What Does the Catachism Mean in Section 2241 on Illegal Immigration?

  • Thread starter Thread starter d97c
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OK…you feel really good saying, “welcome the stranger,”…and I agree,…we should…to a certain number TO BE DECIDED BY US, NOT THE ILLEGAL … BUT…not a one of you obviously well-meaning people will answer these two questions
  1. A guy who says he is “homeless” and needs something to eat, but hasnt tried any of the other methods of getting food, walks by my home. If I leave my door open, is it ok with you if he comes in here and steals from me because HE says he needs it?
  2. How far do we take your "I was hungry " routine ? Are you saying…logically…that this nation should make it a national policy that if I SAY I am poor and hungry, that you must allow me to come into this country and I must take care of his needs and his family?
    If you are saying that…who pays?
    Until you answer those questions, you talk is simply “feel good” banter. You must go farther than just saying something that makes you feel better.Its called the “brass tacks.”
 
d97c said:
BUT…we are not “able” to welcome an unlimited number, klike the 13 million that have illegally come here. That’s why we have laws to regulate immigration. If they are legal…then that quote applys. You cant allow 13 million to be given amnesty and then become citizens !..thereby cutting out those whom have followed our laws and want to be AMERICANS !
Click to expand...
I agree. But we have to be honest about this. We built an industry around these people. We plugged their labor into our economy knowing what was going on. We enjoyed eating cheaper produce thanks to some people willing to work very hard for very little money. The U.S. made illegal immigration an economic stabilizer. We are way more guilty than they. We should treat them as legal because essentially the are. Then at some arbitrary moment we decide they are criminals. All I am saying is we have to own up to our part which imo is the more culpable.
 
Benadam said:
The U.S. made illegal immigration an economic stabilizer. We are way more guilty than they.
Click to expand...
I have no problem punishing all people who break the law, illegal immigrants or the employers who illegally hire them.
We should treat them as legal because essentially the are. Then at some arbitrary moment we decide they are criminals.
Click to expand...
We don’t decide that they are criminals; they become criminals when they commit a criminal act. Is this really all that difficult to comprehend?

Ender
 
Ender said:
I have no problem punishing all people who break the law, illegal immigrants or the employers who illegally hire them.

Ender, that’s a big problem. It would cost alot more than just closing the borders and amnesty. Not to mention impossible
We don’t decide that they are criminals; they become criminals when they commit a criminal act. Is this really all that difficult to comprehend?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Benadam said:
I agree. But we have to be honest about this. We built an industry around these people. We plugged their labor into our economy knowing what was going on. We enjoyed eating cheaper produce thanks to some people willing to work very hard for very little money. The U.S. made illegal immigration an economic stabilizer. We are way more guilty than they. We should treat them as legal because essentially the are. Then at some arbitrary moment we decide they are criminals. All I am saying is we have to own up to our part which imo is the more culpable.
Click to expand...
I agree that the government and big business have been culpable, but in no way are the “undocumented workers” “essentially legal,” nor are they free from their own culpability. We could start a whole new thread just on the devastation that has been wrought upon our nation by this problem. Why is this always ignored in favor of welcoming the stranger! The principle of solidarity in the Church social justice teaching does NOT place the poor above others. What would I do if my family was poor and a neighboring country was offering me more economic benefits? Would I illegally cross the line, perhaps take a stolen identity because the government winked in my direction, partake of all the freebies offered to me, disrespect the laws? In good conscience, I could not. And I am shocked to learn (from a previous post) of the manner in which our bishops are complicit in this behavior.

Father Peridans can comment on your post better than I. From the above link:
The question then is, “To what extent is a nation, any nation, obliged to welcome anyone and everyone who wishes to enter it?”
Click to expand...
Generosity is a must. Fair international economic policy is a must. Open borders, however, are not a must — if there is such a thing as a national community. If there is such a thing as a national community, open borders are the negation of the common good, and blurring the lines of legality of status in a country is a lack of healthy and respectful realism regarding the common good. If the common good of the national family is to be protected and promoted by all members of the community, including Catholics, then the distinction between legal immigrant and il-legal immigrant is not morally irrelevant. It is, in fact, a fundamental distinction that cannot be ignored, a distinction between persons who respect the common good and persons who do not respect the common good. “The Church is (indeed) the place where illegal immigrants are recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters,” for the Church is the place where all are recognized and accepted as brothers and sisters. But the illegality of such brothers and sisters — as harsh as this may sound to certain ears — cannot be promoted if Catholics are to respect the common good of the national family. Open borders advocacy is civilly and socially disrespectful. Immediate, temporary, transitional assistance for a person in distress who is here illegally is a mandate from Christ, but it is not on the same level as public policy.
Click to expand...
Reference to respect for immigration law is so often made by the bishops who then, in the same breath, seem to invite dis-respect for law. How could anyone want to enforce immigration law when they are pushed back against the wall, “Dare we look at them with and through the eyes of Christ for whom no one is illegal?” Such statements are ambiguous, and frankly guilt-inducing. Let us not forget that Jesus Christ said, “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar.” Jesus had great respect for the reality of the state, and thus civil authority. To claim that someone who has entered a country illegally is law-abiding makes no sense, and is to suggest that immigration laws are morally irrelevant. Our welcome of immigrants ought to be generous, not unconditional. The latter is disrespectful of the common good.
Click to expand...
 
Ender said:
Agreed, the bishops have not served us well on this topic. They have behaved like just another political advocacy group.

Ender
Click to expand...
What about the conspiracy to protect criminals with “sanctuary” laws. In my state of Illinois, anyone giving aid to a person they know had committed a crime and is not related to that person, commits a Class 4 Felony. No one “illegal immigrant” can enter the US without commiting a crime doing it. An “illegal immigrant” entering the US at the Texas border and is transported to Illinois has broken several Federal laws by crossing state lines. Should these be ignored?
 
Benadam said:
that’s a big problem. It would cost alot more than just closing the borders and amnesty. Not to mention impossible
Click to expand...
Actually, I don’t think it would really be all that difficult and I believe we already have all the tools and laws we need in order to do it. What is lacking is the will, not the means.
I comprehend that in this case what was a crime looked like a husband and father , or a mother making a living.
Click to expand...
This is a romantic rationalization of criminal behavior which is not justifiable.
40.png
MumboJumbo:
What about the conspiracy to protect criminals with “sanctuary” laws?
Click to expand...
I do not support activities that are illegal, except in specific situations (e.g. some civil rights protests). This is not one of those exceptions.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top