First, let me note a point on which I agree with him, though.
According to Catholic News Agency,
The archbishop of Guadalajara, Mexico, Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez expressed his support this week for protests by Hispanics in the United States, saying the “undocumented” are persons who also possess the dignity of the children of God.
That much is true. The protesters are largely baptized people, and the baptized possess the dignity of the children of God. And even the unbaptized possess the dignity of human persons created in God’s image. At the same time, that is a dignity that can be abused, as when people, baptized or otherwise, break the law.
Here’s where the disagreement comes in:
During the inauguration of the Diocesan Museum of the Mexican Martyrs, the cardinal said the undocumented should not be called “illegal” because they are not criminals, but rather people who out of necessity or “ignorance left without their papers.” He said the country to which they travel should treat them with justice and grant them a status that “respects first and foremost their human dignity.”
The U.S. should indeed treat illegal aliens with human dignity, but treating them with justice means acknowledging that they have broken the law, making their presence in this country "illegal."
It may be morally legitimate at times to do illegal things out of moral necessity, but this does not automatically make the act legal under civil law (though in some cases civil law may honor a necessity defense).
The Cardinal Archbishop is not dealing straight here. The number of illegal immigrants from Mexico who out of "ignorance left without their papers" is diminimously small. Children may have been dragged along by their parents in that condition, but the number of adults who did so is extremely low or non-existent. They knew darn well that they needed the appropriate papers to cross into the United States. Otherwise they wouldn’t be using obscure desert trails and paying coyotes sums of money to smuggle them across crammed into the backs of vans and semi-trucks.
I’m sorry, but sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that non-citizens who have come into this country illegally are illegal aliens by definition.
We do neither them nor the American people a favor if we try to paper over this reality with terminology that would seek to mask this fact.
To do so only distracts from the core moral questions of whether their presence in this country can be morally justified or not (that’s where the necessity defense plays a role) and what is to be done about the situation.
Speaking of illegals, maybe Cardinal Sandoval should look into the treatment given to Guatemalans who try to sneak into Mexico without *their* papers.
OK, so most knew they were breaking the law. Still, you didn’t deal at all with the other reason that the Archbishop gave (according to the article) “necessity.” You accuse him if distracting from the real issue of necessity when in fact he apparently mentioned that up front. So where is his deception? You have accused an archibishop of the church of the sin of lying, seems to me, without any evidence of it.
Retraction?
WRY, how does necessity equate to non-illegality? If I found it necessary, I might break the law. That doesn’t mean I would be entitled to consider my actions non-illegal. Illegal aliens are illegal aliens, whether their actions are necessary and thus morally justified or not.
If I were to make a law making it a felony to protest abortion within 50 feet of an abortion clinic, would my conservative bretheren begin lecturing bishops about the importance of referring to these abortion protestors as criminals? I would speculate they would be discussing what a perversion of justice the law is. I would also speculate that they would find grossly offensive comparing abortion protestors to murderers and other felons.
Right… that’s a stupid comparison and I’m being nice.
Your first example would deal clearly with a law trying to muzzle free speech, and making it such a thing a felony would clearly be disproportionate punishment. In the case of immigration it is also clear that it is wrong to ignore the country’s laws and enter the country unauthorized. On top of that nobody compared illegal immigrants to murderers nor said that it would be a good idea to make this offence a felony. All that was said is that they ARE criminals since they broke the law by entering the country illegaly, which doesn’t seem to be a good start don’t you think? I lived in Mexico for a great part of my life and I don’t think that you can tell me that their situation is so dire that it justifies smuggling into the US (regardless of whether the US immigration policy is fair or not). Illegal immigration hurts the US, illegal immigrants, as well as LEGAL immigrants (which I am a part of). I find it grossly offensive that you would DARE tell me that they should be given a free pass just because when I and my parents had to work hard to come here and I wasn’t always welcomed (and I’m not even hispanic). I find it a great insult to all my immigrant friends that worked so hard and respect the laws of the land that welcomed them and gave them a roof.
MZ I don’t hear you complain about the treatment of people from other nations (China, Czech, etc…) that are sent back home or put in jail if caught in the US illegaly, it seems that it’s ok if we don’t come from the Americas, but then again you seem to know double standard.
SDG: I’m simply pointing out that Jimmy accuses the archbishop of bringing up a distraction that keeps us from discussing “necessity,” when the archbishop himself mentioned the issue of necessity.
On top of that nobody compared illegal immigrants to murderers nor said that it would be a good idea to make this offence a felony.
The U.S. House did. That was what started these protests. By making being here without documentation a felony, one can legitamately compare their offense with other felons.
Illegal immigration hurts the US, illegal immigrants, as well as LEGAL immigrants (which I am a part of).
No, that is incorrect. That is no more true then saying blacks hurt the US. But I forgot, undocumented immigrants should be hunted down and expelled, because of the evil they’ve caused. Next we can gather up the Jewish bankers.
I find it grossly offensive that you would DARE tell me that they should be given a free pass…
That’s your business. I’ll get over it.
MZ
Perhaps you missed the most important thing that SKY said and that is that the Mexicans who come are not so poor that breaking the law is justified. That is my experience and it is borne out by the Pew report that says 90% of Mexican immigrants left jobs in Mexico and no they do not pay as much as even eploitive employers pay in the U.S. but you can buy more there with less money.
This situation is wrong, destructive and totally uneccessary. Fix Mexico is the first solution.
MZ-
SURELY you are not asking me to seriously equate the protesting of abortion with illegal immigration?
Protesting abortion is an unqualified good. Sure it can be spoiled in any number of ways, but the act itself is good without question. Attempts to criminalize it are therefore wrong. Period.
Illegal immigration can be either justifiable (my family is starving) or not (dealing drugs, etc…). In sufficient numbers it becomes a very legitimate security concern. Should it be a felony? I guess not, but don’t try to paint every illegal immigrant as some sort of martyr.
We shouldn’t make sweeping generalizations (for good or ill) regarding the character of individuals coming to this country, but must judge by cases.
We can only judge by cases if we know who these people are and why they are here, and that requires legal, documented and regulated immigration.
Amen, Tim! Holy Thursday night, one of my fellow police officers and I arrested an illegal alien. Over the course of our investigation, we discovered that he was a Turk, who had entered the U.S. through the Mexican border, and had made his way to New York. In the words of Jim Lovell: “Houston, we’ve got a problem.”
Annalucia, i heard from more than one Mexican national: “if you really want to shut down our people coming into the US, you should just treat them as we do Guatamalens coming up from the south.”
Tim, I feel perfectly comfortable making the comparison. In each instance, law is treated as the moral arbitrar of justice. Are you prepared to say it is moral injustice before God that a person came to this country illegally?
My level of annoyance is quite high on the whole question, because no one seems interested in natural justice. Detain and deport all the illegals. Fine. The endeavor would be over 100 times the Japanese internment project. Illegal immigrants number 2 to 3 times the population of people in prison and jail, on probation, or on parole (7,000,000). How much injustice are you willing to tolerate to see this through?
“Are you prepared to say it is moral injustice before God that a person came to this country illegally?”
Are you saying it never is?
It sure MIGHT be a moral injustice before God. Are you prepared to say the same about protesting abortion?
I would react differently to a law criminalizing the protesting of abortion mills, as opposed to illegally emmigrating, because the two can not be reasonably compared. They are apples & oranges, comfort level notwithstanding.
Emmigrating is a morally neutral act. It can be either moral or immoral.
Please give me an instance where immigration is immoral when immigration is not incidental to the moral act.
Next we can gather up the Jewish bankers.
Mr. Forrest, perhaps your arguments wouldn’t be ignored if they weren’t hysterical. In this thread you’ve already equated the enforcement of democratically legislated immigration laws with WWII era race-based internment and now the Nazi holocaust.
Your cuckoo.
How much injustice are you willing to tolerate to see this through?
Don’t you mean how much justice?
I wonder why Cardinal Íñiguez doesn’t criticize the way his own country treats illegal immigrants? Mexico has one of the most stringent immigrant policies in the world. They have even been known to machine gun people crossing their southern border.
Man, The Us would be nothing withot those “criminal”
A mexican
“No, that is incorrect. That is no more true then saying blacks hurt the US.”
That’s a good one M.Z… I don’t know how you come up with such comparisons… How in the world does that equate to what I said? Illegal immigration hurts any country because it puts a burden on the economy. As Jimmy has pointed out they don’t take jobs that American won’t do, they take jobs for a lot less than American would. Which means in turn that the standard of living goes down and those poor immigrants get second rate treatment. And when they get some kind of social aid it is inadequate but still costs the tax payer (and in the meantime these illegals don’t contribute to those taxes).
Now what does any of this got to do blacks??
Anyway I’d rather go with evidence that is factual instead of your delusions M.Z.
I can tell that you are a very bright person, and certainly can talk about a lot more subjects than I could come up with; but there are some things you say that make me think you really don’t know what you are talking about and this is one of them.
BillyHW,
The Japanese internment is the only project undertaken by this country where you had an attempt to round up large numbers of people. The only thing that makes the Japanese internment less of a valid comparison is that it dwarfs the scale of the project to deal with illegal immigrants signficantly.
I didn’t invoke the holocaust, but the early programs against Jews in WWII era Germany enjoyed wide public support. Democratically decided laws doesn’t equal just laws; I can’t think of a single country that democratically doesn’t allow some abortion.
You miss the point on injustice. Anyone or any organization that materially aids an illegal immigrant can be charged as a felon under the House bill. While Cdl Mahony’s concerns may be exagerated, there are many para-Catholic organizations that probably would be targeted. The Catholic Worker movement has been mentioned by others in this regard. Anyhow, you can’t do a project of this scale without making criminals out of otherwise innocent people.
bunch of crock M.Z.
MZ-
Let’s say I want to move to New Zealand.
New Zealand has strict immigration laws.
Are you saying I may ignore them if I like? Even if I could arrange to sneak into the country without lying on my visa application, being a stow away, bribing someone, etc… (all sins), I am still gate crashing a party to which I have not been invited. They have a right to make laws concerning requirements for emmigration.
Some people move to the US out of necessity, but not NEARLY all, or even a majority. Things are better here, but many people have a decent life in Mexico, and points south. It’s less like the Irish potato famine and more like the 1849 Gold Rush. Mexico is not impoverished like Bangladesh or Somalia. They certainly have all the resources needed to establish a strong economy.
Sky,
I was being unfair with you. Regarding the economics of illegal immigration, I’ll have to save that for another day.
Tim,
None the things you stated are objectively sins. While illegal and immoral often coincide, they do not not necessarily coincide in every instance.
MZ, You don’t consider lying and bribery to be sins? I’ll remember that if we are ever seated across a conference table from one another.
So, you’re saying that if I can sneak into New Zealand, then bully for me and to hell with their laws?
In as much as the laws of the land are not immoral, we are bound to be obedient to the earthly authorities.
Breaking the law without sufficient cause is a sin in itself, assuming we are aware of it.
“Democratically decided laws doesn’t equal just laws; I can’t think of a single country that democratically doesn’t allow some abortion.”
Abortion is intrinsically evil laws allowing it are always wrong.
Emigration is a right of individuals to leave their country. This right is not license to ignore the immigration laws of the country they are entering. If there is a dire need they should seek asylum from the state, not enter illegally.
Setting immigration laws is the right of the state. We have a duty to treat people with dignity during the process but we are not obliged to take every person that applies.
We need to enforce the laws on the books. Immigrants need to obey those laws and the state has a right to expect that from them. How much motivation to obey laws can a person have after they have broken laws just to enter the country?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
How much injustice are you willing to tolerate to see this through?
Unfortunately we cannot afford to treat the illegal immigrants justly by deporting them en masse.
Where and how does an illegal immigrant become entitled to the presumption that economic necessity or a well founded fear of persecution motivated their actions?
MZ writes:
Are you prepared to say it is moral injustice before God that a person came to this country illegally?
It seems to me that it violates the same moral law that someone entering your house without your permission would have violated. The U.S. has the right and authority to decide who is allowed to enter from the outside, just as you have the right to decide who may enter your home.
Of course, if someone ran into your house without permission because they were being shot at or something, they might be justified (or not, depending on who was shooting at them and what danger they might be putting you and your family into). But you are not obligated to let every homeless person in your town sleep in your living room. And, if you do let them stay, that doesn’t automatically obligate you to pay for their medical treatment or their kids’ schooling.
The goods of the earth do not belong in any absolute sense to an individual person of group.
If someone is starving, and you have plenty of bread, that person has every right to take some bread from you, even if you do not want them to. The person has not commited theft, they have merely taken what they had a right to. If on the other hand the person could have with a reasonable amount of effort gotten bread, even inferior bread, somewhere else for instance by working and earning money, then they would not have the right to take it from you without your permission. To do so would be stealing.
The same principle applies to immigration. If a person can not get basic human needs or a minimally dignified life (hard to define of course) in their home contry then they can licitly enter another country. Laws forbidding immigration do not apply to them, and enforcing such laws against them would be unjust, since they have broken no just law, like the starving man broke not just law against stealing.
If someone can provide for the basic needs of his or her self and family in their own country, then they have no right to enter another without permission. If they do so, they may licitly be prosecuted under the laws of that country for that offense.
I don’t see how all this is not self-evident. All that remains is the practicle matter of determining who really needs or needed to immigrate and who just wants or wanted to. Probably it would be best to let each person be innocent until proven guilty in this case, since it may be hard to conferm a past bad situation.
On the other hand perhaps it is possible to determine that the situation in Mexico is such that no one would really need to immigrate without a visa.
“If a person can not get basic human needs or a minimally dignified life (hard to define of course) in their home contry then they can licitly enter another country. Laws forbidding immigration do not apply to them, and enforcing such laws against them would be unjust, since they have broken no just law, like the starving man broke not just law against stealing.”
So if 100 million Hindoos in India are poor and can’t get a good life there, they are morally entitled to move to Ireland and turn it into a Hindoo country? Or ditto with 100 million Mohammadens in India & Pakistan?
If someone is starving, and you have plenty of bread, that person has every right to take some bread from you, even if you do not want them to.
Only if they have no other feasible way to obtain food.
I believe that we are all brothers
and brotherhood is the call of a good Christian
Jesus told us to be like the good samaritan,
He also said whatever you do to one of these you
dod it to me.
An illigal is also loved by God, and they must
be treated with the same love of the Father.
Mary,
Right.
Jeb,
If they are really lacking the basic necessities of life and have no other way of obtaining them, then yes, their entrance can not be forbidden, even for a just reason like preserving one’s culture.
Frank,
Amen. That does not mean we should not punish criminals though.
“All that remains is the practicle matter of determining who really needs or needed to immigrate and who just wants or wanted to.”
This can’t be done without controlling the borders and the process.
Jeb Protestant-
“Hindoos”?
“Mohammadens”?
Who have you been reading, Rudyard Kipling?
Next you’ll be referring to “negroes” and the “red man”. 🙂
Yes, in the area of immigration, survival trumps the niceties of cultural purity.
Anyway, culture is never fixed, frozen in one form, but changes constantly. Immigration has always been a huge component of cultural change.
Without controlled borders and documentation, though, it becomes impossible to determine who is coming here and why, which we have a right to know. We also have a right to restrict immigration to a certain number over time.
Tim,
Kipling is my favorite writer. What’s so wrong about the term “Mohammadenism”?
Do you think Ireland has the right to restrict immigration to ensure that it remains Catholic (assuming it is still catholic)?
What if immigrants are 100% “pro-choice” and would turn a pro-life country into a pro-choice one, would that be a sufficient reason? That’s only an issue of “cultural purity” to you?
Jeb-
No, I don’t think Ireland should keep out non-Catholics in order to keep the country Catholic. By all accounts, it isn’t Catholic NOW, in spite of its roots and culture.
In other words, even most of the Catholics aren’t very Catholic.
Christianity will never triumph by demographics alone, without the faith being lived out by every believer.
The way to maintain and spread the faith is to evangelize and change minds, not by keeping out those who disagree with us. Same with pro-life laws.
If we never encounter people who disagree with us, how can we convert anyone?
I like Kipling, too.
My kids love the “Just So” stories.
Tim,
“The way to maintain and spread the faith is to evangelize and change minds, not by keeping out those who disagree with us. Same with pro-life laws.”
“If we never encounter people who disagree with us, how can we convert anyone?”
Where did I say what you claim I say (or imply I say)?
“Where did I say what you claim I say (or imply I say)?”
I wasn’t responding to anything you said or implied. I was just throwing in my two cents.
Muslims claim the term “Mohammeden” is unsulting and inaccurate. That should be reason enough to not use it. Hindoo looks less respectable than Hindu and is archaic, so I wouldn’t use that either.
I agree with Tim J. that we need to have control of out borders to, let’s say filter, the prospective immigrants. However, we also need a law allowing people who really need to immigrate to do so.
Wow. It only took you 12 paragraphs, Jimmy, to say that illegal aliens have done something “illegal.” That was, after all, the purpose of this blog, right?
Yeah, you are quite the gifted writer.
Jeb, I was just ribbing you about the archaic language. You really don’t see those spellings in print, anymore.
Just funnin’. That’s why I tagged on the smiley-face thingy.
Heard at an English dinner party-
Man#1:”Do you like Kipling?”
Man#2:”I don’t know… I’ve never kippled.”.
Oops, that was me.
How about this from Kipling?
“The secret hid
Under Cheops pyramid
Is that the contractor did
Cheops out of several million!”