Stanek wkend Q: Agree with bishop that pro-lifers must support illegal immigration?
From Patheos, November 14:
Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles… made it clear that any pro-life platform must include respect for the dignity of the immigrant.
Asked whether immigration is connected to the pro-life position, he explained, “Obviously the Church is very concerned about the culture of life. But life from conception until natural death. So all those issues are part of the dignity of the human person. So I think that’s obviously a connection, in the sense that we care about every single person.”…
“I think the basic principles we would like to see are a path to citizenship, unity of families, and also ending deportation,” stated Archbishop Gomez. He also noted the need to better understand “the movements of people in a global world.”
“Families are torn apart by enforcement actions,” Bishop Elizondo said. He stressed the goals of working to “promote family unity” and “provide immigrants and their families legal protection.”
Pretty simple question: Do you agree with Archbishop Gomez that pro-lifers must support illegal immigration?
Also be sure to take the poll…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Families are torn apart every time someone chooses to break the law. Should we stop putting people in jail so their family won’t be affected by their crime? A friend’s son committed murder and her family was affected. Maybe he shouldn’t have gone to jail?
No. Illegal immigration has nothing to do with abortion, euthanasia etc. It’s an important political issue to be sure, as are many others, but it’s not a pro-life one where the state is legally sanctioning the killing of another person and abrogating their right to life.
When the Vatican donates its wealth and the bishops open their residences to illegal aliens, then they will be in a position to talk.
Good points Laura and Steve. When you break the law your risk breaking up a family. By breaking the law you may devastate another family, as Laura’s friend’s son did. Tragic yes, but people make such choices and yes, there are dire consequences.
Relating this to pro life is just a pathetic attempt at winning support. The two issues are not related.
For my part, I do not believe that social issues can be isolated and solved piecemeal. That is why I do not vote for pro-abortion politicians: A person who cannot discern the dignity of human life is incompetent to plan a budget or direct police/military actions.
That said, we can be single-minded activists toward pro-life issues without distracted ourselves toward other issues of social justice. We have to be focused and set our personal limits, or we become diluted into ineffectiveness.
But for the Catholics, at least, who have a duty to listen to our bishops: We should be sympathetic toward the activists who seek justice for families whom we have allowed to enter our culture illegally.
Just at Democrats are on the wrong side of justice in their brutal genocide of children and abuse of women, so also the fiercer Republicans are brutal in their cruel approach to families who are here without the documentation that we have fail to provide in deserving cases.
Our duty as moral voters is to get our politicians on the right side of family justice.
Hi Del,
We allowed them to enter our culture illegally? That’s like saying if you forgot to lock your door, you allowed someone to enter your home illegally.
They made the choice, and the consequence of that choice may be breaking up families. As Laura points out, this can be the consequence of illegal actions of any kind.
No, the two issues have nothing to do with each other. Unless somebody suggests making it legal to kill illegal immigrants, in which case pro-lifers will of course be obligated to come out against such a proposal.
I’ve heard this argument several times from priests and bishops and I think the fault is in the premise: of course we as pro-life people, as Catholics, as Christians, as PEOPLE should always be concerned about the dignity of other human beings. I don’t agree that recognizing the dignity of another human person extends to allowing them to do whatever they want regardless of the rules. Our immigration system is completely broken from the rules for seeking political asylum to our refusal to secure the border and deport lawbreakers (even violent ones). The system is too overwhelmed to allow for the compassionate treatment of the downtrodden, as they are at a glance impossible to tell apart from gang members and terrorists entering the country illegally with intent to do us harm.
Faithful Catholic here. Absolutely do not agree with this bishop. We can respect everyone’s dignity without letting people break into our country.
I think the bishops say this kind of stuff in part because they don’t want to alienate Latino Catholics, who many say are the future of the Church. They probably are hoping to attract a few back who now consider themselves evangelicals or whatever.
But you must be pro illegal to be prolife (or even a good Catholic)? Uh, no. Please remember this is a statement of a bishop, not Church teaching.
Sorry for the double post, but what a shameful statement by Elizondo or whatever his name is. He’s critical of “enforcement actions”? As Catholics, we’re bound to follow the just laws of our culture. Enforcing immigration laws is exactly what we should support.
Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s..
I bet the Native Americans wish they were less welcoming to immigrants!
So I’m gathering that most here are opposed to the action Obama is going to take:
1) If a kid was born in the US and is a US citizen, Obama wants to allow the parents to receive work documents and not fear deportation. I gather that most here want to ship those parents back to their home country?
2) Protection for kids who were taken into this country before they were 16. I gather that most here want to ship those kids back to the country of their parents?
3) Family members of illegal aliens enrolled in the military’s delayed entry program will be eligible for citizenship. So I gather that most would want the family members of the future soldier sent back?
Let’s just look at the immigration issue, isolated from any pro-life concerns….
1) We need to secure and protect our borders. (Yes, it is our fault that we left the doors unlocked and homeless people have settled in, seeking shelter.)
2) We need to create an easy method for guest workers and permanent immigrants to come legally, so that the illegal visitors are genuine scofflaws.
3) We need to provide retro-active justice to assist those families who are already here and desire to have legal status. We should not treat these families the way that pro-borts treat unwanted children.
As a pro-life activist, I will not be devoting my time, talent, and treasure to the cause of justice for immigrants. But I am cognizant of the need, and sympathetic to those who are called to work for immigration justice.
And we need justice. We need to workers who are already participating in our economy. They deserve protection from exploitation. Christians need to do better than the conservative notion of throwing them all on a train and shipping them back to poverty.
The liberals talk about blanket amnesty, which is not justice — It doesn’t matter to the liberals whether the immigrants get amnesty or not. The same villains and gangs are here, either way, and the liberals only hope to get a solid Latino vote.
Bishop Elizondo says to “provide immigrants and their families legal protection.”
Wouldn’t providing immigrants legal protection mean that we are to get to the bottom of how the immigrant(s) arrived here if at all possible? This doesn’t mean we have to condone, cover-up or down-play how they arrived, but need to move forward on how to proceed in a way that protects the dignity of the immigrants.
I don’t see the bishop’s statement as saying he supports illegal immigration per say. I see it as saying as Christians we are perfectly capable of separating the person from the sin.
If a woman prostitutes herself to feed her children, can we not separate her sin from her situation? Does holding her accountable mean we must support sending her back to her abusive pimp?
If a teenager becomes involved in heroin, cannot we not separate him from his choice to do drugs? Do we hold him accountable by forcing him to live with his dealer? Or do we put him in prison for years?
If a woman was coerced to abort by her spouse, doctor and/or others, cannot we not separate her from her sin? Do we kick her out of church?
How should those that did not secure our borders be held accountable?
“That’s like saying if you forgot to lock your door, you allowed someone to enter your home illegally.”
Forgetting to lock your doors after you’ve had others enter your home illegally time and time again, says something about you too imo.
I do support what Abp Gomez said: the laws shouldn’t be enforced in such a way as to break up families; but I wouldn’t characterize it as “support for illegal immigration.” Criticizing the way the law is enforced is not the same thing as saying that anyone can come in who wants to in spite of the law. That’s an unfair characterization. Statements by the U.S. bishops have always stressed that our country has the right to secure its borders.
By the way, why do people keep referring to Abp Gomez as “Bishop Elizondo?” Too lazy to look at the top of the article?
Let’s keep it very simple:
Pro-Lifers support families.
Some families are here without legal status, and they deserve our support dealing with the legal mess that we have created.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem to be clueless as to how to help the families, deal with the criminals, secure the borders, and reform the INS procedures.
If I were any sort of leader (such a Catholic bishop), I would look to the smart reformers and ask for help. Morally and politically astute reformers, like pro-lifers have shown themselves to be.
I don’t like the sign up top.
Some will read it to mean that we are to be cautious of running over fleeing families. Others will read it to mean we are to be cautious of the actual families.
I’ve always thought the “Slow Children Playing” should be done up differently as well.
The article lists both names, Lori.
ExGOP and Del both make good points. I couldn’t answer the survey question with a simple yes/no, as the issue is too complex.
What bothers me most is how poorly people are treated even when they come *legally*, so no wonder they would prefer to be under the radar. Artesia, NM, is home to a detainment camp where 600 women and their children are being held while they claim asylum. Volunteer lawyers there report that detainees are losing weight because of the awful institutional food and children are sick but not receiving needed medical care. These are people who came *legally*, fleeing violence (which US policies directly caused in past decades) and asking for asylum as refugees, and our country is treating them with an appalling lack of hospitality. Nursing mothers and babies are supposed to be at the top of the list to be processed and then released on bond while the red tape gets sorted through. There are numerous host families in the US waiting to provide room and board to these women, and yet they are held, interminably. See “Casa Guate Kirksville” on Facebook for an example of one such host home, created by a whole community, but waiting empty. I see no easy answers, but what would we as a country think if other places in the world where we are used to reading about refugees, just shut their doors and left them out in the cold? We would think it was inhumane. So why is it different when it’s our backyard now?
I also couldn’t answer the question yes or no because I don’t think the Bishop is urging support for illegal immigration. Those who tell these people to “get in line” and come legally, need to understand that there is no way for them to do that. We need immigration reform. We need to secure our borders. We need to make it possible for those seeking a better life to come here legally and make a go of it. We need to hold those who came here illegally accountable, but still respect their dignity as human beings.
Oh, my bad. Bishop Elizondo was not actually introduced in the article (full name, where he is bishop), so it was easy to glide over his name. Due to excerpting the original article, I guess. I stand corrected. But in this case, shouldn’t it be “bishops” in the title?
Lynn and CT, you make some very good points.
“so it was easy to glide over his name”
By the way, at least no one here implied laziness on your part, eh?
I also do not believe Abp. Gomez was saying we have to endorse illegal entry if we call ourselves “pro-life.” According to the quote, he did say we should end “deportation”, but I would guess he really meant to apply that to situations such as “Ex-GOP” listed in his post. I had the privilege of getting to know Abp. Gomez a little bit when he and I both lived in San Antonio, through some work I did with a lay Catholic lawyers’ organization there, and in the several meetings we had with him, I never heard him suggest that illegal immigration was OK. He did say we need to make our process less cumbersome, and that we as Christians owe care and concern as human beings even to those who are here illegally. I find it hard to disagree with those statements. Obviously there are many interconnected issues here and it’s possibly unfair to single out one short quote, out of context, and use that to attack Abp. Gomez or anyone else, for that matter.
No. I’m sick of this stupidity on the part of certain priests in the Church. Families are not torn apart by enforcement actions. They are torn apart by the societies in which they live, i.e., Mexico is politically, socially, and economically screwed up. I know because I am Hispanic (while not Mexican) and move within the Hispanic community and know many of the problems, not just of Mexico, but many Hispanic countries. Abp. Gomez is Mexican (born or lived a significant part of his life in Guadalajara I believe) so he is dishonestly bias on the subject and has no Magisterial authority on the matter.
While I definitely believe in compassion for the people suffering through a situation where they actually have to choose to leave their friends, family, and home to move to a place that is hostile to them, their culture, and dangerous that does not mean I want 60 percent of Mexico just moving north of the boarder. There are too many issues that that raises that offend the PC types, La Raza types, etc. Summary, keep it going and certain US states boarding Mexico will become Mexico II with all the problems that brings because the Mexican’s coming across the boarder do not want to assimilate to become US citizens (Mexico and Canada are America too) but US citizens to assimilate to become more like Mexican citizens. God knows they want many of us other Hispanics to become more like them – irrelevant of our own respective cultures and traditions.
If Abp. Gomez and other Mexican’s really want to help those Mexican families (and all Mexican’s in general), why don’t they stand up to the Mexican government, to cartels, to the bad side of Mexican culture that destroys those families and does not allow a resource rich country like Mexico improve economically and socially. I’m willing to bet that the 90 million Mexican’s would love having their country raise itself (and with foreign help) into a first world economic power. Then we can truly have an honest partnership between the US and Mexico that would be beneficial to both sides. However, as long as idiots here keep on thinking that the only way to help poor Mexican families is to allow them to emigrate to the US and leave the other poor Mexican families to die of hunger is stupid. You want to really help Mexican families help Mexico but don’t give Mexico an easy escape valve that only helps a few (if that once you include what happens to most of these families in the US) and ultimately destroys the US and Mexico.
How is seeking “Justice for Families” something entitled to someone who breaks the law to get here. Justice would be not forcing the families who are legally here to pay for the lifestyle of the law breakers.
If our bishops want to truly solve this problem they should be focused on the corrupt and abusive governments of our neighbors to the south which creates the conditions where people are forced to flee their homes to come here.
I couldn’t answer the poll question. It seems downright dishonest to me, actually. The Bishop did not say he supports illegal immigration.
Notice the Bishop is speaking for the Church. Of course the Church (and all Christians) should be concerned about the poor, legal or otherwise.
For anyone that wants background information on the Church’s position:
Why don’t they come here legally? http://www.usccb.org/about/migration-policy/position-papers/upload/Issue-Brief-Why-Dont-They-Come-Here-Legally.pdf
Since most won’t read it: CT is exactly right. Most illegal immigrants do not have the ability to come here legally. They are trying to escape poverty, but apparently us loving “pro-lifers” think they should just suffer until they die, in their own country of course.
Lrning,
Many people all over the world do not have the ability to come here legally. They no less want to escape poverty. So I suppose that means we think they should just suffer and die, in their own country of course.
What about the people who come here legally and follow the rules to acquire citizenship? They may be no less fleeing poverty and oppression.
I think our own citizens are to be considered first.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/08/u-s-civil-rights-commissioner-blasts-obama-amnesty-plan-will-hurt-blacks/
Then:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Now:
Leave your tired poor at home. We’ve got our own problems to worry about.
How dare the Catholic Church be a worldwide organization that has concern for the poor and needy of every nation. Don’t they know US citizens are the most important.
Lrning, That speech on the statue of liberty’s base is not US law, it isn’t a sentiment enshrined in US law. No, what you’re saying is how dare the more than 92 million long term unemployed US citizens and their children dare to speak out in defense of their rights, their being discriminated against by a collusion between corrupt democrats the corrupt, racist Hispanic lobby and illegal aliens, who are only able to barter down wages, because they know they will be subsidized by US taxpayer funded welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps, free healthcare and free everything else.. which those now unemployed US citizens would have been denied access to while employed in their now former jobs. If those wolves in sheep’s clothing like the corrupt, greedy racist “bishop” Elizondo was motivated by concern for the poor, why is he and other frauds like him indifferent to the poor citizenry staring them in the face, in their own dioceses? Where are these vulgar ethnic hucksters, both in Latin America & ‘worldwide’ when they are petitioned by Hispanics in Mexico, Central & South America to support them when they stand up for reform in their homelands? Why is the corrupt hierarchy of the Catholic church refusing to demand these wealthy Latin American countries raise taxes on their now large and thriving middle classes, millionaires and billionaires & industries to help their own people and create that ‘fair’ economy Pope Fraudulent whinges on about? No, they seek to collapse the US economy, by overburdening the already suffering US taxpayers, while helping wealthy Mexico et al… artificially suppress their tax rates.
Lrning,
Think about it. How can this country accomodate every single person from everywhere in the world that wants to come here?
Yes our citizens come first.
I’m sure you’ve heard of Cesar Chavez.
http://spectator.org/articles/59956/cesar-chavez-anti-immigration-his-union-core
Mary 5:09PM
That’s a different Mary. But I wish I could take credit for the post.
You’ve spewed an awful lot of accusations against the Church and the Bishop. Care to share your sources?
You say the Archdiocese of Seattle is indifferent to the poor in their area? Here’s a brief history of the work they’ve done http://www.ccsww.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_history
Feel free to click on the tabs on the left of that page and see details about what the Archdiocese offers for the homeless, housing, families, children, seniors, etc. Yeah, clearly they’re ignoring the “poor citizenry staring them in the face”.
Post your sources or your apology.
Very few of our ancestors could have come here legally under our current immigration laws. There has to be a way for honest, hardworking people to come to this country. We can accommodate people. They are an asset to our country.
What we can’t accommodate is if a majority of people want to come here just to make use of our our welfare system. I agree that we can’t accommodate that and I actually believe that there should be restrictions on any kind of government help for a certain period of time after people come here legally. But there absolutely has to be a way for poor, but hardworking people to come here and try to take advantage of the opportunities our country offers. All of us are here because our ancestors did that very thing.
Hi CT,
AMEN!
Hi Lrning,
I will always give credit where it is due. Our local diocese runs a homeless shelter for hard core cases, i.e. drug and mental health issues, and the ladies of the parish provide hot meals twice a day. The Catholic Church, as well as other religions, are involved in charitable work for the community.
There is a process that can be put into place to discern who can stay and who can be asked to leave. Each side of the debate or position have correct points. Migrants leave for all sorts of reasons, I come from Los Angeles and have seen Hispanic men just like a lot of non Hispanic men up and abandon families without leaving anything to support them. So do not tell me they all have pure motives. i supported welfare reform so that policies in the 80’s do not trap people in poverty. In the reform that worked it ask able body people to work. Certain policies had to discern what help was needed to get people on their way. The church’s mission is to solve societal problems. Not to perpetuate chaos.
Lrning,
You call a page listing services the diocese offered starting in the early 20th century but stopped updating in 2009 as a rebuttal? That’s not a source, you try to avoid addressing the reality, with a cheap, flimsy dodge. YOU post links to articles, appeals, etc.. from corrupt, racist ‘bishop’ Elizondo addressing citizen unemployment, homelessness, hunger, post any articles reflecting a shred of concern, or focus, demanding fairness and an end to the discrimination against US citizen families by any of the wolves in sheep’s clothing at the USCCB. You won’t find one. Elizondo ignores the vast unemployment numbers in the diocese and accross the US, the homelessness in Seattle of even college educated youth. Why isn’t Elizondo visiting homeless citizen youth at the Roost shelter in Seattle? There aren’t enough beds there, or the shelter for vets, where homeless veterans would ask him how he can call for something that will make it impossible for them to get a job and a roof over their heads. The archdiocese isn’t helping seniors or the disabled, it is focusing exclusively illegals and refugees. It’s taken millions this year alone in federal govt subsidies and contracted programs to dump illegals and refugees in communities and on the taxpayers backs. The last member of the Catholic clergy I saw address US citizen unemployment, and the harm caused by illegal aliens was the late Father Patrick Bascio, here’s a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMaNa1K8lJo the good Father wrote a book titled “The Immorality of Illegal Immigration”, because he was a faithful Catholic who had his eyes opened, and he truly cared about the poor.
I’ve spoken with world respected economist, Dr George Borjas of the Kennedy School of Govt, at Harvard. He’s proven that amnesties and excess immigration is creating massive unemployment and suppressing US wages, while the cost of living skyrockets. The US doesn’t have a worker or skills shortage of any kind.
CT, and to the commenter who pulled the old, “I wonder what native Americans would have to say” chestnut.. what we’re dealing with is a USA that now has immigration laws, and like all nations sovereignty. Immigration laws also protect the most vulnerable citizens from being denied the ability to support themselves. Looking back to when the US wasa less populated is a distraction. Lastly, as a woman who is half indigenous, my mother was 100% Abenaki, which is a tribe of the Algonquin nation, I’d like to suggest to all those white leftists who try to exploit my people’s history as a Trojan horse to hide all manner of corruption within, to go talk with the Ute, Navajo and Apache peoples in the US southwest, about the Hispanic’s favorite lie about the border crossing them, when the truth is, Hispanics aren’t indigenous.. their conquistadore ancestors attempted to expand Mexico northward and enslaved, tortured and killed many indigenous. Those Ute, Navajo and Apache helped the Americans fight and drive the Hispanics out. Ask Navajo and others who live in the SW US about the illegal alien cartels and gangs invading their lands, selling drugs to their youth, kidnapping young women to sell as sex slaves. The demand by Elizondo and his fellow frauds is the antithesis of prolife, it’s antilife. It’s a regression to slavery.
I’m a little more than worn out with Bishops (and lay Catholics) attempting to shame other Catholics into supporting illegal immigration when our own CATECHISM speaks against it.
“Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens” (CCC 2241).
Countries may make the right to immigrate subject to “juridical conditions” – i.e. subject to LAWS. Obviously those laws are being broken since we’re talking about ILLEGAL immigration.
Second, immigrants have the responsibility to obey the laws of the country they are going to. Once again, it’s obvious those laws are not being respected from the word, “Go,” if they entered illegally.
So, I’m going to stick with the official teaching of the Church, not the opinion of some bishop (or even the entire USCCB for that matter). Illegal immigration is not a morally correct action even if it “feels” (subjective) like a moral imperative.
First – can an admin solve the two Mary’s problem. This new one is making our resident Mary look bad. The name is taken – pick a new one.
“CT, and to the commenter who pulled the old, “I wonder what native Americans would have to say” chestnut.. what we’re dealing with is a USA that now has immigration laws, and like all nations sovereignty.”
No kidding. Our immigrations laws are flawed. That’s the point. They are too strict in some respects, and then just not enforced on the flip side. It’s a serious problem.
“Immigration laws also protect the most vulnerable citizens from being denied the ability to support themselves.”
Oh, she who dislikes the we’re all immigrants “chestnut” prefers the “they took our jobs” complaint. Now it’s clear. That’s actually not the point or purpose of immigration laws.
Christopher,
I do not support illegal immigration. I just think there are realities about the immigration debate that are ignored. As far as the “official teachings” of the Church, don’t forget that this is also part of the Catechism: “2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.” Our immigration laws currently provide no path – NONE – for most people to come here legally. They fall short. We need immigration reform and we need to enforce our laws as well. It’s not either – it’s both.
Amen, CT.
I haven’t seen anyone here yet, including the quoted Bishop, that supports illegal immigration.
And Mary, I see you still haven’t provided any sources for your accusations of corruption and racism.
Just as the pro aborts hijacked the word “choice”, so the UCCB and La Raza (“the race”)have perverted the word “immigration”. My beloved Nonno and Nonna were immigrants; they moved not only physically but heart, souls, allegiance and language. They waited at Ellis Island to be examined and questioned, proving they would not be paupers.
Just as I resent mere sires being
called “fathers”(a sacred word as God had given me the best), so I resent illegal trespassers and Visa overstayers being called “immigrants”. The bishops’ word play doesn’t fool me. Prolife or just pro-lie?
CT
“Our immigration laws currently provide no path – NONE – for most people to come here legally.”
Over a million people a year legally immigrate to the US, so I’m not sure what you mean when you say our current laws provide “no path – NONE – for most people to come here legally.”
Your statement lacks precision. For example, “most people”..most of whom? Who wants to move to the US? All Mexicans? Everyone in Latin America? Everyone in Latin America plus half of China? Everyone in the world? Who are “most people”? And are you sure it is our laws which prevent them from immigrating here or is it their current country’s laws? Or maybe their economic situation prevents them from legally immigrating here. Should we poll the world’s population, find out who wants to move here, and then foot the bill too?
Also, to say we have “no path – NONE” is simply not true. As I said, the U.S. has over a million people legally immigrate here every year since 1989 (link below). That is close to 30 million people! That is just the legal immigrants! I am aware what the first paragraph of CCC 2214 says and the phrase “to the extent they are able” is key. The United States is woefully in debt for a lot of different reasons. There is not an unlimited amount of resources here. After defining who “most people” are, we would need to assess whether or not we could assume responsibility for them while ensuring the common good. I don’t see anyone really looking at that.
I agree an “either or” approach is not wise. As you said, “It’s both.” The problem is, we can’t look at an approach to address legal immigration and our national sovereignty while our borders are so looked at as a joke by everyone who wants to just walk across. Let’s seal up the borders, enforce laws on the books, and look at what we can do as a nation to welcome immigrants properly. If the US can, based on resources, bump the number from 1M per year to 2M or 3M, great! Let’s do it. But we can’t allow our sovereignty to be ignored.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/Annual-Number-of-US-Legal-Permanent-Residents?width=1000&height=850&iframe=true
The two issues are related only in Bishop Gomez’z mind. Gomez gives faulty moral advice by saying such a silly thing.
CT, I’m sorry if being confronted with truths you find inconvenient. I’d suggest rather than reacting angrily towards the messenger, you go out like Christ did, and bishop Elizondo doesn’t and meet homeless citizens, volunteering, even a little time and expose your heart, see the face of Christ in the citizen families the USCCB ignores. Here’s a video that aired on 60 Minutes from back in 2011, the segment is called the Hard Times Generation, interviews with families, primarily with the children of citizen construction workers in central Florida. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2hzRPLVSm4 The reporter doesn’t mention where the jobs went, but they went to illegals. It’s heartbreaking.. despite this airing several years ago, the lefty media didn’t do more stories, the church didn’t start doing sermons on helping one’s citizen neigbors… I’d also suggest you watch that video interview with the truly humble Father Patrick Brascio, because he speaks on how he witnessed the black Americans in his former Harlem parish, have their ability to support themselves stolen from them by illegal aliens.
Read the article linked to below, a rare moment when lefty and conservative Americans agree. Churches & their orgs like Catholic Charities, the Southern Baptists, Lutherans, etc.. taking untold millions from the govt to import ‘refugees’, dump them in small towns, like this one in the report, Noel, Missouri, then leave the state and local govt to support them. They barter down wages, corporations like Tyson, Swift and others get richer and the taxpayers are forced to make up the difference. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/tag/tyson-foods/
I have nothing against people immigrating to the US, but they should do it legally. We do have a system. It may be broken in parts, but until we have it fixed, we have to live with it.
But to give people [even if they’re kids] who jump the legal immigration line priority over those trying to get here legally is simply unfair.
The bishops want justice and mercy to would-be immigrants? Look first at those who have been in line trying to get into our country legally.
Young Filipinos, many of whom are also suffering from poverty, have to wait for upwards of 20 years. Many of them have gone to college despite all odds, are hardworking, and they understand, if not speak, English.
By all means – if we must and if we can afford it – let’s welcome those kids from Guatemala and Honduras who came here illegally. But they must be made to file the proper application papers and to take their places at the end of the legal immigration line. It’s just fair.
It is a Crime for the Bishops to suborn Obama’s break the law and violating the Constitutional limits to his power. Encouraging a public official to break the law is itself a Crime!
Interesting. How does the label of ‘Cafeteria-Catholic’ sound now?
@LWC, Cafeteria Catholics choose to not support Catholic Doctrines. What is opposed here is suborning the Administration to violate the law and the Constitution.
That would also be against Authentic Catholic Teaching.
A bishop or anybody else can say anything, but the two issues are not necessarily related.
Marietta: By all means – if we must and if we can afford it – let’s welcome those kids from Guatemala and Honduras who came here illegally. But they must be made to file the proper application papers and to take their places at the end of the legal immigration line. It’s just fair.
Marietta, you say that line can be more than 20 years long – what happens to the kids in the meantime?
“If we can afford it”…. The proverbial excrement has not hit the fan here, yet. There is a perfect storm of population pressure and bad economic times out there. For now, it’s still over the horizon (isn’t it?).
Gonna get rather ‘interesting,’ I would say.
A lot of people, like this bishop, act like anyone who is opposed to illegal immigration is opposed to immigration, period. They do not make this distinction, thus the argument becomes a dishonest one.
I am not opposed to legal immigration, never have been. I have dear friends who emigrated here legally from other countries. They are proud to be here, they were glad to learn the English language, they made the effort to become naturalized citizens, they uphold American laws, they are productive citizens in every way.
They are just as opposed to illegal immigration as I am. And they cannot understand why anyone would emigrate here, take advantage of all that America has to offer, and then turn around and carry another country’s flag to rallies, etc. To them this is incomprehensible.