The problems with the way liberals think...

[Jaime]

I'm glad the legislators heard the bishops.

[MC Just]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 8 2006, 08:16 PM']I'm glad the legislators heard the bishops.
[right][snapback]940451[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

See!! Its not like that!!

[AngelofJesus]

Matter closed. Next Debate!

[Jaime]

The matter isn't necessarily closed.

Legislators can state that it wasn't the intent of the bill to hinder charitable organizations. But they create law, they do not enforce the law. The language of the bill needs to be amended (and most likely will) in committee so that door will not be opened.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 5 2006, 10:53 PM']At most places of aid that I know of, they simply ask for a social security number and name... they have to keep records of who they feed and help. They don't check id's. It is to give a count to how many people they help on a monthly basis. Which helps is getting more money to help the poor.[right][snapback]937408[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

When I read that, my first thought was "fake SSNs and identity fraud", but apparently I'm not the only one:

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Apr 8 2006, 04:56 AM']The point is that the proposal currently before Congress would make feeding the poor illegal. Ironmonk unquestioningly supports the Republican proposal. The rest of us have problems with it.
This is simply a factually inaccurate statements. Believe what you will about how living in crushing poverty is better for them, but please don't propogate falsehoods about undocumented immigrants being unable to pay taxes. There are certainly some immigrants who do not pay taxes. However, the IRS does not care about your immigration status. If you're willing to pay taxes, they're willing to take it. If you can't get a Social Security Number, you can get an Individual Taxpayer Identifiaction Number which you can use to file taxes, get home loans, get loans to start businesses, and so on. And immigrants use ITINs for all these things.

And, it's not that hard to get fake SSNs. In fact, this has been an increasing problem with the Social Security Administration. They currently have more than $420 [b]billion[/b] in funds that they can't properly match to SSNs ... most of that money is from undocumented immigrants [b]who have been working and paying taxes under fake SSNs[/b]. Yes, getting a fake SSN is breaking the law. But, this (to me at least) demonstrates a willingness to pay taxes. Let's not paint all immigrants with the broad "freeloader" brush.
[right][snapback]939857[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I do have to question the level of taxes that they are paying. We must also take into account that many employers pay them "cash under the table". I'm not talking about corporations like Wal-Mart or Denny's, I'm talking about the small businesses like construction subcontracters, the landscapers, the nurses who are hired by individuals to provide home health care for people, etc.

How much is underground and how much is legit? I don't know. Some say illegal immigrants pay taxes but don't use services, but what about those who are paid via the "underground economy" but still use services? As I recall, it is a federal law that one cannot discriminate based on whether an immigrant is legal or not when it comes to providing public services (I'm thinking of education), so there is an economic burden that some states are facing as a result of this, and I don't know if the current legislation addresses it or not. But the immigration laws do seem to be an incomprehensive hodgepodge of contradiction. I'll give you a case in point:

[url="http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown26.html"]http://www.suntimes.com/output/brown/cst-nws-brown26.html[/url]

The suburb one block from me allows illegal immigrants to enroll, but when someone who was here [i]legally[/i] tried to enroll, she was turned away. (we need a smiley for "brain screwed on backwards"). They changed their minds when the state threatened to cut funding and take away athletic eligibility.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Apr 6 2006, 10:04 PM']
[quote name='Azriel' date='Apr 6 2006, 07:30 AM']
Of course, I live in a border state - but it happens to be Canada, and people aren't getting up in arms about Canadian illegals.  :
[right][snapback]937521[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

What? Do they do the jobs even the Mexicans won't take? [right][snapback]938639[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hey, haven't you heard? We can't find anyone born here who's willing to drive the Zambonis!



OK, humor break over....continue the debate....

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Apr 9 2006, 04:39 AM']The matter isn't necessarily closed.

Legislators can state that it wasn't the intent of the bill to hinder charitable organizations.  But they create law, they do not enforce the law.  The language of the bill needs to be amended (and most likely will) in committee so that door will not be opened.
[right][snapback]940643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I meant for this thread.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 05:18 PM']American laws on immigration control are merely prudential. They have no status in the moral law, and so they can never be sinful in themselves. Insofar as they contribute to the common good, then they are binding. Insofar as they do not contribute to the common good, they are not binding.

Speed limits are a prime example. The moral law has nothing to say about whether you should drive 60 MPH or 80 MPH. This is merely a human law. If someone is in a car dying, they can trump that human law, and speed to the hospital. The human law is irrelevant, because a greater good must be sought.

This is the same operative principle in illegal immigration. It is erroneous for you to suggest that disobeying the law is necessarily a sin, because it might be judged that the law transgresses a higher good, and thus is irrelevant. If you feel you must obey the law, feel free to do so. But there is nothing intrinsically sinful when a Catholic Bishop, or a group of people, judge in their conscience that a merely HUMAN law is detrimental to the higher common good, and override it.

Some people have concluded just this when it comes to their languishing families in other countries. They have judged that their duty to provide for that family, and the availablity of a means to do so in the United States, supercedes human American laws.

If you disagree, that's fine. But don't try to badger people with "the law", because a spiritual power always trumps a temporal power. Argue your case, but don't stifle legitimate disagreement with bullying tactics like that. You are accusing others of valuing the human over the spiritual, but that is precisely what you are doing here.

This is not a black-and-white moral issue, and when either side makes it out to be, it only clouds the playing field.
[right][snapback]940273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Breaking a just law is a sin, end of story.

You ignore the Catechism.

[b]2241 [/b]
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.

[b]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[/b], especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. [b]Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them[/b], to [b]obey its laws [/b]and to assist [b]in carrying civic burdens[/b].

[Era Might]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Apr 9 2006, 03:39 PM']Breaking a just law is a sin, end of story.

You ignore the Catechism.

[b]2241 [/b]
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.

[b]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[/b], especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. [b]Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them[/b], to [b]obey its laws [/b]and to assist [b]in carrying civic burdens[/b].
[right][snapback]940886[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

No, that's not "end of story". Just because a law does not CONTRADICT the moral law doesn't mean it is binding. Speed limits do not CONTRADICT the moral law, but they certainly aren't binding when someone is bleeding to death in your car. It doesn't matter that the law is just. A higher law, that of Christian charity, takes precedence over any human law.

The same principle applies to any law, including immigration.

Now, whether in specific cases, the law is trumped by a higher duty, that must be dealt with individually, in concert with a Priest or someone who can adequately weigh various moral factors.

Because it is possible that American immigration laws are trumped by a higher law, it is erroneous to say that merely disregarding these laws is a sin. Could it be? Of course. But that doesn't mean it *necessarily* is.

I don't know if you've seen the movie "Day After Tommorow", but everyone has to flee south to Mexico, and the Mexican government won't let them cross the border unless the United States forgives all Latin American debt. This would be an unjust demand, and if it really happened, Americans would commit no sin if they went past the border anyway.

I can't say that I would not cross the American border illegally if I had to live in abject poverty, and work was readily available in the United States. And I can't hold illegal immigrants in disdain for doing so. While I completely support the need to secure the border, I can't condemn them for working through the holes that exist.

We cannot correctly say "they are sinning", because we don't know that. They are committing an illegal act, yes. But that is quite different from saying that they are sinning.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Era Might

[Era Might]

Basically, my point is that we can't value human laws over and above our duty of solidary with illegal immigrants. You are looking at them and seeing the breaking of HUMAN laws, whereas the Church looks at them and sees people who are trying to overcome a desperate situation. That doesn't mean America can't still legitimately regulate immigration, because it can and must. But our focus needs to be on helping the immigrants, not condemning them. Immigration laws are not about punishing people, but about securing the nation. We shouldn't beat illegal immigrants over the head with "the law", because "the law" was created for man, and not the other way around.

The Bishops see illegal immigrants as PERSONS, and not as faceless criminals. This is why she is fighting for them; not because she doesn't respect the right of a nation to govern itself, but because she is not here to enforce laws, she is here to help PEOPLE. And when PEOPLE are caught up in a very complex, unfortunate situation, such as illegal immigration, she is going to be on their side as far as possible. We can disagree on what needs to be done to secure America, but I feel that the cold rhetoric about laws and sin is far from the mind of the Church.

We have to recognize that these people do not break the law because they are anarchists. For the most part, they are trying to work and help their families, and this opportunity presents itself in the United States. We have to reform immigration so that we can secure the border, but also so that we can bring as many people here as possible, because our current sitution just isn't cutting it. Illegal immigration can be seen as a resumption of the civil rights movement. Civil disobedience has its place, and hopefully, the United States takes this as an opportunity to address the reasons why Mexicans come here illegally, and not to smack them down.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Era Might

[ironmonk]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 8 2006, 10:32 PM']See!! Its not like that!!
[right][snapback]940477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Nothing changed with the wording of the bill, yet to think that the "legislators heard the bishops"...

As I have said, it targets the employers that take advantage of the illegal aliens.

I wonder if any big farms donated to Mahony lately - or actors getting cheap servants in their homes? If anyone knows of a website to show contributions, it would be a great resource for study.



JasJis, MC Just, Socrates,
Thanks for helping point out the errors.


Era,
Breaking the law is a sin. Someone on the way to the hospital speeding is not breaking the law. If an illegal comes to American and is in danger of dying unjustly in his home country, then it might not be sinning. This is common sense. Illegals looking for an easier life and being illegal are sinning, helping illegals stay in the USA is still sinning. Yes it is probably venial... but to dismiss a sin because it is venial is a sign of a lack of love that we should have for God. Many saints died because they wouldn't even do a venial sin.

If someone thinks that venial sins are not serious (not as in grave) then they have missed many points of the Catholic Faith.

When options are available that involve no sin, then that is the moral route to take... otherwise we are in the wrong. I prefer to be right in God's eyes... I love God, since Christ died for me, I don't want to offend Him in any way, not even in venial sin because of the love He has for us.

Apply deeper thought to it and listen to the saints.

All laws that do not contradict the Catholic Faith are binding.


[b]1897 [/b]
"Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and [u]expect obedience from them.[/u]


[b]1898 [/b]
Every human community needs an authority to govern it.16 The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.


[b]1899 [/b]
The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [u]Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment[/u]."17


[b]1900 [/b]
The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will.


Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."19






God Bless,
ironmonk

[Era Might]

[quote]Breaking the law is a sin. Someone on the way to the hospital speeding is not breaking the law. If an illegal is in danger of dying, then it's not sinning. This is common sense. Illegals looking for an easier life and being illegal are sinning, helping illegals stay in the USA is still sinning. Yes it is probably venial... but to dismiss a sin because it is venial is a sign of a lack of love that we should have for God. Many saints died because they wouldn't even do a venial sin.[/quote]

Going over the speed limit IS breaking the law. That's why cops pull you over and give you a ticket.

Immigrants are not looking for an "easier life". They are looking for a HUMAN life. Jobs abound in the United States, while these people live like animals. No, I will not condemn them for coming over illegally, and I will not say they are necessarily sinning, anymore than Rosa Parks did.

[quote]If someone thinks that venial sins are not serious (not as in grave) then they have missed many points of the Catholic Faith.[/quote]

That's assuming it is sinful at all, which is subjective. It's fine if you believe it is, but Catholics are free to disagree, as this is not a matter of moral law, but its application.

[quote]When options are available that involve no sin, then that is the moral route to take... otherwise we are in the wrong. I prefer to be right in God's eyes... I love God, since Christ died for me, I don't want to offend Him in any way, not even in venial sin because of the love He has for us. [/quote]

Same as above.

[quote]All laws that do not contradict the Catholic Faith are binding.
[b]1897 [/b][/quote]

No, they aren't.

St. Thomas writes:

[quote]If a case emerges in which the law is harmful to the common good, it should not be observed. For example, if a law says that the gates of a certain besieged city should remain closed, such a law is beneficial to the city in most cases; yet if the enemy is pursuing some of the very citizens by whom the city is defended, refusal to open the gates and let them in would be harmful to the city. In such cases, the gates should be opened despite the letter of the law, in order to attain the common good intended by the legislator.[/quote]

Interestingly, this is similar to the point made by Cardinal Mahoney. Take away all the illegal immigrants in the United States, and our work force would probably collapse.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Era Might

[toledo_jesus]

Oy, I can't take the blocks and blocks of meaningless condescending text...ugggghhhhh It's killing me.

[Era Might]

Who's being condescending?

[toledo_jesus]

hmmm? oh alot of folks. I'm just saying that it doesn't take a paragraph to call someone stupid. I have to read all that text for the punchline? No thanks! Distillation is key.

This whole liberal-conservative thing...it's getting out of hand. I usually don't agree with liberals on [i]anything[/i], but on this issue I'm right there with the so-called 'liberal' Phatmassers.

It's no good being a conservative if you're also going to be a butthat. I'm going to lose my official club membership