Re S. 1348 Immigration Bill, from the USCCB

[Verisimilitude]

What is that supposed to make you? so your wife is an immigrant what is that suppose to mean?

Are you 12?

You have a lot of nerve and little common sense.

 

[tbel1ma57]

are you 2?

 

[Ender]

The priest said “for pure irrational rage, the current crop of nativists are some of the worst to come along since the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s” and “If hating African Americans was a sin 40 years ago…then hating illegals is a sin today” and “Am I saying that hatred for immigrants is a Nazi attitude? You bet!”

This kind of moral bullying is what one would expect from someone who has no rational argument, someone who has conflated passion with logic. If this priest had an intellectual point to make he wouldn’t have to resort to name calling but apparently he doesn’t feel that the prohibition against judging other people applies to him.

He must believe that others will take his ranting seriously simply because he is a priest but what he said is deeply un-Christian as it is judgemental and uncharitable. His comments would be objectionable no matter the source; that they come from a priest makes them doubly so.

Ender

 

[tbel1ma57]

First of all, we owe the outmost respect for any of our priests no matter what. The authority given to him by the Magisterium is not to hold true what the populace or secular people want but what God hold to be truthful and just. Our Holy Catholic church follows only what is pleasing to God and no one else, it is Universal meaning does not belong to a particular country or people except God the Almighty.
So, we as Catholic Christians must stand ready to denouce what is not right by our Lord and defend the defendless. Our Lord Jesus would want all of us to do that. The undocumented come to this country like any other immigrant that have migrated to this country to make a better life for themselves and their families. why persecute them? why humiliate them and treat them as less than human? Would you like to be treated like that?
The priest was right to denouce such negative behavior. This is the very reason why he was called to such holy office. The examples he gave were right to the point. Hitler hated the jewish people was he right? According to him they were not the perfect race? How despicable. He felt as he was not only above other races but God himslef poor fool. African Americans and Native Americans were also persecuted and treated the same way was that behavior right ? This behavior was despicable and appaling not to mention godless and wicked.
I often wonder about the people of that particular era and they stood by that behavior and did nothing but kept quite .I wonder were are they now and what excuse they had when they went before God? what was their defense?
Let us pray for all our brothers and sisters in Christ and ourselves to be guided only by the God wants us to do and not to be guided by false pride or secularism. We must love our Lord with all our heart and soul and not question any of his precepts and continue to pray for all of priests…

 

[Amolibri]

It seems as if we are in the proverbial “catch 22” here. We are all entitled to our opinions, are we not? Labeling someone “un-Christian” is surely not adding to the discussion, IMO.

Not sure of the intent here…are we trying to change “hearts & minds” ?? Convince another of our “righteous stance”??

I, for one, prefer to operate from the opinion that the United States is NOT the center of the universe.

 

[ziggernaut]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Yes, we really must respect our priests. We do owe them that for the sacrifices they make for us and for their services to God and to us. However… being deserving of respect does not increase one’s intelligence or make them right when they are wrong. Nor does it mean that we cannot disagree with them, respectfully, of course. Their opinions should carry no greater and no lesser weight than yours or mine, irregardless of their station in life. They are just as entitled to be wrong, silly, off-base, or even moronic, (and the opposites of all those) as you or I.

You know, one really can be both against the currently proposed legislation and deeply concerned about human rights and dignity for everyone. They are not mutually exclusive! And anyone who thinks so, had really better, well, just start thinking.

A while back I saw a bulletin insert at our local parish from the USCCB and the Mexican Bishops Conference, explaining their joint position on the current immigration crisis in this country. Lots and lots of “responsibility” (read “blame”?) for the current situation was laid at the feet of the US government and the American people. What was blatantly absent, however, was any mention of what the Mexican government could be doing to correct the situation there that is in very large part the reason that so many of their people want to come here, anyway they can. So, instead of trying to find a cure for the problem, everyone is only interested in treating the symptoms, so very typical of our modern outlook on virtually everything. That’s not to say that symptoms don’t need relief, they do. But they only are truely resolved when their cause is eliminated. This is fundamental.

I have heard it said, and I cannot speak for the truth of it, that the Mexican government is actively encouraging its people to emigrate, legally or illegally to the US, and even provides information packets about the best places to cross the border without getting caught, etc. What kind of responsible behavior is that for a so-called ally and neighbor? Mexico also, reportedly, depends upon the $$ the immigrants, legal and otherwise, send back to their families as a huge source of its income. Whatever happened to all that wonderful Mexican oil and the income it was supposed to generate for its people? Oh yeah, I almost forgot, most of that money never even got to the people. Now that’s a surprise !:doh2:

My “solution” is simple (but then, so am I )–First, close the borders, temporarily. Round up all, yes, I said all, those “undocumented” aliens in this country who have committed crimes (other than crossing the border illegally ) and deport them. Round up all gang members who are not US citizens and deport them. Yes, I know, that costs a lot of $$ and manpower. We do have both. What we are lacking is the will to do it. Then grant a general amnesty, or a “pathway to citizenship”, to the rest of those who are here illegally, charging them an amount to be determined by the “experts” (that does not include my humble self, as anyone with an IQ over 50 should now be able to determine ). All the while, all immigration laws currently on the books would and should be vigorously and humanely enforced. No need for any new laws such as the one in question, which could, according to some, virtually bankrupt this country. That, too, is highly arguable, however.

Anyway, once all that’s done, the borders could be carefully re-opened and immigration resumed, regulated, of course, by the enforcement of current laws, and with a much beefed-up Border Patrol.

Now, I certainly haven’t crossed all my t’s and dotted all my i’s with my wonderful, magical plan , but the bare bones of it at least makes sense to simple ol’ me. And I guess I will probably have ruffled a few feathers here. Sorry .

Please, no one get me wrong–I am NOT saying that we as individuals and as a nation should ignore our responsibilties to our fellow human beings and our neighbors. Just the opposite. However, the United States has, just as ANY country has, the right and responsibility to protect it’s citizens and to protect the integrity of its borders. There is more at stake here, folks, than just the status of the undocumented aliens. Anyone remember 9/11? How many people did it take to implement that? How easy would it be for a few of their comrades to stroll across the Rio Grande, and do something equally horrific or worse? “Oh”, some might say, “he’s just scare-mongering”. Well, should we not be just a little bit scared, given the world we now live in?

Gee, didn’t mean to ramble and rant to such an extent

May God’s Peace be with all of you!:byzsoc:
Jeff

 

[Ender]

We are all entitled to our opinions, are we not?

Are we? Am I entitled to hold the opinion that someone who disagrees with me is a twisted, sick, irrational, bigot? If I made such a charge against you I would be (properly) banned from further posts. Greeley’s comments are not merely an opinion they are a slander and we are certainly not entitled to that.

Labeling someone “un-Christian” is surely not adding to the discussion, IMO.

Be more careful: I said his comments were un-Christian and unless you contend that calumny is no longer a Christian vice then the depiction is accurate. My “labelling” his statements as slander is no more inappropriate than referring to a man who steals as a thief.

Not sure of the intent here…are we trying to change “hearts & minds” ?? Convince another of our “righteous stance”??

My intent was to raise the level of the discussion by pointing out what should have been obvious: that certain comments are unacceptable … because they are un-Christian.

Ender

 

[joab]

Quite a few of people like me don’t support an immigration bill that is “open”. My grandparents came here-legally. They assimulated into and added to the culture. They came from Ireland and settled in a German community. All people spoke English outside the home. All learned the american customs and laws. It was a proud day when they became LEGAL citizens. They worked hard for citizenship.
I have a problem with the flow of money to Mexico. I have a problem with the systems of health, welfare,school being overburdened with Mexico residents who then send the money back to Mexico. I have a problem with my job wages being depressed due to illegal immigrants coming here. I have a problem with being fired from a 40 hr benefit position because my employer could hire 2 illegals for my wage with no benefits. I have a problem when several $30,000+ vehicles pull up to the local welfare office to get a food card. My car isn’t even worth $3000.
I think that if the est. 12 million illegal immigrants were to head back to Mexico emass, they could seriously change Mexico.

Instead of demanding “rights” and flying the Mexican flag here, why don’t they march in Mexico and demand the same thing? I don’t want to hear that they are doing jobs that no American will do. They are taking jobs from people like me and my kids. Try to get a summer job. All taken by crews from Mexico/Texas. Try to work year round at a hog farm. You need to speak Spanish or you can’t be hired.
I think that that is what takes the cake. The apparant arrogence and demands. They do not seem to be grateful for the opportunities that do abound in America. They seem to demand that I feel sorry for their tough plight due to the Mexican govt.
I cannot seem to reconcile what some priests are saying inreguards to immigration and what I am feeling. I will need to study more on the church’s teachings and pray alot.

 

[Amolibri]

Dear Joab,
With all due respect to your ancestors and mine…

I myself am a naturalized citizen, and proud to have become an American. However, I see you blaming only the Mexicans and not the employers who exploit them. Do you think they’d come here if there were no jobs? Your wages are being depressed? That’s because those who hire these workers are NOT interested in your right to fair wages, all they want is the cheapest labor they can find. It really confounds me that people continue to blame those who come here desperate to better their lives.

Yes, the US economy is affected by undocumented workers…but how do we stop the demand for their labor? THAT is the question I am asking. Clearly, the gov’t is not rushing to do that. As long as there are higher profits to be made, the jobs will be there, and the workers will come to fill them.

We must see all aspects of the problem in order to understand and not react emotionally.

 

[Verisimilitude]

However, I see you blaming only the Mexicans and not the employers who exploit them. Do you think they’d come here if there were no jobs?

Yes, I think many would still come here if there were no jobs. But let’s be clear, I see most arguments defending only Mexicans and those from Latin America, but in a politically correct atmosphere to not be labled as a racist bigot nativist; the amnesty topic gets extended to all illegal immigrants. It is a dangerous world, and the exploited Mexican worker is not the same as the illegal Islamist, or Mexican (anyone) human/drug smuggler.

I would have more respect and understanding to the proponents of any legislation if they identify more specifically who they are defending and who they are not.

Your wages are being depressed? That’s because those who hire these workers are NOT interested in your right to fair wages, all they want is the cheapest labor they can find. It really confounds me that people continue to blame those who come here desperate to better their lives.

I blame you; the average American consumer as much as the employer. If you were interested in a fair wage for legal citizens, you would not purchase products and services performed by illegal labor. Do you ask, or do you just look for the lowest price? Or do you hold only the employer to these standards of responsibility?

Yes, the US economy is affected by undocumented workers…but how do we stop the demand for their labor? THAT is the question I am asking. Clearly, the gov’t is not rushing to do that. As long as there are higher profits to be made, the jobs will be there, and the workers will come to fill them.

It is not a matter of stopping the demand for their labor. It is a matter of identifying what actual labor is required, and finding willing, qualified, workers to perform that labor at a fair price with the typical protections we have come to expect for ourselves.

The question of citizenship is/should be a completly different debate, but is often mixed with this one.

We must see all aspects of the problem in order to understand and not react emotionally.

True, It becomes a matter of saying no at some point to many (Mexicans and others) for many different reasons. Some refuse to say no to anyone for any reason.

God says no sometimes.

 

[Ender]

I have no problem with punishing businesses that willingly hire illegal aliens; they are part of the problem and addressing that part will be required in order to resolve the issue.

I have to wonder: what am I missing? Is this problem really that difficult to resolve or are things as bad as they are because “solving” it means mutually exclusive things to different groups? I think it’s pretty clearly the latter, as the objectives of the USCCB surely differ from mine.

For me, an acceptable proposal would include:

• greatly improved border security and if that requires hundreds of miles of fence, so be it.
• fines and other penalties against any business that negligently hires illegals.
• an end to public benefits.
• the incarceration, processing, and deportation of illegals who turn up in the system (DUI, motor vehicle violations, misdemeanors … I am not suggesting dragnets)
  I cannot help feeling that the USCCB has really lost its way when they involve themselves in political issues such as this and back away from the moral ones that offend their political allies.

Ender

 

[Thal59]

This bill is not only bad legislation, it should be considered a criminal betrayal of American citizens. USCCB has no business butting into this political disaster on the basis of protecting families that should not even be here.

1. The bill is amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants most of whom are unskilled and illiterate. In other words, we are allowing the wholesale immigration of poverty and crime.
2. Those who have entered the US illegally have committed a felony.
   3)Many have attacked border patrol police; another crime.
   4)Many have vandalized or stolen money or property upon their arrival to fund their existance.
   5)Many who are being smuggled into the country are beaten, robbed, and/or raped by their smugglers.
   6)Many of these people do not pay taxes as they fear doing so will leave a paper trail that will lead to their arrest or deportation. This is income tax evasion; another felony.
   7)Many falsify documents and live under multiple aliases, another crime.
   8)This bill allows convicted child molesters to apply for z-visa if the age of the victim is not on the conviction paperwork.
   9)People with known ties to terrorist organizations can also apply for the z-visa.
   10)If Osama Bin-Laden shaved his beard, dyed his hair blonde, and applied under the name of John Wayne he would receive a z-visa because the 24 hour time frame to reject any of the millions of applications that would pour in is insufficient to catch anyone.
   11)Chain migration would jump the total of legalized immigrants over a ten year period to between 20-80 million persons!
   12)Social Security, MediCare, Education, et al, would be bankrupted.
   13)Social unrest would reach unprecedented levels as African Americans would be pushed back into the ghettos and everything fought for since King,Jr. would be undone.
   14)ALL so-called security provisions are attached to the catch-22 which reads…“subject to the availability of funds.” This means if congress never approves the funding for any of the promised security measures, they are not legally bound to provide them.

This entire bill is a partisan liberal attempt to eventually grant citizenship and voter’s rights to a block of millions of new voters, the majority of whom would vote for the democrats out of gratitude. It is a great betrayal! It is an attempt by the liberals to put the deciding vote of future congressional, senatorial, and presidential elections in the hands of illegals thus effectively negating the votes of the legal citizens.

This bill is entirely wrong and criminal.

Thal59

 

[ziggernaut]

This bill is not only bad legislation, it should be considered a criminal betrayal of American citizens. USCCB has no business butting into this political disaster on the basis of protecting families that should not even be here.

This entire bill is a partisan liberal attempt to eventually grant citizenship and voter’s rights to a block of millions of new voters, the majority of whom would vote for the democrats out of gratitude. It is a great betrayal! It is an attempt by the liberals to put the deciding vote of future congressional, senatorial, and presidential elections in the hands of illegals thus effectively negating the votes of the legal citizens.

This bill is entirely wrong and criminal.

Thal59

You are all too correct in your statements. Bush’s arm-twisting has resurrected this abomination-Lord Have Mercy! The good news is that there may be just enough Republicans with just enough integrity and intestinal fortitude to put it back into the tomb it rightfully belongs in. Let us pray!

God Bless,
Jeff

 

[Ender]

Much of the discussion on this topic has been about the immigration bill but I would like to focus more on the actions of the USCCB. I think their involvement in this issue to the point of supporting a particular bill is inappropriate; it is confusing to Catholics who are unable to distinguish when the bishops speak for the Church and when they speak for themselves and it shows confusion on their part when they don’t properly distinguish moral choices from political preferences.

Ender

 

[meeshy]

Before commenting on the USCCB’s actions or positions, you must acquaint yourself fully with what they have done and said, and what their intentions are.

To do this, you can go to the official USCCB website and look up everything which has to do with immigration, most especially the pastoral letter entitled Strangers No Longer.

Secondly, you can read thoroughly their website devoted specifically to immigration reform, which is called Justice for Immigrants. Please note that many Catholic groups are members of this reform movement and they are responsible for informing the public, maintaining the website, and requesting that we take political action. All this is under the guidance and approval of the USCCB.

Many bishops around the country have also initiated smaller local campaigns in their dioceses, or have written to Congress. Here is a letter which the bishop of my diocese and several bishops from other nearby dioceses sent to Congress: letter

Our bishops becoming involved in this issue is no different than their involvement in the abortion issue. People are dying and families are being torn apart because of both issues. Immoral laws exist on both issues. The Bishops take a stand when something is immoral. Nothing unusual or wrong about that. Nothing political about it.

The USCCB’s participation in the anti-abortion movement includes websites, billboards, letters to Congress, national mailing campaigns, t.v. campaigns and shows (Priests for Life), speaking engagements, women’s centers, etc.

If you don’t consider that type of involvement to be political, then you should not consider their involvement in the immigration reform issue to be political, either.

Peace,

 

[Ender]

Before commenting on the USCCB’s actions or positions, you must acquaint yourself fully with what they have done and said, and what their intentions are.

No I don’t. My comments pertained to their actions on this particular immigration bill; whatever else they may have said or done is not relevant to this topic.

Our bishops becoming involved in this issue is no different than their involvement in the abortion issue.

This is incorrect: there is an enormous difference between those two issues and a large part of my problem with the USCCB is that they seem not to understand that fact. What to do about abortion is a moral issue, what to do about immigration is a prudential problem about which there can be valid disagreement. There certainly will be correct and incorrect opinions about the proper solution to immigration but being mistaken about how best to resolve the problem is not immoral. There are not two morally valid positions on abortion.

The Bishops take a stand when something is immoral. Nothing unusual or wrong about that. Nothing political about it.

The bishops are justified in speaking out on problems that affect people’s lives and calling for just treatment but they have no business calling for specific solutions that they think will solve the problems they have identified. The may specify the objectives but not the means to achieve them. The argument over means is a political debate about what will solve the problem, it is not a disagreement over whether the problem should be solved - thus it is not a moral question.

If you don’t consider that type of involvement [re abortion] to be political, then you should not consider their involvement in the immigration reform issue to be political, either.

Abortion is a moral issue that has political implications but it has no prudential aspect; there is no question of finding moral means for abortion. Immigration is a prudential issue that has a moral aspect (ameliorating hardship) but the question of how to solve the problem justly is not moral and there is no sin involved in opposing the bishops on this question.

This should make the difference between abortion and immigration as plain as possible: it is immoral to support abortion, it is not immoral to oppose S. 1348 nor do the bishops make that claim and since it is not a moral issue the bishops are wrong to imply that it is.

Ender

 

[meeshy]

First, you obviously have no idea what the Bishops have done or said regarding this particular bill, nor prior bills. Do the research before you argue the topic.

Second, in some people’s OPINION abortion is not immoral. (In Hillary Clinton’s opinion, for example.)

Each person decides for himself what is moral and immoral, right? If not, tell me who decides. You’re going to hang yourself up here.

If you answer that only God decides what is moral or immoral, then you ruin your argument against the Bishops becoming involved with the immigration issue, because the Bishops have stated that it is a MORAL issue. The Bishops have been appointed by Jesus himself to direct us in what is true, good, and moral. Jesus told his apostles, “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven.” Therefore when the Bishops say something is immoral or immoral, that’s exactly what it is. (Unless, of course, you tell me that you can make those kinds of decisions for yourself.)

Tricky little argument, isn’t it, Ender?

I realize it’s completely popular and “American” to oppose or bash our Bishops, but it’s not very mature nor wise.

Peace,

 

[Ender]

First, you obviously have no idea what the Bishops have done or said regarding this particular bill, nor prior bills. Do the research before you argue the topic.

Second, in some people’s OPINION abortion is not immoral. (In Hillary Clinton’s opinion, for example.)

Each person decides for himself what is moral and immoral, right? If not, tell me who decides. You’re going to hang yourself up here.

If you answer that only God decides what is moral or immoral, then you ruin your argument against the Bishops becoming involved with the immigration issue, because the Bishops have stated that it is a MORAL issue. The Bishops have been appointed by Jesus himself to direct us in what is true, good, and moral. Jesus told his apostles, “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven.” Therefore when the Bishops say something is immoral or immoral, that’s exactly what it is. (Unless, of course, you tell me that you can make those kinds of decisions for yourself.)

Tricky little argument, isn’t it, Ender?

I realize it’s completely popular and “American” to oppose or bash our Bishops, but it’s not very mature nor wise.

Peace,

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I realize it’s completely popular and “American” to oppose or bash our Bishops, but it’s not very mature nor wise.

Thus proving that there are two doors to the cafeteria. Some people tend to the door to the left, others to the door to the right.

I avoid the doors because I know who’s in charge of the cafeteria and want nothing to do with him.

 

[Ender]

Each person decides for himself what is moral and immoral, right? If not, tell me who decides. You’re going to hang yourself up here.

Dei Verbum 10: “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church”. That one wasn’t too tough.

If you answer that only God decides what is moral or immoral, then you ruin your argument against the Bishops becoming involved with the immigration issue, because the Bishops have stated that it is a MORAL issue.

I don’t think you’ve understood my argument. The obligation to arrive at a just immigration policy may be a moral concern but determining which policies will work best is not. The bishops may demand the former (the ends) but may not design the latter (the means).

The Bishops have been appointed by Jesus himself to direct us in what is true, good, and moral.

Yes … but not in what is prudential. Specific solutions are prudential, not moral.

Therefore when the Bishops say something is immoral or immoral, that’s exactly what it is.

You let me know when the USCCB states that opposition to a particular bill or component of an immigration bill is immoral. Unless that happens then they are not claiming specific solutions are moral issues and you have misunderstood their involvement. Which was one of my points.

Ender