What is the Catholic stance on US/Mexico immigration?

[pnewton]

Well, its more like I’ve seen them become an increasingly large population of my city. I’m OK with them being a minority, but they’re becoming a majority where I live. I don’t want to see our American culture eclipsed by Mexican culture…

I don’t mind Irish coming here as long as they keep in their place?

The Church doesn’t have an official stance on this; it doesn’t need one. Some incontestably stupid ideas like open borders, using your hairdryer in the bathtub, etc… just don’t require the Church to waste their time declaring the obvious.

Come on now. You are a fine one to speak of word play when you call those you disagree with stupid and equate their a political opinion with using a blow-dryer in a bathtub. Rhetoric should not override reason.

Let’s not lose sight of the clear answer to that question: the Church has no teaching whatever about how those problems should be resolved.

Yes, this is an important thing to remember, and something that you, exoflare and I agree on. The Church only gives principles, not solutions. I would recommend the OP read Caritas in Veritate, as it is the most recent document on global economic principles.

 

[pnewton]

Agreed! Also, I believe it serves the purpose of desensitizing us to identifying ourselves as Nationals. .

I think an important distinction needs to be made:

Whereas nationalism involves recognizing and pursuing the good of one’s own nation alone, without regard for the rights of others, patriotism, on the other hand, is a love for one’s native land that accords rights to all other nations equal to those claimed for one’s own. Patriotism, in other words, leads to a properly ordered social love."
JPII

catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=2071

 

[Blacksword]

The thread shows that this is a difficult issue for many people of good will. When does “compassion” become socialized and lead to a morass of dependency and ever decreasing standards of living?

I don’t think a reasonable person blames a father trying to feed his family for crossing the border illegally (and it IS illegal). Nor does the reasonable person not identify with the impoverished parent trying to steal food from a grocery store to feed their children.

That doesn’t mean such actions are, or should be, allowed without consequences.

1. When someone enters this country illegally; he or she does a great disservice not only to the citizens of the country they enter, but their fellow citizens who are waiting to enter the country legally as well. They do harm to those who choose to “follow the rules”.
2. Nations have rights to set limits on who enters their country. Whether they set that number correctly can, and should, certainly be debated but that is what the political process is for. I’m willing to wager the vast majority of those who oppose an actual “sealing” of the border and/or effectively advocate “open borders” (including those in the Church) sleep behind doors at night that are closed and locked. When someone knocks on their door, the decide whether to answer it and whether to invite the individual inside. They do not feel the person knocking has a "right’ to gain entry to their home and if that individual were to sneak in; they would almost certainly call the authorities to have the invaders removed.
3. I respectfully disagree with the individual who posted that NAFTA ruined Mexico’s economy. Opening up trade is almost always is a net benefit to the country will the lower wage rates relative to the country with the higher wage rate. The Mexican economy is bedeviled by multiple difficult structural problems; chief among them being the drug war (which drives uncertainty and reduces investment), the quasi-socialist nature of the economy (excessive Government involvement in commerce) and limited rule of law (corruption by public officials). Mexico is a land that is rich in natural resouces that are not productively employed because of those factors. After NAFTA, may jobs left the US for Mexico–unfortunately for Mexico those jobs subsequently left Mexico for Asia.
4. The politics of illegal immigration are insidious. The Democrats look to create a culture of dependency among illegals and thereby ultimately gain their votes. The Republicans look for a virtual “slave labor” class that will be afraid to request basic worker rights and will undercut market wages.
5. Whatever the “right” number of imigrants is; they should be of 100% legal status in my opinion. If we choose not to deport the millions already here illegally, then we must define some sort of “non-citizenship” status for them with no possibility of ever becoming citizens, with very few exceptions, such as serving in combat status in the military perhaps. Citizenship should never be allowed for those who enter the USA illegally. To grant citizenship to illegal aliens would be an insult to those who waited years to get a work visa and came to this country legally.
6. With that said, there is a great need for Christian Charity in Mexico, in the form of prayers and donations. The Mexican people have suffered much and I fear will suffer more before their society “turns the corner” from the current chaos. But Mexico will never be lifted out of poverty until a robust private sector, relatively free of violence by armed thugs and corruption by government stooges, is developed. Pray that the the Drug Lords are thoroughly defeated; that is the necessary first step.

God Bless

Several things about these comments. First, I thought I had explained this in my earlier comments, but maybe I wasn’t clear: there IS NO “line” for them to get in. Our immigration laws do not provide any legal manner for the manual labor, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Latin-America to enter the U.S., so this talk of those who enter illegally doing a disservice to those who wait to enter “the right way” is meaningless. Employment based immigrant visas are prioritized to those who have bachelors or advanced degrees, and are constructed such that they require an employer actually petitioning for a particular foreign national to apply, and so have no applicability to a migrant farm worker wanting to come to find work. And again, we actually require several million such workers to harvest our crops on farms across the country, but even temporary worker numbers only allow for 66,000 numbers, not close to enough.

Secondly, while your other factors in Mexico’s current state have a role to play, it is a matter of settled economic fact that NAFTA had devastating effects on their economy, so you are disagreeing with nearly every economist who has studied the issue. NAFTA allowed large U.S. Companies to move operations to Mexico, where no wage laws are in place, and effectively become the only jobs in town. Jobs that did not pay anything close to a living wage. That, in a nutshell, is how NAFTA drained American labor jobs, made American companies a lot of money, and helped to destroy a living wage for Mexican nationals.

Lastly, your idea of a separate status that doesn’t allow for citizenship is a really bad one I’m afraid. That’s called second-class citizenship, and inevitably leads to civil unrest and strife. Look at the Muslim riots in France, or the history of our own Bracero program in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries for examples of how that doesn’t work.

 

[TEPO]

Sorry to chime in so forcefully, but I feel compelled to mention a few things… Sorry…

Several things about these comments. First, I thought I had explained this in my earlier comments, but maybe I wasn’t clear: there IS NO “line” for them to get in. Our immigration laws do not provide any legal manner for the manual labor, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Latin-America to enter the U.S., so this talk of those who enter illegally doing a disservice to those who wait to enter “the right way” is meaningless. .

Are you actually claiming that since there is no “line” for illegals to enter the U.S. that no illegals are entering…? Also, why do you place quotation marks around those who wait to enter “the right way”…?

Are you attempting to claim that Mexican immigrants only enter the U.S. legally, or are you attempting to claim that there is no difference between whether one enters legally or illegally?

Employment based immigrant visas are prioritized to those who have bachelors or advanced degrees, and are constructed such that they require an employer actually petitioning for a particular foreign national to apply, and so have no applicability to a migrant farm worker wanting to come to find work. And again, we actually require several million such workers to harvest our crops on farms across the country, but even temporary worker numbers only allow for 66,000 numbers, not close to enough…

Please provide a source to prove that 66,000 temporary illegal immigrants are “not close to enough” to harvest our crops.

Show your sources.

Lastly, your idea of a separate status that doesn’t allow for citizenship is a really bad one I’m afraid. That’s called second-class citizenship, and inevitably leads to civil unrest and strife. Look at the Muslim riots in France, or the history of our own Bracero program in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries for examples of how that doesn’t work.

This seems like a radical position to take. Is’nt it true that those who accept temporary work visas (includint those from Canada) are merely accepting temporary work in the U.S., with every intention of returning home at some point? Why then should would it be wrong to ask those who entered illegally to accept a “non-citizen” status…? In other words you are claiming that any man who steps foot on U.S. soil should be allowed to become a full citizen with full citizen benefits… You do realize that this is what it means to have “open borders” right… Which is very much a radical position… Right…?

 

[Blacksword]

Sorry to chime in so forcefully, but I feel compelled to mention a few things… Sorry…

Are you actually claiming that since there is no “line” for illegals to enter the U.S. that no illegals are entering…? Also, why do you place quotation marks around those who wait to enter “the right way”…?

Are you attempting to claim that Mexican immigrants only enter the U.S. legally, or are you attempting to claim that there is no difference between whether one enters legally or illegally?

Please provide a source to prove that 66,000 temporary illegal immigrants are “not close to enough” to harvest our crops.

Show your sources.

This seems like a radical position to take. Is’nt it true that those who accept temporary work visas (includint those from Canada) are merely accepting temporary work in the U.S., with every intention of returning home at some point? Why then should would it be wrong to ask those who entered illegally to accept a “non-citizen” status…? In other words you are claiming that any man who steps foot on U.S. soil should be allowed to become a full citizen with full citizen benefits… You do realize that this is what it means to have “open borders” right… Which is very much a radical position… Right…?

Ok, let’s see where to begin. First, in point one, you obviously didn’t read what I wrote fully, since it’s pretty clear I think. No, I didn’t imply that since there is no legal method for people from Latin American countries who are essentially uneducated farm and day laborers to immigrate to the U.S. that all those coming here are therefore legal. Where did you get that? I said simply that this fact (i.e. there not being a “line” for them to enter) means that it’s silly to talk about them somehow cheating others who are waiting to enter by legal processes. This is because they can’t and aren’t included in any pool for legal immigrants because they don’t qualify for the current legal methods. So what I’m saying is that their entry has no effect on those who are immigrating through legal channels, it is irrelevant to them.

Second, it is a matter of common, basic knowledge that there are millions of farm worker jobs in the U.S., and fewer native born Americans are willing to do this back-breaking labor. How many Americans do you know who pick blueberries as their job in the summer? Pick cotton? How about pick apples, cherries, oranges, or any other crops? I know personally of none, but since you ask for sources on this obvious fact, see below:

ncfh.org/docs/fs-Facts%20about%20Farmworkers.pdf

It’s from the National Center of Farmworker Health, and should be pretty non-controversial. It’s a study from around 2003 estimating over 3 million migrant farm workers in the U.S. and over half of these being undocumented workers. That percentage of the whole has only increased since then.

Thirdly, no, I didn’t say everyone who comes should automatically get to stay and become a citizen instantly. I was responding to the earlier post that, from how I understood it, suggested the idea that migrant farmworkers should be allowed to stay to work but NEVER have any option of citizenship. That is second-class citizenship status essentially, and leads to a caste system effectively, and bad results as with the aforementioned Bracero program.

There are nonimmigrant visa classes, yes, and I certainly have no problem with them (indeed, that’s what I do much of my time, representing corporations, colleges, research institutes, and other employers obtain working status for foreign national employees). However, for many of the most widely used nonimmigrant classes, such as H-1B, L-1B, L1A, for instance, dual intent is recognized, meaning that one can hold the nonimmigrant status and at the same time seek permanent residency through family or employment-based sponsorship. The post I responded to essentially suggested precluding this permanently for migrant undocumented workers and effectively instituting a slave labor system whereby they were free to leave and return to their country of origin, but never free to seek any permanent residency status in the U.S., or do anything here essentially other than work our fields.

Most of them want to stay here, they have family who are Americans, children who are citizens and cannot therefore even return with them…many have American spouses for instance, what of them?

Again, open borders means basically totally unregulated, uncontrolled immigration, or anyone who just wants to come and stay should be issued a visa and admitted. That’s not what I, or anyone I’ve heard, supports. We rather say our labor needs require many more of these kinds of workers than our immigration laws allow for, and these people wish to work these jobs. Therefore, our laws need reform to allow for proper legal channels to admit them in a regulated, controlled manner. I’m not sure why this simple message is so controversial, but there it is.

 

[Blacksword]

And a couple of other points I noticed that should be mentioned…first, it’s 66,000 annual H-2A numbers for temporary and seasonal or peak-load workers. These are legal workers, not illegals. This includes workers who do summer jobs at amusement parks and resorts or hotels (think foreign kids working in Epcot Center, workers at seasonal hotels and vacation spots, and similar jobs too). Obviously this comes nowhere close to the numbers needed for seasonal farming work, and again, the vast majority of Americans are not willing to labor 10-12 hours a day under the sun for minimum wage only to be out of work again at the end of the harvest in three months.

Lastly it’s worth mentioning that yes, TN nonimmigrant work status for professionals from Canada and Mexico does require nonimmigrant intent (intention to return home at the time of application for admission), but of course, these foreign nationals often qualify for the previously mentioned H-1B status allowing for dual-intent and often seek permanent residency with little difficulty through employment alien labor certification or through a marriage to a U.S. citizen. This does nothing to alter to fundamental unjustness of the idea of a nonimmigrant status from which someone would be permanently barred from seeking any permanent residency.

I’d be happy to answer any actual questions anyone might have on this, but also please understand that if you don’t know what these basic legal concepts are and aren’t familiar with these very basic aspects of U.S. Immigration law, then please consider that your mere opinions on the subject are, respectfully, uninformed, and would be akin to me having a heart attack and being rushed to the hospital, whereupon I told the attending cardiologist that he was an idiot and my opinions about my cardiac state were every bit as valid as his on the issue! In the interests of full disclosure on this, I am an Immigration Attorney, and I’ve been practicing exclusively immigration law for many years now, and have been blessed and fortunate enough to work at a very, very large immigration law firm over the years, and thus have done work for large multinational corporations, household name companies, well-known college institutions, and government research labs, so basically, I probably know ALOT more about this, admittedly heated, topic than you. I hate that that sounds arrogant, because I really don’t mean it that way. I think there are many people in this world doing FAR more important things than I…I’m just trying to shed some light on this topic to those reading this, rather than heat which is usually the only thing generated in these discussions!

 

[Blacksword]

For any interested in learning more about migrant and seasonal farmworkers, another good link below with more statistics:

migranthealth.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=38&Itemid=30#0

 

[Claire_from_DE]

justiceforimmigrants.org/index.shtml

That is the page which the USCCB directs you to for a Catholic response to immigration issues. They debunk myths and lies. The help understand the various issues in the context of our faith and history. They have many resources.

Thanks. I found this very helpful. It appears that there’s just no way for most people to enter legally the way our ancestors did when there were no restrictions. My German and Irish ancestors came here before 1870 and the first attempts to restrict immigration. I guess the hard-working Guatemalans who live near me should have chosen their parents more carefully, or the country in which they elected to be born, or the century. Yep, their problems are the result of poor pre-birth planning on their part.

 

[pnewton]

Several things about these comments. First, I thought I had explained this in my earlier comments, but maybe I wasn’t clear: there IS NO “line” for them to get in. Our immigration laws do not provide any legal manner for the manual labor, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Latin-America to enter the U.S., so this talk of those who enter illegally doing a disservice to those who wait to enter “the right way” is meaningless. Employment based immigrant visas are prioritized to those who have bachelors or advanced degrees, and are constructed such that they require an employer actually petitioning for a particular foreign national to apply, and so have no applicability to a migrant farm worker wanting to come to find work.

Remembering that this thread is about the Church’s stance on immigration, I think it is important to why the United States’ immigration policy violates the teaching on social justice and may be considered (I sure do) unjust. The Church teaches that society should have a preferential option for the poor (Rerum Novarum, Centesismus Annus), even as God does (The Lord hears the cry of the poor). America in its immigration policy institutionalizes a preference for those who are rich first, middle class second and ignore the poor.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Several things about these comments. First, I thought I had explained this in my earlier comments, but maybe I wasn’t clear: there IS NO “line” for them to get in. Our immigration laws do not provide any legal manner for the manual labor, low-skilled immigrants from Mexico and Latin-America to enter the U.S., so this talk of those who enter illegally doing a disservice to those who wait to enter “the right way” is meaningless. Employment based immigrant visas are prioritized to those who have bachelors or advanced degrees, and are constructed such that they require an employer actually petitioning for a particular foreign national to apply, and so have no applicability to a migrant farm worker wanting to come to find work. And again, we actually require several million such workers to harvest our crops on farms across the country, but even temporary worker numbers only allow for 66,000 numbers, not close to enough.

Secondly, while your other factors in Mexico’s current state have a role to play, it is a matter of settled economic fact that NAFTA had devastating effects on their economy, so you are disagreeing with nearly every economist who has studied the issue. NAFTA allowed large U.S. Companies to move operations to Mexico, where no wage laws are in place, and effectively become the only jobs in town. Jobs that did not pay anything close to a living wage. That, in a nutshell, is how NAFTA drained American labor jobs, made American companies a lot of money, and helped to destroy a living wage for Mexican nationals.

Lastly, your idea of a separate status that doesn’t allow for citizenship is a really bad one I’m afraid. That’s called second-class citizenship, and inevitably leads to civil unrest and strife. Look at the Muslim riots in France, or the history of our own Bracero program in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries for examples of how that doesn’t work.

Just because you are an “expert” in immigration law does not mean that 1) you also don’t have your own biases and 2) other people’s opinions and perspectives are not valid.

One mistake I have seen again and again is equating LEGAL immigration with ILLEGAL immigration. Yes, this country’s history has been that of immigrants, no one argues that point. But they were LEGAL immigrants, screened for diseases, desiring to help the country and assimilate. ILLEGAL immigrants, on the other hand, have no screening and little reason to assimilate, since they have no stake in this country’s future. They come in order to take wages and send them home to Mexico (or whatever other country they come from).

To the people who say they would do anything to support their family - why don’t you just go rob a bank today? That’s what you are saying - that your own needs are more important than any law, right? If put in a difficult position, is breaking the law really your only choice, or your first choice? Please think about what you are saying. The United States has made a way for Mexican citizens to leave their country and come here, although they may have an arduous journey, once they are here, they are used even further by employers who want to pay them off the books. The employers think that they are getting away with something, but in the end, we all lose.

Here is the process that many people in the construction/contractor business have described:

1. Contractor picks up day laborers, pays them off the books.
2. Day laborers work hard, are useful, learn the trade. (This phase can go on for years - by now the laborers are employees but still off the books)
3. Illegally employed workers steal tools over time, while learning to do the trade.
4. Illegals then leave the original employer and set up business for themselves, also taking client list/contacts.
5. New business run by illegals underbids original employer and still works off the books.
6. Original business, having been undercut by its former employees, may not survive.

Notice that no employment tax has been paid anywhere along this line. And the illegal has access to government schooling for his/her children, may have received food stamps and other benefits, and yet pays no income tax.

This is the best outcome - the worst is drug cartels and other criminals coming and going through our southern border at will. The gangs are ruthless and the drug cartels well-armed.

People who are not deeply affected by this kind of crime right now, soon will be.

Whatever the Church’s position on “open borders,” these issues need to be dealt with, and very soon.

 

[Blacksword]

Just because you are an “expert” in immigration law does not mean that 1) you also don’t have your own biases and 2) other people’s opinions and perspectives are not valid.

Actually, yes, it does. It is telling that you stated “expert” in quotations, which expresses the implied intent of that statement pretty clearly. But nonetheless, that’s what obtaining a doctorate degree, and then spending years and years specializing in a particular field means. It means you know much more about that field that other people generally, who don’t work in that field, whether it be a specialization in medicine, law, science, or any other profession. Again as with my previous cardiologist example, the cardiologist is a specialist in cardiology, he is an “expert”. Can you see that since I am not an astrophysicist, my opinions about the science of cosmology or nuclear engineering are uninformed lay opinions, and therefore don’t hold much water? Especially when compared to someone who is an astrophysicist. My opinions about nuclear engineering would therefore be likely to be wrong, being poorly informed on the subject. I am by no means the foremost authority on immigration law, there are many in my field far more expert than I, but I am an expert in the same way that your cardiologist is an expert in cardiology.

One mistake I have seen again and again is equating LEGAL immigration with ILLEGAL immigration. Yes, this country’s history has been that of immigrants, no one argues that point. But they were LEGAL immigrants, screened for diseases, desiring to help the country and assimilate. ILLEGAL immigrants, on the other hand, have no screening and little reason to assimilate, since they have no stake in this country’s future. They come in order to take wages and send them home to Mexico (or whatever other country they come from)…

This sort of statement shows that you do not understand much about the actual subject, I’m sorry. There was no such thing as “legal” immigration throughout much of our history, until of course the Chinese Exclusionary Act in the 19th Century. People came over on a boat, they got off the boat, they went out and built a farm and home, that’s it. And even after screening started to be done, such as at Ellis Island, it was still, then, very easy to immigrate here. I could be persuaded to support reopening Ellis Island, and allowing essentially for screening and security checks for would be immigrants, but then allowing those that pass all to enter, but that’s obviously not going to happen for political unpopularity reasons. And you are incorrect about current Latin immigrants being unwilling to assimilate. Again, it takes time, but studies reflect that, for instance, first generation immigrants typically speak their own native language, their children speak English and their native language, and their grandchildren, by vast majority, are linguistically dead in their native tongue and only speak English. They assimilate by the third generation. This is the same pattern that has repeated itself throughout American history, and is doing so exactly the same now.

 

[Blacksword]

To the people who say they would do anything to support their family - why don’t you just go rob a bank today? That’s what you are saying - that your own needs are more important than any law, right? If put in a difficult position, is breaking the law really your only choice, or your first choice? Please think about what you are saying. The United States has made a way for Mexican citizens to leave their country and come here, although they may have an arduous journey, once they are here, they are used even further by employers who want to pay them off the books. The employers think that they are getting away with something, but in the end, we all lose.)

Robbing a bank is a criminal act, the mere act of entering without inspection at the border is NOT. Again, you don’t know what you’re talking about here. The fact of the matter is that illegal entry, while having drastic consequences for the actual alien’s immigration future and ability to obtain any valid status in today’s immigration law scheme, is NO different than you or I receiving a speeding ticket. It is not a criminal offense under the law, rather, a single undocumented entry is a civil infraction offense only. This is how the government prevents itself from HAVING to provide an attorney to all aliens in removal proceedings, for instance, since, as it is not a criminal offense, there is no constitutional right to counsel, and so the government saves alot of money in deportation proceedings.

Notice that no employment tax has been paid anywhere along this line. And the illegal has access to government schooling for his/her children, may have received food stamps and other benefits, and yet pays no income tax.

This is the best outcome - the worst is drug cartels and other criminals coming and going through our southern border at will. The gangs are ruthless and the drug cartels well-armed.

People who are not deeply affected by this kind of crime right now, soon will be.

Whatever the Church’s position on “open borders,” these issues need to be dealt with, and very soon.

Again here, there are several factual inaccurracies. While I sympathize with the issue of drug cartels and trafficking certainly, the best way to deal with that IS in fact to provide for a legal avenue for those who are NOT criminals and just want to work to be able to get in. This would leave our CBP far better able to deal with the criminals and traffickers who are left over, who of course would then be the only ones trying to cross the border illegally.

However, your comments fail to appreciate that many immigrants pay taxes, they obtain an ITIN number and pay taxes, or they have a social security number from before the post-911 changes when SSN’s were no longer given out to anyone without a valid working status. In fact, estimates are that undocumented workers contribute between 4-7 billion dollars a year to social security ALONE, that’s something worth thinking about.

Lastly, undocumented workers are NOT eligible for food stamps or SSI, and have not been since 1996’s Welfare Reform Act. Please see the 11th Circuit Appeals Court case confirming the constitutionality of denying illegal aliens these state benefits at Rodriguez v. U.S., 169 F.3d 1342 (11th Cir. 1999).

While I agree with the previous poster who said this should concentrate on the Catholic Church’s moral stance on this issue as dictated by a well-formed conscience in conformity with good moral theology, it is important to note that one cannot form a good conscience if one does not have an understanding of the actual FACTS surrounding an issue.

 

[Blacksword]

Just in case anyone wishes to, you can find the relevant section of federal law on ineligible classes of aliens for food stamps and other state benefits at 8 U.S.C. 1612.

 

[Tigg]

Remembering that this thread is about the Church’s stance on immigration, I think it is important to why the United States’ immigration policy violates the teaching on social justice and may be considered (I sure do) unjust. The Church teaches that society should have a **preferential option for the poor **(Rerum Novarum, Centesismus Annus), even as God does (The Lord hears the cry of the poor). America in its immigration policy institutionalizes a preference for those who are rich first, middle class second and ignore the poor.

Let’s really examine this, shall we? There was a thread a while back that explored the definition of “preferential option for the poor.” It was very obvious that generally Catholics do not understand what this means, except by taking the words literally and swallowing the interpretation that the poor have **more ** entitlement than anyone else (which clearly violates the principle of solidarity.) You can see where this is headed and the distortion that is happening with the general global movement toward marxism and the equality preached by social justice groups. Many sources warn that this term came from “The Theology of Liberation” which the (then) Ratzinger strongly criticized. You’ve mentioned Centesimus Annus to back your claim, and I hope you are not promoting a “Social Assistance State” with its obvious abuses and violaltion of subsidiarity. That the bishops support a statist approach to social justice is fairly obvious and at this point I’m totally confused.

I would counter to your comments that very few truly understand this very complex socio-political issue (I place myself at the top of the list) and that to take a few phrases from the encyclicals to bolster your view (everyone, including myself have done this) is only to continue the misinformation. And, please, let’s not get into the accusations that anyone opposed to a progressive agenda “despises the poor.”

I’m on this forum to learn and understand authentic Church teaching (on all issues.) Perhaps my own view is skewed. Since there is no “official” position on this subject, I challenge you, in view of the fact that even the bishops do not agree and further, have issued misleading statements on immigration, to clarify for us what the preferential option for the poor really means in conjunction with this subject.

 

[Tsuwano]

My parish is having an ‘open borders’ [sic] meeting, and I can hardly hold myself from screaming everytime they announce it before and after Mass.

Is that really what the Church teaches? I just can’t imagine the Church would teach that if the shoe was on the other foot.

Native American: “Well, hello stranger!”
Spaniard Conquistador: “Hello! We’re a long way from our glorious empire, so we’ll be moving in next to your home.”
NA: “Oh, ok… Good to have a new neighbor.”
SC: “Oh ya, by the way, we’ll move whereever we see fit within your kingdom, Open Borders is what our Church teaches, after all.”
NA: “Well, maybe not everywhere, but we’re alright with having you be a part of our nation.”
SC: “Nope, we’ll move whereever we need to. Open Borders!! You wouldn’t deny poor immigrants, would you?”
NA: “…”

I know my little play’s not perfect, but it conveys my feelings. Anyway, what does the Church teach on the subject?

A Mexican laborer coming across the border to pick grapes so you can have them more cheaply in your supermarket is somewhat different from a Spanish conqistadore, don’t you think? I’m afraid your analogy is poor.

 

[Ender]

While I agree with the previous poster who said this should concentrate on the Catholic Church’s moral stance on this issue as dictated by a well-formed conscience in conformity with good moral theology, it is important to note that one cannot form a good conscience if one does not have an understanding of the actual FACTS surrounding an issue.

This claim is incorrect: don’t confuse being mistaken with being immoral. If I choose what I believe are the best proposals to resolve a problem and it turns out that I was wrong, I have made a mistake; I have not committed a sin. There are a lot of “facts” thrown out in this (and every other political) debate and I am cautious about engaging them because I haven’t done the research myself. I am not at all reluctant, however, to get involved in the discussion when it - like your comment - touches on what is or is not moral. Immigration is not a moral problem; it is an entirely prudential one and there are virtually no sinful positions. One may be sinfully motivated to choose a position, but, on this topic, the positions themselves are morally neutral.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

There are a lot of “facts” thrown out in this (and every other political) debate and I am cautious about engaging them because I haven’t done the research myself. I am not at all reluctant, however, to get involved in the discussion when it - like your comment - touches on what is or is not moral. Immigration is not a moral problem; it is an entirely prudential one and there are virtually no sinful positions. One may be sinfully motivated to choose a position, but, on this topic, the positions themselves are morally neutral.

Ender

And this is the crux of the problem when discussing immigration. Our own bishops have likened AZ SB 1070 with Nazism and therefore, faithful Catholics automatically assume it is immoral to impose it.

 

[Blacksword]

This claim is incorrect: don’t confuse being mistaken with being immoral. If I choose what I believe are the best proposals to resolve a problem and it turns out that I was wrong, I have made a mistake; I have not committed a sin. There are a lot of “facts” thrown out in this (and every other political) debate and I am cautious about engaging them because I haven’t done the research myself. I am not at all reluctant, however, to get involved in the discussion when it - like your comment - touches on what is or is not moral.

Ender

You are correct, and I was not meaning to imply that coming to an incorrect conclusion because of incomplete facts was a moral sin. That’s not what I said or was trying to imply, sorry if it seemed it was.

I was pointing out only that coming to well-reasoned, and likely correct conclusions requires an informed understanding of the facts. However, I do stress again that there is a moral aspect to this issue, because our current immigration laws are highly morally unjust. They needlessly destroy families, ruin lives, and perpetuate a system of economic disparity and exploitation, they help drive poverty in the U.S. and abroad.

 

[pnewton]

I would counter to your comments that very few truly understand this very complex socio-political issue (I place myself at the top of the list… …in view of the fact that even the bishops do not agree and further, have issued misleading statements on immigration,

If, as you say, that the issue is so complex that we people can not understand (an excellent argument for an oligarchy, btw), then why in the world would you think yourself capable of judging that a statement is misleading. Isn’t the situation too complex for us simple folk to question the bishops?

As to what a preferrential option for the poor would mean, I would have to say at the very least it does not mean giving middle class professionals preferential treatment on entry and citizenship while denying this access to poor laborers. Thos is not what a preferential option means. I have read this much of immigration law and I have never had anyone deny that this is in fact part of the immigration law.

I am also aware of the misuse of this idea to promote liberation theology, which has been condemned by the Catholic Church from the start. I know of no one here, or any bishop in the United States that is promoting liberation theology or has used it to support some immigration position.

 

[Blacksword]

If, as you say, that the issue is so complex that we people can not understand (an excellent argument for an oligarchy, btw), then why in the world would you think yourself capable of judging that a statement is misleading. Isn’t the situation too complex for us simple folk to question the bishops?

As to what a preferrential option for the poor would mean, I would have to say at the very least it does not mean giving middle class professionals preferential treatment on entry and citizenship while denying this access to poor laborers. Thos is not what a preferential option means. I have read this much of immigration law and I have never had anyone deny that this is in fact part of the immigration law.

I am also aware of the misuse of this idea to promote liberation theology, which has been condemned by the Catholic Church from the start. I know of no one here, or any bishop in the United States that is promoting liberation theology or has used it to support some immigration position.

Your general summary of the way the current laws are set up is correct. With employment-based categories set up for first preference classification for international executives of multinational companies, outstanding researchers and professors who lead their fields, and aliens of extraordinary ability who don’t need job offers to immigrate at all if they are essentially of Nobel prize caliber, things go pretty well and there are no backlogs in immigrant visa availability. For persons who are professional workers with a college education, they can immigrate, though the process can take more than 15 years for many because of immigrant visa unavailability. For people who are unskilled laborers, farm workers, etc., there is no avenue of immigrant visa availability at all. So yes, overall our system heavily favors only highly educated and accomplished workers.