U.S. Catholic Bishops to Congress: The Dream Act is the ‘Right Thing to Do’

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gakroeger

Guest
U.S. Catholic Bishops to Congress: The Dream Act is the ‘Right Thing to Do’ Click Here

Has anyone seen or heard where the USCCB has endorsed Obama’s end run around congress to implement the “Dream Act”.

I was listening to the Patrick Coffin show on Ave Maria Radio this evening (Catholic Answers Live). He had a guest responder to callers questions; I did not catch the guests name but he was from catholicculture.org. A caller asked about the USCCB endorsing Obama’s “end run” and was asking why the USCCB gets so involved in political issues such as this where “good” Catholics could disagree with the proper way to handle illegal aliens and is so silent on the sanctity of marriage, abortion, and contraception issues.

The guest from catholicculture.org and Patrick Coffin agreed with the caller and could not understand why the USCCB does not place more emphasis on these social justice issues and less on the much lower weighted illegal alien issue.

However, they did not make an issue of whether the USCCB has actually endorsed Obama’s latest action side stepping the legal process of congress.
 
If more people were honest and stopped cheating the System, these benefits would be easier to accept. The President included.
 
The article the OP linked was published by the bishops 8 months ago. This is not recent, and certainly not something that coincides with any radio program of today, 8-26-11.

I did not hear today’s show, but I also wish that the bishops would spend more time on marriage, such as my bishop does. Why? Because being unmarried is the single greatest indicator for abortion in the U.S. – an indicator that exceeds the factor of contraception use, several times over.

The Bishops themselves have decried the number of abortions, as well they should. The campaign, therefore, should be to focus on marriage – its graces, its benefits to society (not to mention to believers and to Catholics in particular).
 
The article the OP linked was published by the bishops 8 months ago. This is not recent, and certainly not something that coincides with any radio program of today, 8-26-11.

I did not hear today’s show, but I also wish that the bishops would spend more time on marriage, such as my bishop does. Why? Because being unmarried is the single greatest indicator for abortion in the U.S. – an indicator that exceeds the factor of contraception use, several times over.

The Bishops themselves have decried the number of abortions, as well they should. The campaign, therefore, should be to focus on marriage – its graces, its benefits to society (not to mention to believers and to Catholics in particular).
Yes, the article I posted is old; this is why I asked if anyone could confirm a recent statement by the USCCB that they supported Obama’s most recent action as expressed on yesterdays show. I could not find anything to confirm this has actually happened.
 
From today’s Divine Office

First reading
From the book of the prophet Jeremiah
7:1-20
A prophesy about the empty trust that is placed in the temple

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Reform your ways and your deeds, so that I may remain with you in this place. Put not your trust in the deceitful words: “This is the temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!” Only if you thoroughly reform your ways and your deeds; if each of you deals justly with his neighbor; if you no longer oppress the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place, or follow strange gods to your own harm, will I remain with you in this place, in the land which I gave your fathers long ago and forever.

divineoffice.org/

peace
 
My response to do this would be I think the Bishops should stay out of politics (is that wrong?), but then abortion and marriage are political issues as well as a moral issues, so I am confused.

What happens to the parents of the child/teenager who quialifies under the DREAM act, are the parents sent back to their homeland?
 
My response to do this would be I think the Bishops should stay out of politics (is that wrong?), but then abortion and marriage are political issues as well as a moral issues, so I am confused.

What happens to the parents of the child/teenager who quialifies under the DREAM act, are the parents sent back to their homeland?
It is not surprising you are confused, I think we are all confused to some degree. IMHO there are two issues here;

The severely mismanaged immigration policy by our government. We have started down the slippery slope of picking which laws we will enforce and which laws we will disregard for one reason or another. We now are so far down that slope I wonder how we will ever get back. In this latest event we have our President implementing a law that congress has flat turned down. We started down this slope when our government decided not to enforce our immigration laws pertaining to illegal entry into the US because they felt that we needed the illegal entries to perform jobs that could not be filled with legal citizens (our abortion policy created this problem). I volunteer for St Vincent DePaul Society bringing financial help and food to the poor of our area. A large percentage of these poor are illegal aliens. Because of the failure and corruption in their home countries these people find a better life here even though they often live in substandard conditions. The deportation policy of the US government has been poorly managed long before this most recent power grab by our president. His action was purely politically motivated. His obvious motivation is to get reelected. And his action will not resolve situations like I recently saw;

A 20 year old male came to the US 20 years ago illegally. He married had two children and started a successful business. His wife became a legal citizen and his children are legal citizens. He decided to apply for citizenship to become legal. Our wonderful immigration service did a background check on this man and found that 20 years ago he made a mistake (other than coming to this country illegally) and was arrested for theft and was convicted. He is now being deported leaving his family behind. This type of situation continues while our government still refuses to enforce our immigration laws until it is too late.

The second issue is placing the proper emphasis on the higher moral issues. As long as our Church leaders focus on the result of our moral failures instead of the major moral issues (abortion, sanctity of marriage, and contraception) we are doomed to remain in this moral abyss.
 
40.png
Abyssinia:
My response to do this would be I think the Bishops should stay out of politics (is that wrong?), but then abortion and marriage are political issues as well as a moral issues, so I am confused.
The bishops should speak up on moral issues without regard for their political implications. This is why it is proper for them to talk about abortion and homosexual “marriage” because these are issues dealing with intrinsic evils. The bishops are also justified in raising flags about hardships people are enduring and push for solutions. Where they go too far is in supporting specific solutions; they may properly identify the desired ends but they should not try to specify the means of achieving them. This is why I find it inappropriate for Archbishop Gomez to agitate for passage of the Dream Act. We have no moral obligation to agree with him but support of “the bishops” for this bill makes it appear that we such an obligation exists.

I think it is also relevant to point out that the title of this post is very much in error. Despite the fact that the USCCB Office of Media Relations uses the same words, support for the Dream Act did not come from “the bishops” but from the one bishop who wrote the letter, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration.

Ender
 
The bishops should speak up on moral issues without regard for their political implications. This is why it is proper for them to talk about abortion and homosexual “marriage” because these are issues dealing with intrinsic evils. The bishops are also justified in raising flags about hardships people are enduring and push for solutions. Where they go too far is in supporting specific solutions; they may properly identify the desired ends but they should not try to specify the means of achieving them. This is why I find it inappropriate for Archbishop Gomez to agitate for passage of the Dream Act. We have no moral obligation to agree with him but support of “the bishops” for this bill makes it appear that we such an obligation exists.

I think it is also relevant to point out that the title of this post is very much in error. Despite the fact that the USCCB Office of Media Relations uses the same words, support for the Dream Act did not come from “the bishops” but from the one bishop who wrote the letter, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration.

Ender
’Where they go too far is in supporting specific solutions; they may properly identify the desired ends but they should not try to specify the means of achieving them. This is why I find it inappropriate for Archbishop Gomez to agitate for passage of the Dream Act.'

Agree. If a priest can not say which political candidate to vote for I don’t think they should be specifying support for specific legislation.
 
We need to have immigration reform here in the United States. Some of the state laws against illegal immigration are despicable. They are bigoted and they encourage racial profiling.
 
The bishops should speak up on moral issues without regard for their political implications. This is why it is proper for them to talk about abortion and homosexual “marriage” because these are issues dealing with intrinsic evils. The bishops are also justified in raising flags about hardships people are enduring and push for solutions. Where they go too far is in supporting specific solutions; they may properly identify the desired ends but they should not try to specify the means of achieving them.
Exactly. And the reason for the latter sentence is that solutions by economic, demographic, educational, political, social services experts are likely to be, in fact, solutions which reduce
hardships people are enduring
That’s the entire point. “Welcoming the stranger” is broad, not specific. Supporting sanctuary cities is temporary, not permanent. Vague phrases are just that: vague, not concrete.
This is why I find it inappropriate for Archbishop Gomez to agitate for passage of the Dream Act. We have no moral obligation to agree with him but support of “the bishops” for this bill makes it appear that we such an obligation exists.
I think it is also relevant to point out that the title of this post is very much in error. Despite the fact that the USCCB Office of Media Relations uses the same words, support for the Dream Act did not come from “the bishops” but from the one bishop who wrote the letter, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Migration.
Of course, in such a position, Ender, he could be speaking for the whole Committee, but the other points still hold, because (for example) many people with far greater practical, real-world experience with immigrant communities believe that the Dream Act has a number of failings in it which create new problems – for the working poor, for agencies which serve all poor people, immigrant & non-immigrant, etc. I do not believe that the Dream Act in its current state has enough accountability in it, nor is it distinct enough from merely a glorified amnesty program to qualify as “immigration cough] reform.”
 
It is not surprising you are confused, I think we are all confused to some degree. IMHO there are two issues here;

The severely mismanaged immigration policy by our government. We have started down the slippery slope of picking which laws we will enforce and which laws we will disregard for one reason or another. We now are so far down that slope I wonder how we will ever get back. In this latest event we have our President implementing a law that congress has flat turned down. We started down this slope when our government decided not to enforce our immigration laws pertaining to illegal entry into the US because they felt that we needed the illegal entries to perform jobs that could not be filled with legal citizens (our abortion policy created this problem). I volunteer for St Vincent DePaul Society bringing financial help and food to the poor of our area. A large percentage of these poor are illegal aliens. Because of the failure and corruption in their home countries these people find a better life here even though they often live in substandard conditions. The deportation policy of the US government has been poorly managed long before this most recent power grab by our president. His action was purely politically motivated. His obvious motivation is to get reelected. And his action will not resolve situations like I recently saw;

A 20 year old male came to the US 20 years ago illegally. He married had two children and started a successful business. His wife became a legal citizen and his children are legal citizens. He decided to apply for citizenship to become legal. Our wonderful immigration service did a background check on this man and found that 20 years ago he made a mistake (other than coming to this country illegally) and was arrested for theft and was convicted. He is now being deported leaving his family behind. This type of situation continues while our government still refuses to enforce our immigration laws until it is too late.

The second issue is placing the proper emphasis on the higher moral issues. As long as our Church leaders focus on the result of our moral failures instead of the major moral issues (abortion, sanctity of marriage, and contraception) we are doomed to remain in this moral abyss.
There is no easy answer, but the easiest solution is probably to enforce laws against buisnesses etc. with really high fines etc. People will self deport if there are no jobs.
 
There is no easy answer, but the easiest solution is probably to enforce laws against buisnesses etc. with really high fines etc. People will self deport if there are no jobs.
That’s what is now occurring in Alabama. I don’t know that self-deporting is occurring, but exiting is occurring, due mostly to the new enforcement against businesses.
 
Of course, in such a position, Ender, he could be speaking for the whole Committee…
He may well speak for the entire immigration committee at the USCCB. Who he cannot speak for, however, are the US bishops. His opinion is his alone and his statements have only the force each individual bishop gives it in his own diocese.

Ender
 
We need to have immigration reform here in the United States. Some of the state laws against illegal immigration are despicable. They are bigoted and they encourage racial profiling.
And just how is that? Where is racial profiling in those laws?

-Chris
 
From today’s Divine Office

First reading
From the book of the prophet Jeremiah
7:1-20
A prophesy about the empty trust that is placed in the temple

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Reform your ways and your deeds, so that I may remain with you in this place. Put not your trust in the deceitful words: “This is the temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!” Only if you thoroughly reform your ways and your deeds; if each of you deals justly with his neighbor; if you no longer oppress the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place, or follow strange gods to your own harm, will I remain with you in this place, in the land which I gave your fathers long ago and forever.

divineoffice.org/

peace
Here are other Biblical interpretations that concern this issue:

Excerpts from A Biblical Perspective on Immigration Policy at cis.org/ImmigrationBible :

"Old Testament Principles. Even the passages of Scripture most often cited by religious advocates of mass immigration and amnesty plainly do not argue for open borders. Rather, these writings generally reflect “equal justice under law” principles.

"Consider Leviticus 19:33-34: “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Similarly reads Exodus 22:21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

"Dr. Stephen Steinlight has noted that **the Hebrew term for “sojourn” means temporary stay.5 A related term used in some scriptural translations is “stranger.” **One Bible dictionary says, “This word generally denotes a person from a foreign land residing in Palestine. Such persons enjoyed many privileges in common with the Jews, but still were separate from them. The relation of the Jews to strangers was regulated by special laws (Deut. 23:3; 24:14-21; 25:5; 26:10-13).”6 This Bible dictionary defines “two classes of aliens: 1) those who were temporary visitors, who owned no landed property; and 2) those who held permanent residence without becoming citizens (Lev. 22:10; Ps. 19:12). Both of these classes were to enjoy, under certain conditions, the same rights as other citizens (Lev. 19:33, 34; Deut. 10:19).”7 Again, those rights amounted to equal standing under the law, or having the benefit of the rule of law. Therefore, it is biblically inaccurate to incorporate, automatically and dogmatically, permanent immigration into every such term.

"Nor is it reasonable to jump to the conclusions many on the open borders side do about related passages. These activists claim that such passages mandate that a society welcome any and all foreigners presenting themselves. No such passages state or imply overlooking illegality committed on the part of the alien in his entry. Nor is there any requirement of unlimited or uncontrolled admittance of those who are members of another nation or society. Assertions like those are, at a minimum, a wrong reading. Such verses actually indicate nothing about the grounds for alien admission to ancient Israel.

“In fact, as Steinlight and others have noted, a fair reading of the relevant Old Testament passages makes clear that foreign residents were to comply with Israelite laws, such as Sabbath observance (e.g., Deut. 16:9-15). Furthermore, the law God laid down for Israel allowed legal distinctions to be drawn between native Jews and resident aliens. For instance, Deuteronomy 15 commands the remission of the debts of fellow Israelites every seven years, but “[o]f a foreigner you may exact” his debts (v. 3). A chapter before, Hebrews receive permission to sell or give foreigners “unclean”food (see Deut. 14:21)…”

(Continued in next post)

-Chris
 
(continued):

"…Related to this is the familiar passage about treatment of “the least of these my brothers” — the hungry, the naked, the stranger, the prisoner. The passage in Matthew 25:31-46 plainly concerns the eternal reward or punishment of individuals. The judgment here is based on individual acts of kindness, as private persons. It becomes highly problematic to ascribe the specific mercy ministries this passage cites to bodies politic.

"It invites skepticism to conclude that feeding the hungry or welcoming the stranger as a matter of public policy at public cost is implied here. And given that immigration policies pit the interests and well-being of citizens of a body politic against those of people subject to other national jurisdictions, laws that privilege foreigners, wealthy elites, and special interests over the welfare of citizens (particularly average and less fortunate members of society) are, at a minimum, morally obtuse. “The least of these” in this context are those with a claim to particular authorities’ protection, not foreigners or native elites.

"Similarly, the notion of neighborliness illustrates the individual (versus societal) obligation. The Good Samaritan parable exemplifies the commandment to love one’s neighbor as one loves oneself. It appears in Luke 10:25-37, where the social outcast in the story Jesus tells acts more as a true neighbor than do more outwardly upstanding characters. It shows one’s investing himself in someone in need, taking mercy, as the example of loving neighbor.

"While principles from this example may serve in certain public policy areas, the model largely applies to*** individuals. ***At the policy level, it would be too easy for the state to demand conduct best exercised voluntarily by individuals, not under compulsion.9 Such is not mercy, nor is it motivated by love. The same goes for the state erroneously regarding foreigners as “neighbors” and treating them better in certain ways than its own citizens.

“And while the general principles of mercy Christ mentions here may inform certain public policies, it would be wrong to jump to particular policies as justified (or mandated) here (such as U.S. funding of foreign programs that perversely result in dependency and illegitimacy). For each national government, “the least of these” will be native-born sufferers, the less fortunate of its own nation, those who stand to lose if forced to compete for jobs or education, for example, with people who would immigrate from some other nation (whose own civil authorities are responsible for their welfare). Further, in the United States, federal authorities are constrained by the U.S. Constitution, which limits their authority to certain denominated duties…”

And an excerpt from probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4217797/k.A0C9/One_Christian_Perspective_on_the_Immigration_Reform_Debate.htm :

"The Case for Compassion

"Another important consideration is whether Christ’s directive to show compassion to the needy should be our primary concern in establishing and enforcing immigration policy. Those who promote this case point to two primary principles in the Scriptures:

"1. Treat the alien in our midst with fairness, remembering that we too are aliens.

"2. Minister to the least of these as unto Jesus Himself.

"Deuteronomy 10:18-19 states, “He . . . shows His love for the alien by giving him food and clothing. So show your love for the alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.” Remembering their history as aliens dwelling in Egypt, the children of Israel were to show love for the aliens in their midst. We, too, should remember that most of us did nothing to deserve being born in America. We could just as easily be the person seeking a better life by becoming an alien in America.

"Does this passage mean that we have a responsibility to care for any person who is able to cross our borders?

***"The Hebrew word most often translated as “alien” is ger. According to Vines, a ger “was not simply a foreigner or a stranger. He was a permanent resident, once a citizen of another land, who had moved into his new residence.”{6} ***The Jewish law was clear that these aliens should be afforded equitable treatment under the law (e.g., Num. 15:16, Deut. 1:16). However, special provisions were also in place for the alien. Not being a member of one of the twelve tribes, the alien could not own land. Consequently, the alien was grouped together with widows and orphans to receive a portion of the tithe (Deut. 14:28-29), access to the gleanings in the field (Deut. 24:19-22) and justice (Deut. 24:17-18). However, these provisions did not apply to the foreigner temporarily in the country for work or other purposes. These temporary visitors did not receive a food allotment and were not allowed to fully participate in society.
We know that God wants us to treat aliens fairly, but the biblical example shows a greater responsibility to those who meet the requirements to become residents.

“Compassion is a emphasized in Jesus’ command to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and in us observation in Matt 25:40, “to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.” We are called to demonstrate sacrificial love in meeting the needs of both friends and strangers. Each person we meet is created in the image of God, worthy of our love and our concern for their spiritual and physical needs. Whatever our position on immigration policy and enforcement, Christians should be at the forefront of ministering to people far from home…”

-Chris
 
From today’s Divine Office

First reading
From the book of the prophet Jeremiah
7:1-20
A prophesy about the empty trust that is placed in the temple

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Reform your ways and your deeds, so that I may remain with you in this place. Put not your trust in the deceitful words: “This is the temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!” Only if you thoroughly reform your ways and your deeds; if each of you deals justly with his neighbor; if you no longer oppress the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place, or follow strange gods to your own harm, will I remain with you in this place, in the land which I gave your fathers long ago and forever.

divineoffice.org/

peace
It appears like God is condemning Isreal for ***oppressing ***a “resident alien.” How are we oppressing illegal aliens when they are the ones that ***chose ***to come here illegally knowing the consequences and can at any time go back?

-Chris
 
We need to have immigration reform here in the United States. Some of the state laws against illegal immigration are despicable. They are bigoted and they encourage racial profiling.
I suspect you’ve been relying on the opinions of others and have not actually read the laws as they’ve been written. The following is from the law Arizona passed last year.

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection **except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. **

Ender
 
I suspect you’ve been relying on the opinions of others and have not actually read the laws as they’ve been written. The following is from the law Arizona passed last year.

A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection **except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. **

Ender
This may be true!! Even Obama and those in his cabinet said AZ SB1040 was racist and legalized racial profiling, but then admitted they didn’t read the law!!

-Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top