National Sovereignty and Immigration Policy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Randy_Carson

Guest
According to the USCCB, what rights do nations have when it comes to protecting their sovereignty and their citizens and to controlling immigration?

Further, the Catholic Church teaches that I have an OBLIGATION to defend those people living in my home for whom I am responsible and recognizes that this may require the justifiable use of deadly force.

I have a door and lock on my home that prevents people from simply walking in and taking up residence or helping themselves to my stuff. (It’s not much, but it helps me sleep better at night.)

Does a country have similar rights and obligations? If not, why not?

I’m honestly trying to understand what appears to be the “open door policy” of Bishops Without Borders with regard to immigration.

Thanks.
 
Randy_Carson said:
According to the USCCB, what rights do nations have when it comes to protecting their sovereignty and their citizens and to controlling immigration?

Further, the Catholic Church teaches that I have an OBLIGATION to defend those people living in my home for whom I am responsible and recognizes that this may require the justifiable use of deadly force.

I have a door and lock on my home that prevents people from simply walking in and taking up residence or helping themselves to my stuff. (It’s not much, but it helps me sleep better at night.)

Does a country have similar rights and obligations? If not, why not?

I’m honestly trying to understand what appears to be the “open door policy” of Bishops Without Borders with regard to immigration.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you and often use the same analogy of my own home and locking the doors to keep intruders out. Those who condone open borders ought to consider leaving their homes and churches unlocked and see how that works out for them. I was disheartened to see the USCCB’s official statement on the President’s EO on the wall and on the refugees. usccb.org/news/2017/17-023.cfm
The USCCB statement uses the term “immigrants” to mean illegal immigrants. They should not ignore the clear distinction. And they fail to address solving the underlying problems in the originating country. Why not direct their fire accurately? While we all have a moral and ethical obligation to help those in need in the oppressed regions of the world, and nobody does more for those around the world than the United States, we have an equal duty and moral obligation to protect and defend the citizens of this country. The status quo is not working!
 
Randy_Carson said:
According to the USCCB, what rights do nations have when it comes to protecting their sovereignty and their citizens and to controlling immigration?

Further, the Catholic Church teaches that I have an OBLIGATION to defend those people living in my home for whom I am responsible and recognizes that this may require the justifiable use of deadly force.

I have a door and lock on my home that prevents people from simply walking in and taking up residence or helping themselves to my stuff. (It’s not much, but it helps me sleep better at night.)

Does a country have similar rights and obligations? If not, why not?

I’m honestly trying to understand what appears to be the “open door policy” of Bishops Without Borders with regard to immigration.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
The USCCB talks a big game with platitudes and sermonizing but they never have any proposals themselves because they don’t know anything about how to run a country. Like I said, they offer vague platitudes and cliched statements and are petrified of speaking out forcefully against the American Left on key issues. When it comes to the Right, they feel more comfortable speaking in stronger terms like they are now with this immigration drama.

In Catholic social teaching there is this enormous gray area for “prudential judgement” on the part of the state that basically allows the state to do anything as long as it isn’t intrinsically evil. With that said I don’t see how it’s wrong for a government to ban all Muslim migration indefinitely. This was standard practice in areas where the Church reigned for centuries. As a Muslim you weren’t even allowed to proselytize or even build Mosques in Catholic countries, the mere suggestion was an absurdity.

Today with terrorism concerns, I would indefinitely ban all Muslim immigration to America until things cool down in the world. There are plenty of other countries that can accept them. America is enemy number 1 for Islamic terrorism, there is no compelling reason for us to be the nation that receives these immigrants en masse.
 
The only people who might be coming “en masse” are refugees, who are fleeing from the very extremists that are our enemies and theirs.

Not to mention that basing immigration access on religion is probably unconstitutional. Even Trump had to base it on national origin.
 
Randy_Carson said:
According to the USCCB, what rights do nations have when it comes to protecting their sovereignty and their citizens and to controlling immigration?

Further, the Catholic Church teaches that I have an OBLIGATION to defend those people living in my home for whom I am responsible and recognizes that this may require the justifiable use of deadly force.

I have a door and lock on my home that prevents people from simply walking in and taking up residence or helping themselves to my stuff. (It’s not much, but it helps me sleep better at night.)

Does a country have similar rights and obligations? If not, why not?

I’m honestly trying to understand what appears to be the “open door policy” of Bishops Without Borders with regard to immigration.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Open borders is prone to scandal where both citizens and refugees are prone to harm.

There’s too much virtue-signaling going on with social media to have an honest discussion about this.

I would only say that our job as Catholics is first and foremost to the Truth, NOT the OPINIONS of the Pope or the Bishops on political matters.

As the current policy in America (I assume that this is what this all about) stands, I stand by the decisions of the last 2 presidential administrations in restricting refugee flow.
 
Usagi said:
The only people who might be coming “en masse” are refugees, who are fleeing from the very extremists that are our enemies and theirs.

Not to mention that basing immigration access on religion is probably unconstitutional. Even Trump had to base it on national origin.
Click to expand...
Foreigners do not have Constitutional rights.
 
Barricade said:
…there is no compelling reason for us to be the nation that receives these immigrants en masse.
Click to expand...
“Don’t give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…someone else can take them.”
 
SuperLuigi said:
Foreigners do not have Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
True – or rather, as human beings they have them, but the U.S. government is neither required nor practically enabled to protect the rights of those not living under its protection.

It is interesting, though, that the clause about making laws singling out certain religions doesn’t actually refer to the rights of the people but just says that Congress may not pass certain laws. I suspect that, if there were such a thing as a total ban on members of one particular religion entering this country, it could be struck down on First Amendment grounds even though all those affected don’t actually live here.
 
Usagi said:
True – or rather, as human beings they have them, but the U.S. government is neither required nor practically enabled to protect the rights of those not living under its protection.

It is interesting, though, that the clause about making laws singling out certain religions doesn’t actually refer to the rights of the people but just says that Congress may not pass certain laws. I suspect that, if there were such a thing as a total ban on members of one particular religion entering this country, it could be struck down on First Amendment grounds even though all those affected don’t actually live here.
Click to expand...
Current USA policy doesn’t ban people on the basis of religion. Claims to the contrary are just attempts to undermine and weaken the current government.

They are not done out of genuine concern for the refugees are caught in-between politics and terror-----and many folks who only care about their Facebook status.
 
Usagi said:
True – or rather, as human beings they have them, but the U.S. government is neither required nor practically enabled to protect the rights of those not living under its protection.

It is interesting, though, that the clause about making laws singling out certain religions doesn’t actually refer to the rights of the people but just says that Congress may not pass certain laws. I suspect that, if there were such a thing as a total ban on members of one particular religion entering this country, it could be struck down on First Amendment grounds even though all those affected don’t actually live here.
Click to expand...
Actually foreginers do have rights if they are on U.S soil. The supreme court has ruled the 14th amendment applies to foreigeners. Pay careful attention to the language in the 14th amendment. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

Just before the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from making or enforcing “any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” Notice that the 14th Amendment uses citizens in one places, and persons in another. This has long been thought to mean that non-citizens (“persons”) have due process and equal protection rights, once in the territory of the United States. The Fifth Amendment (which applies to the federal government) likewise uses the phrase “no person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Aliens in the U.S. have essentially the same rights as citizens for many purposes because of the 5th and 14th Amendments’ language. Obvioulsy they do not have all the constitutional rights.
 
Usagi said:
The only people who might be coming “en masse” are refugees, who are fleeing from the very extremists that are our enemies and theirs.
Click to expand...
Not*necessarily. There is a civil war in the DR Congo that has been doing on for decades. The various war lords pose no threat to the US ( in fact some make overtures).

Those*fleeing the fighting are
Not to mention that basing immigration access on religion is probably unconstitutional. Even Trump had to base it on national origin.
Click to expand...
Here is the text of the executive order. Could you point out where it singles out a religion?

cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/text-of-trump-executive-order-nation-ban-refugees/index.html
 
GaryM said:
I completely agree with you and often use the same analogy of my own home and locking the doors to keep intruders out. Those who condone open borders ought to consider leaving their homes and churches unlocked and see how that works out for them.
Click to expand...
But I remember a time when we didn’t really lock the house most of the time and when we could leave our car keys in the ignition. There was a time when those in need would knock on your back door locking for a handout and people were not afraid of them. There was a time when people invited strangers into their homes for a meal or to spend the night. How did we lose this? How did we let fear of the stranger triumph? I’m making no statement regarding immigration–simply on they way we live today.

The peace of Christ,
Mark
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top