Vatican criticizes fence?

[Cossack1]

Bishop’s Quote:
“The Church is very pro-immigrant and pro-poor. The Church is supportive of Mexican immigration and wants to help them. Yes, it’s annoying to us natives to see these hoards of people coming and changing the demography of many places. But, if we want to listen to our spiritual leaders, then they are saying that we should help them. The Church’s attitude is that to much is given, much is asked. Yes, the Vatican is against this fence. It’s a very ridiculous waste of money too, so I agree with them.”

I fully support helping the poor. We could certainly contribute money to support charitable work IN MEXICO. These groups could set themselves up on the border and help the people of Mexico by feeding them and giving aid. However, they must also advise them to do the right thing and obey the law of the United States and apply for citizenship through LEGAL MEANS. What is wrong with that?

If the Vatican is against the fence then they should follow their own advice. Get rid of the Swiss Guard since they are a fearful influence. Then take down all stone and metal walls and fences around the Vatican. Let ALL people of the world come as they please. There should not be any need for things like Visas and passports. EVERYONE should be allowed in. And why is the Pope buried in his chambers? Jesus let all the kids come and sit on his lap. The Pope and the Vatican should be easily accessible to ANYONE who wants to come in.

Lets see how long all the gold and expensive art work stays in place if they follow their own logic. LOL!!!

 

[Cossack1]

quote=Kendy;1704897]I have not seen a shred of evidence that the these bishops and cardinals are regenegade. The cardinals and the bishops are not only part of the church, but they represent the church’s teaching authority. And unless they are contradicting established church teaching, I believe that we are called to obey them.

No, you are wrong here. These bishops are giving their OPINON on a matter that is not really releigious pers se. I, and other good Catholics on this thread belive that the bishops opinon is uninformed and wrong. We are NOT debating a church doctrine or dogma here.

 

[Cossack1]

I continue to remain amazed that ANYONE is against a sovereign country like the US in protecting its own borders with a simple thing like a fence. Why has the US suddenly supposed to become the world’s doormat to be used and abused? ALL countries are literally defined by their borders. I certainly hope that common sense prevails, and the politicians do not listen to the knee jerk comments from the bishops and the nonsensical ranting of the anti-US liberals who want open borders.

 

[Ituyu]

Ituyu;1707082:

Well let’s just say that we do not agree.

We don’t agree because our sources are completely different in purpose. My sources have Church documents and competent professionals. I don’t give you a viewpoint coming from the perspective of the extreme radical right like, FAIR and it’s right arm the CIS. These are political organizations that have nothing to do with Church precepts and they are highly biased sources which spin the truths about immigration and Human Rights. So we won’t agree for two reasons. One, your agenda is NOT reconcilable to Church Teachings for if it were you would have shown how that is. Two, your, extremists and far Right Wing sources such as FAIR, CIS etc primarily come from organizations that contradict the reliable and competent findings of expert economists. The sources you use exist in order to prove their “conclusions” not to find the truth. Thus, your continued reliance on such discredited and biased sources will continue to lead you to pre-estabished conclusions. The preponderance of the available reliable data supports the majority view of most patriotic Americans that Immigration, “Legal” and “Illegal”, have added more to the strength and prosperity of our Nation than any related costs and will be needed, as it always has, in order to keep us a vibrant and successful society.

 

[Cossack1]

“The preponderance of the available reliable data supports the majority view of most patriotic Americans that Immigration, “Legal” and “Illegal”, have added more to the strength and prosperity of our Nation than any related costs and will be needed, as it always has, in order to keep us a vibrant and successful society.”

The majority view of most Americans is that they want the flow of illegal aliens to stop. Most Americans want fences and other protections. Illegal aliens have closed down emergency rooms and drastically used up social services. Your comments betray that you have an agenda since “the preponderance” of data does not support your view.

If all illegal immigrants got a conscience and returned to Mexico does that mean crops would remain unpicked on the vine, hotel beds would stay unmade, and other tasks not be done? Clearly no, these jobs would be filled by either automation or other workers. I believe in the citizens of this country and their creativity and willingness to work.

 

[Ituyu]

The majority view of most Americans is that they want the flow of illegal aliens to stop. Most Americans want fences and other protections. Illegal aliens have closed down emergency rooms and drastically used up social services.

Most Americans are not opposed to the idea of offering those already here a meaningful avenue to citizenship.

Your comments betray that you have an agenda since “the preponderance” of data does not support your view.

Your comment actually is the main catalyst of the far right.

“Public fears of lost jobs are unfounded and most workers will not experience any negative impact on their wages. Congress would do well to recognize the benefits of immigration and pass a reform that allows greater numbers of legal workers into America,” said signer and Independent Institute Research Fellow Benjamin Powell, Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation."

"500-Plus Economists Sign Open Letter Reminding President Bush of the Benefits of Immigration
Immigration: “The Greatest Anti-Poverty Program Ever Devised”
independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74

If all illegal immigrants got a conscience and returned to Mexico does that mean crops would remain unpicked on the vine, hotel beds would stay unmade, and other tasks not be done? Clearly no, these jobs would be filled by either automation or other workers. I believe in the citizens of this country and their creativity and willingness to work.

Alan Greenspan, for one, recognizes that our economy has a decreasing supply of unemployed workers. Immigration supplies that demand and fuels our economy. You’ll find the opposing idea principally in radical right wing rhetoric and sources such as FAIR, CIS and politicians like Tancredo. You won’t find me using sources from the far left though much of what I’ve read here is so far to the right that it may seem that way to some. Some people apparently find Christ too far to the left to suit their tastes.

 

[Jeffrey]

FAIR and CIS are the ones telling the truth. Illegals are a drain on our society… deport them ASAP.

We don’t agree because our sources are completely different in purpose. My sources have Church documents and competent professionals. I don’t give you a viewpoint coming from the perspective of the extreme radical right like, FAIR and it’s right arm the CIS. These are political organizations that have nothing to do with Church precepts and they are highly biased sources which spin the truths about immigration and Human Rights. So we won’t agree for two reasons. One, your agenda is NOT reconcilable to Church Teachings for if it were you would have shown how that is. Two, your, extremists and far Right Wing sources such as FAIR, CIS etc primarily come from organizations that contradict the reliable and competent findings of expert economists. The sources you use exist in order to prove their “conclusions” not to find the truth. Thus, your continued reliance on such discredited and biased sources will continue to lead you to pre-estabished conclusions. The preponderance of the available reliable data supports the majority view of most patriotic Americans that Immigration, “Legal” and “Illegal”, have added more to the strength and prosperity of our Nation than any related costs and will be needed, as it always has, in order to keep us a vibrant and successful society.

 

[Ituyu]

FAIR and CIS are the ones telling the truth. Illegals are a drain on our society… deport them ASAP.

FAIR and CIS is just more profane far right veiled hate rhetoric disguised as “law and order” and Patriotism. Where have we seen that before?

 

[Jeffrey]

No hate involved… anyone that thinks they see that at those sites… si either making it up… or listeing to far left propaganda.

FAIR and CIS is just more profane far right veiled hate rhetoric disguised as “law and order” and Patriotism. Where have we seen that before?

 

[Ituyu]

No hate involved… anyone that thinks they see that at those sites… si either making it up… or listeing to far left propaganda.

Let’s just say that opinions you hold and the action you promote, that have NO PRACTICAL PURPOSE, such as breaking up families through deportation, sending people back to die in poverty, to build fences that we know will result in the deaths of additional poor non-white’s, to deprive them of ALL inviolable rights is not the kind of LOVE that Christ taught.

 

[Ituyu]

“Again, every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own State. When there are just reasons in favor of it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there. (22) The fact that he is a citizen of a particular State does not deprive him of membership in the human family, nor of citizenship in that universal society, the common, world-wide fellowship of men.”

These are “inviolable” rights that the Church teaches.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_xxiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem_en.html

The church **does not **

teach it is right to pick and choose which civil laws you will obey. A few, but by all means not all, bishops are encouraging changes to existing im,migration laws. However, only some radical bishops are encouraging the anarchy of violating laws. Personally I think they are wrong because that attitude directly leads to the exploitation of the very people they are claiming to help.

The Church doesn’t allow us to arbitrarily pick and choose which of God’s Laws to violate.

Another point is that bishops are not infallible. There have been many instances of bishops publicaly criticizing other bishops both in personal as well as ecclesial conduct. For example several bishops publicly criticized Bishop Bruskewitz for excommunicating member of certain schismatic and anti0Catholic groups like Catholic for Choice. When *Humanae Vitae *

was published by Pope Paul VI several bishops immediatly (within 48 hours) participated and instigated numerous public protests, in some cases it was a bishop who initiated contact with the news media to state they disagreed with the Pope. There are many instances in Church history of bishops acting improperly and adopting wrong, even grossly wrong, attitudes, opinions and doctrines.

I fail to see where the Bishops in any way stray from the words of Pope John XXIII. AND, I do not see where your opinion is consistent with those words.

We are bound to respect and obey bishops, but not blindly. Even St. Thomas Aquinas said, “When the Faith and souls are at stake it may be necessary to correct bishops, even publicly.”

You would have to correct the Pope, not the Bishops, because they are strictly in tune with what our Pope taught. In fact, if anything, the Bishops were very conservative in their approach.

 

[Ituyu]

I fully support helping the poor. We could certainly contribute money to support charitable work IN MEXICO. These groups could set themselves up on the border and help the people of Mexico by feeding them and giving aid. However, they must also advise them to do the right thing and obey the law of the United States and apply for citizenship through LEGAL MEANS. What is wrong with that?

“What’s wrong with that?” is that it’s not at all possible for these people to come through “LEGAL” doors that have been shut in their face. If they had a “legal” option that would have been the FIRST, safest and cheapest route. Furthermore, there is NO provision anywhere that would address the needs of the poor in the Western Hemisphere better than allowing them to legalize their status and contribute to our society and economy through their labor. That is not only our cheapest alternative, it’s a mutually beneficial one. It’s a win/win approach and is in tune with natural market forces.

If the Vatican is against the fence then they should follow their own advice. Get rid of the Swiss Guard since they are a fearful influence. Then take down all stone and metal walls and fences around the Vatican. Let ALL people of the world come as they please. There should not be any need for things like Visas and passports. EVERYONE should be allowed in. And why is the Pope buried in his chambers? Jesus let all the kids come and sit on his lap. The Pope and the Vatican should be easily accessible to ANYONE who wants to come in.

How many people have been denied access to St. Peter’s Cathedral? How many people have been turned away from a job or deported because they were working “illegally”?

Lets see how long all the gold and expensive art work stays in place if they follow their own logic. LOL!!!

LOL!! But, if we were to actually succeed in closing our borders off entirely, without an dramatic increase in “legal” immigration that would replace our current “illegal” one for one, Americans mostly in the lower income brackets would suffer. Where would tax revenues to fund extra needed social programs come from without the economic stimulus of our immigrant neighbors? How would we make up for the jobs that would most certainly leave our borders? How would we serve our aging population? How would we replace needed workers throughout all levels of labor? And, where would the investment come to provide “automated” services that many could no longer afford? Sorry but we would solve nothing by the approach of ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’. We would hurt America!! Remember, the United States is the only Western Civilization country that is growing. And, why is that? IMMIGRATION, “Legal” and “Illegal”. And, why is so much of it “illegal”? Because we arbitrarily decided, against all wisdom, to contradict the natural market forces of Supply and Demand of Labor.

 

[Kendy]

If all illegal immigrants got a conscience and returned to Mexico does that mean crops would remain unpicked on the vine, hotel beds would stay unmade, and other tasks not be done? Clearly no, these jobs would be filled by either automation or other workers. I believe in the citizens of this country and their creativity and willingness to work.

You can’t lift 12 million people out of the economy and expect it to function seemlessly. Everyonne with half a brain realizes that these people are now part of the economy, and they came here because there was a demand for their labor. Without these immigrants, the cost of all these tasks would increase due to a worker shortage, making these goods and services unafforable for many more people. I am sorry I am being snide, but this is basic economics, and it upsets me that people use their lack of economic literacy to promote policies that are not only uncharitable but economically unsound. I am always estounded by how much this driven by nationalistic zeal as opposed to real economic data.

Secondly, so, poor people trying to feed themselves and their families don’t have consciences? That’s not what JPII said in his statement on immigration. Perhaps, I should post it the link again.

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP950725.HTM

 

[Kendy]

“What’s wrong with that?” is that it’s not at all possible for these people to come through “LEGAL” doors that have been shut in their face. If they had a “legal” option that would have been the FIRST, safest and cheapest route. Furthermore, there is NO provision anywhere that would address the needs of the poor in the Western Hemisphere better than allowing them to legalize their status and contribute to our society and economy through their labor. That is not only our cheapest alternative, it’s a mutually beneficial one. It’s a win/win approach and is in tune with natural market forces.

How many people have been denied access to St. Peter’s Cathedral? How many people have been turned away from a job or deported because they were working “illegally”?

LOL!! But, if we were to actually succeed in closing our borders off entirely, without an dramatic increase in “legal” immigration that would replace our current “illegal” one for one, Americans mostly in the lower income brackets would suffer. Where would tax revenues to fund extra needed social programs come from without the economic stimulus of our immigrant neighbors? How would we make up for the jobs that would most certainly leave our borders? How would we serve our aging population? How would we replace needed workers throughout all levels of labor? And, where would the investment come to provide “automated” services that many could no longer afford? Sorry but we would solve nothing by the approach of ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’. We would hurt America!! Remember, the United States is the only Western Civilization country that is growing. And, why is that? IMMIGRATION, “Legal” and “Illegal”. And, why is so much of it “illegal”? Because we arbitrarily decided, against all wisdom, to contradict the natural market forces of Supply and Demand of Labor.

 

[Fremont]

We don’t agree because our sources are completely different in purpose. My sources have Church documents and competent professionals. I don’t give you a viewpoint coming from the perspective of the extreme radical right like, FAIR and it’s right arm the CIS. These are political organizations that have nothing to do with Church precepts and they are highly biased sources which spin the truths about immigration and Human Rights. So we won’t agree for two reasons. One, your agenda is NOT reconcilable to Church Teachings for if it were you would have shown how that is. Two, your, extremists and far Right Wing sources such as FAIR, CIS etc primarily come from organizations that contradict the reliable and competent findings of expert economists. The sources you use exist in order to prove their “conclusions” not to find the truth. Thus, your continued reliance on such discredited and biased sources will continue to lead you to pre-estabished conclusions. The preponderance of the available reliable data supports the majority view of most patriotic Americans that Immigration, “Legal” and “Illegal”, have added more to the strength and prosperity of our Nation than any related costs and will be needed, as it always has, in order to keep us a vibrant and successful society.

My comments are indeed in concert with Church teaching.

No one’s right to work has been violated when they have a job, no matter how humble.

You claim the Church teaches that anyone seeking a better job can violate any laws of any sovereign nations they wish and infringe the rights of and cause harm to any other group, even the poor and most vulnerable.

I reject that interpretation of Church teaching as misguided and wrong.

I believer the Church teaches that no one has the right to violate the rights of others or to cause harm to others by their actions, and certainly not in their efforts to pursue increased material wealth.

There is ample evidence that illegal immigrants violate the rights of others and cause harm to others. The Church teaches that no one has the right to do that makes his or her acts a violation of Church teaching as I see it.

 

[Fremont]

Maybe it is time to get this thread back onto the initial point.

There is an arrogant cardinal in Rome - surrounded by fences, barricades and guards all focused on controlling the movements of all but a few people and barring entry to Vatican areas to all but Vatican citizens and workers - who criticizes the US for proposing to build a fence to protect our southern border.

It is legitimate and fitting for all Americans to brand this cardinal as a hypocrite and reject his ranting.

 

[Ituyu]

My comments are indeed in concert with Church teaching.

Really? How is what you pander here loving and charitable?

No one’s right to work has been violated when they have a job, no matter how humble.

 

[rpp]

I made this post earlier and it bears repeating.

Some recent postings on this thread have taken a very accusational tone. For example stating that someone is ignoring or not following Church teachings. I do not think that method of response and discussion is particularly charitable nor is it constructive. In addition, it takes a very narrow view of certain Church teachings then raises them to the level of doctrine.

I encourage all who post to, as some moderators say, “self-edit” for tone. I would like to see future postings to be a little more polite and charitable. (If you feel like yelling, or that the other person is an idiot, stupid or as apostate, that is probably not the time to compose your response. )

That there can be legitimate dissent on this issue is clear. That immigration laws, because the USA is a wealthy and strong country increases that responsibility. Hence the my 3rd numbered point below.

For example this perspective does not accept view which some, including myself, look upon a border fence as a means of protecting two groups of vulnerable people. Land owners along the boarder whose land is trespassed and property damage is frequent. The poor potential illegal immigrants who, seeking a better life, are put at great risk when cross illegally. Often at the hands of human traffikers. How can we forget the hundreds and thousands of people who die each year while crossing illegally. Are they not important? Should we not do something to stop that human tragedy?

That is why I believe that a just immigration policy must take into account the 4 points I described below. To just open the door and say anyone who comes is good put people at risk; we will have more airplanes flown into buildings that way. That would be, to say the least, unjust.

Immigration must be regulated. Justice applies not only to the immigrants, but those already here, including those who live in the path which illegal immigration occurs. The laws, as well as the enforcement, must be just.

I do not see how having a fence on the border equates with being opposed to immigration.

Many immigrants come to this country legally. These legal immigrants, once here, contribute much. They hold all sorts of jobs, from doctors to migrant farm workers. Their children often fare better than their parents. Most people in the USA are either immigrants themselves or decendants of immigrants.

This is a good thing.

However, those who immigrate illegally expose themselves to much danger and exploitation. To deal justly with illegal immigration requires that we address three areas:

1. 
   *]Pursue and prosecute those who explot illegal immigrants.
   *]Take steps to reduce illegal entry.
   *]Examine immigration laws periodically to ensure they remain just based on current economic and civil realities.
   *]Do not harm or endanger citizens and residents who already live here.
   I see the fence as one component of item 2. Smuggling, be it goods, contraband or people, has been a problem since the very first city was built. We cannot have drug runners and human traffikers crossing the border and harming people or property.
   
   The decription from Marci on this thread demonstrates this is a serious problem today. Surley Marci deserves just treatment, respect and dignity. Suggesting she move is not a just response. Allowing illegal immigrants and their families to suffer and perhaps die of exposure during a dessert crossing is not justice either. A fence, properly maintained and monitored, would do much to limit (though we can never eliminate) illegal entry.
   
   Though easy and tempting, we cannot look at the fence in isolation, but in the context of the three points I mentioned above.
   
   I would also urge great caution when criticizing bishops. Though I must admit, some do not seem well informed. Others appear to fall into the easy intellectual trap of focusing on one point and completely ignoring the others, particularly point 4.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

WARNING

Please discuss the topic at hand without making personal attacks on those with whom you disagree. If anyone needs a cooling off period of two weeks or so, that can easily be arranged. Please read your post before submitting as if you were on the receiving end of it. If it isn’t charitable or is a personal attack, then edit it. Thank you for your cooperation.

Walt

 

[Fremont]

Really? How is what you pander here loving and charitable?

Humble? If you mean no matter how impoverished, you’re wrong again! Once more you defy Church Teaching.

No sir, most of these people had NO jobs prior to coming or could not meet their needs and those of their families. Working in Mexico, even working overtime, does not mean a living wage and the Church also teaches us that they have a right to a living wage.

I interpretted nothing! I supplied you with verbatim quotes.

Then there is no justification for denying these people their God given Rights.

Crossing the border harmed nobody. Working for a living harms nobody. Their humanity harms nobody.

Again, your simply ignorant about Church Teaching on this matter because it does also teach that the laborer has a right to both a living wage and to improve his material wealth.

You demonstrate a total misunderstanding of Church Teaching! The Church states that all persons, even “Illegal” immigrants have inviolable rights. Their rights were arbitrarily violated not ours. They add to our communities and strengthen our nation. That is hardly harm. Matters would be worse without them. Thus, what you espouse would indeed be HARMFUL to both the “illegal” immigrant and our own citizens and that even by your own twisted and biased assertions makes what you espouse WRONG.