Finding balance in the current immigration debate

[Oompa Loompa]

Is the Pope complaining?

Look, we will get the criminals out, and those who are under deportation orders from the court.

Right now those who's asylum cases have been fully adjudicated and been denied asylum are about 1.6 million people.

Known criminals runs about 150,000 ..

Those are the known open targets

Then there's the Cartels and gangs and terrorist organizations that we know are here but we don't have their names and addresses or even their exact numbers etc etc.

^^^ that's going to be the main focus, probably over and above the two aforementioned groups because these pose the greatest danger to citizens.

People who are awaiting their asylum cases to be heard will stay so long as they are not breaking any laws, but as a citizen if they are adjudicated and denied asylum, they should be deported...

Quite a few will be staying I'm sure, but we didn't ask them to come and can't support them...

If people can't support themselves maybe they should leave and go somewhere they can.

If the Pope can afford to support these people then they need to go to his country. This isn't his nation and he's got zero business telling us anything about how to run ours.

I hate to say this but if the current Pope is complaining about Trump, it probably means he is doing something right.

 

[Michie]

I hate to say this but if the current Pope is complaining about Trump, it probably means he is doing something right.

Well he needs to open up Vatican City then.

 

[Michie]

Msgr. Pope wrote an opinion essay. Opinion essays are just that, not journalism.
I think that WSJ and Forbes generally publish reliable facts, and they are conservative.
I am sure OSV's news stories are reliable.
I think OSV is at least ten times as reliable as Christian Post, which never ceases to shock me.

Please. There are links in CP articles that are easily checked. I’m sorry it wasn’t Rachel Maddow’s opinion to scratch itching ears.

 

[SeekFirst0]

Very balanced article from Msgr. Pope.

He is the best at that, I’d say.

 

[BobRyan]

A great national discussion over immigration is heating up across our land. And that is part of the problem: There is often more heat than light in such discussions. As with many issues, Catholics on both sides are likely to reflect their political leanings more than their faith or the teaching of the Church.

The Catholic teaching on immigration, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is straightforward and balanced: “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.

Indeed - most nations do that via their immigration policies.

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” (No. 2241).

This teaching balances the natural right to immigrate with the common good. Prosperous nations such as ours are obliged, to the extent we can, to welcome foreigners and recognize that they have a natural right to immigrate. However, immigrants are to obey the law of the receiving country and respect its heritage. This surely includes the laws and “juridical conditions” assigned to the immigration process itself. This pertains to the common good.

Border disorder benefits no one​

Continued below.

Finding balance in the current immigration debate

Msgr. Charles Pope offers a Catholic perspective on immigration, calling for a balance on compassion and legal order in today's society.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

 

[Fantine]

Please. There are links in CP articles that are easily checked. I’m sorry it wasn’t Rachel Maddow’s opinion to scratch itching ears.

A link doesn't mean anything if it isn't from a reliable source.

 

[Michie]

A link doesn't mean anything if it isn't from a reliable source.

Well we’ve seen what has happened to some of these reliable sources. They’ve been getting their pants sued off. I post many secular sources that are considered reliable as well. And those links within the CP articles connect to these so-called reliable sources. So my suggestion is if it shocks you so much, don’t read it. Put me on ignore. I’ve seen you repeating your fair share of misinformation from your sources and many have called you on it. So… free speech and all that. It’s not your job to determine what others should be reading. You’re about as informed as the rest of us.

 

[Fantine]

Why are you replying via separate post and not to my post? Do you not know that I will not receive a notification unless you hit the "reply" button to my post? Seem kinda suspiscious to me. Care to share some of these "reliable, referenced, double sourced, award winning" propaganda publications you are referring to?

Regarding the gospel teachings of Jesus, where is a country required to accept and harbor criminal thugs and rapists that are dumped onto them from other countries?

It sounds as if you are saying that there are numerous situations in today's world that cannot be matched up to a Bible reference.

And I agree 110%. But it's not progressives who are claiming poorly matched Bible verses to justify 21st century situations that could not have been conceived of in Biblical times--it's conservatives.

But first we have to address the allegation that we have accepted and harbored "criminal thugs and rapists dumped onto them from other countries?" This was an unsubstantiated staple of Trump's campaign speeches.

In the 1980's Cuba sent flotillas of immigrants, many of them released from prisons, to the U.S. but I believe it was dealt with completely and expeditiously (in addition, if someone is imprisoned in a Communist country, he could be a "good guy" in a totalitarian state.)

It has been proven here many times with statistics that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native born Americans. And it has never been proven that we "accept and harbor" criminals.

The current president has been attacking refugees with temporary legal status, but refugees from Syria and other countries require far more stringent background checks than other countries require. I know someone who has worked with Afghan refugees in our state, and all of them were people who provided assistance to the American military and their families. It would be unconscionable to send these people back to their home countries.

I am sure that occasionally criminals and thugs manage to get into the U.S. Some probably have fake passports and come in by air (overstaying visas is one of the most prominent ways of immigrating for people who aren't destitute and desperate). Others have the underworld connections in the U.S. to get through. The idea that they are invited and welcomed is completely groundless.

 

[Vambram]

Because the reliable, referenced, doubly sourced, award winning publications I see say just the opposite.
I also find many of the social justice positions of the religious right bear little or no resemblance to the gospel teachings of Jesus.

As a born-again Christian, I very strongly disagree with this post.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Well we’ve seen what has happened to some of these reliable sources. They’ve been getting their pants sued off. I post many secular sources that are consideredreliable as well. And those links within the CP articles connect to these so-called reliable sources. So my suggestion is if it shocks you so much, don’t read it. Put me on ignore. I’ve seen you repeating your fair share of misinformation from your sources and many have called you on it. So… free speech and all that. It’s not your job to determine what others should be reading. You’re about as informed as the rest of us.

Supposed "reliable sources" also said that COVID 19 did not come from a Wuhan Lab, masks and social distancing worked, Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, and that Trump said that Nazis were good people. They also said that Trump would never win a second term as president. Yet, here we are.

 

[Michie]

Supposed "reliable sources" also said that COVID 19 did not come from a Wuhan Lab, masks and social distancing worked, Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation, and that Trump said that Nazis were good people. They also said that Trump would never win a second term as president. Yet, here we are.

It’s a cafeteria out there.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What I see is that the bipartisan immigration bill, derailed by the current president despite being very sound and sensible, should have gone forward.
The nominally balanced article contains a lot of the incendiary rhetoric and fallacies of the far right, and sadly, some misplaced trust in exactly how far the current president will go in his plans.
My experience between 2016 and 2020 has shown me it would be dangerously naive to trust this administration.

An open border is not a just system.

 

[HarleyER]

A great national discussion over immigration is heating up across our land. And that is part of the problem: There is often more heat than light in such discussions. As with many issues, Catholics on both sides are likely to reflect their political leanings more than their faith or the teaching of the Church.

The Catholic teaching on immigration, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is straightforward and balanced: “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. 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” (No. 2241).

This teaching balances the natural right to immigrate with the common good. Prosperous nations such as ours are obliged, to the extent we can, to welcome foreigners and recognize that they have a natural right to immigrate. However, immigrants are to obey the law of the receiving country and respect its heritage. This surely includes the laws and “juridical conditions” assigned to the immigration process itself. This pertains to the common good.

Border disorder benefits no one​

Continued below.

Finding balance in the current immigration debate

Msgr. Charles Pope offers a Catholic perspective on immigration, calling for a balance on compassion and legal order in today's society.

www.oursundayvisitor.com

There is no "balance" between legal immigration and illegal immigration any more than there can be a balace between abortion and pro-life. You either have a system where people obey the laws to legally enter the county or you don't.

Those people who walked across the border knew that they were breaking the law. News outlets states that they are frighten and fearful that they will be sent back. So they must have known this was wrong. I sincerely feel sorry for them for whatever their motives might have been or what they were told. But there isn't much of an excuse for people who willfully break the law and then want people to excuse them. People who WANT to come to this county, and legally apply, are short changed.

And it is rather hypocritical for Catholics to talk about letting illegals into other people's country, when they refuse to allow people into the Vatican territory (which, btw, happens to be surrounded by a wall).

 

[Fantine]

A lot of comments seem to be in the "spoken by someone who has never walked a mile in their shoes" category.
I haven't either, but I have gotten close to people who are undocumented and try to look at them with empathy, or look at them with God's eyes.
How did God look at my friend whose husband's factory was raided while she had cancer? Her two American children were able to go to Mexico while she got chemo, but she and the two older ones never saw him again. He died alone--heart attack.
Does God say, "They shouldn't have come. They cut the line. It's their fault?"
I realize some people see God in a harsher, judgmental way. I don't, and I try to look at others as he would.
And of course I don't always succeed.