What is the Catholic stance on US/Mexico immigration?

[Big_Ro]

Surely as a Catholic and member of Christ’s universal church you don’t mean such a racist and un-loving sentiment directed at so many who are our brothers in Christ (the vast majority of Latin nations being devout Catholics), but many reading your post could interpret it that way.

I don’t see how you could take it any other way. You rightly point out that there are amazingly clear parallels to the attitude that many display today towards the latest immigrant group and the attitudes of the so called nativists of the early twentieth century. It is more amazing that a Catholic would harbor such ill will. Afterall, opposition to Catholics or Papists as we were called back then underpinned a good deal of the racism directed at Irish and Italian immigrants.

It was a shameful comment.

 

[Ender]

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.

Your position is the most common one taken on this issue, even most bishops appear to believe that this is a moral issue. Nonetheless, I disagree. The fact that there is a problem that destroys families, ruins lives, and perpetuates a bad system only means that the problem is serious, it does not mean that the solutions to those problems involve moral choices. The only moral question is deciding whether or not one will honestly work to solve the problem. That’s it. There are no moral issues involved in determining what solutions will work best.

If you divide the public into one group that wants to solve the problems and deal with everyone fairly and another group that only cares about themselves you would still not demonstrate that the problem is moral. You would only have shown that some people are immoral but that says nothing about the issues themselves.

Is building a secure fence along the border immoral? The Church doesn’t teach this. Is deporting illegals immoral? The Church doesn’t teach this either. Is the Arizona law immoral? The Church is silent on the matter. Where, then, are the moral choices among all the alternatives that have been proposed? Our reasons for choosing a specific proposal may be immoral but the proposals themselves are morally neutral … therefore immigration is not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

While all of these things sound noble, we must be very very careful because many of these social justice groups have been exposed for their political progressive ideology and do nothing to help the poor, but create a kind of community organizing meant to give political clout to those things actually opposed to our Catholic faith.

Threads abound on this forum with many links and information. I believe that Justice for Immigrants is specifically tied into the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and all faithful Catholics should be aware of the on-going scandal the CCHD has caused by giving Catholic money to organizations who support SS marriage and abortion.

The CCHD is a different outreach of the USCCB. They are affiliated only insofar as they are both linked to the USCCB- though perhaps you would like to denounce them as well. CCHD came under fire, and there has been much debate as to whether or not it was just. That argument is not at all relevant to JFI. If you go to the USCCB website looking for information about immigration issues, you will be redirected to JFI. It is not some random Catholic program. On their site you will find the many statements made by various American bishops regarding American immigration issues specifically. You will find a joint letter from Mexican and US bishops, addressing Mexican/US immigration issues specifically. You will find the many Church documents which discuss immigrants and immigration. You will find all these things in full. You will also find explanations of the confusing legal issues surrounding immigration. This is not some clip art of cut and paste Church teachings to get to something we like.

Lets not play six-degrees of separation to condemn organizations like JFI for the dubious accusations laid on someone else’s doorstep.

 

[Ender]

On their site you will find the many statements made by various American bishops regarding American immigration issues specifically. You will find a joint letter from Mexican and US bishops, addressing Mexican/US immigration issues specifically. You will find the many Church documents which discuss immigrants and immigration. You will find all these things in full.

I don’t think anyone questions whether or not specific bishops have come out in support of specific proposals. What is relevant, however, is that the Church has not come out in support of specific proposals and there is no way to assume that any particular proposal is mandated by the generalizations the Church has made on this issue. Even the bishops who support certain approaches have been careful not to claim that the Church obliges Catholics to agree with them. They may imply it but they don’t come out and say it and the reason is obvious: we have no such obligation.

Ender

 

[Iheartcoffee]

I am for LEGAL immigration- that is, the people that file papers and follow our laws. I am not for illegal immigration. The people that jump the border are breaking laws and demanding to be treated as if they weren’t. We can’t have wide open borders because that results in the immense human and drug trafficking by incredibly dangerous gangs.It is bad enough with the weak border patrol that we have now. If we open things up too much more it will be crazy. I for one don’t want my town becoming overrun by cartels. We really need to know who is coming in and out of our country for economic as well as security reasons. Those gangs that terrorize the border towns are HERE in the US and becoming stronger by the day because it is so easy to cross into the US. Those gangs want to take over and they want to either recruit you and your family or kill you. It’s that simple and we can’t take the risk of turning into Mexico ourselves. If we really upheld our laws and truly kept track of people as they came into the US we would have better control over the people that come in with the intent to harm. This means punishing those that come in illegally. When you enter a country illegally we have no idea who you are or what you are up to. For all we know you could be a saint or you could be a terrorist. That is why I am for LEGAL immigration but not amnesty or special concessions for illegal immigration. As a resident of Texas I know the cartels are taking over our American border towns and it is scary. Did anyone hear about the bullets from gang violence crossing the Rio Grande and becoming lodged in the side of a dormitory at UTEP? That’s just stray bullets from the Mexican side of the border! The violence is here in America and it is here now. We have a right to protect ourselves and that means we have a right to demand that people follow certain procedures to come in to our country. It isn’t Disneyland on the other side of that border. We have real concerns for the safety of our families.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

what is the Catholic position? 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.

Shall I quote some of the various bishops’ statements and letters for you, or are they not the Church? The USCCB? No, you mean to say that the Church has not issued a specific infallible statement regarding our current problems.

“Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.”

Indeed, the Church has taught, though not infallibly, on the subject of US/Mexico immigration.

 

[pnewton]

One thing that has been a repeated position of the USCCB and that is that there is a need for reform. The system is broken:

usccb.org/mrs/reform.shtml

This** is** an official position.

 

[Blacksword]

I am for LEGAL immigration- that is, the people that file papers and follow our laws. I am not for illegal immigration. The people that jump the border are breaking laws and demanding to be treated as if they weren’t. We can’t have wide open borders because that results in the immense human and drug trafficking by incredibly dangerous gangs.It is bad enough with the weak border patrol that we have now. If we open things up too much more it will be crazy. I for one don’t want my town becoming overrun by cartels. We really need to know who is coming in and out of our country for economic as well as security reasons. Those gangs that terrorize the border towns are HERE in the US and becoming stronger by the day because it is so easy to cross into the US. Those gangs want to take over and they want to either recruit you and your family or kill you. It’s that simple and we can’t take the risk of turning into Mexico ourselves. If we really upheld our laws and truly kept track of people as they came into the US we would have better control over the people that come in with the intent to harm. This means punishing those that come in illegally. When you enter a country illegally we have no idea who you are or what you are up to. For all we know you could be a saint or you could be a terrorist. That is why I am for LEGAL immigration but not amnesty or special concessions for illegal immigration.

If you desire to make sure that we know who is in the country, have their identities on file, some kind of background check to ensure they aren’t criminals or terrorists, and you truly desire to curtail the drug trafficking and crime it brings, then you should also be FOR comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program for noncriminal undocumented workers! Seriously, did you even bother to read what I, and some others, already wrote on this thread?

If you actually KNEW anything about our immigration laws and current system, you would understand that what you just wrote above is self-contradictory and silly. Having a system that allowed those who wish to enter for manual labor and work would instantly eliminate the vast majority of the would be laborers and workers who are crossing without inspection now, and mean that the CBP (that stands for Customs and Border Protection, by the way, they are the agency under the Dept. of Homeland Security responsible for border patrol and port of entry admissions) would then be able to concentrate their efforts on the few remaining people still trying to enter illegally, who, by and large in this situation, would be the criminal gangs and drug traffickers! And legalizing those here already would also allow us to identify them all, and conduct background checks, and all the other things you say that you WANT.

A few things to bear in mind. Number one: our CBP is NOT weak, they are simply overtaxed and NO amount of spending or manpower will enable them to tackle this problem without reforms that make sense and eliminate the issue of undocumented WORKERS (as opposed to drug traffickers and gang members) from entering in this fashion. The federal budget for CBP operations is now several billion dollars a year, and continues to grow. We have increased the number of federal employees in CBP exponentially over the last 15 years: enforcement alone CLEARLY is not working. In fact, the numbers of undocumented entries to the U.S. has grown each year even while we were spending more money and putting more resources and manpower into border patrol. It has been an abject failure.

Secondly, you need to understand that we ARE NOT going to deport approximately 11 million people from the U.S. We don’t have the money or resources. The best estimates on this show that if we could even apprehend every illegal alien in the U.S. now and deport them all, it would cost us $137 billion, and take years of court processing. This figure is from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who are responsible for enforcement of immigration laws in the U.S. (think the workplace raids at meatpacking plants and other locations that have made the news, that’s ICE’s handiwork). This would also literally destroy our economy, leaving us with virtually no one to can our food, farm our land, mow our lawns, and with severe shortages in people needed for elderly care in nursing homes, restaurant workers, construction workers, and other occupations. It’s not going to happen.

Thirdly, it is NOT easy to cross the border illegally. Hundreds of immigrants die in the desert every year of dehydration and sun stroke. It is a dangerous, difficult journey, undertaken by the VAST majority of them because they are economic REFUGEES, they do it because they are trying to feed their children!

The problem is that many Americans don’t have any knowledge of our actual immigration system or its laws, and are unable to separate in your mind the criminals and gang members from the simple workers and people in need of a job. They are NOT the same, and they require different solutions. I will say this again because you apparently missed it: crossing the border without inspection is NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. It is a civil infraction, under the justice system of the U.S. it is no different legally than a speeding ticket. It DOES, however, have drastic and draconian consequences for the future immigration outlook of those who do it. But, being that it is a civil offense only, providing a legal avenue for adjustment of status or for change to a legal nonimmigrant status is NOT “amnesty”. The word “amnesty” means simply excusing or forgiving a mistake or criminal act. This is not a criminal act, and further, if we impose a civil fine as part of the legalization (which there undoubtedly would be), then it is no more an amnesty than it is when you get a speeding ticket and pay a fine for it. A civil penalty for a civil offense, that’s it.

 

[Blacksword]

Another thing to know about this also is that only about half of the illegal population in the U.S. entered without inspection. The other half came in legally admitted under a B-1 or B-2 visitor visa for business or pleasure, the waiver exchange program, an E-1 or E-2 treaty trader or investor visa, H-1B specialty occupation worker status, F-1 student status, H-2A seasonal worker, J-1 exchange visitor, asylee applicant status, or about 100 other types of legal classifications, and have just remained. So even militarizing the border and shutting down all entry there wouldn’t solve the problem.

 

[Ender]

Shall I quote some of the various bishops’ statements and letters for you, or are they not the Church? The USCCB? No, you mean to say that the Church has not issued a specific infallible statement regarding our current problems.

The personal political opinions of individual bishops do not constitute Church teaching. That applies even to the opinions of popes. When the bishops speak on faith and morals their comments require our assent, but immigration is not such an issue. As regards the USCCB, the pamphlets they crank out have no binding force whatever unless they receive the assent of a certain percentage of bishops (I’m not even sure of this, but this would surely be a minimum requirement). Finally, the comments of my bishop apply to me but the comments of other bishops do not.

Indeed, the Church has taught, though not infallibly, on the subject of US/Mexico immigration.

Well, yes and no. The Church has surely spoken about immigration in general but she has not spoken about the US in particular and has not listed any specific measures which we must either accept or oppose. If you have an example of something you think shows me to be mistaken please cite it.

Ender

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

This is from the Mexican bishops and the USCCB jointly. It is not from one bishop, it is from the council.

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

Before anyone says that the Church has said nothing, they should consider the above document and then also consult the following for statements from various bishops. Mine is there. The bishop from the diocese I recently moved from is also there. Is yours?

justiceforimmigrants.org/statements.shtml

And that is just this year. If you are curious, you might search the page for your bishop’s name.

 

[RobbyS]

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.

A major difference between todays situation now and the one a hundred years ago, is that illegals can get many social benefits. No doubt in my mind that on balance, illegals take more from this country than they provide to it. And this apart from their providing a social haven for the drug trafficers.

 

[pnewton]

Before anyone says that the Church has said nothing, they should consider the above document and then also consult the following for statements from various bishops. Mine is there.

I have found it interesting that the Catholic Church has said nothing about the situation in America, but has only given guidelines. However, our bishops here have commented both individual and en masse, as you have shown. Since it is the responsibility of the bishop(s) to shepherd the faithful in their assigned area, I wonder why there is so much resistance everytime they teach something uncomfortable to us. It seems instead of listening, we are looking for some loophole, like infallibility or counting heads. It is their job to teach us in local matter, local being the U.S. Conscientious objection is fine, as long as one seeks to understand the mind of the Church and as long as that objection does not arise from our own selfish desires, but our inner sense of right and wrong.

 

[Blacksword]

A major difference between todays situation now and the one a hundred years ago, is that illegals can get many social benefits. No doubt in my mind that on balance, illegals take more from this country than they provide to it. And this apart from their providing a social haven for the drug trafficers.

What “social benefits” are you referring to? I’ve already given the court case cite and the federal statute cite where undocumented aliens are ineligible for welfare or SSI, what are you referring to then?

And, sorry, but you are wrong about them taking more than they contribute, according to the susbstantial weight of the economic studies and research that has been conducted on this issue. These studies by economists have concluded that undocumented workers and their families have, at worst, no net change on the economy, and several studies actually showed a net benefit. No reputable study has found a net negative impact. What this means is that they contribute as much or more to our economy than they take.

 

[Ender]

This is from the Mexican bishops and the USCCB jointly. It is not from one bishop, it is from the council.

usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

Before anyone says that the Church has said nothing, they should consider the above document…

Good, this is a perfect illustration of the point I’ve been making. First, that’s a really long document and I didn’t read it all although I skimmed through the first half … and what I found confirms the point I have been making. The Church gives guidelines but she does not issue commands about supporting or opposing specific proposals.

33. Both of our episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church’s view on migration issues.
…
II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
…

This is my point: the Church provides general principles but the application of those principles involves balancing competing interests. The determination of the balance point, however, is entirely prudential and is a lay responsibility.

The only example I found of a statement saying that something must be done was this:

*The Church on both sides of the border must dedicate resources to provide pastoral care for migrants who are detained or incarcerated. *

This, however, is an obligation the Church puts on herself, not one she puts on lay Catholics.

You provided the link as proof of your position. Show me a single statement in it that obliges Catholics to accept a specific policy on immigration. If you cannot then I think you will have just proven my contention.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Good, this is a perfect illustration of the point I’ve been making. First, that’s a really long document and I didn’t read it all although I skimmed through the first half … and what I found confirms the point I have been making. The Church gives guidelines but she does not issue commands about supporting or opposing specific proposals.

There are no proposals, but there are specifics of the problems. Here are two examples.

Unfortunately, the enforcement policies that they implement have had the effect of undermining the human dignity of migrants and creating a confrontational and violent relationship between enforcement officers and migrants. Steps must be taken to create an environment in which force is used only in the most necessary circumstances, and only to the extent needed, to protect the physical well-being of both the enforcement officer and the migrant. This requires not only a review and reform of enforcement tactics, but also, more importantly, a reshaping of the enforcement policies of both nations.

Alarmingly, migrants often are treated as criminals by civil enforcement authorities. Misperceptions and xenophobic and racist attitudes in both the United States and Mexico contribute to an atmosphere in which undocumented persons are discriminated against and abused. Reports of physical abuse of migrants by U.S. Border Patrol agents, the Mexican authorities, and in some cases, U.S. and Mexican residents are all too frequent, including the use of excessive force and the shackling of migrants’ hands and feet.

 

[tafan]

Good, this is a perfect illustration of the point I’ve been making. First, that’s a really long document and I didn’t read it all although I skimmed through the first half … and what I found confirms the point I have been making. The Church gives guidelines but she does not issue commands about supporting or opposing specific proposals.

33. Both of our episcopal conferences have echoed the rich tradition of church teachings with regard to migration. Five principles emerge from such teachings, which guide the Church’s view on migration issues.
…
II. Persons have the right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
III. Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
…

This is my point: the Church provides general principles but the application of those principles involves balancing competing interests. The determination of the balance point, however, is entirely prudential and is a lay responsibility.

The only example I found of a statement saying that something must be done was this:

*The Church on both sides of the border must dedicate resources to provide pastoral care for migrants who are detained or incarcerated. *

This, however, is an obligation the Church puts on herself, not one she puts on lay Catholics.

You provided the link as proof of your position. Show me a single statement in it that obliges Catholics to accept a specific policy on immigration. If you cannot then I think you will have just proven my contention.

Ender

You misrepresent the document and your post contains half-truths. Yes the church does not issue commands about supporting or opposing specific proposals. But you post gives the impression the document is only guidelines and does not contain specific proposals and requirements, that is not true. Just about all of Chapter 4 contians specifc recommendations. Someone as interested in the issue as you and wanting to make a prudential judgement as part of your lay responsibility should be willing to at least read your church’s recommendations as opposed to just skimming the first half. Especially, I believe it was you and another forum member, who I provided examples of such recommendations from the same documentseveral months ago.

So I would refer you to Chapter 4.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

Is building a secure fence along the border immoral? The Church doesn’t teach this.

"86. Of particular concern are the border enforcement policies pursued by both governments that have contributed to the abuse and even deaths of migrants in both Mexico and the United States. Along the United States-Mexico border, the U.S. government has launched several border-blockade initiatives in the past decade designed to discourage undocumented migrants from entering the country. These initiatives have been characterized by a tripling of Border Patrol agents, especially at ports of entry, and the use of sophisticated technology such as ground sensors, surveillance cameras, heat-detecting scopes, and reinforced fencing.

1. Rather than significantly reducing illegal crossings, the initiatives have instead driven migrants into remote and dangerous areas of the southwest region of the United States, leading to an alarming number of migrant deaths. Since the beginning of 1998, official statistics indicate that more than two thousand migrants have lost their lives trying to cross the United States-Mexico border, many from environmental causes such as heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, or drowning. The blockades also have contributed to an increase in migrant smuggling, in which desperate migrants pay high fees to smugglers to get them into the United States. In recent years, smuggling has become a more organized and profitable enterprise.
2. In southern Mexico, similar policies have resulted in countless migrant deaths along the Suchiate River, most by drowning. Another cause for concern is the presence of Mexican checkpoints–far from most urban areas and difficult to monitor for human rights abuses–which are manned by military and federal, state, and local police agencies along the country’s borders and interior. Because these checkpoints are used as “choke” points for arms, drugs, and migrant smuggling, there is an unfair tendency to associate migrants with criminal activity.
3. We urge both the U.S. and Mexican enforcement authorities to abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths. Care should be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger. The U.S. Border Patrol has recently launched a border safety initiative to prevent migrant deaths. We ask the Border Patrol to redouble their efforts in this area and to work more closely with community groups to identify and rescue migrants in distress. We also urge more concerted efforts to root out smuggling enterprises at their source using a wide range of intelligence and investigative tactics. In other church documents, the U.S. bishops have also expressed concern about the increasing drug-trafficking industry." (Pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer)

Is deporting illegals immoral? The Church doesn’t teach this either.

“92. In 1996, the U.S. Congress eviscerated due process rights for migrants with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which authorizes the detention and deportation of migrants for relatively minor offenses, even after they have served their sentences. IIRIRA has caused the unjust separation of untold numbers of immigrant families. We urge the U.S. Congress to revisit this law and to make appropriate changes consistent with due process rights.” (Pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer)

So deporting them for minor offenses is unjust. I do not think it is too much of a jump to say that deporting them for no offense is likewise unjust.

Is the Arizona law immoral? The Church is silent on the matter.

It is not covered by the document, which was written in 1993, but upon examination you will find easily where it conflicts with the guidelines. Furthermore, the Arizona bishops did condemn the law. It does not apply elsewhere. No one to whom the law applies is under a bishop who was silent on the matter. Many other bishops also spoke out, though perhaps yours was silent. This is from the USCCB chairman of Migration reform, writing on behalf of the USCCB:
usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml

The “silence” is a little louder than you might expect.

The Church speaks again and again on immigration issues. When they speak generally to everyone, we say that the general guidelines are to open ended and do not apply to specific local problems. When local bishops speak specifically about local issues we say that we are not bound by their authority because they are not our bishops.

 

[Blacksword]

"86. Of particular concern are the border enforcement policies pursued by both governments that have contributed to the abuse and even deaths of migrants in both Mexico and the United States. Along the United States-Mexico border, the U.S. government has launched several border-blockade initiatives in the past decade designed to discourage undocumented migrants from entering the country. These initiatives have been characterized by a tripling of Border Patrol agents, especially at ports of entry, and the use of sophisticated technology such as ground sensors, surveillance cameras, heat-detecting scopes, and reinforced fencing.

1. Rather than significantly reducing illegal crossings, the initiatives have instead driven migrants into remote and dangerous areas of the southwest region of the United States, leading to an alarming number of migrant deaths. Since the beginning of 1998, official statistics indicate that more than two thousand migrants have lost their lives trying to cross the United States-Mexico border, many from environmental causes such as heat stroke, dehydration, hypothermia, or drowning. The blockades also have contributed to an increase in migrant smuggling, in which desperate migrants pay high fees to smugglers to get them into the United States. In recent years, smuggling has become a more organized and profitable enterprise.
2. In southern Mexico, similar policies have resulted in countless migrant deaths along the Suchiate River, most by drowning. Another cause for concern is the presence of Mexican checkpoints–far from most urban areas and difficult to monitor for human rights abuses–which are manned by military and federal, state, and local police agencies along the country’s borders and interior. Because these checkpoints are used as “choke” points for arms, drugs, and migrant smuggling, there is an unfair tendency to associate migrants with criminal activity.
3. We urge both the U.S. and Mexican enforcement authorities to abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths. Care should be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger. The U.S. Border Patrol has recently launched a border safety initiative to prevent migrant deaths. We ask the Border Patrol to redouble their efforts in this area and to work more closely with community groups to identify and rescue migrants in distress. We also urge more concerted efforts to root out smuggling enterprises at their source using a wide range of intelligence and investigative tactics. In other church documents, the U.S. bishops have also expressed concern about the increasing drug-trafficking industry." (Pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer)

“92. In 1996, the U.S. Congress eviscerated due process rights for migrants with the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which authorizes the detention and deportation of migrants for relatively minor offenses, even after they have served their sentences. IIRIRA has caused the unjust separation of untold numbers of immigrant families. We urge the U.S. Congress to revisit this law and to make appropriate changes consistent with due process rights.” (Pastoral letter, Strangers No Longer)

So deporting them for minor offenses is unjust. I do not think it is too much of a jump to say that deporting them for no offense is likewise unjust.

It is not covered by the document, which was written in 1993, but upon examination you will find easily where it conflicts with the guidelines. Furthermore, the Arizona bishops did condemn the law. It does not apply elsewhere. No one to whom the law applies is under a bishop who was silent on the matter. Many other bishops also spoke out, though perhaps yours was silent. This is from the USCCB chairman of Migration reform, writing on behalf of the USCCB:
usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml

The “silence” is a little louder than you might expect.

The Church speaks again and again on immigration issues. When they speak generally to everyone, we say that the general guidelines are to open ended and do not apply to specific local problems. When local bishops speak specifically about local issues we say that we are not bound by their authority because they are not our bishops.

All great points, good observations.

 

[Ender]

"pnewton:

There are no proposals, but there are specifics of the problems. Here are two examples.

“There are no proposals.” Isn’t that what I said?

You misrepresent the document and your post contains half-truths. Yes the church does not issue commands about supporting or opposing specific proposals. But you post gives the impression the document is only guidelines and does not contain specific proposals and requirements, that is not true.

It would be more charitable to assert that my post contained errors. As to your comment, you state both that “the church does not issue commands” and that it is untrue that the document “does not contain specific proposals.” Which is it? I have said that the Church does not issue commands on this subject, and you appear to agree, but you also suggest that the document does contain specific proposals. Are you implying that the proposals are only suggestions? If so, I would agree with you.

Just about all of Chapter 4 contians specifc recommendations.

Recommendations? If that’s all they are then clearly I am free to accept or reject them. If you meant to say I am obligated to accept them then say so, but if I am not obligated to accept them then clearly they don’t rise to the level of doctrine, they are prudential opinions, and I free to choose my own opinion.

Someone as interested in the issue as you and wanting to make a prudential judgement as part of your lay responsibility should be willing to at least read your church’s recommendations as opposed to just skimming the first half.

I asked for specific examples and was given a lengthy paper to read. I found nothing in the first half and gave up. A little more specificity would have been helpful.

So I would refer you to Chapter 4.

Well this is at least a smaller segment of the document, but why didn’t you just select a sentence or two to make your point? Why do you make it my responsibility to ferret out a statement that I think might be what you had in mind?

Ender