The problems with the way liberals think...

[toledo_jesus]

would the conference committee reconcile the bills to include the senate's version? or the House?

[AngelofJesus]

[quote name='MC Just' date='Apr 7 2006, 11:38 PM']So do we, but dont confuse the democratic and liberal views for the beatitudes. There's a big difference.
[right][snapback]939844[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So why are we labeled liberals when all we want to do is follow the beatitudes by feeding the hungry without asking for ID?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='mariahLVzJP2' date='Apr 8 2006, 01:29 PM']"I was a stranger and you welcomed me' (Matthew 25:35)  Today the illegal migrant comes before us like that 'stranger' in whom Jesus asks to be recognized.  To welcome him and show him solidarity is a duty of hospitality and fidelity to Christian identity itself."

-Pope John Paul II,  annual message for World Migration Day, 1996
[right][snapback]940100[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


The US Bishops are againts illegal immigration.

The Catechism says it is just that a country regulate it's immigration.

I really liked JP II, but he also kissed the Quran, a book whichs blasphemies our Lord.

Welcome them, give them food and water, and send them home.

[Era Might]

He even kissed an actual Muslim once!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' date='Apr 8 2006, 03:02 PM']So why are we labeled liberals when all we want to do is follow the beatitudes by feeding the hungry without asking for ID?
[right][snapback]940175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Because with this issue you are thinking like one... You add things that simply are not there and ignore what is posted.

You can feed them, AND obey the law. <- This is the ONLY way not to sin.

Why do you keep implying that we are saying not to feed them? This makes it appear that you and the other liberal thinking people on this thread have a reading comprehension problem or you don't read what is written.

It's very simple.
Feed them, and obey the law if you don't want to sin.

They should come here legally like others... by them coming here illegally, they make it harder for greater numbers of legals to come here.

It is saddening how many on this thread totally ignore the Catechism and common sense.

Edited April 8, 2006 by ironmonk

[Era Might]

[quote]You can feed them, AND obey the law. <- This is the ONLY way not to sin.[/quote]

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.

[Sojourner]

Great post, Era.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

Have you ever been hungry, homeless, starving, striving to feed those you love. Feeling without hope, without means to any good in your life.

Although i am not saying we shouldnt, as reasonable and intelligent people discuss this in our society.

What i want to say though, is that the material needs of people are important.

When Mother Teresa was asked, if instead of giving men fish, whey dont you just teach them how to fish. God forgive me, i hope not to sacrilege what the holy women of God meant to say. But to that effect something like this. When social structures are set up to keep men from having fish, or the ability to fish, and further hinder a man from having any sort of hope to ever have fish, or any food, giving him fish will do much more good.

I don't know if i am clear, so please be patient with me. But i have known people who are so depressed, and feel nothing less than the government or the "man" is keeping them down. Although there is little rational or logical way to prove such emotional feelings, the point is they have an emotional handicap.

Giving them some care for their material needs, does give them a sense, that heck, the world out there is not all evil and against them. Perhaps, they may even have a better understanding of God, as a giver of unmerited gifts.

Now this does not take into account the vast political complexities of the issue, none of which i feel qualified to address.

But even asserting the "spiritual needs" as was stated above, does not go far enough, nor address those who have the deepest need in their life.

[Jaime]

[quote]It is saddening how many on this thread totally ignore the Catechism and common sense[/quote]


It is but we have tried to correct you several times.

[Socrates]

[quote name='AngelofJesus' date='Apr 8 2006, 01:02 PM']So why are we labeled liberals when all we want to do is follow the beatitudes by feeding the hungry without asking for ID?
[right][snapback]940175[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is the problem with the arguments against this law. They all are built on the assertion that this law forbids giving food and drink to illegal aliens. But I have seen nothing to convince me that this is the case.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Apr 8 2006, 06:40 PM']This is the problem with the arguments against this law.  They all are built on the assertion that this law forbids giving food and drink to illegal aliens.  But I have seen nothing to convince me that this is the case.
[right][snapback]940325[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Then you haven't read the bill or the commentary from web sites and the bishops.

[MC Just]

[quote name='MC IMaGiNaZUN' date='Apr 8 2006, 03:38 PM']Have you ever been hungry, homeless, starving, striving to feed those you love.  Feeling without hope, without means to any good in your life.

Although i am not saying we shouldnt, as reasonable and intelligent people discuss this in our society.

What i want to say though, is that the material needs of people are important.

When Mother Teresa was asked, if instead of giving men fish, whey dont you just teach them how to fish.  God forgive me, i hope not to sacrilege what the holy women of God meant to say.  But to that effect something like this.  When social structures are set up to keep men from having fish, or the ability to fish, and further hinder a man from having any sort of hope to ever have fish, or any food, giving him fish will do much more good.

I don't know if i am clear, so please be patient with me.  But i have known people who are so depressed, and feel nothing less than the government or the "man" is keeping them down.  Although there is little rational or logical way to prove such emotional feelings, the point is they have an emotional handicap.

Giving them some care for their material needs, does give them a sense, that heck, the world out there is not all evil and against them.  Perhaps, they may even have a better understanding of God, as a giver of unmerited gifts.

Now this does not take into account the vast political complexities of the issue, none of which i feel qualified to address.

But even asserting the "spiritual needs" as was stated above, does not go far enough, nor address those who have the deepest need in their life.
[right][snapback]940284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I walked the cold winter streets of massachusetts with my mother as a kid looking for a place to live. When my mother and father split up for a while, when my father kicked us out. I was poor, ate welfare food and sometimes had a hard time getting food. Know where we went for shelter? The Lazarus hous, ran by Nuns. Yeah I had my share of being poor and homeless for a while.

[Shawn]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Apr 8 2006, 03:18 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.
[right][snapback]940273[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think this argument is shallow and dangerous. For a start it shows a stunning arrogance concerning the democratic will of the American people, who pass laws to provide for the common good of US citizens AND for their national security.

While it is true that a Christian may be required to disobey truly unjust laws this should never be a simple and easy decision. Era makes it out to be a case of simply deciding you think a law is unjust, and then the law your breaking becomes irellevent. I dont think so.

It should NEVER simply be a case of saying that the democratic will of the US people is irellevent whenever you feel like it. The speeding laws are a good example. It MAY be that under certain circumstances speeding may be necessary for a higher good.
But what happens if you kill a child speeding to your destination?

A law NEVER becomes simply irellevent, even when you think it may have moral problems.

Breaking the law is NEVER a matter of simply saying that a laws "irellevent". If and when it becomes truly necessary to break a law, it should be done with great thought, self-querstioning, and very careful moral thinking and reasoning, and with careful consideration of the possible consequences.

One of those consequences is a female friend of mine who was gang raped at the age of 14 by Mexican illegal trespassers who were helped by a local charity before they did this awful deed.

Islamic terrosists are using Mexico and Canda's pathetic border control (SILLY CANADIANS) to infiltrate the US.
The borders must be closed while the threat remains from Islam and Mexican and Latin crime gangs who are at war with the US and its people.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Shawn

[Era Might]

[quote]I think this argument is shallow and dangerous. For a start it shows a stunning arrogance concerning the democratic will of the American people, who pass laws to provide for the common good of US citizens AND for their national security. [/quote]

The American people, for all their good will, do not inform themselves by Catholic moral principles. This is why the Church speaks out for her own perspective.

[quote]While it is true that a Christian may be required to disobey truly unjust laws this should never be a simple and easy decision. Era makes it out to be a case of simply deciding you think a law is unjust, and then the law your breaking becomes irellevent. I dont think so.[/quote]

Of course it shouldn't be simple and easy. When your family is living in animal-like conditions, however, and there is work in the United States, I don't know how I can blame these illegal immigrants. God only knows what I would do in their situation. As I've said before on the phorum, I am very much in favor of securing the border. But the spiritual concern of real lives is paramount in all of this. We need a PROFOUND solidarity with illegal immigrants, no matter how we go about reforming immigration.

[quote]It should NEVER simply be a case of saying that the democratic will of the US people is irellevent whenever you feel like it. The speeding laws are a good example. It MAY be that under certain circumstances speeding may be necessary for a higher good.
But what happens if you kill a child speeding to your destination?[/quote]

That will be unfortunate. But letting someone die in your car is not better than staying under the speed limit, just because a freak accident MIGHT theoretically occur.

[quote]A law NEVER becomes simply irellevent, even when you think it may have moral problems.[/quote]

You can use whatever description you want. A law injurious to the common good is no law at all.

[quote]Breaking the law is NEVER a matter of simply saying that a laws "irellevent". If and when it becomes truly necessary to break a law, it should be done with great thought, self-querstioning, and very careful moral thinking and reasoning, and with careful consideration of the possible consequences.[/quote]

Of course. I never said otherwise. And I am sure Cardinal Mahoney and others have thought long and hard about this.

[quote]One of those consequences is a female friend of mine who was gang raped at the age of 14 by Mexican illegal trespassers who were helped by a local charity before they did this awful deed.

Islamic terrosists are using Mexico and Canda's pathetic border control (SILLY CANADIANS) to infiltrate the US.
The borders must be closed while the threat remains from Islam and Mexican and Latin crime gangs who are at war with the US and its people.
[/quote]

That's unfortunate, and it's something I have addressed in the past. It is one of the reasons why we must secure the border. But at the same time, I cannot despise illegal immigrants, and I cannot pretend to judge them. This is a painful situation for all involved, and I am very much open to discussion from both sides. But ideological cheerleading gets us nowhere, and that, unfortunately, too often characterizes these kinds of discussions.

[Socrates]

[b]Immigration bill does not criminalize assistance efforts, say legislators[/b]

Washington DC, Apr. 07, 2006 (CNA) - A group of legislators are striving to assure the U.S. Catholic bishops that a new and much criticized immigration reform bill “does not criminalize humanitarian assistance efforts … nor did it intend to.”

The bill, they wrote in an April 5th letter, is the “House's good-faith effort to bring human traffickers to justice” but it “will not be the final product on this issue.”

The letter was sent by House Judiciary Committee chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.), House Homeland Security Committee chairman Peter King (R-N.Y.), and House International Relations chairman Henry Hyde (R-Ill.).

“We can assure you, just as under current law, religious organizations would not have to ‘card’ people at soup kitchens and homeless shelters under the House bill's anti-smuggling provisions,” they wrote.

“Prosecutors would no sooner prosecute good Samaritans for ‘assisting’ illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. under the House bill than they would prosecute such persons for ‘encouraging’ illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. under current law, which has existed for nearly 20 year,” they continued.

The three legislators said they supported H.R. 4437 in December because it would be a solid first step in preventing illegal immigration, helping law enforcement agents gain control of the borders, and re- establishing respect for immigration law.

They “wholeheartedly concur” with the bishops’ assessment that “human trafficking is a modern-day form of slavery,” they wrote.

However, the “current alien-smuggling laws are inadequate in the fight against these sophisticated coyotes and snakeheads who rape, rob, beat, and abandon their human ‘cargo,’ and also poison our communities through drug trafficking,” the legislators argued.

They said border-area U.S. Attorneys have asked for the tools in H.R. 4437 to aid them in their fight against alien smuggling.

The legislators promised to keep communication open with the bishops as Congress considers the issue. They also said they remain committed to reducing the penalty for illegal presence in the U.S. from a felony to a misdemeanor.

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6438"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6438[/url]