New Sanctuary Movement

[Bob_Byrnes]

the act of breaking the immigration laws, and especially if they obtain/use false social security cards, makes them felons. It is what it is.

I’m not positive but I think entereing the country illegally is a misdemeanor not a felony.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’m not positive but I think entereing the country illegally is a misdemeanor not a felony.

Does that really matter to you- the level of the crime? I’m not positive either but I’m pretty sure it is a felony. Regardless, entering illegally is by the nature of it agaisnt the law. To continue to stay here, the illegal needs ID, and an illegal cannot obtain legal ID legally, so they get false ID and any time they use it they commit identity theft/fraud.

Where does it stop for you to say enough?

 

[Contarini]

Whoa whoa whoa!

Our laws are not getting in the way of people’s basic human needs.
Their own government’s law are doing that.
When it comes to Mexico I can assure you it is a wealthy and rich country with many assets. The problem is the government is corrupt and does not provide for its own people. There is a class system there that is unjust.

I don’t dispute that. But how is that relevant to the question of the justice of our laws? Why is it OK for us to oppress these people just because their own government is doing it? When they knock on our door, they become our problem.

This may not be sensible national policy. But it’s Christian duty.

What is our government doing about that? Opening our trade agreements with the same corrupt leaders who will certainly not share the wealth with those who need it most. We feed the greed.

I agree.

The people, then, flee to our country to get those basics being denied to them at home.

Thank you. That is my point.

That they come her illegally is their choice and they need to take responsibility for their actions should the law catch up with them.

That is immoral. You have just explained that their situation is the result of their government’s injustice. Now you are saying that it is right for us to punish them for their just and natural response to the injustice of their own government?

Something does not compute here.

Our government **does not force **the families to split up. The decision to do so rests entirely on the family members themselves, just as the decision to take the risk to enter the country illegally rested on them.

Sure, they took the decision. But they took it in most cases because they were desperate. That it was their government’s fault is irrelevant to the question of what *we *should do about it.

Edwin

 

[YinYangMom]

I don’t dispute that. But how is that relevant to the question of the justice of our laws? Why is it OK for us to oppress these people just because their own government is doing it? When they knock on our door, they become our problem.

Who is oppressing them? They’re here. They’re working. Their kids are in our schools. They’re giving birth to their kids in our hospitals. I see no oppression there.

When the law finally catches up with them they pay the piper. That is justice, not oppression.

That is immoral. You have just explained that their situation is the result of their government’s injustice. Now you are saying that it is right for us to punish them for their just and natural response to the injustice of their own government?

Who’s punishing them for leaving their country? Not us. Those who leave their country through proper legal channels are more than welcome here. Come here illegally and we still treat them well. There is no oppression.

Sure, they took the decision. But they took it in most cases because they were desperate. That it was their government’s fault is irrelevant to the question of what *we *should do about it.

What we should do about it is pressure their government to take care of their own. We should be gathering the people in their country to demand change at home. You see what can happen when they unite to demand fair treatment - government leaders listen, but the only reason they are united here is because we are a truly free country. If they were to unite at home they and those who empower them, lead them, would be killed, I have no doubt. So they come over here and rally the people here to change our laws here to accommodate them over our own national security. This is not right.

As for making a decision in desperation, many women choose to abort due to desperation. Does that make it morally correct for them to do so?

The undocumented worker comes here in desperation. In order to secure a job they false identification. Two moral laws come to mind: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.

Ends do not justify the means. This is what the Church teaches in the catechism.

You talk about unjust laws. Well the law which allows women to abort is unjust, and yet we all are obliged to respect it while lobbying to get the laws changed. Same with the immigration laws. If they are unjust, then we lobby to change them but we are still obliged to respect them until they are replaced.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Our laws are not getting in the way of people’s basic human needs.
Their own government’s law are doing that.
When it comes to Mexico I can assure you it is a wealthy and rich country with many assets. The problem is the government is corrupt and does not provide for its own people. There is a class system there that is unjust.

And one critical reason it’s unjust is that we offer a safety valve for corruption and dictatorship. Instead of directing their energies to changing their own government and improving their system, Mexicans come to the US.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Our laws are not getting in the way of people’s basic human needs.
Their own government’s law are doing that.
When it comes to Mexico I can assure you it is a wealthy and rich country with many assets. The problem is the government is corrupt and does not provide for its own people. There is a class system there that is unjust.

And one critical reason it’s unjust is that we offer a safety valve for corruption and dictatorship. Instead of directing their energies to changing their own government and improving their system, Mexicans come to the US.

 

[meeshy]

Bravo to you, Contarini and Bob Byrnes!

Keep rebutting; your positions are well-grounded and well-worded. Moreover, they lack sarcasm and finger pointing. Bravo to you!

Whether our Bishops’ stance on an issue is popular or unpopular, I as a Catholic stand behind my Church and her Bishops. Jesus left us in the hands of our Bishops. That’s good enough for me.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[meeshy]

Yes, I know that the U.S. bishops are not infallible. But neither is the U.S. government. You still owe far more obedience to your bishop than you do to the U.S. government. It shouldn’t even be a contest.

Edwin

Excellent, excellent, excellent.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

Does that really matter to you- the level of the crime? I’m not positive either but I’m pretty sure it is a felony. Regardless, entering illegally is by the nature of it agaisnt the law. To continue to stay here, the illegal needs ID, and an illegal cannot obtain legal ID legally, so they get false ID and any time they use it they commit identity theft/fraud.

Where does it stop for you to say enough?

Until their desperate situations stop I will not say “enough”. These are very hurting people who are just trying to eke out a living. Let’s not make their lives more difficult.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Until their desperate situations stop I will not say “enough”. These are very hurting people who are just trying to eke out a living. Let’s not make their lives more difficult.

But we **are **making their lives more difficult. We are making the lives of those who stay at home more difficult by syphoning off the very people who should be the mainstay of the movement for change in their homelands.

And we are making the lives of those who come here more difficult by integrating them into the labor Black Market, where many of them are exploited and abused.

 

[Contarini]

Who is oppressing them?

The businesses that exploit them (this is one of the points on which I agree with the anti-immigration folks, BTW); and the people who want to punish them as criminals for trying to feed their families. We have a nation of Javerts, it seems.

When the law finally catches up with them they pay the piper. That is justice, not oppression.

Sure: “And those who stumble, and those who fall, must pay the price.” . . . .

Who’s punishing them for leaving their country? Not us. Those who leave their country through proper legal channels are more than welcome here.

That is nonsense. Do you have any idea how long the waiting list is? I’m sure you do–nationalistic Americans use it as a way of showing how wonderful America is. It is therefore plainly false to claim that everyone who tries to use legal channels is welcome. Only a tiny minority are welcome, and they know this. Accusing them of despising legal recourse is simply hypocritical.

What we should do about it is pressure their government to take care of their own. We should be gathering the people in their country to demand change at home. You see what can happen when they unite to demand fair treatment - government leaders listen, but the only reason they are united here is because we are a truly free country. If they were to unite at home they and those who empower them, lead them, would be killed, I have no doubt. So they come over here and rally the people here to change our laws here to accommodate them over our own national security. This is not right.

Why isn’t it right? Why this superstitious regard for national borders? It’s incompatible with orthodox Christianity. Human needs take precedence over national borders, period. Borders are nothing more than administrative conveniences. They have nothing sacred about them whatsoever. That is one of the basic issues here, I think.Nationalism is a form of idolatry, and many Christians have fallen into it.

By the way, I’m all in favor of local patriotism. I think that the discipline of place is very important. But that’s different from worshipping lines drawn arbitrarily on a map by a government.

As for making a decision in desperation, many women choose to abort due to desperation. Does that make it morally correct for them to do so?

So you think feeding one’s children is the same thing as killing them?

The undocumented worker comes here in desperation. In order to secure a job they false identification. Two moral laws come to mind: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness.

I would need to study the casuistry better to decide whether false ID (for the purpose of providing for one’s family) is legitimate. The Church has a long history of debating just when it may be morally OK to lie. There is no consensus in favor of the rigorist position that it is always wrong–though that position has a venerable history going back to St. Augustine, and I find it appealing.

I can’t even see how stealing applies. St. Thomas said that if people are in desperate need then they have the right to take what they need. Admittedly that applies only to the most basic necessities. But I’m not sure what is being stolen here anyway.

Ends do not justify the means.

Ends do not justify intrinsically evil means. Ends may justify some means that would be wrong in most circumstances. The obvious example is killing. Taking a human life is legitimate in some very carefully defined circumstances. Many ethicists have said that lying falls into the same category. And taking what legally belongs to someone else certainly does–by no stretch of the imagination can it possibly be said to be intrinsically evil. (Think of this test case: if you were dying of hunger and cold in the Alaskan forest and you came across someone’s summer home locked and empty, wouldn’t you be justified in breaking into it for food and shelter?)

You talk about unjust laws. Well the law which allows women to abort is unjust, and yet we all are obliged to respect it while lobbying to get the laws changed.

No, we most certainly are not. That’s a monstrous opinion. We owe the laws allowing abortion no respect whatsoever. An unjust law is no law, period.

Same with the immigration laws. If they are unjust, then we lobby to change them but we are still obliged to respect them until they are replaced.

Not if they are patently unjust. If we simply think they are misguided, then we must obey them.

Edwin

 

[mary_bobo]

While we are sniping back and forth, the members of Congress, particularly the Senate, are being bombarded by messages from constituents outraged at what is happening. For most Americans, obeying the law is a pretty important thing. And by granting amnesty, we are saying “come on in. You are breaking the law, but that’s okey.” The senate may go along with this, but there are new members in the House that were elected to do something about this problem.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Until their desperate situations stop I will not say “enough”. These are very hurting people who are just trying to eke out a living. Let’s not make their lives more difficult.

When their desperate situation stops then there are the Africans in desperate situations, and the Chinese, and then the Mongols…will you now invite them or say tough luck because they cannot walk here?

There are many hurting peoples right here in America trying to eek out a living- what of them? Or are you saying a poor American is much better off than a poor Mexican? The services the illegal Mexican gets, takes away the available services for the poor American.

What of the millions that have applied to come here legally that cannot because of those who come here illegally?

What is your soultution to the new Mexican-Americans under the current plan who no longer want to do the work “Americans don’t want to do” since they have achieved the “promise land” for the low wages employers pay- shall we import more Mexicans to do those jobs who will then demand what their predessors received? Another amnesty?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Not if they are patently unjust. If we simply think they are misguided, then we must obey them.

Edwin

Please quote the current immigration law that is patently unjust.

 

[Dale_M]

Please quote the current immigration law that is patently unjust.

I can’t quote the law, but I can point to its operation. The U.S. is accepting very very few Iraqi refugees. In 2005 it only took in 202 refugees from Iraq. Under a special Pentagon program an additional 50 Iraqi translators were able to come to the U.S., but this is far smaller than the demand - which is coming from people who have put their lives on the line (and that of their families) to help the U.S. military. foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250595,00.html
An additional 4000 Iraqis came to the U.S. via normal channels, but this quota is capped.

The article I referenced mentioned that the Bush administration is looking at increasing the numbers of Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. to 20,000. This is good, but again, it falls far short of demand. We created a war zone in their country - we owe it to the people of Iraq to provide them shelter from that war.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I can’t quote the law, but I can point to its operation. The U.S. is accepting very very few Iraqi refugees. In 2005 it only took in 202 refugees from Iraq. Under a special Pentagon program an additional 50 Iraqi translators were able to come to the U.S., but this is far smaller than the demand - which is coming from people who have put their lives on the line (and that of their families) to help the U.S. military. foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250595,00.html

The article I referenced mentioned that the Bush administration is looking at increasing the numbers of Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. to 20,000. This is good, but again, it falls far short of demand. We created a war zone in their country - we owe it to the people of Iraq to provide them shelter from that war.

While I disagree with the idea we created Islamic terrorism, I do agree that allowing millions of illegals to remain in the country and at the same time being nigardly about admitting those who helped us when we needed help is an injustice.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I can’t quote the law, but I can point to its operation.

Here is where the law/regulations and requirements can be found. If you find an patently unjust one I’d like to discuss it.
travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1326.html

The U.S. is accepting very very few Iraqi refugees. In 2005 it only took in 202 refugees from Iraq. Under a special Pentagon program an additional 50 Iraqi translators were able to come to the U.S., but this is far smaller than the demand - which is coming from people who have put their lives on the line (and that of their families) to help the U.S. military. foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250595,00.html

The article I referenced mentioned that the Bush administration is looking at increasing the numbers of Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. to 20,000. This is good, but again, it falls far short of demand. We created a war zone in their country - we owe it to the people of Iraq to provide them shelter from that war.

We can’t take in all 26 million, and taking in some that can benefit our efforts is a good thing. They also owe it to themselves to abide by their own laws their new Constitution has mandated. We owe them the oportunity to do so, and we are. It is a noble cause.

Would you be willing to replace the 20 million illegal South American/Mexicans with 20 million Iraqi’s, or should we take all 40+M?

Regardless, how does any of that make our current immigration laws unjust? Why not put forth efforts to end the corruption in Mexico and other places? How many Catholics are in South America/Mexico, and why not appeal to them under that guise instead of forcing the USA to rectify their social problems as is being done on this thread? That too would be a noble effort.

Bottom line, our laws are not unjust. They are more than fair as is our current immigration limitations- they just cannot encompase the whole world. To suggest they should absorb any individual able to walk here by nature of proximity to our borders is unjust.

I am open to a temporary worker program, but under far different controls than those proposed in the Senate now. I see no need to change our current immigration laws, but I do see the need for them to be enforced as well as our borders.

If people are willing to take such extraordinary measures to get here, the problem is not here, but there. I would like to give them back their dignity by stopping those dangerous and illegal measures. I would like to offer them assistance to change their home countries for the better of many more than the few who risk the dangers and illegality. The emphisis is misplaced on American citizens to change our way of life, and should be on the citizens of those nations they come from to change theirs.

 

[meeshy]

Several points:

1. For those who talk so much about “helping change” the corrupt countries whose citizens come here to make a living: The U.S. is not always successful in her efforts to bring about change in other countries. American standards are not necessarily the standards in other parts of the world, and our government is hated in many countries. We cannot affect change if our help is unwanted, and we certainly don’t need to get into any more wars under the guise of “helping to change” a country.
2. Regarding unfair laws, our country has plenty. How about this one: the visa waiver program. If ever there were an unfair and ridiculous law, that would surely be it.

For those of you who are unaware of what it is, read here:
Visa Waiver Program

To summarize, the Visa Waiver Program enables nationals of 27 countries to travel to the United States for tourism or business for stays of 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. Crazy.

If we’re so worried about national security and unwanted immigrants, why are we still participating in this program? It’s absurd and biased.

1. To those who think the current reform proposal is “amnesty,” it appears to me that the only thing you would find acceptable is to deport all illegals. Why is the $5000 fine not acceptable as punishment for being here without documentation? Why is America unwilling to forgive these people?

Have you all forgotten that 40% of undocumented immigrants came here on visas? This means that according to our own government, they were found to be acceptable and eligible to visit, work in, or reside in our country; some for up to six years at a time.

So a $5000 fine isn’t acceptable for someone like this? Why not? The minute a person breaks a law they are unacceptable forever?

No, no, no. That’s not justice and it’s not Christian.

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[meeshy]

To augment my previous post: living in the U.S. undocumented is not a felony. It is a civil crime similar to violating any civil ordinance, such as noise violation, traffic violations, etc.

So a $5000 fine isn’t an acceptable punishment for a civil fine?

I ask again: why is America unwilling to forgive?

Peace,
Meeshy

 

[ReConverted]

**Illegal immigrants need to make their own nations work. We did it, and so can they.

Frankly, I am weary of being lectured to about submitting to Bishops on illegal immigration.

If anyone needs a lecture, it’s many of the Bishops!!!

(After all, when is the last time you heard a Bishop lecture illegal immigrants?)**

bp0.blogger.com/_X6SfstKQluk/Rh_2f5K4jKI/AAAAAAAAAGo/UtLLQJauzJY/s1600-h/Mexicans.jpg