Welcome the Stranger (another perspective on illegal immigration)

[markomalley]

John Zmirack writes the following commentary in “Inside Catholic”:

One thing we Catholics have known since almost the beginning: Most statements in the Bible can be misread, misapplied, and torn out of context to serve as the pretext for hysterical balderdash. Martin Luther famously used his private reading of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans to invent a whole new theology of salvation, personalized to soothe his aching scruples. Before that, poor Origen, the first great theologian of the Church, applied “If your hand causes you to sin, then cut it off” (Mk 9:43) to his problems with chastity . . . bless his heart! Today some of our bishops are telling us to do the very same thing to our country.

The subject is mass, unskilled immigration, and the phrase its enablers like to use (they titled one of their interminable, inevitable USCCB documents after it) is “Welcome the stranger” (paraphrasing Matthew 25:31-46). As someone who has actually studied the empirical effects that two million or so mostly uneducated immigrants are having on poor and working-class Americans, I am constantly confronted with this scrap torn from the New Testament, which earnest, otherwise orthodox Catholics wave around like snake-handlers justifying their latest romp in the piney woods with an ice cooler full of copperheads.
​

I think he brings up some very legitimate points in his arguments.

 

[Seamus_L]

Excellent ! It’s high time we gave these “stranger in your land” arguments a big Not Applicable To This Situation.

 

[ohioszo]

Pat Buchanan … also a Protectionist, or rather, against Free Trade Agreements, and against fighting battles in foreign lands, I believe, unless American interests are clearly involved. Democrats, like Marcy Kaptur and him are in agreement. The issue about the poor Americans and the factories closely, jobs moving overseas or to Mexico. Think about it, and maybe come up with another solution. I know a Chinese national who is permanently in our country with a good job at a university, married to an American; a former illegal immigrant who started his own business in CA, designing in the architectural field; a couple with degrees from the Dominican Republic, I suppose, legally who are working as janitors; migrants who live on farms, children of these migrants who are citizens, Spanish included in Masses at our Parish. I know the concern is mainly Arizona … I don’t want people dying in trucks, in deserts, nor the drug trade coming across … healthy working people … who want to learn English and become Americans, is something else. We are 4th and 5th generation from Lux. and Germ. I know some 1st generations, our Pastor from Germ. and a couple from Hung. who is the dearest person.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, some of us have already made the point referenced in the OP, several times over. Predictable short-term and long-term evil consequences of one’s otherwise good acts must always be figured into the equation in a moral argument. You don’t even need to be an economist, a demographer, or a financial analyst by profession to see these consequences first-hand. Anyone with a basic education, the ability to read, and the serious effort to inform his or her conscience (by reading secular documents, by keeping abreast of current events) can observe the evil consequences, or become informed about them. It’s not acceptable to claim ignorance and live in a fairy-tale world.

In Biblical times, the world was desperate for a continual supply of skilled and unskilled labor, without regard to education. It fueled society’s needs and the inevitable short life-cycles of the average human being due to disease, famine, and inability to protect oneself against natural disasters. The more, the better. Ditto during America’s growth years, a situation which has sustained itself pretty much into the late 20th century. Until fairly recently, we have not reached critical mass in terms of the effect which welcoming random warm bodies has on our existent indwelling population, to whom is due at least equal consideration for subsistence needs – the food, shelter, clothing obtained through employment.

Much of the population of the U.S. does not have the abundance and the option to share with others. If they were to do so on their own, they would jeopardize their own survival. That’s why they don’t do it – not because they’re selfish, myopic,or xenophobic. Importantly, they also (lacking money) do not have the mobility to protect themselves economically by merely fleeing. And it is particularly evil to call poor people in this country names like racist, bigot, etc. Jesus never suggested that. Name calling is a form of violence which he specifically condemned in Matthew, and any one calling himself or herself Catholic needs to seriously re-read the NT and do an examination of conscience if they have engaged in such divisive rhetoric.

Suggesting that random warm bodies be welcomed at all costs invites a direct evil consequence to the most economically marginalized of those already here, who are already the least empowered in a society which bases power on wealth.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes.

Of course, the original meaning of “autistic,” is what is meant here, though. I’m sure it wasn’t meant as a mockery of what we have come to recognize as a functional defect in psychological and educational terms. I looked at the context of how the writer was using the word. I myself would not have chosen that term, out of the possibility of controversy, but I don’t think it was intended as inflammatory, or dismissive of the actual behavioral syndrome.

JMO.

 

[markomalley]

I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes.

The author’s response to that (when confronted with a comment on the piece) was this:

I was using the term “autistic” analogously and alliteratively. The definition I read says “A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.”

Hence, a phrase cut out of context, removed from the environment which gives its full meaning, and repeated meaninglessly, often destructively… sounds like a pretty good analogy to me.

Of course, I meant no offense to those whose families deal with the actual condition, which is a heavy cross indeed from what I’ve read. God bless you all!
​

 

[feargalmac]

I’m always amazed at the “social justice” brigades lack of respect for laws they don’t like. They will use the Bible as was said in the article but I have always seen the Bible as our guide as to how we should live our lives on a personal level, not a societal level. Throughout the ministry of Our Lord did he ever tell the authorities how they should legislate? I can’t think of any example.

Conveniently for this case, the Benedictines did more than simply embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience. They also took literally the very mandate we’re considering here: “Welcome the stranger.” Across the world, the Benedictines are famous for offering hospitality to visitors – who, to this day, can drop in unannounced at Benedictine communities and receive a warm bed and hot meals, no questions asked.

You know what the Benedictines don’t do? They don’t let large groups of strangers move in permanently, flout the rules of the community, claim the status of monks, and help elect a new abbot. Had that been part of Benedictine hospitality, the Vikings wouldn’t have needed to batter down the walls of places like Lindisfarne in order to steal all the sacred vessels. They could have simply turned up, moved in, eaten the monks’ food and drunk their wine, and waited till they had the numbers to vote in Bjorgolf as abbot.

I think this another important quote from the article.

 

[TMC]

He says that arguing that we are charged to welcome strangers is arguing by “Bible scraps”, which I take to mean cherry picking points that cut against the real theme of the Gospel. I would say that anyone that seriously believes that welcoming strangers is a “scrap” that doesn’t fit into Christ’s real message needs to go back and read the Gospels again. Also, he suggests that Americans today are much more burdened by welcoming strangers than people would have been in Christ’s time. Seriously??? The richest nation in the history of the world is more burdened by immigration today than peasants were 2000 years ago?

In my opinion, this article is a fine example of the attitude of the young rich man in Mark 10 – he is willing to follow all kind of religious rules, but unwilling to actually take Christ’s commands seriously out of fear they doing so might cost him something.

 

[ChadS]

The main point I got from this article is that it’s okay to blame illegal immigrants for job shortages and high unemployment. He uses specious economic reasoning to make his case – that is that the more people in a labor market the more scarce jobs become and the lower wages go. On paper that is quite true, but it’s not necessarily accurate in this case.

If not one illegal immigrant had come to this country since 1980 there would still be tens of thousands of auto, steel and other manufacturing jobs that brought steady employment and good pay that disappeared. Those jobs aren’t currently filled by low pay migrant workers they either were eliminated completely or shipped overseas.

At this point in time I’m not seeing people clamoring for the jobs illegal immigrants have. Where are the Joads of today uprooting their families to go west and work in fields? Are they anywhere? Or is it more convenient to blame immigrants for the job you lost and will never get back even when they didn’t take it and are doing jobs you consider beneath your dignity?

ChadS

 

[Loy]

The link to actual text of Welcoming the Stranger is here: usccb.org/mrs/unity.shtml

 

[Loy]

One interesting thing about the bishop’s document is that it lumps legal and illegal immigration together as if they were exactly the same moral issue, except in one footnote. In fact, the word “illegal” is only used twice.

 

[mlund]

That’s quite an article there.

I think my favorite part was the link to the Catholic B.S. detector, though. That was a truly entertaining accessory to the article. I don’t agree with all its implications but I think it is a good warning against how easy it is to rationalize the abuses of Sentimentalism and pass them off as proper Charity.

• Marty Lund

 

[AnotherVoice]

The author’s response to that (when confronted with a comment on the piece) was this:

I was using the term “autistic” analogously and alliteratively. The definition I read says “A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.”

Hence, a phrase cut out of context, removed from the environment which gives its full meaning, and repeated meaninglessly, often destructively… sounds like a pretty good analogy to me.

Of course, I meant no offense to those whose families deal with the actual condition, which is a heavy cross indeed from what I’ve read. God bless you all!
​

Yes, this is the common definition of Autism and what I expected the author was using. As he says the symptoms and manifestations of the disability provide him with the analogy he sought. They do help portray his subject group in a negative light.

Frequently an author will consider using a disability as a negative modifier to drive a point home. Most of these have no intention of offending the people with the disability; they simply are not thoughtful in considering the impact of their words on the people who have the disability or who have loved ones with the disability.

So I reiterate my original comment; “I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes”.

 

[markomalley]

Yes, this is the common definition of Autism and what I expected the author was using. As he says the symptoms and manifestations of the disability provide him with the analogy he sought. They do help portray his subject group in a negative light.

Frequently an author will consider using a disability as a negative modifier to drive a point home. Most of these have no intention of offending the people with the disability; they simply are not thoughtful in considering the impact of their words on the people who have the disability or who have loved ones with the disability.

So I reiterate my original comment; “I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes”.

I’m not defending or pointing a finger at the author. I’m just pointing out what he said in response to a comment that was very similar to yours.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I’m not defending or pointing a finger at the author. I’m just pointing out what he said in response to a comment that was very similar to yours.

I appreciate that. My finger was pointed at the author only.

 

[mlund]

So I reiterate my original comment; “I found much of his content valid. I must admit that his use of the word autistic as a negative adjective diminished him and his opinions in my eyes”.

I think we tend to be selectively critical about these sorts of things as a society, though.

We complain that our arguments “fell upon deaf ears,” or that someone was “too blind to see” as metaphor all the time without people breaking out the verbal knives like they do if you refer to an intellectual disability or mental disorder (even insanity) in that sort of context.

I’m not being critical either way, but I’d like to call into question that it appears that we are either being insensitive in one regard or hypersensitive in another regard. There should be a consistent rhyme or reason to what is appropriate and what is not - and it shouldn’t be knee-jerk reactions or gut instincts, IMO.

• Marty Lund

 

[DawnInTexas]

I’m always amazed at the “social justice” brigades lack of respect for laws they don’t like. They will use the Bible as was said in the article but I have always seen the Bible as our guide as to how we should live our lives on a personal level, not a societal level. Throughout the ministry of Our Lord did he ever tell the authorities how they should legislate? I can’t think of any example.

Quote:
*Conveniently for this case, the Benedictines did more than simply embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience. They also took literally the very mandate we’re considering here: “Welcome the stranger.” Across the world, the Benedictines are famous for offering hospitality to visitors – who, to this day, can drop in unannounced at Benedictine communities and receive a warm bed and hot meals, no questions asked.

You know what the Benedictines don’t do? They don’t let large groups of strangers move in permanently, flout the rules of the community, claim the status of monks, and help elect a new abbot. Had that been part of Benedictine hospitality, the Vikings wouldn’t have needed to batter down the walls of places like Lindisfarne in order to steal all the sacred vessels. They could have simply turned up, moved in, eaten the monks’ food and drunk their wine, and waited till they had the numbers to vote in Bjorgolf as abbot. *

I think this another important quote from the article.

They may allow strangers in their Abbey, but they wouldn’t if their family included children in the house.

God Bless.
+Peace In Christ.
Love, Dawn

 

[AnotherVoice]

I think we tend to be selectively critical about these sorts of things as a society, though.

We complain that our arguments “fell upon deaf ears,” or that someone was “too blind to see” as metaphor all the time without people breaking out the verbal knives like they do if you refer to an intellectual disability or mental disorder (even insanity) in that sort of context.

I’m not being critical either way, but I’d like to call into question that it appears that we are either being insensitive in one regard or hypersensitive in another regard. There should be a consistent rhyme or reason to what is appropriate and what is not - and it shouldn’t be knee-jerk reactions or gut instincts, IMO.

• Marty Lund

I really don’t wish to divert from the main topic under discussion. I can only say that I try to be very consistent in pointing out and objecting to people who use disabilities as part of their rhetoric.

 

[didymus]

Point out the fact that one of our once-richest states, California, has essentially been bankrupted by the tidal wave of undereducated non-English speakers – and whoop, there’s that hoary paraphrase.

Illegals bankrupted CA?
Somehow I doubt that though the public employee unions must be thrilled to see the blame cast at anyone but them.