What is the Catholic stance on US/Mexico immigration?

[Ender]

Q. Is building a border fence immoral?

89. 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. (USCCB)

Let’s compare “urging” and “asking” with commanding:

*2477 Respect for the reputation of persons **forbids *every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.
2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned
*2270 Human life **must *be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

The comments you yourself cite are exhortations. They are not obligations.

“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)

Is there any doubt that this description of the IIRIRA is an opinion, as is the recommendation that it needs to be changed? Is it not obvious that this is another recommendation and that it imposes no obligation whatever that Catholics accept it?

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.

So a number of bishops oppose the Arizona law; what are we to make of that? Their opposition does not make it Church doctrine. It is their personal opinion and that imposes no obligation on anyone else to accept it.

Let me repeat: I have never questioned the fact that any number of bishops have taken strong positions either for or against specific laws. What I maintain is that those positions represent nothing more than their prudential views on the subject, they do not constitute Church teaching, and we are not bound to assent to them.

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.

It is the Church which has set the authority of the bishops; I’m simply relating it. It is also the Church which has determined that prudential opinions do not rise to the level of doctrine regardless of who’s opinion it is. We are bound by the authority of our bishop when he speaks on faith or morals in union with the Church. We are not bound by his authority when he makes recommendations on political issues.

It is an error to claim "The Church teaches …" when it is really just “Bishop X suggests …”

Ender

 

[Ender]

So I would refer you to Chapter 4.

Since you didn’t provide any specific citations I’ll cite what I found in that chapter.

*58. With these goals in mind, we offer several policy **recommendations **for both nations to **consider *…
This pretty much captures my argument: they are making recommendations, not citing Church doctrine.

*60. … Both nations should reconsider the impact of economic and trade agreements
Obviously a recommendation, and a non-specific one at that.

1. …We urge the initiation of joint border development projects …
   *Ditto

66. …* reform of the U.S. family-based legal immigration categories vis-à-vis Mexico is necessary.*
OK, saying something “is necessary” is a little bit more emphatic, but then again, it’s not specific … which is the other point I’ve been making.

*67. … In the United States, birthright citizenship should be maintained
*Is there anyone at all who could possibly believe that this is Church doctrine?

I quit. If there is a statement in that document you think makes your point, you find it.

Just to be clear, here is my claim: there is no Church document that makes any statement about a specific immigration proposal that Catholics must accept; that is, Church doctrine does not descend to that level. What we have been discussing is not even a Church document. As I pointed out before, statements from the USCCB have no binding force. They are not Church documents. Even with that caveat, however, no one has been able to point to a statement from a bishop or the USCCB that contains a clear command that Catholics must accept a specific proposal as a matter of moral principle.

You are citing recommendations, not doctrine.

Ender

 

[tafan]

*… 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?
*

Both, a specific proposal is not a command

. Are you implying that the proposals are only suggestions?

 

[Ender]

Both, a specific proposal is not a command

The issue here is whether we have a moral obligation to assent to the proposals of the bishops, not whether or not bishops make specific proposals. If their proposals are merely recommendations then we have no obligation to assent to them and it is incorrect to claim that “the Church says …”

Yes you are [free to accept or reject their recommendations], if you have carefully considered them and have excersiced prudential judgement.

OK, we’re in agreement with the argument I have been pushing: the Church has no teachings requiring us to either support or oppose any specific proposals on immigration.

But you have not, since you have not even read or acknowledge they exist.

I acknowledge that any number of bishops have made any number of statements about immigration based on their personal understanding of the issues involved. I also recognize that their recommendations are based on their perception of the impact certain actions would have but I have no reason to believe that their understanding of those outcomes is better than anyone elses. These are political calculations, no different in kind than concerns about raising the minimum wage or changing unemployment benefits.

What I reject is the belief that I somehow owe the bishops the benefit of the doubt when they go off the reservation and present their political solutions as if they were moral pronouncements.

When our Bishop excersizes his authority as our primary moral teacher, even when it is not an infallible teaching, we are bound to listen, understand his point, and carefully consider what he is saying.

This is true when he speaks on faith or morals; it is not true when he recommends political policies. He is a moral leader; he is not a political advocate.

Since this document has been accepted by our Nation’s bishops (on a unanimous vote if I remember correctly), it is safe to assume it represents you Bishop’s teaching unless he says otherwise.

Can you substantiate this claim (unanimous vote)? Nonetheless, as you have already admitted, its contents are not binding even if they represent my bishop’s teach… opinion.

It is your responsibility because you are a Catholic who wants to disregard these teachings.

You have already conceded that I may reject their position if I am sufficiently informed. Since I consider myself sufficiently informed I am free to decide for myself.

If you just wanted to give it your assent, out of respect for your bishop, there would be no need for you to read it. But since you want to not follow the Bishop’s teaching, then it is your responsibilty to read it.

I have little respect for the political tracts of the USCCB. I think perhaps the bishops have the obligation to read more of what the Church really does teach.

*42. **Clerics and laity are not to usurp each others rights ***
*Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution. *(Fourth Lateran Council)

Ender

 

[Tigg]

Clarifications on episcopal conferences:

The Vatican has made it clear that Bishops Conferences like the USCCB do NOT speak for the Church in an official capacity. These conferences are administrative and bureaucratic in nature and the letters they publish carry no weight with regard to the teaching of the faith and morals of the Catholic Church.

We must not forget that episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function…The collective, therefore, does not substitute for the persons of the bishops, who are the authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care…No episcopal conference as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that given to them by individual bishops…it must once again become clear that in each diocese there is only one shepherd and teacher of the faith in communion with the other pastors and teachers and with the Vicar of Christ.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (1985, and affirmed in Apostolos Suos in 1998 by Pope John Paul II.)
4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=4612

And the Hierarchy of the Church:

The College of Bishops

Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops of the particular Churches throughout the world form the College of Bishops. Individual bishops have charge of a particular diocese. Together as a group the Bishops may exercise power over the Universal Church by coming together in an ecumenical council (such as Vatican II). However, even ecumenical council’s must be recognised and agreed to by the Successor of Peter to be valid. **To the extent that the College of Bishops is not united with its head, the Pope, then it has no authority at all. **
catholic-pages.com/church/hierarchy.asp

 

[tafan]

Tigg, this reading of Cardinal Ratzinger statement “The Vatican has made it clear that Bishops Conferences like the USCCB do NOT speak for the Church in an official capacity” is not correct. Ratzinger says “no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function” and goes on to say they are not above the individual basis. But they do have official functions, some of them designated by the Vatican itself. For example, the Vatican in the GIRM, specified they were responsible for defining posture norms during mass. That is official.

The bishops as a group have decided to pool resources for these teaching purposes. Now any bishiop is free to disregard, even dispute any of the USCCCB documents, no question about that. To my certain knowledge, none have done so with the document at hand.

Ender:

The issue here is whether we have a moral obligation to assent to the proposals of the bishops, not whether or not bishops make specific proposals

Well, you are changing your argument then, since what I took exception to was that you said that document only contained guidelines. I was clear about what my issue is. You are the one who is playing with words.

As for it being a political issue and not a moral issue, what a sad statement about our society. As Thomas Aquinas taught us, all law is about morals. That is the only basis for any government law. The pro-abortion crowd has shouted, “you can’t legislate morality” so many times, I guess even Catholics buy into it now. All legislation should be about morality, why else would you have any law.

 

[pnewton]

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

Yes. There are no proposals. There are specific things that are unjust and need to be changed. We will never have a USCCB proposed law. That is not their function. However, the immigration law is unjust and needs to be changed. This is what the USCCB says, and they give specifics about ways in which it is unjust.

 

[Big_Ro]

I have been following this thread for the last couple of days. I find the debate very interesting. I want to inject another piece of the propblem that hasn’t been addressed thus far. I am loath to give away personal information so as to protect my identity, but I want to get your take on this issue as it affects me personally. Let me begin by saying that I believe our immigration policy to be bad public policy, bad economics, as well as being immoral. I believe that the Church has spoken very clearly to the same effect. I disagree with the Church on many other issues but when I do I work to try and reconcile myself to them. I think simply dismissing them as invalid is cafeteria catholicism. Secondly, I believe that our country has a duty to regulate it’s borders for many reasons including security. This is precisely why I feel we need a normalization of our policy. Thirdly, I believe that most of the arguments for a more stringent poliocy such as the Arizona law is more about racism and bigotry than anything else. It’s my opinion and I don’t really care if you think it’s wrong and I won’t engage in a debate about it. If you’re racist or a bigot that’s on your head. It doesn’t affect my salvation. Carry on. Fourth, I am of hispanic descent. I do not like the word but it’s better than Mexican-American which is a slur. My family has been in Texas since before it was in the United States. I have relatives that were among the original settlers of South Texas. My roots are in Spain and Portugal although I do have some ancestors that were native both above and below the Rio Grand. I’m not against being referred to as of Mexican descent and usually say so in order to avoid a drawn out discussion of my heritage of which I am very proud. Finally, I come from a long line of military people. I personally did not serve for various reasons, but I have a strong affinity for the military and deeply respect their service to country. My family fought in every war of the Twentieth Century and I have relatives in combat theaters rigth now. As far as I know, we have never lost a blood relative in combat. We prefer to offer our advesaries an opportunitty to die for their country. I was raised to believe and to conduct myself as an American without prefix, suffix or apology. I considered being called a Mexican-American to be fighting words. I have taught my children likewise.

So, how should I react to laws and policy positions that would put me and my children in the position of being treated as second class citizens? Should I and my children be forced to have to constantly prove that we’re citizens because our beautiful brown skin and abiltity to speak two or three languages? I have no sense of being an immigrant. On the contrary, I see my lighter skinned bretheren as the immigrants. We were here first, We taught you how to live off the land. Our vaqueros taught you how to be cowboys long before John Wayne came around. We were fighting for independence from a tyrant in Mexico city for 150 years before Austin, Bowie, or Travis arrived. We defeated Santa Anna two years before the Battle of the Alamo without their help. Draw your own conclusions. Why should I accept second class status because of other peoples irrational fears. We welcomed and accepted you as immigrants even though you broke your agreements to not bring slaves. We fought in wars even though we had been deprived of our civil Rights and property. Rights and Property we bought and cultivated for hundreds of years before you came. I have worship at the longest continuously operated Archdiocese in the United States. It’s an injustice to ask me or my children to accept second class status. Isn’t it?

 

[tafan]

Ender:

First, that’s a really long document and I didn’t read it all although I skimmed through the first half

Ender:

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:

Since I consider myself sufficiently informed I am free to decide for myself

Nothing like showing the Bishops of our Church a lack of respect. Your admitted indifference to looking objectively at both sides of the issue or even attempting to listen to the Bishops’ point of view speaks for itself. What has our Church come to that we thing we only owe our Bishop our ear if he is reading verbatum from an infallible statement of the magisterium.

 

[tafan]

Big Ro, that is a wonderful post. Thankyou. I liked it all, and not much need to add anything to it. From a purely political standpoint, it is amazing to me how conservatives (of which I have always considered myself on almost every issue) have become so blinded by immigration hysteria that they will advocate government actions that should be anathema to any conservative. They are literally willing to turn our country into a “show me your papers” society just because they do not want decent immigration reform. It is so short sighted, lets just invite a futre tyrannical government to take control.

 

[tafan]

Big Ro:

Thirdly, I believe that most of the arguments for a more stringent poliocy such as the Arizona law is more about racism and bigotry than anything else

Of course, but we must provide concrete examples, how about from this very Catholic forum:

I have know many many hard working Mexicans, legal or not. They do have a route to citizenship. Some are very skilled laborers. Others would give you the shirt off their back. Some however are dirt.

Where did Jesus say, “It’s OK for Latin Americans to sit at home on Sunday while Americans contribute to your care and feeding”?

Statistists prove that our Latin American “brothers” pretend to be Catholic while in the US. Over 40% of the Latinos in Chicagoland claim to be Catholic while only 1% attend Catholic schools. Somebody is giving them a free ride with American money so why be a real Catholic when that costs money?

Here is a whopper:

Where does it say make poor Americans pay for the lazy Latin Americans who can’t run their own countries and overpopulate the world.

Gotta love this one:

Good question. The first envelope was the standard one to help the parish. The second one was for maintenance on the 6 buildings in the parish. The third was for a parking lot for the parish. Now I did my duty. When will the Mexicans do theirs instead of sleeping late on Sunday.

This one could have been posted on a anti-catholic protestant web site against a lot of us catholics, if you change the type of school:

I went to 8 grades of Catholic school because my parents cared enough for me to do so. They only had 2 children. If you’re going to have 10, you better check your bank account before you do.

All of these quotes were posted on this very forum, on various immigration threads over the last year. None of them raised a peep of protest from those arguing against immigration reform and against illegal aliens. Wonder why? It should be pointed out that no moderator stepped in and did anything about them at the time. When I have had moderators correct me for even questioning certain RCIA practices in the church that had nothing to do with doctrine, this ommission is certainly a black mark on Catholic Answers, IMO.

 

[Blacksword]

What I reject is the belief that I somehow owe the bishops the benefit of the doubt when they go off the reservation and present their political solutions as if they were moral pronouncements.
This is true when he speaks on faith or morals; it is not true when he recommends political policies. He is a moral leader; he is not a political advocate.
Can you substantiate this claim (unanimous vote)? Nonetheless, as you have already admitted, its contents are not binding even if they represent my bishop’s teach… opinion.
You have already conceded that I may reject their position if I am sufficiently informed. Since I consider myself sufficiently informed I am free to decide for myself.
I have little respect for the political tracts of the USCCB. I think perhaps the bishops have the obligation to read more of what the Church really does teach.Ender

This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. Basically, if Bishops impart moral teachings you like, you’re fine with them, but ones you don’t like you throw away out of hand, cafeteria Catholicism rears its ugly head.

You’re not well informed, I’m sorry. Your posts make it clear that you are well-opinionated, that’s not the same thing. As someone who is an immigration lawyer and expert in the field, I am absolutely assuring you that our current system and laws are unjust, why can’t that be sufficient for you? Our laws result in separation of husbands from wives, parents from their children, sometimes for years, and that’s in the case of people who HAVEN’T broken the law or entered illegally. In what way is that a morally acceptable system?

You make a false dichotomy between political and moral question here, as if I were to say that clearly owning people is wrong morally, but the question of whether a legal system should allow for slavery is merely a political question.

 

[Blacksword]

I have been following this thread for the last couple of days. I find the debate very interesting. I want to inject another piece of the propblem that hasn’t been addressed thus far. I am loath to give away personal information so as to protect my identity, but I want to get your take on this issue as it affects me personally. Let me begin by saying that I believe our immigration policy to be bad public policy, bad economics, as well as being immoral. I believe that the Church has spoken very clearly to the same effect. I disagree with the Church on many other issues but when I do I work to try and reconcile myself to them. I think simply dismissing them as invalid is cafeteria catholicism. Secondly, I believe that our country has a duty to regulate it’s borders for many reasons including security. This is precisely why I feel we need a normalization of our policy. Thirdly, I believe that most of the arguments for a more stringent poliocy such as the Arizona law is more about racism and bigotry than anything else. It’s my opinion and I don’t really care if you think it’s wrong and I won’t engage in a debate about it. If you’re racist or a bigot that’s on your head. It doesn’t affect my salvation. Carry on. Fourth, I am of hispanic descent. I do not like the word but it’s better than Mexican-American which is a slur. My family has been in Texas since before it was in the United States. I have relatives that were among the original settlers of South Texas. My roots are in Spain and Portugal although I do have some ancestors that were native both above and below the Rio Grand. I’m not against being referred to as of Mexican descent and usually say so in order to avoid a drawn out discussion of my heritage of which I am very proud. Finally, I come from a long line of military people. I personally did not serve for various reasons, but I have a strong affinity for the military and deeply respect their service to country. My family fought in every war of the Twentieth Century and I have relatives in combat theaters rigth now. As far as I know, we have never lost a blood relative in combat. We prefer to offer our advesaries an opportunitty to die for their country. I was raised to believe and to conduct myself as an American without prefix, suffix or apology. I considered being called a Mexican-American to be fighting words. I have taught my children likewise.

So, how should I react to laws and policy positions that would put me and my children in the position of being treated as second class citizens? Should I and my children be forced to have to constantly prove that we’re citizens because our beautiful brown skin and abiltity to speak two or three languages? I have no sense of being an immigrant. On the contrary, I see my lighter skinned bretheren as the immigrants. We were here first, We taught you how to live off the land. Our vaqueros taught you how to be cowboys long before John Wayne came around. We were fighting for independence from a tyrant in Mexico city for 150 years before Austin, Bowie, or Travis arrived. We defeated Santa Anna two years before the Battle of the Alamo without their help. Draw your own conclusions. Why should I accept second class status because of other peoples irrational fears. We welcomed and accepted you as immigrants even though you broke your agreements to not bring slaves. We fought in wars even though we had been deprived of our civil Rights and property. Rights and Property we bought and cultivated for hundreds of years before you came. I have worship at the longest continuously operated Archdiocese in the United States. It’s an injustice to ask me or my children to accept second class status. Isn’t it?

Great post!!

 

[Blacksword]

As just one, concrete example of how unjust our system is, and how much family separation and misery it creates for even those who do NOT have any kind of immigration violations (which typically result in permanent misery and separation, instead of just temporary, albeit very long, misery and separation), take this hypothetical example:

You are a bright young man from jolly old England. A country with low immigration to the U.S., and who should therefore have little problem coming here. You enter the U.S. as a student, graduate from college in four years, and go on to get a Master’s Degree. Then you, as an eager 24 year old, are offered a job and so change to H-1B nonimmigrant status. Your company decides they want to keep you, and files for alien labor certification, then I-140, and then presto, in about 1 year to 18 months of starting work, you’re a green card holder, congratulations!

However, on a trip home as a young 26 year old, visiting the family, you meet a pretty young English girl, you begin dating over your holiday, and continue to correspond when you return to the U.S. You fall in love and within a few months, you decide to marry her. Wonderful! It’s now the present day, but now there’s a problem. You inquire about getting her a green card to join you in the U.S., and then you discover that, under the second family-based preference category for immigrant visas for counties from all chargeability areas other than China, India, Mexico, and the Philippines (those are the ones that tend to REALLY get backed up of course!), the priority date for immigrant visas for spouses of permanent residents is currently at April 1, 2007…This means that your wonderful new wife can’t return with you to the U.S. now, where you of course have to return to your job, and that it could be AT LEAST FOUR YEARS before she will. What if, on your wedding night or soon after, she happens to conceive? Uh oh, now you don’t get to see your child either for those four years, except of course when you can fly over to see them on holidays.

She is unlikely to obtain a visitor status, since of course her HUSBAND is a green card holder, and therefore the port of entry officials are pretty likely to think she lacks nonimmigrant intent and would stay permanently if she came (especially if she brings baby with her), so she can’t come to visit you at all. And then there’s the fact that immigrant visa priority dates don’t tend to move at all with the passing of days on the calendar, in fact, they CRAWL. You might not see your child in this scenario, except on those brief vacations of course, until they are more than 5 years old, and that’s if you are lucky enough to meet the residence requirements for 5 years of permanent residency to file for naturalization and become a citizen so your family can move into immediate visa availability.

And this is for good old white, western Europeans who are educated and don’t have immigration violations in their past! This is only one simple example. With this kind of system, it’s little wonder that people frequently enter by any means necessary, and stay.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

The issue here is whether we have a moral obligation to assent to the proposals of the bishops, not whether or not bishops make specific proposals

Well, you are changing your argument then, since what I took exception to was that you said that document only contained guidelines. I was clear about what my issue is. You are the one who is playing with words.

]Well, I try to be consistent, but the quote above that you object to in post #64 is similar to what I said in post #44.

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

The bishops have made proposals; the Church has not. The bishops have phrased their positions as recommendations, not as obligations.

As for it being a political issue and not a moral issue, what a sad statement about our society.

If solutions to the problems of immigration are moral questions then why do the bishops only “urge” and “ask” us to accept them? They certainly don’t use those terms when speaking about real moral issues such as abortion and euthanasia.

As Thomas Aquinas taught us, all law is about morals. That is the only basis for any government law. The pro-abortion crowd has shouted, “you can’t legislate morality” so many times, I guess even Catholics buy into it now. All legislation should be about morality, why else would you have any law.

I’m not sure what you think Aquinas taught but I seriously doubt it was that every law represents a choice between good and evil. The Church clearly doesn’t think so … didn’t you read the comment from the Fourth Lateran Council.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Nothing like showing the Bishops of our Church a lack of respect. Your admitted indifference to looking objectively at both sides of the issue or even attempting to listen to the Bishops’ point of view speaks for itself.

I asked for an example that you felt made your point; you failed to to do that and instead pointed me to a lengthy document, much of which I read. Nothing I read, however, was in any way different from what I have encountered before. There is nothing new there. I will deal with any citation you choose to make but if you’re not confident enough that one exists to support your position it doesn’t become my responsibility to find something.

What has our Church come to that we thing we only owe our Bishop our ear if he is reading verbatum from an infallible statement of the magisterium.

Your charge bears no resemblance to the arguments I have made. I think it’s pretty well been settled by now that we do not owe our assent to prudential opinions. Since the bishops’ statements on immigration are just that - opinions - they are not binding. Any number of people on this thread have said the same thing; this is not really a controversial assertion.

Ender

 

[Ender]

This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. Basically, if Bishops impart moral teachings you like, you’re fine with them, but ones you don’t like you throw away out of hand, cafeteria Catholicism rears its ugly head.

This is tiresome. OK, fine, you caught me: I’m a cafeteria Catholic. Now, deal with the arguments I’ve made. Insulting me is not the same as rebutting me.

You’re not well informed, I’m sorry. Your posts make it clear that you are well-opinionated, that’s not the same thing. As someone who is an immigration lawyer and expert in the field, I am absolutely assuring you that our current system and laws are unjust, why can’t that be sufficient for you?

If you truly are a lawyer then you should surely read more carefully. Cite the post where I said anything at all about our current laws. Stop trying to rebut what I haven’t said. What I have said should be sufficient for you.

You make a false dichotomy between political and moral question here, as if I were to say that clearly owning people is wrong morally, but the question of whether a legal system should allow for slavery is merely a political question.

Again, you have misunderstood my comments. Determining the proper, workable solutions to immigration involves prudential choices, not moral ones. Clearly I can choose options for immoral reasons but if you assume that my intentions are as honest as yours (which simple charity obliges you to do) then it should be clear that we can reach diametrically opposite conclusions about what is the best answer to the myriad problems of immigration.

Ender

 

[Blacksword]

This is tiresome. OK, fine, you caught me: I’m a cafeteria Catholic. Now, deal with the arguments I’ve made. Insulting me is not the same as rebutting me.
If you truly are a lawyer then you should surely read more carefully. Cite the post where I said anything at all about our current laws. Stop trying to rebut what I haven’t said. What I have said should be sufficient for you.
Again, you have misunderstood my comments. Determining the proper, workable solutions to immigration involves prudential choices, not moral ones. Clearly I can choose options for immoral reasons but if you assume that my intentions are as honest as yours (which simple charity obliges you to do) then it should be clear that we can reach diametrically opposite conclusions about what is the best answer to the myriad problems of immigration.

Ender

The justness or unjustness that our system results in is an integral element in being able to properly assess legal solutions to the problem. To me, your posts continue in making a very strange dichotomy where the system itself, and therefore any proposed political changes to it to address the problems inherent in it now, are somehow wholly separate from the actual human realities it produces. I don’t see how that can be done in an intellectually honest discussion.

Please read my hypothetical I wrote earlier and tell me if the system that causes this outcome is just. If it was your family caught in such a morass, would you feel differently about it? That hypothetical is a simple example of the actual realities of our system. What I’m saying is that if you think, when understanding the reality of how our system impacts people in just that example’s straight-forward way, that still lacks any moral dimension and is untroubling to you, then I suppose we have very different moral sensibilities.

 

[Apollos5600]

You’re not well informed, I’m sorry. Your posts make it clear that you are well-opinionated, that’s not the same thing. As someone who is an immigration lawyer and expert in the field, I am absolutely assuring you that our current system and laws are unjust, why can’t that be sufficient for you? Our laws result in separation of husbands from wives, parents from their children, sometimes for years, and that’s in the case of people who HAVEN’T broken the law or entered illegally. In what way is that a morally acceptable system?

Boo Hoo. That really touched me in a molestation kind of way. Speaking as a Hispanic, whose family came straight from Mexico, LEGALLY through all the difficulty, I say you are seriously full of it. You said earlier that those who oppose amnesty or illegal immigration know little of the law and of the economy. Advocating the destruction of the Rule of Law does not strike me as a Catholic position. One of the greatest things about Catholicism is how it teaches respect of authority… It seems odd then that we should support the violation of the rule of Law in the name of “goodness”. And I will tell you now, there is no “goodness” in letting illegals enter this country uninhibited or in rewarding those who do not respect our laws. It’s a matter of principle, not of your “charity” to make poor or “goodness” to make evil or “morally acceptable justice system” that does away with the “justice system”.

Nations have boundries for a reason. Nations have cultural identities for a reason. For a reason, Babel could never be allowed to complete. I love Mexico, my mother loves her even more, still crying when she hears the Mexican national anthem, but she and I both agree that it is the culture of corruption that they are sending us, with all those poor people they refuse to take care of themselves, and of all those criminals who have full reign over our borders. Mexico needs to take responsibility. We need to respect our country and maintain the rule of law. I believe in charity, but not if it means making a mockery of truth and justice.

FYI, the “La Raza” movement that is being pushed is also extremely scary. It’s racist and promotes a “re-conquest” of the south to Mexico by people who do not respect our law. That’s YOUR team buddy, even if you don’t know it. Get off your high horse. You don’t know the dark reality of it all. “Open Borders” and “amnesty” have nothing to do with their proposed aims, but everything to do with subversion of the United States government. You can give your sob stories all bloody day long, it won’t change the fact that the fruit of it is deadly and foul.

As for Catholic Bishops. We also had Catholic Bishops promoting liberation theology in South America, a MARXIST corruption of our faith. I think there are a lot of Bishops who need to be removed from their positions. They’re apostate and have taken to hugging vipers.

 

[Ender]

Before I reply I will point out that this post is not relevant to anything I have said so far.

The justness or unjustness that our system results in is an integral element in being able to properly assess legal solutions to the problem.

I don’t judge results as being just or unjust; I judge actions as effective and ineffective. More to the point, we cannot accurately pre-judge proposals in moral terms because we cannot really know the full extent of the results and the morality of an action is not determined by the outcome it produces.

To me, your posts continue in making a very strange dichotomy where the system itself, and therefore any proposed political changes to it to address the problems inherent in it now, are somehow wholly separate from the actual human realities it produces.

This is incorrect. I simply don’t make moral judgments based on the outcome of policy decisions. It is neither moral nor immoral to (e.g.) raise (or even eliminate) the minimum wage; it is overall either helpful or harmful (as it will surely help some and harm others). It isn’t a moral choice; it is an economic guess.

I don’t see how that can be done in an intellectually honest discussion.

Give it a rest. Just deal with the arguments I present.

Please read my hypothetical I wrote earlier and tell me if the system that causes this outcome is just.

I acknowledge there are problems with our current system; what I deny is that your (or the bishops’) proposals are any more or less moral than anyone elses.

That hypothetical is a simple example of the actual realities of our system.

No one has expressed satisfaction with our current laws; everyone would like to see them improved. The debate is over what actions would lead to “improvement”.

What I’m saying is that if you think, when understanding the reality of how our system impacts people in just that example’s straight-forward way, that still lacks any moral dimension and is untroubling to you …

To say that I don’t believe that finding the “best” solution to immigration is a moral problem should in no way imply that I am untroubled by the problems our current laws have caused. I don’t see our search for solutions to immigration any differently than I see the Japanese search for solutions to their problems with the nuclear reactors. What moral issue is involved in finding the right answer to practical problems?

… then I suppose we have very different moral sensibilities.

You just couldn’t resist one last shot, could you? We have a different understanding of what constitutes a moral choice. Most laws are morally neutral, and whether they have good or bad effects doesn’t change that. The moral choice we face is not between proposal A and proposal B but is made when we decide whether or not we want to do the right thing. Finding the right thing to do is totally prudential.

Ender