There are legitimate rules to obtain even basic rights

[Fremont]

Some posters in this forum have espoused that illegal immigrants have certain human rights – right to immigrate, right to work, etc. Those posters then go on to criticize the US for placing rules, regulations and laws imposing certain requirements to obtain at least some of those rights in the USA.

Is such criticism valid? I think not.

Included in basic human rights are the right to food and shelter. As we get into winter the need for shelter becomes more acute because the nights get very cold in most areas.

In many cities Catholic Charities has facilities to provide food and shelter to the homeless, the destitute and the needy.

But there are rules governing access to these services.

Recent media sources illustrated the rules used by Catholic Charities in Las Vegas, NV.

Prior to admittance each person is subject to inspection to assure they do not possess forbidden items such as drugs, alcohol or weapons. Also prior to admission each person must take a breath test to assure they are free from alcohol. The arbitrary limit is blood alcohol must be less than 0.01 percent (the DUI limit is 0.08 percent in many states).

The local bishop interprets Church teaching to be that it is both fair and just for Catholic Charities to deny food and shelter to the homeless, the destitute and the needy who are unwilling to or unable to obey the rules or who fail the test – even though there is ample accommodations available that will go unused and even though there is inclement weather. Denial of food and shelter even if the person is an illegal immigrant.

Further, the homeless, the destitute and the needy have no right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests in their quest for food and shelter – even though there is ample accommodations available that will go unused and even though there is inclement weather. No right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests even if the person is an illegal immigrant.

From his perspective and knowledge of Church teaching the bishop clearly shows that even basic human rights are not absolute and they can be denied. Denied not because of the lack of ability to provide those rights but rather denied because the person violates the rules and/or fails to meet certain standards.

I suggest similar rules are enforced by Catholic Charities in most cities.

I do not believe there is any Church teaching that holds the secular government of the US to a higher standard than our bishops and Catholic Charities. The US has a legitimate right to place rules and regulations on the privilege to immigrate to the US as well as on the right to work in the US.

 

[Richardols]

But there are rules governing access to these services.

Prior to admittance each person is subject to inspection to assure they do not possess forbidden items such as drugs, alcohol or weapons. Also prior to admission each person must take a breath test to assure they are free from alcohol. The arbitrary limit is blood alcohol must be less than 0.01 percent (the DUI limit is 0.08 percent in many states).

I see no problem with inspection and rules, but the rule on alcohol is IMO too hard. Sure, you can exclude out-and-out drunks and those who are close to inebriation, but a .01 limit is reached with one drink or less (drinking a six pack over the course of an evening or half a bottle of wine will get most people to a .08 % level) and a .01 % level would exclude persons who would be drunk under no legal standard.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Just more proof of posters saying what they want and slanting the facts. There is not rights issue here at all. The Catholic Charity is offering help under some reasonable rules. The issue has nothing to do with rights.

 

[Meggie]

if you were homeless becuase your house was forclosed on and you had no relitives to help you would you want someone who was even sligtly inebrated to be around your children?
Most often emergency shelters are nothing more than cots in a gymnasium like room. There is no to little privacy for anyone.

Another point, I work at a convience store. We can ask any patron who has a scent of alcohol or any syptoms of alchol or drugs to leave the store with threats of poliece action. This is to protect ourselves and other coustomers.

As a charitable orginization looking out for everyone’s best intrest I would think that it would be best to keep anyone inebriated from others in close contact.

It seems to me its giving shelter to those who are homeless and it gives rights to those who have NOT been drinking or doing drugs. And someone who wants shelter can choose NOT to drink that day…it isn’t a suprize rule, its a well-formed rule.

 

[Fremont]

Just more proof of posters saying what they want and slanting the facts. There is not rights issue here at all. The Catholic Charity is offering help under some reasonable rules. The issue has nothing to do with rights.

From that perspective immigration to the US has nothing to do with rights.

The US offers the opportunity for immigration to this country to millions of people from all over the world – but there are rules that must be obeyed in order for foreign nationals to take advantage of that offer.

Those that will not or cannot honor the rules must look elsewhere.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

From that perspective immigration to the US has nothing to do with rights.

The US offers the opportunity for immigration to this country to millions of people from all over the world – but there are rules that must be obeyed in order for foreign nationals to take advantage of that offer.

Those that will not or cannot honor the rules must look elsewhere.

No, that is a misunderstanding of the US Constitution.

Given the number of postings on this subject why do you simply not explain the real issue which upsets you concerning people of Mexico crossing the border to work in the US?

 

[Fremont]

No, that is a misunderstanding of the US Constitution.

Given the number of postings on this subject why do you simply not explain the real issue which upsets you concerning people of Mexico crossing the border to work in the US?

Well you’ve got me there. I do not see how comments in this thread have anything to do with the US Constitution.

To answer your question I have nothing against Mexican nationals immigrating to the US to work – just as long as that immigration is through the front door, in accord with our immigration laws and rules, is done in a legal way and does not harm any of our citizens or the US as a whole.

The issue that upsets me is those who violate our immigration rules, those who violate our laws, those who harm others.

To keep consistent with this thread, Mexican nationals have no right to enter the US in a clandestine manner. They have no more right to do so than the homeless, the destitute and the needy have any right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests in their quest for food and shelter do to sneak in the back door of any Catholic Charities facility.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well you’ve got me there. I do not see how comments in this thread have anything to do with the US Constitution.

That is unforunate as the Constitution is a contract by which we form the U.S. Government. The contract spells out government rights verses the rights of “people”

To answer your question I have nothing against Mexican nationals immigrating to the US to work – just as long as that immigration is through the front door, in accord with our immigration laws and rules, is done in a legal way and does not harm any of our citizens or the US as a whole.

The issue that upsets me is those who violate our immigration rules, those who violate our laws, those who harm others.

To keep consistent with this thread, Mexican nationals have no right to enter the US in a clandestine manner. They have no more right to do so than the homeless, the destitute and the needy have any right to circumvent the rules, the inspections or the tests in their quest for food and shelter do to sneak in the back door of any Catholic Charities facility.

If this is accurate then open borders would fulfill your desire

 

[Fremont]

No, that is a misunderstanding of the US Constitution.

Please relieve me of my ignorance.

What is the proper understanding of the US Constitution as it applies to the post repeated below?​

From that perspective immigration to the US has nothing to do with rights.

The US offers the opportunity for immigration to this country to millions of people from all over the world – but there are rules that must be obeyed in order for foreign nationals to take advantage of that offer.

Those that will not or cannot honor the rules must look elsewhere.

 

[Fremont]

If this is accurate then open borders would fulfill your desire

I am not sure what you are talking about. Current US immigration laws and rules satisfy any desires I might have about legal immigration.

I am steadfastly against open borders and in no way would such a policy “fulfill your (my) desire”.

The US tried an open border policy for many years. Our government then wisely determined that such a policy was no longer in the best interests of this country.

Fortunately for all of us very few, if any, people in authority consider an open border policy as prudent in face of our legitimate security needs

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not sure what you are talking about. Current US immigration laws and rules satisfy any desires I might have about legal immigration.

If the border were open there would be no illegal action so if your against the illegal action , your problem is solved

I am steadfastly against open borders and in no way would such a policy “fulfill your (my) desire”.

The US tried an open border policy for many years. Our government then wisely determined that such a policy was no longer in the best interests of this country.

Fortunately for all of us very few, if any, people in authority consider an open border policy as prudent in face of our legitimate security needs

In the referenced post the Catholic charities which are not a government was dealing with and offer to help certain people. In these arrangements neither party has legal nor moral rights which allow them to violate the rights of others. The rights each party has came from both Natural Moral Law and ALL forms U.S. Government Law (federal, state, county, city). Catholics are taught to only follow all forms U.S. Government Law which agree with Natural Moral Law. An example of a disagreement is the conscientious objector status. So the legal rights of an illegal immigrate in the US is from the same sources - Natural Moral Law which says to treat them as your brother, and thus he is required to follow the same laws which apply to all people( this includes the immigration laws), U.S. federal Law says to deport them using the US Judicial system. Most state, county and city laws say to turn the accused party over to the federal authority (without a finding of guilt). Hope that helps you with the background.

Some tried to propose a legal view that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens not other “people” in the US. The US Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly ruled this is incorrect. As the Constitution specifically states the Supreme Court is the highest authority the issue is decided. (Have you noticed the President is holding people in Cuba for this very reason? And recently the court has ruled the US Constitution restricts the US President and military on the methods which can be used to handle these people. If the president continues the push we may see some significant long terms rulings coming) So in Summary even illegal immigrates have rights provided by Natural Moral Law and Rights of the US Judicial System in regard to peoples in the US. The title of this thread is factual incorrect there are no rules which proceed rights, rights proceed rules (always) to reject such would create a rejection of Natural Moral Law thus creating a great deal of problems with the church teachings.
Hope that helps you

 

[Fremont]

In the referenced post the Catholic charities which are not a government was dealing with and offer to help certain people. In these arrangements neither party has legal nor moral rights which allow them to violate the rights of others. The rights each party has came from both Natural Moral Law and ALL forms U.S. Government Law (federal, state, county, city).

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that Catholic principles, as practiced by Catholic Charities in the US, at least in the case noted, deny certain rights and privileges – including entry to the facility, food and shelter - to those who will not or cannot obey the rules. Further, applicants are required to enter via the specified door(s) and are subject to inspections, screenings and tests to assure all are in compliance.

Certainly the bishop interprets Church teaching as establishing this is just and fair – not any violation of natural or moral law.

The US immigration rules are legal, moral and just. They follow the same principles applied to the community by Catholic Charities.

Those who will not or cannot honor US laws and rules are not allowed to immigrate – gain entry to - the US and are not allowed to work in the US. If they enter illegally, in violation of US laws and rules, our government has the same rights and duties as Catholic Charities to deal with the violators accordingly.

Any foreign national who violates our immigration laws, or any other laws, is subject to prosecution and punishment – punishment that may include fines and/or imprisonment and/or deportation. That is fair, just and moral – and is not any violation of natural or moral law.

 

[Fremont]

Some tried to propose a legal view that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens not other “people” in the US. The US Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly ruled this is incorrect. As the Constitution specifically states the Supreme Court is the highest authority the issue is decided. (Have you noticed the President is holding people in Cuba for this very reason? And recently the court has ruled the US Constitution restricts the US President and military on the methods which can be used to handle these people. If the president continues the push we may see some significant long terms rulings coming) So in Summary even illegal immigrates have rights provided by Natural Moral Law and Rights of the US Judicial System in regard to peoples in the US. The title of this thread is factual incorrect there are no rules which proceed rights, rights proceed rules (always) to reject such would create a rejection of Natural Moral Law thus creating a great deal of problems with the church teachings.
Hope that helps you

I am not sure what you are trying to say with all of this rambling, but the fact is - -

The US constitution does not provide any rights, any privileges or any protections to foreign nationals while they reside in their native country.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that Catholic principles, as practiced by Catholic Charities in the US, at least in the case noted, deny certain rights and privileges – including entry to the facility, food and shelter - to those who will not or cannot obey the rules. Further, applicants are required to enter via the specified door(s) and are subject to inspections, screenings and tests to assure all are in compliance.

Certainly the bishop interprets Church teaching as establishing this is just and fair – not any violation of natural or moral law.

The US immigration rules are legal, moral and just. They follow the same principles applied to the community by Catholic Charities.

Those who will not or cannot honor US laws and rules are not allowed to immigrate – gain entry to - the US and are not allowed to work in the US. If they enter illegally, in violation of US laws and rules, our government has the same rights and duties as Catholic Charities to deal with the violators accordingly.

Any foreign national who violates our immigration laws, or any other laws, is subject to prosecution and punishment – punishment that may include fines and/or imprisonment and/or deportation. That is fair, just and moral – and is not any violation of natural or moral law.

Is it true (which I have heard, but cannot verify) that the first time someone illegally crosses the border it is a misdemeanor and the second time he gets caught it becomes a felony?

 

[Fremont]

Is it true (which I have heard, but cannot verify) that the first time someone illegally crosses the border it is a misdemeanor and the second time he gets caught it becomes a felony?

I do not have absolute information at my fingertips either but I believe you are correct – the first attempt to illegally cross our border is treated as a misdemeanor and repeated attempts result in a felony charge – I do not know for sure just when the felony charge kicks in.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The point of this thread is to demonstrate that Catholic principles, as practiced by Catholic Charities in the US, at least in the case noted, deny certain rights and privileges – including entry to the facility, food and shelter - to those who will not or cannot obey the rules. Further, applicants are required to enter via the specified door(s) and are subject to inspections, screenings and tests to assure all are in compliance.

Certainly the bishop interprets Church teaching as establishing this is just and fair – not any violation of natural or moral law.

The US immigration rules are legal, moral and just. They follow the same principles applied to the community by Catholic Charities.

Those who will not or cannot honor US laws and rules are not allowed to immigrate – gain entry to - the US and are not allowed to work in the US. If they enter illegally, in violation of US laws and rules, ***our government has the same rights and duties as Catholic Charities ***to deal with the violators accordingly.

Any foreign national who violates our immigration laws, or any other laws, is subject to prosecution and punishment – punishment that may include fines and/or imprisonment and/or deportation. That is fair, just and moral – and is not any violation of natural or moral law.

Well at least see part the problem

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not sure what you are trying to say with all of this rambling, but the fact is - -

The US constitution does not provide any rights, any privileges or any protections to foreign nationals ***while they reside ***in th:tsktsk: eir native country.

 

[Fremont]

Texas_Roofer:
I guess we are done. I have no idea of what you are trying to say.