Catholic vs. Catholic on immigration

I'm one that believes that immigration laws are unjust (surprise surprise!), and for once, I find myself in agreement with a Cahotlic Bishop. Let me ask you this, Rod - what is the difference between the soil on one side of a border and the soil on the other? What's the difference between a man standing on the soil on one side of the border and a man standing on the soil on the other side? What makes them different is words on a piece of paper, and the guns to back them up. What is "just" about that?

Yes, there is no difference between someone immigrating here illegally and expecting to be able to have "rights" that belong to citizens and someone being able to have the "right" to move into my or your house and take or use my or your possessions. National borders are just private property on a larger scale. If the Church feels this strongly about this, then they should invite the illegal immigrants to move into parishioners' houses and onto church property and take and use what they wish as if it were their own.

You bring up interesting points, Eric and Waldo, though you do so in an unnecessarily snarky way. What *does* give us the right to our trappings (labeled "private property?") What makes the soil on one side of a border "American soil" as opposed to the property 2 inches away? The words on the paper, what gives those the power they have to frame reality in such a way that some have all and others have nothing? Who arranged it this way? Why?
Other than social constructs, what makes our right to "own property" supercede another's right to sleeping inside? Having a meal? Drinking clean water? How do we retain "onwership" while doing more than paying lip-service to Justice? Don't shrug this off - it's the ownership fallacy that keeps us comfortable, but how long will that last? The have-nots surely outnumber we haves. Aren't these questions we should be asking ourselves now before we're forced to do so in front of a mob of the angry and poverty-stricken? You can't believe this comfortable little fiction is going to last forever, can you?

Wow - *that* was a helpful comment.

Rod - care to address the post? Or is it enough that you're safe in your gated community and pay others to hold guns on interlopers who would dare encroach on your world?

Call this willful ignorance if you must, and I really don't intend this to be snarky, but maybe there's just not a way to ask this question without it coming across that way. Nevertheless, I'm afraid I've just never quite understood how "Justice" (as used above) is anything more than a euphemism for "Easing My Own Conscience By Forcibly Taking Something Away From You And Giving It To Somebody Else Because I Feel Sorry For Them." Or, as I heard a comedian once put it, "The conservative says, 'I don't feel sorry for the poor; they need to take care of themselves,' and the liberal says, 'I'll help the poor by giving away the conservative's money.'" Because, really, what we're talking about is forced redistribution of wealth, are we not? Richard

OK, then what do laws, contracts and any agreements otherwise intrinsically mean in this country? Anything? Does any entity have the right to protect what belongs to them? Richard

god-is-in-the-tv: Post your address here and I will contact you about signing a legal affidavit giving me all your possessions and property. I will then use or distribute them as I deem best. FWIW, I was told in a private email that Rod's column here is "Catholic bashing" and was asked not to join in his "Catholic bashing." :) As I told the emailer, I'm not bashing Catholics. I am disagreeing with those who think that illegal immigration should be encouraged and accepted and don't see that doing so is promoting a form of trespassing and theft. Sometimes some laws should be publicly and forcibly broken and ignored. I don't think immigration is one of those cases, though.

I agree with Mark Shea. Someone who would not come back to the church for such a weak reason was probably never serious about coming back to begin with. That decision shows a serious lack of understanding of the faith. You'll never find "the" church if you basing your involvement on political reasons.

So, if I understand your hypotheses that the law is essentially the social equivalent of an electric fence that the wealthy and powerful erect around their privilege, and that concepts of private property, borders, etc. are really just offshoots of that privilege--what, then, is the solution you would propose? Richard

Admitting it and working to reduce the damage it does to the world, for a start. And this would entail what, as far as you are concerned? Eliminating laws? Eliminating concepts of private property? Or...? Richard

Private property is necessary and good. So are commons,which we've done away with.
Generally people who advocate completely open borders detest their own culture. Knowingly or not, they prescribe its death. All cultures must have borders to survive. I'll quote a bit from Jim Kalb because he says it much better than I can. From "The Pope's Left Turn on Immigration"
"A culture is a particular complex of habits, understandings and loyalties that are normative although mostly unstated among a particular group of people. As such, it requires boundaries. A culture can exist as a culture only among a group of people who have grown into it together and feel that among themselves they can take it for granted. Such conditions cannot exist in a group that feels obligated to be utterly and continuously open to numerous new arrivals, avoiding even latent discrimination, and called to honor them in all their otherness." What the Pope is calling for is therefore not the honoring of culture but the abolition of culture by the abolition of every social setting in which any particular culture can exist. Surely that is wrong. A culture is a mode of being human, and is always particular. Because man is a social animal, participation in culture -- and therefore in a particular culture -- is necessary for a fully human life. If it weren't needed, why all the talk in the Church about "inculturation"? The odd thing is that the Pope seems to understand the problem. He says "The path to true acceptance of immigrants in their cultural diversity is actually a difficult one, in some cases a real Way of the Cross." He's quite right. The Way of the Cross is the way of giving up everything that we have and by which we live. The proposed approach to migration does involve something rather like that. I suppose the question I would put as a citizen is whether something that involves the Way of the Cross -- whatever its spiritual benefits for a man like the Pope -- can be justified as public policy. Because as a practical matter the destruction of particular culture is much less likely to lead to the vibrant communities of which the Pope speaks than to tyranny, brutishness and mutual hatred."

GIITV asks, "Do you want me to spout off like a Marxist so I can be dehumanized and shrugged off?" The fact is, he has already sounded like a Marxist in asserting that the very notion of private property is defended only by the wealthy who benefit from it, and only because they benefit from it. He apparently wants to abolish the notion of property -- and thereby make meaningless the Commandment, "thou shalt not steal" -- and he doesn't want us to dehumanize him?

As a Catholic, I try not to take the cynical road that my Bishops are mostly interested in pandering to illegal aliens due to the fact that many fill the pews. I also try to take the charitable road that the Bishops are merely trying to put a human face on "illegal" in the face of a growing chorus of dehumanizing voices who see them as a problem and not a person. I live in SoCal and the reality is our government [Federal and State] has for many years given a wink and a nod to any person who wants to sneak into this country in order to provide cheap labor for U.S. business. Period. It's a gigantic black market created so that construction companies, retail, farming and low-wage service industries can save a buck and inflate the bottom line. For the same government now to stand up and say "game over, go home" is unjust. Unfortunately, we citizens pay an enormous subsidy to U.S. business by the myriad of social, transportation, education and health benefits illegal receive largely for free. Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar. Back on communist 'May Day' illegal Los Angeles stayed home from work for a day and guess what? The roads were mostly free from traffic, emergency rooms were quiet, and schools were at sustainable attendance levels. This was documented even in the far-left LA Times. There's no way around the reality that people like myself pay a large cost so that business can save money on wages. Unfortunately, many government economists feel that the extra money added to our GNP due to illegal immigration more than offsets the tax burden to the citizen. That's the bottom line. I have no idea on a solution. I will get on my soapbox and say that I laugh at Bush's "War on Terror" when anyone with two legs can sneak across the boarder and set up shop in any city in our nation. But America is about business and business will win this debate.

You know I keep trying to restrain myself from engaging here. I have failed a few times but in reading this I simply have to say some people certainly reveal, if not absence of thought, a complete lack of depth.
Reading 'god is in the tv" disheartens one. I simply cannot imagine what worldveiw you have other then anarchy and that is such a simpleton idea it deserves little time.
One is tempted to engage in dispute but wisdom and the amount of time involved holds me back.
Good heavens man think your comments thru unless you enjoy looking rather silly. To hope for murder and attack against social beings is real nice, real nice. Now come back and attack me to entertain yourself.

Maybe it's me, but I can't imagine the Holy Father would say property comes before the needy or that "breaking man-made laws about man-made borders" trumps compassion for the stranger. One can only speculate what the Pope would want, as he tends to wander on this issue. At any rate, compassion paid for by others is not compassion at all. It's thievery disguised in self-satisfied sentiment. I wonder if there is also support for punishing churches who provide aid to illegal immigrants? Emergency aid in extreme duress? No. Setting up waystations and facilitating the problem. Absolutely, I would.

Fair enough; regardless, the rest still stands if you actually want to answer the questions. Richard

I suspect some economic self-interest on the part of the Catholic bishops. Would they be as enthusiastic about illegal immigrants from south of the border if these individuals were faithful Hindus instead of faithful Catholics? I doubt it. It's a corporate mindset by the ecclesiastical establishment (one we've seen in other contexts where self-interest trumps everything else). And, sad to say, it's the immigrants themselves who are being exploited. Their biggest "defenders"--RCC leaders looking for parishioners, corporate CEOs looking for cheap workers, rich people looking for cheap servants, politicians looking to please all of the above plus scoring pandering points--are also their biggest exploiters. Like patriotism, multiculturalism has become a last refuge of scoundrels.

Do you want this experiment in a free society to end in revolution? Without slaughtering every person who threatens your privilege, how do you propose to stop it from ending that way? One reply is that you respect the rule of law. This has not been a historical primary. In fact when law is abandoned then blood and death follow. In West Civ. law has been a long evolution of activities deriving from Judea-Christian principles. This established the foundation for this civilization. Today there are those who threaten it and in doing so open the possibility of what we have already seen under atheistic government; mass slaughter.
The church has long supported the notion of private property. Indeed there is an entire school called Distributionism that emerged around the need for private property. The church supports this because ownership is a material means to human dignity. Collectivisation is a disater for the human spirit. This has been shown. Free markets create liberation. It is no accident that after years of experimentation free enterprise emerged victor. Abandoning it now is foolhardy. The mistakes do not justify elimination but more argue for fine tuning which in truth is pulling for less governmental interference. Things are just too complex now for men or bodies of men in the particular to control with full knowledge. The mass of humanity needs to be free to move on terms established by law which should be minimal derivatives of accepted moral code. In saying this one does not argue for sustaining the current aberation which many of us reject I am sure.
Skewed resource consumption does not derive from Free Enterprise but consolidated control of reources may. A truly free market would tend toward dispersed ownership of property and that is what the Church supports. It is the governments involvment that creates the unintended side effects of what we see today. What we need is more morality and less control. Raise people to understand human value and dignity and support organizations like the Church which attempts to clarify the proper way of life for us all.

Thanks for responding, Richard. I apologize for allowing emotion to color my reason. Enjoy your day.

Maybe I read what the priest said incorrectly. He didn't tell anyone to break the law. He said that Jesus and Mary couldn't find a room to rent under this particular town's ordinance. The people in the town could change the ordinance. I don't believe that any of our federal laws say that you can't provide housing to an illegal alien. Federal law says that you can't employ an illegal. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about that. I think that the priest was calling on the people to see Mexicans as people. It's true that they aren't being persecuted in Mexico, but many of our ancestors came to America because of poverty in their homeland. Being able to feed your family is a good reason to leave your homeland. I don't think that it's up to tv to figure out the solution to this problem. If Christian conservatives don't like the idea of redistributing wealth, then it's up to them to find another solution. Telling Mary and Joseph that it's against USA law doesn't seem to be good enough. I don't think that America is the place to keep people out to maintain cultural unity. One of America's traits is that people adapt to American life quite easily because we are a multicultural society. We might see big differences in the first generation immigrants, but within a generation or two, the people look and act like Americans.

The people in the town could change the ordinance. I don't believe that any of our federal laws say that you can't provide housing to an illegal alien. Federal law says that you can't employ an illegal. I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about that. If ever there's a modern example of phariseeism, this is it. The town is closing a de facto loophole in the law that facilitates illegal immigration. The bishop doesn't want them to do it, because he doesn't want the law enforced. I think that the priest was calling on the people to see Mexicans as people. The people do see them as people: specifically people using public services they are not entitled to. The fact that Farmer's Branch is addressing them as people with a will means they give them more respect than the priest apparently does. Being able to feed your family is a good reason to leave your homeland. Only if it's legal in the land you're going to.
If Christian conservatives don't like the idea of redistributing wealth, then it's up to them to find another solution.. But you're kicking the can down the road again. The solution to poverty abroad, if ever there will be one, is the responsibility of countries like Mexico. In fact, illegal immigration has only acted to retard their reforms and impoverish their country further by draining their labor and skill, making the problem even worse.
The U.S. government's responsibility, OTOH, is to secure our borders and enforce the laws that were passed democratically--not to evade them with all sorts of moral legerdemain and bad analogies.

In my book, you don't get to call anyone an "illegal" unless you faithfully and consistently abide by the speed limit when driving down the interstate. Because in truth I see illegal immigration as less serious than speeding, and would rather refer to the speeders as "illegals" rather than poor people who are just trying to make a buck in the richest country on earth. Here's the reasoning Rod needs: Whether or not someone is in the country legally or not, they deserve a roof over their head. What's so hard to understand about that? It is an injustice for this town to reach out and punish these people, unless they plan on providing some alternate accomodations.

Those who speed will suffer the consequences if they are caught. Also, some communities install speed bumps to prevent speeding. The Bishop's comments are tantamount to saying that speeders should not be caught or ticketed and that those who ticket them are cruel and thoughtless, and towns that put up speed bumps should rip them out because they cause the donkey that Joseph and Mary are riding around town on to stumble.

That's not what I'm saying. It's perfectly legitimate for a religious leader to call certain laws unjust, and to call for civil disobedience to those laws, and/or for the laws to be changed. I don't know if Bishop Grahmann's entire sermon is online -- I couldn't find it -- so all I have to go on is this report from the Spanish-language paper the next day. According to the story, the bishop agrees that the US has the right to say who comes into this country, but it sounds like he doesn't want the authorities to enforce the laws. Read the story yourself and draw your own conclusions. That the bishop chose as one of the readers at this particular mass the most visible leader of the anti-Farmers Branch movement makes a clear statement of where the Dallas Catholic church stands on this issue. And a lot of Catholics are wondering why it's a matter of Christian obligation for them to allow lawbreakers to settle among them. It's a fair question.

Derek Copold took the conversation to the personal place in far more egregious ways than I. You were looking forward to mass slaughter. I called you on it. If that's too much of a "personal place" for you, well, it only confirms what I wrote.

I wrote that last, obviously.

Rod, Grahmann's stance is nothing more than the hierarchy typically confusing "compassion" with "indulgence," especially when the objects of that compassion are the "poor" and "vulnerable," who should never face the demand to adhere to society's legitimate values. That confusion is one of the things that govern's the hierarchy's revisionist stance on capital punishment for murder. Moreover, the American bishops' stance is nothing but a way to curry favor with Latino Catholics to keep them from leaving the Church, and exploit them for the bishops' own ambitions for political influence and prestige. Grahmann, in particular (like Mahony in L.A.), wants to exploit Latinos as a cover for his own lack or moral credibility. If the American bishops (Grahmann in particular) really cared about the poor and vulnerable, they would have been more engaged in justly retifying the clerical sex-abuse crisis instead of covering their biological seat cushions at any cost, even to their own collective moral credibility. However, the bishops' (and Rome's) collective response to that scandal reveal what the bishops (and Rome) really value: Power above all, the innocent be damned. Given the sex-abuse crisis, I'm surprised that Catholics pay *any* attention to the pseudo-moral gibberish emanating from chanceries these days. One more thing, Mark Shea: While it might not be appropriate to leave the Church over a bishop's prudential opinion on a particular issue, it is appropriate if the bishops as a whole continuously show no wisdom in their decisions or no idea of what the ramifications of their words mean -- especially if they make a habit of confusing "compasison" with "indulgence." It's also appropriate to leave if hypocrites like Grahmann aren't called to account for their misfeasance, and are allowed to spout platitudes as if nothing happened.

The issue of immigration is a complicated one. Up until recently I would have found Bp.Grahmann's statement as troubling as I have found similar statements made by other American Catholic bishops. But I have Mark Shea to thank for my continued growth in maturity as a Catholic. Mr. Shea frequently refers to the papal encyclical "Veritatis Splendor" in his discussions of torture, and in particular to a section of it where the late JPII quoted this passage from "Gaudium et Spes": "...whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator"."
I'm far from understanding VS in its entirety, but given the importance of the subject matter I'm trying to do so. In the meantime, what I take away from it is that while we ought to and should work for justice in the area of immigration, for just laws and just enforcement of those laws by the competent authorities, we also have the obligation to be merciful in how we treat those immigrants already in our midst, even the illegal ones. Now, this does NOT mean that we may not enforce the law; in fact, we should. But we live in a nation that within the recent past has not only not enforced immigration law, but has made it clear to a whole community of illegal immigrants that there is no intention to enforce the law. This should not be the case, and we as citizens and voters should inform those who represent us that we want a secure border with all that that implies. In the meantime, though, what are we to do with the illegal immigrants already here? I think there is, and should be, room for both justice and mercy in our treatment of illegal immigrants. We should not hesitate to send home those who illustrate that they have no intention of living peacefully in our society and assimilating into it. But our efforts in the realm of justice, in my opinion, should be focused at punishing those who willfully flout American law by hiring and employing illegal immigrants, especially those who do so in order to exploit their labor by paying them wages far below the agreed-upon federal minimum wage.

So is it misguided compassion, or cynical power seeking, Joey. Let me offer a more succinct summary of your argument: non serviam

I think there's a substantive difference between offering health care to illegal immigrants, and allowing them to establish residence in your city.

The good Bishop makes me more inclined to convert to Roman Catholicism.

Can't believe I'm actually typing this, but I ... [choke, gasp] ... agree ... [involuntary heave] with Bp. Grahmann. And also with whomever called to task all these people who "aren't racist, no siree, we ain't ... honest injun ... we just caint stand it when folks break the LAW." Yeah, right. You break the law every frickin' day when you get on the expressway, or when you file your 1040s -- yet when it comes to man trying to feed his family, well that's different. Sure. I get it.

Skimming through the comments, I felt flung back and forth between the two extremes. It was a breath of fresh air to read Erin Manning's comment: she acknowledged the complexity of the matter, expressed herself humbly (and maturely), and tried to synthesize the concerns of both sides instead of polarizing them. Imagine that!

My humble apologies to everybody posting on this message board. I went back and read Erin Manning's comment- Excellent. I was TOTALLY WRONG to in any way have mocked it.
Awesome comment Erin. My apologies to David too. Thank you for pointing out Erin's comment!

I'd rather be killing communists.

Mexican Christians are our neighbors and they are the brothers and sisters in Christ of Americans. I think that Christians need to keep that in mind when talking about the illegal immigrants. Their religion is irrelevant. What happens when companies want to bid wages down further and start importing Indonesians or Indian untouchables? That they're our neighbors (in the international sense) is true, but neighbors can overstep their bounds, as can brothers and sisters. When they do that, they should be put right. We should not accommodate their law-breaking at the expense of our fellow citizens, especially those who can afford it the least. Let me give you a quick example: Meatpacking jobs used to pay something like $17/hr in the 70s and 80s. They now pay minimum wage. Who do you think that costs? It's easy to weep for the illegals the networks constantly shove in our faces, but you never see the people displaced from what were once good-paying jobs. Nor do you see the longer-term costs of low-wage labor, like stifled innovation that makes dirty jobs safer, cleaner and better paying. And excepting a few people, almost no one bothers to connect the grinding poverty and backwardness of source countries with the ability of governing elites to dump their discontented north of the border. Christian charity is a good thing, but only when applied properly and with a view to the long-term consequences.

grrrrr - that is: "they SHOULDN'T be allowed to hawk their wares here."

It must be noted, Eric, in light of your comment re: low-skill jobs and paying better wages, that in places like India or the Philipines, a worker making $1.90-$3.50/hour doing online customer support for an American company can actually own a modest-sized home of his own. Why can we not do the same in this country for 6, 7, 8 times the wage? Is the wood we build American homes with magic wood? Is the plumbing made with gold?

Why can we not do the same in this country for 6, 7, 8 times the wage? Is the wood we build American homes with magic wood? Is the plumbing made with gold? Homes here must meet a number of regulations that you don't find elsewhere. A good portion of the cost of the house is tied up in complying with federal, state and local rules. That's not a bad thing, mind you. I'm glad things like foundations and structure need to meet code, but it does add cost. The same goes for working conditions and a number of other things. This is where "free trade" ideology breaks down. Companies profit because they don't need to pay these costs overseas. Any sane tax structure would impose a cost on imports from these kinds of countries.

Well, I don't think you can completely prevent it, and I don't think we should require every country to come up to our standards right away. It takes time. But we should definitely reduce the profit margin. At least put a 50-75% crimp on it.

Mexico, a heavily Catholic country (socially if not politically) has no problem what-so-ever enforcing its very strict immigration laws. And for the self-righteous individual who dropped the *racist* bomb. Well, yes. I would like the population of this country to bear a resemblance to the people who founded it, tamed the frontier, built its industry, fought two World Wars. Somehow this is the height of sin in some peoples' minds. Actually, just some white peoples minds, as just about every other country, from Singapoore to Japan to Mexico, has immigration laws which sheild it from drastic demographic change.

Historically there were always small numbers of non-whites in the US population, so fine, recognize their contribution. However the United States was, up until the deceitful and nepotistic 1965 immigration act was abou 80% non-Hispanic white. Let's have an immigration policy that reflects that reality. Think of it this way. Singapoore has a multiracial population. That doesn't compell the Chinese who dominate it to open its borders to the masses of Malays and Indonesians that would certainly change the place beyond recognition. Here are a few words from a founding father Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence [Federalist 2] John Jay It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. ... With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Your frightened by John Jay? By an immigration policy that was in effect for most of the 20th century, during which time our country grew prosperous and developed a broad middle class? PSY Don't read what Thomas Jefferson said about the Indians in the Declaration of Independence.

Not 'keeping it white' , but keeping it approximately where it is. Your alternative is turning the US into Mexico, or Brazil. And since polls show that a large percentage of Americans want all immigration reduced, there must be a lot of people who share my view.
What frightens me is people who would so cavalierly change the ethnic makeup of this country.

Since another comment intervened, allow me to clarify: god_is_in_the_tv: Why is it wrong for whites to try to hold on to their share of this country -- to "keep it white", as you put it? People routinely attempt to keep their homes "Smith" or "Dreher". Whether it's an individual, a family (including an extended family like a nation or race), or a religious community, it's nothing more than humans or human communities asserting their entitlement to the fruits of their labor. We have a word for the contrary arrangement that you favor, in which people don't get to keep what they create: slavery!

In other words, living things have no interest in staying alive. Good luck selling that argument.

In other words, living things have no interest in staying alive. Good luck selling that argument. What does "staying white" have to do with "staying alive?" Never mind. I never did understand that mindset - the ethnically isolationist, that is.

Where is the discussion about the obligations of the Mexican government and people to take care of their own population. We have been part of a non-profit for Latin America for years and have been to the mountains of Mexico where these illegals come from. They are poor and they want more, but they are not starving, nor are they facing slavery, percecution, etc. Mexico is not the Sudan.
Mexico's poor live in a sad situation that is not just but it will never improve until Mexico changes and Mexico will never change as long we are the escape hatch. Mexico has many wealthy people. As long as the poor and unhappy disappear into the United States those wealthy people and the Mexican government do not have to do anything (and they don't do anything to expand their economy) because they do not want to include their own poor in their lives or their economy. I would also suggest that people look at want happens to these young people when they do come to this country. They have left their mountain villages and frequestly leave a spouse and children behind and eventually end up with a commmon-law spouse here with some more children who have no legal claim to them. Better to stay in your own country poor and keep your faith and be a father or mother to your children.