“The most appropriate choice, which will yield consistent and long-lasting results is that of international co-operation which aims to foster political stability and to eliminate underdevelopment. The present economic and social imbalance, which to a large extent encourages the migratory flow, should not be seen as something inevitable, but as a challenge to the human race’s sense of responsibility.” --Pope St. John Paul II, July 25, 1995, Message on Undocumented Immigrants
The Pope is not on this thread, and you do not speak for the Pope. You do not know what he considers economic necessity and what he doesn’t. In the quote you have, he doesn’t say “necessity”.
Just because Latin America as a whole is more Catholic than America, doesn’t mean that those seeking asylum from those countries are just as Catholic.
OK, when you say “And how many are really fleeing violence directed toward them specifically, and how many just live in a society as violent as East St. Louis or perhaps not even as bad? If they’re able to come up with thousands of dollars to pay a smuggler, then obviously they didn’t get it stolen or extorted from them before paying it to the smuggler” what is your evidence? Who told you that the idea that these immigrants left a situation in which you or I would feel ourselves personally in danger is not true? Our own state department advises that we not travel in El Salvador.
Does Japan, Germany, the UK, Australia, issue travel advisories for locations in the US?
The poor in these Central American nations tend are even more likely to be Christian than the general population. It is the religion of the poor. So I am quite certain that almost all asylum seekers from Central America are Christian.LeafByNiggle:
Just because Latin America as a whole is more Catholic than America, doesn’t mean that those seeking asylum from those countries are just as Catholic.
We would not be treating them any differently, so I don’t know what you mean. I am just saying we should be happy that they are Christian.
The thing is, you don’t have to bet or guess. You can look up actual statistics. The statistics are somewhat different in each country, but there isn’t a one of them with as low a percentage of Catholics as the US (which is 22%).
When 92% of asylum claims are rejected it would appear that this is a very uncharacteristic description of the situation for the vast majority of illegals. I posted that number before. That you ignore it and continue to portray the illegals in such an unrepresentative manner suggests that without an emotional appeal your position is not very defensible.
Exactly, and this is the aspect of the problem the bishops have utterly and completely ignored, and that, by the way, is a prudential question that is the responsibility of the government to determine.
It is not the Catholic position on immigration that is wrong, it is the application of her guidelines by various bishops that is questionable. That a bishop says we should implement some specific policy should almost never be taken as anything more than his personal opinion. It might in fact be a well formed opinion, and it should be viewed with respect, but it is neither more nor less an opinion on a political issue than the opinions you see expressed here. Don’t blame the church for the political inclinations of her bishops.
Are you saying the bishops were right to ignore this question? Or are you saying they should not have ignored this question? What is your point?LeafByNiggle:
Exactly, and this is the aspect of the problem the bishops have utterly and completely ignored, and that, by the way, is a prudential question that is the responsibility of the government to determine.
They are wrong in ignoring this problem, especially in light of the fact that their solution to the problem of the illegals exacerbates the problems uncontrolled immigration causes. These two concerns must be addressed together inasmuch as a positive solution for one of them imposes a negative solution for the other.
If you are suggesting that our representatives are to do no more than express the opinions of the noisiest then you have a very poor understanding of our form of government.
Given that no one has suggested otherwise why do you bring this up?
We should absolutely look for guidance from the church. We should also be able to distinguish what is an expression of doctrine from what is an expression of a political opinion. The church provides the former; it is certain bishops who have been supplying the latter.