specific circumstances, right now it appears the other deportation candidates are in the clear. (Most of these folks are in the system because they were arrested for committing crimes, so to release those who have only been “convicted” means that illegal alien violent criminals are being set free.)

According to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) memo, this new policy could impact up to 17,000 cases."

Also, workplace raids are no longer resulting in deportations. The illegals are simply let go to find work elsewhere, with only their employers cited.

Adios, America.

 

[Tietjen]

I made a similar thread a few weeks ago about how I am ambivalent on the death penalty. But now I’ve been thinking about the immigration issue, and again, I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings.

I’m against amnesty for illegal aliens. I think it’s unfair for people to just come across the border and live on welfare checks of a foreign country. I don’t blame anyone for wanting a better life. I understand that Mexico is a dangerous third-world country, full of poverty, drug cartels, gang violence, and corrupt government. But that doesn’t mean someone should just get a free pass. Plus, “anchor babies” are obviously wrong, because US citizenship is the only reason the parents want the children.

There’s a conflict between the civil rights of the poor and the safety of America’s current citizens. We can’t just let everyone in; the last thing our nation’s children need is more drugs, crime, and moral decay.

I’d add to this thread but you may already know my position concerning this topic from the other thread. However, I’ll restate it simply once in this thread:

We are NOT required to side with the USCCB on the issue of immigration. It is not a Church dogma. HOWEVER, we ARE to practice charity. I personally just have a soft spot for people who are doing everything they can to provide for their families. I have children, and believe me, if I was in a situation where I had to sneek across a border in order to work and provide them food, I’d do so without giving it a second thought. Having said that, and having recognized that I would do the same thing that many illegal immigrants are doing now; how can I then become upset when they are doing what any decent parent would do?

A person can lose a lot during his/her lifetime; money, time, hope, family, friends, etc. These things can be lost without his willingness to lose them. BUT if a person loses his charity toward humanity, he is to blame as this cannot be lost but rather can only be given up freely by his lack of compassion toward his fellow man.

 

[NEWCATHOLICJEFF]

Simple supply and demand…
Prohibition proved it, so does the drug trade…

Prior to 1973 very little illegal immigration beyond fruit pickers…hardly ever in blue and white collar…what happened to change this?

Kill 53 million and create a vacuum that must be filled…

Many Americans killed their children because at the time it was the cheaper road…

Now we pay for illegal children… I think you call it the “Pay me now or pay me later syndrome”, the only problem is it is very expensive labor in the end because the labor will either resettle and require the same care and feeding as the aborted children would have, or they send currency home in the form of remittances which drain our economy of cash flow.

So end abortion and we will dry up the market for this labor that is coming, but we will have to pay for these “unwanted” children and many people don’t want to do that either.

If you can take religion out of the abortion, and immigration issues they are still connected, in fact even more strongly just looking at this plain and simple economic truth concerning market forces. Supply and demand forces are extremely hard to overcome. We were not successful with alcohol and have not been successful with drugs either. I doubt we will be successful with the labor issue without ending abortion unless all of the countries surrounding the US have a need for labor greater then ours. Equilibrium will happen so long as fear does not factor in to the equation. In this case the fear drives the market law even harder towards illegal immigration in the US. The US needs the labor and central and South America are not as secure a place to raise a family. Add that to the fact that we pay more due to the vacuum of abortion and we have our current situation.

Some will say that we don’t need the labor as we have a lot of unemployed Americans. That would not be a totally true statement however. We do have a high unemployment rate, but many of these Americans are unwilling to perform the tasks required, or are unwilling or unable to learn the skills required for the jobs that are open. Many Blue collar jobs are open, but we no longer train our children for Blue collar work. Most High Schools no longer have wood shop or auto shop. This is really a simple equation and although people like to get passionate with this the simple fact is that business does not care what nationality the 'Supply" is anymore then a drinker during prohibition cared what country the Whiskey came from. They might have preferred a certain flavor, but cost would weigh in on this consideration. Simple math, simple market laws.

Simple Supply and Demand… get rid of abortion and in a few years we will see our economy grow by sectors as the children age for requirements for teachers and other services and things grow.

My :twocents:

 

[tafan]

I
…
I think it’s unfair for people to just come across the border and live on welfare checks of a foreign country. I don’t blame anyone for wanting a better life.

…
Plus, “anchor babies” are obviously wrong, because US citizenship is the only reason the parents want the children.

There’s a conflict between the civil rights of the poor and the safety of America’s current citizens. We can’t just let everyone in; the last thing our nation’s children need is more drugs, crime, and moral decay.

Comments like these illustrate so clearly how misinformed some very sincere people are on the immigration issue. Relative to the typical immigrant from Mexico, they are so far off base as to merit the charge of bigotry, even though it is not intended.

 

[bobby_booshay]

We are NOT required to side with the USCCB on the issue of immigration. It is not a Church dogma. HOWEVER, we ARE to practice charity. I personally just have a soft spot for people who are doing everything they can to provide for their families. I have children, and believe me, if I was in a situation where I had to sneek across a border in order to work and provide them food, I’d do so without giving it a second thought. Having said that, and having recognized that I would do the same thing that many illegal immigrants are doing now; how can I then become upset when they are doing what any decent parent would do?

**CCC 1759 **
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

 

[tafan]

**CCC 1759 **
“An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

The question may be, how evil of an action has been performed. How to judge? Perhaps based on the law. There are three types of violations an illegal may have committed:

1. Illegal Entry : misdemeanor, fine between $50-$250
2. Visa overstay - misdemeanor, fine of not more than $500
3. Visa Fraud - penalty between $500 and $2000

Now, the first and second are the vast majority of the cases. Since the anti-immigration crowd simply wants the existing laws to be enforced (no need for any type of imigration reform), we can only assume that these penalties are in-line and proper. Therefore, I would conclude that based on the low penalties involved, the offense is not that major, and therefore perhaps the “evil” tag is a little extreme.

 

[RB2]

you are against the Catholic bishops’ stand that US immigration laws need a complete overhaul? you are satisfied with the laws as they stand and as they are administered, that is, you think the administration and homeland security are handling immigration, drug traffic and related issues properly?

where please is the citation of the Church document which calls for amnesty for all illegal immigrants and which directs us “to let anybody in.” I spend a lot of time with this issue and don’t recall the US bishops or the pope making such statements.

Your probably right with an exception to Cardinal Mahoney.
Its probably possible to mine his statements for a contradiction, at least in spirit. He’s made some way over the top inflammatory statements.
I would bet money that the USCCB fund groups that promote not enforcing our borders and promote amnesty. Needless to say CCHD would be the no. #1 place to look for just such things. I think it a given that the CCHD does fund these things.

you are against the Catholic bishops’ stand that US immigration laws >need a complete overhaul?

I’m pretty much against the USCCB in principal at this present time, they have no legal standing in relation to me within the Church. They exist thats it! There present composure of predominant Bad/Lefty/Secular/Weak Bishops is bad and reflects the general state of the Church and the faithful. We have alot of lay Catholics and Bishops that are not very faithful to the deposit of faith. However, it has been noted that things are improving.

I am only under my dioscesean Bishop and obedient to him. The USCCB has no particular gravitas for me than does the National Phillipines Bishops Conference do over me. However, I look to a time when these things change for the better.

 

[tafan]

RB2:

I’m pretty much against the USCCB in principal at this present time, they have no legal standing in relation to me within the Church. They exist thats it!

In general, you are not that far off with respect to the USCCB, but I would caution you about a couple of things. There are specific functions of national bishops conferences have been delegated to them by the Holy See. One example is development and approval of liturgical translations. Other local liturgical norms can also be legitemately set by the bishop’s conferences. This is not to say a local bishop cannot override them, but barring that done explicitly, certain norms they do set.

With respect to many of their other works, you should follow your local Bishop’s lead on various issues. It is not uncommon, even for very good Bishops, to take a document developmed by the USCCB and effectively use it as their teaching on the matter at hand.

So while criticism of the USCCB is often justified and their canonical status is not always clearly defined, I don’t think the absolute viewpoint that they have no legal standing and nothing they do should affect us is accurate either.

And I will add, they have produced some good documents and teachings also.

 

[bobby_booshay]

The question may be, how evil of an action has been performed. How to judge? Perhaps based on the law. There are three types of violations an illegal may have committed:

1. Illegal Entry : misdemeanor, fine between $50-$250
2. Visa overstay - misdemeanor, fine of not more than $500
3. Visa Fraud - penalty between $500 and $2000

Now, the first and second are the vast majority of the cases. Since the anti-immigration crowd simply wants the existing laws to be enforced (no need for any type of imigration reform), we can only assume that these penalties are in-line and proper. Therefore, I would conclude that based on the low penalties involved, the offense is not that major, and therefore perhaps the “evil” tag is a little extreme.

Your reasoning is faulty. If we were to apply your logic to the act of abortion (which in most cases is perfectly legal and carries no penalties) then we would have to conclude that its not really an evil act. Every day an illegal entrant is here they are breaking the law, not to mention undermining our institutions and destroying domestic tranquility (to name a few). Please stop referring to people as “anti-immigrant” if they speak out against illegal immigration.

 

[bobby_booshay]

The question may be, how evil of an action has been performed. How to judge? Perhaps based on the law. There are three types of violations an illegal may have committed:

1. Illegal Entry : misdemeanor, fine between $50-$250
2. Visa overstay - misdemeanor, fine of not more than $500
3. Visa Fraud - penalty between $500 and $2000

Now, the first and second are the vast majority of the cases. Since the anti-immigration crowd simply wants the existing laws to be enforced (no need for any type of imigration reform), we can only assume that these penalties are in-line and proper. Therefore, I would conclude that based on the low penalties involved, the offense is not that major, and therefore perhaps the “evil” tag is a little extreme.

I really don’t think you want to make this argument. Most abortions are legal and don’t even carry penalties, so by your logic this means they aren’t evil.

 

[tafan]

I really don’t think you want to make this argument. Most abortions are legal and don’t even carry penalties, so by your logic this means they aren’t evil.

I understand the fallacy of my argument. I only use it to show anti-immigration folks an inconsistency in their argument.

 

[DavidPalm]

Well I suppose everyone who goes off the path of the faith starts that with a first false step. I mean, really, does anybody wake up in the morning and say to themselves “Self, I’m bored with this status quo. I think we should defy Christ to liven things up.”

Don’t worry, dissention gets easier the more you do it…

Wow. On the one hand we have a thread in this section in which open dissent from the repeated, solemn teaching of the Popes on the right nature of government and the separation of Church and State is dismissed as not binding. And here we have another Catholic dressing down his fellow Catholic as dissenting and going off “the path of the faith” on a topic that has never been addressed by the universal Church at all, but only by a clique of liberal American bishops who make no effort whatsoever to ground their views in the Church’s actual teaching. Confusing times, eh?

I’m glad that others have rightly pointed out that the position taken by the USCCB on this matter does not bind the conscience of any Catholic, American or otherwise.

On the one hand, no person has a natural right to become the citizen of another country, so the Mahoneys of this world who cast this as a human rights issue are totally off base. On the other hand, as Catholics we are called to generosity. Americans can indeed be a generous people, broadly speaking. But as the poster who made the connection to abortion rightly pointed out, we are also too accustomed to getting things on the cheap and are not afraid, literally, to sacrifice people to do so. It applies to abortion and to immigration too.

 

[RB2]

In general, you are not that far off with respect to the USCCB, but I would caution you about a couple of things. There are specific functions of national bishops conferences have been delegated to them by the Holy See. One example is development and approval of liturgical translations. Other local liturgical norms can also be legitemately set by the bishop’s conferences. This is not to say a local bishop cannot override them, but barring that done explicitly, certain norms they do set.

With respect to many of their other works, you should follow your local Bishop’s lead on various issues. It is not uncommon, even for very good Bishops, to take a document developmed by the USCCB and effectively use it as their teaching on the matter at hand.

So while criticism of the USCCB is often justified and their canonical status is not always clearly defined, I don’t think the absolute viewpoint that they have no legal standing and nothing they do should affect us is accurate either.

And I will add, they have produced some good documents and teachings also.

Sir, I am Ultramontane
and if you remember correctly our Bishops Conference was instrumental in giving us ObamaCare …with abortion.

krestaintheafternoon.blogspot.com/2010/08/bizarre-statement-from-malta-bishops.html