www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall I want to be an illegal alien.

Me too! Me too! ROFL
Indigo

Oh please.

Yes, illegal aliens get some breaks. They have a pretty harsh life, too. Yes, we have a problem. Yes, it needs a solution. Having a third world country on our border with people who are desperate for a chance at better, and making stronger borders to keep them "where they belong" is not a good solution for either side, though. The answer is much more complex and requires some give and take on both sides.

1. Illegal aliens are a boon to the government because we don't have to pay for any of their unemployment, worker's comp, or retirement benefits. As a matter of fact, many of them pay for ours.

2. Illegal aliens are a boon to the government because they work low skill jobs for low wages that US workers are unwilling to do, which makes our economy and therefore the worth of our dollar, more. This has such a huge effect on how prosperous our country, and therefore we, are that the government will not even consider solutions in the vein of "just send them all home."

3. Illegal aliens are a boon to the government because many of them pay taxes out of their pay checks when they work over-the-table jobs with falsified social security numbers. The SSA tried to crack down on this some time back when they realized how much money they have pooling up and going back to our government, and it caused such confusion and a mass exodus of workers that the SSA officially stopped trying to deal with it and just gives the money back to itself. It is those illegals who won't have a chance of seeing the SS benefits who are making ends meet at the SSA with the otherwise poor retirement planning in our country where there are too many retirees and not enough workers to pay for them. Further, you can't complain that the illegals aren't paying taxes then also complain that someone is trying to get them to pay taxes. Where's the carrot to make them legal? They don't pay taxes for two years, but then they and their children do for the rest of their lives. Or, they don't pay taxes for the rest of their lives. Which sounds better to you?

4. Have you ever been to a low-income clinic? The level of care is not exactly something you'd want your child to receive on a regular basis. If you do, go work a manual labor job all day for almost no money and you will qualify for this "fantastic benefit" of Medicaid as well so that you and your family can enjoy its benefits. For instance, a person with an ingrown toenail usually has it surgically removed under anaesthesia. One without insurance has a dremel tool taken to his foot while awake and in the doctor office. Further, it is in the best interest of our country that anyone in our country receive minimal preventative medical care (such as immunizations) to avoid the costs of reactive medicine later.

5. The life of an illegal immigrant is not a walk in the park. It usually consists of physical labor in temperature extremes day in and day out (and often times a second and third job to boot) just to get food on the table. It also means one is susceptible to blackmailing (a great position especially for young women to be in). Medical care is almost non-existent and is largely limited to the most primitive needs. Diets consist of almost nothing and are usually of very poor quality because there is no money for fresh fruits or veggies or milk or quality meat. Added to the physical strain of their employment, the emotional strain of being always on the run and susceptible to emotional and physical threats, and the lack of quality health care or housing, makes it a pretty crappy life. Getting a scholarship for an illegal alien is a joke. Have you seen the rates of international fees for colleges? If this were so, why aren't our colleges full of minorities? The reality is that colleges have to throw huge carrots out there to get the small minority populations they do. College is a luxury that most minorities simply can't afford, especially illegal immigrants. Their children being legal citizens is of huge benefit to them in this regard.

So what makes them willing to go through all of this, knowing it could all be lost in an instant? Their lives in Mexico were worse is why. Why are their lives in Mexico worse? Let's remind ourselves.

The US at one time owned all of Mexico. We took the land we wanted and found that the land below Texas was so barren that it was actually a drain to us and not a benefit. So we gave it back to the Mexicans and gave them sovereignty over the land as well. That meant they had to take the negative drain and we didn't. So the people have no natural resources (only recently discovering pockets of oil) and have endured several corrupt governments (which we did nothing about). I know of a town which is feet from the US border and has historically had a wonderful working relationship with the Americans on the other side. They bought their groceries in the American town and even received their electricity from us. This was all legal and payed for. After 9-11, the Border Patrol (doing their job, which I do not blame them for) cracked down on it. The Mexicans could only enter the US through the legal checkpoint several hours away. They were an isolated village, in the mountains and far removed from inner Mexico. They would be required to drive a rugged and dangerous path down the mountain, several hours through the country, several hours back through the US, and then repeat it all in reverse, all for a jug of milk. Their electricity was cut off. The young people all left. All that remained were the elderly without medical care or electricity. A truck bounces into the village once a week with groceries, blankets, and such at extortionist rates that the elderly cannot pay for. Their lawful employment (a hotel, a bar, a restaurant, a tourist gift shop, and so on) now have zero revenue. And who do you think is paying for this? US! The Americans are the ones making the trek to get their friends and neighbors the supplies and medicines they need. Before, we were benefiting far more than them financially. Now we are losing revenue. Yes, actual revenue lost, decreased tourism to the US side, because of the crack down on the "illegal" aliens who bought their groceries and medicines from us. Having a third-world country on our doorstep is not something we can ignore like it doesn't affect us. Disparity breeds contempt. Contempt fosters crime.

We have to do something to end this cycle. Giving them a rather insignificant carrot to get them legalized is, in my opinion, a wonderful idea. I don't much care for arguing over the particulars of how it should happen as I believe well-learned men can disagree on such an issue as it has no "right" answer. But ignoring the issue and making such a mockery of the life of an illegal alien as if it is something you want when the reason they are able to make it is because we Americans don't want their life, is of no benefit to any of us.

AMEN , WOndering, AMEN! Let's just remember that many of those "illegal immigrants" are the most devout Catholics you are ever likely to meet!!!

Did the original colonists who came to North America have permission from the tribal councils of the native Americans to come here? Or were they th eoriginal 'illegals"?

I grew up along along the TX-Mexico border. I'm sure most of you have heard the perjorative term "wetback" for an illegal alien from Mexico. Among Latinos there was the term "salt water wetback"...our people swam a river to get here, your people had to swim an ocean!

Bigotry has no place on a Christian forum. Also, if you read what Holy Scripture says about hospitality to the alien, you will find that hatred towards the stranger is condemned by God.

Who is being a bigot? This was a funny letter I found on the internet that speaks of a real truth. The truth being you can get rewarded for breaking the law, and the truth is that we have just found a legal tax loop hole.

Since public schools are so anti-Christian today as a parent I have to send my children to Catholic school. Tuition is so expense that I can't afford Catholic school. If I had a nice tax break then I think I could afford public school. Perhaps this is a solution.

All satire is not bigotry. I see no bigotry in what Ray has posted. False claims of bigotry (and similar) are often a tactic to shut down discussions. They will not work here.

It is very fair to point out that in some places those who come here illegally are treated better than those born here who have always followed the law. The issue is certainly a complex one.

Let�s remember that Pope John Paul II taught both that 1) we must show hospitality and charity to those in need and that 2) countries have a right to secure their borders.

From a personal perspective, I think the answer here is not to abolish the borders and legalize those who come here illegally. We simply cannot take in all the poor from everywhere in the world. And let�s not forget that about 10% of those entering illegally are criminals in their home countries.

The answer, in part, must be to cajole the other nations of the world to engage in reform to raise the standard of living in those countries so that their people do not have to come here illegally in order to survive.

Sure, you can be an illegal immigrant.

However, before you can receive the official status, you have to comply with the following:

1. Leave your spouse and children behind, in your country of origin.

2. Live sharing with strangers an overcrowded room, in an overcrowded house.

3. Renounce the possibility to be at your parent's side at the time of their death. You will receive a phone call telling you they are very ill, but you will not be able to go because you would not be able to come back.

4. Live constantly looking over your shoulder to see if the immigration authorities are coming after you.

5. Accept an extremely hard job at minimum wage or less.

6. Become unable to get credit, purchase any kind of insurance or have a driver's license.

7. If you evenutally decide to risk the lives of your spouse and children by bringing them to this country (just as you risk yours), accept that they will be placed in "special programs" with the excuse they need to learn English. What that means is that your children will "learn" English INSTEAD of the "other stuff" (such as Math, Science, Art, etc.).

8. If, with all the "help" from the education system, your children still manage to graduate from high school, accept that their education is done at that point. I do not know where you're getting your information from, but here in California, illegal immigrants are treated as any other alien, that is, State and Community colleges charge them non-resident fees, which are prohivitive even for families with decent incomes (let alone yourself, who with your 3 jobs barely make it above the 0% tax bracket).


Sure, you can be an illegal immigrant. Thank you for your solidarity.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo,

Thanks for your post. I agree that the life of an illegal immigrant is not great. Please realize that the United States is not the evil here. The real evil is the countries where life is so horrible that the poor conditions the illegals encounter here are a great step up. I�m always amazed at how everyone condemns the United States as evil and then remains silent on the real cause of the problem.

We�ve already discussed this at length. My proposal was to 1) secure the border, 2) 2) double or triple legal immigration rates, in a manner where we can keep out the violent criminals and allow in those seeking a better life (but who are not fleeing the authorities in other countries) and 3) cajole the nations people are fleeing from to reform so that their people don�t have to leave to have a decent life. That, I think, is a very Christian approach.

I thought the letter was great satire. Locally, in Maryland, there is a proposal to give �in state� tuition to those here illegally while continuing to deny it to those who are here legally! Is it really fair to penalize those who follow the law and reward those who break it? The answers to these questions must not include discrimination against those who follow the rules.

John / Admin

Hi,

Indeed, but I would focus on 2 and 3 first. That is, be instrumental in providing ways to people to either stay in their countries of origin, or come here in a legal and orderly way. Once that's done, yes, get tough on the border (but I know you and I disagree on how tough, so let's not go there).

Well, that is nonsense. I would say the fair thing to do is to provide "in state" tuition to residents of that state, regardless of immigration status. State residency can be defined in terms of income and/or property taxes paid to that state.

Shalom,
Memo

I don�t think you can focus on 2) (doubling immigration rates) and 3) (cajoling nations to reform) without first fixing 1) (securing the border).

The �immigration reform� signed into law by President Reagan 20 years ago in reality tripled the number of people coming into the United States illegally. It sent the message that there was little or no penalty for coming here illegally. Enacting ways for illegals to become legal before securing the border will only encourage a new and massive wave of additional immigration (so they can qualify for whatever amnesty might be offered to those already here before the borders are secure). It will also encourage those companies which take advantage of illegals to continue doing so since there will be a continued source of cheap labor. The first thing to do is to secure the border (pass the House bill). After the border is secure we can then decide how to address the issue of the illegals who are already living here.

Regarding tuition and other such things, I would not grant any favoritism towards those who are here illegally. Once the borders are closed and we address item 2) above then we can offer such luxuries to those who move from illegal status to legal status. State residency must include being in the United States legally. I hope that you are as vocal about item 3) to those in authority in other countries as you are here about items 1) and 2).

That�s the whole satire of the original post. A U.S. citizen could not get away with what some of the proposals are offering to illegals. More should be asked of them in exchange for legal status, not less.

You've provided the solution to the problem- legalize their status and they wont be eligible for the "offering to illegals."

Father Deacon John,

There is nothing new in my position so I�m unsure of your comment.

If we secure the borders and weed out the dangerous criminals among those here illegally we can find a way to grant legal status to those illegals who desire it. There would need to be some appropriate penalty for coming here illegally and we could in no way put them ahead of those already waiting to come here legally (they often also live in horrible conditions in their home countries). In short, those who come here illegally need to have more hurdles to get over then those who followed the law. This is only logical and not unchristian at all.

If we don�t first secure the borders it does not matter what we do because people will continue to come here illegally in huge numbers (including those who wish us harm). The need to offer hospitality does not eliminate the right of a state to control its own borders and keep safe its citizens.

Admin / John

Dear Friends,

Until the U.S. can secure its corporations against the cheap labour of illegal immigrants, they will keep coming.

As your Lou Dobbs on CNN is wont to discuss, it is corporate America that is the problem, that is selling out its own country and its workers.

That's the more difficult problem to solve and your politicians, especially the Bush Administration, just don't have the political will to do it.

Don't blame the illegals.

Alex

Alex,

Your argument is too simplistic.

Yes, corporations looking for cheap labor are part of the problem.

But even more so are those countries that cannot create conditions for their people so they don�t have to leave their home country in order to have a decent life.

The law of supply and demand works both ways. Companies wanting cheap labor will use cheap labor as long as it is available to them. Cheap labor will be available to them as long as other countries cannot provide economic opportunity to their peoples and are content to export the poorest of their poor.

I don�t blame people who desire to come here for a better life. I do blame them for not doing so legally.

We need to treat the root cause, not just the symptom.

Admin / John

If there was no intent on anyone's part to engage in bigotry, I apologize. It just seemed to me that the conversation was going in that direction. I would also add that it is my opinion--and I realize that most here will disagree with me and probably strongly so--that we have no moral authority whatsoever to condemn those who enter illegally given the shameful history of the way in which those who were already living in the Americas were treated by Europeans (from whom I'm descended) as they colonized the Americas. Our ancestors came and basically stole two entire continents from the people who were already here-and now we would condemn those who come here simply to try to afford themselves and their children a decent life! It's sickening to me.

I think there are quite a few things here to consider. I recall when going to Mexico about 25 years ago, that our tour guide told us that the University in Mexico City was originally intended to hold about eight thousand students. It had at that time about twenty to thirty thousand. Today who knows how many are enrolled. The problem was and is the population growth.

As for the Mexicans and others from Central America, we in the North East need them desparately. Without them we wouldn't have any gardeners, workers in stores such as Home Depot, painters, cleaning women and just plain laborers. Actually, I recently read that the reason for the Great Depression of the 1930's might have been caused by the immigration laws that banned all immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe.

Just imagine what would happen if we didn't have these immigrants? Commerce in many fields would stop. The workers simply just wouldn't exist.

As for the excessive amount of people crossing the border, there is another solution as the administrator said. Give them jobs in Mexico. I recall years ago, when Puerto Rico was the most populated area in the world. New York City was inundated with people from that island. Of course being Americans they were able to go back and forth, which they did. The planes leaving for Puerto Rico on Friday were packed with people.

Well the problem was solved quite easily. The American companies began going to Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Ricans stopped coming. Who in the world would want New York City when they could enjoy the beautiful climate of a Carribean island.

Zenovia

Dear Athanasius the Lesser you said:

I say:

Well, let's look at it a different way. If the Northern Europeans didn't come here to develop this land, who would be carrying the world today? Let's give credit where credit is due. :rolleyes:

But the funny thing is that we might have taken the land from the Indians, but the Indians are now taking it back. I think that's what the Hispanics in Southern California are saying, and it's driving the people there crazy.

Zenovia

There is no connection. Earlier mistreatment of Indians (and the entire native peoples here before us) does not mean that we need to surrender our national security and sovereignty as a penance. We are not responsible for the home condition of the peoples heading north across the border illegally, although we are obligated to cajole those countries to reform so that their people can live better. We did not deport a people to Mexico and the other countries to the south who are now merely returning to their homes that have been waiting for them.

Using such logic, Germany would be obligated to take in every Jew in the world, regardless of whether the individual Jew suffered or had family who suffered during the Holocaust. In reality Germany is responsible to those it harmed and their immediate families. Countries need to apologize for the wrongs they have done and make reparations. Reparations are to those harmed, not to those everywhere in the world who are suffering under horrible governments. Countries that cannot create conditions in which their own people can live decently have horrible governments (note the connection between lack of liberty and horrible living conditions).

This is a false statement.

No one is condemning those who wish to come here simply to try to afford themselves and their children a decent life.

What is condemned are those who break the law in order to come here. There is a huge difference.

Why should someone in Africa waiting years to immigrate to America legally suffer because someone else has come here illegally?

Law and order are necessary elements of Christian charity at the level of nations.

Lack of respect for law and order is uncharitable.

The fact that the majority of those who come here illegally are seeking that what you state above doesn't make this statement contradictory?? You are in fact condemning them as this great majority of illegal aliens DO come to this country in truth to try to afford themselves and their children a decent life. And don't mention legal immigration. Only those with special skills can get that kind of approval.I know, I had who was approved for a Green card and finally, legal immigration because he was a highly skilled individual not a factory worker and not an agricultural worker who put food into our high priced grocery stores.

In fact this is quite debatable as Hitler tried to destroy the Jews as an entire people, not just German Jews, not just Polish jews. One could argue that Germany has a moral if not financial obligation to helpe stamp out anti-Semitism in the world and indeed similar pathological hatred because of it's recent history.

That is certainly true in some situations. I see Ray's "satire" as more a sop to those with similarly conservative ideologies to point out "o see , those illegal aliens get all the breaks while we red-blooded Americans get trampled on" It is not really bigotry but it has its historical roots in the groups that saw threats in the Irish, the Italians, the Poles coming to this country. It is not racism but a fear of the "others" who might take something from "me"

Dear Administrator:

What sort of penance should we have to do? The way I see it, there has never been anything close to real restitution having been made for the crimes committed by Europeans against the indigenous peoples of the Americas, as well as all of the Africans who were enslaved. Also, there most certainly is a very hateful, condemning attitude towards immigrants (both legal and illegal) that is becoming pervasive in our culture, and I fear is too often disseminated on this forum. I honestly don't see how you can deny that. Furthermore, I think it is overly simplistic to suggest that we share no responsibility for the conditions of people who live in poor nations. We benefit all the time at the expense of poor people in other countries. Whenever we purchase relatively inexpensive products made in poor countries (and I personally am implicated in this just as much as the next person), we benefit at the expense of the laborers who make those products at a pittance of a wage we wouldn't even consider accepting for our hard work. That certainly does not mean that all of the blame for the conditions under which people in poor countries live falls to the wealthy nations. But we are certainly implicated and share in the guilt.

Sincerely,
Ryan

I don�t know and am very open to ideas. We are obviously not going to chase everyone out and give the land back to the Indians (we can only speak about the area that is now the United States). A just solution should not continue to give them just enough welfare to enslave them (as we have done for previous generations). A way that provides them resources to create a good life for themselves while ending continued dependency on government seems best. Perhaps it would include giving them prime real estate from the national holdings. Again, ideas welcome.

I do most certainly deny that.

You have not offered an explanation of exactly what you consider to be hateful and condemning. What you have written seems to indicate that any control of immigration is hateful and condemning. I�ve recommended doubling and tripling immigration after the borders are under control. Others have made similar comments. I fail to see anything hateful or condemning about such proposals. You don�t seem to understand that nations have a right to keep out criminals and control immigration and that this idea is perfectly Christian.

Here you go with another false accusation.

I said that we are not responsible for the condition they are in. Their governments are responsible for that. I also said that we are obligated to be part of the solution. It�s pretty amazing that you place all the responsibility for their economic failures upon the United States and none on their own governments.

This understanding is based upon false economic assumptions and what can realistically be accomplished. The laborer in a poor South American or Asian country is indeed exploited but yet he is still better off with what we consider a pittance than if we did not buy their product at all. Our purchasing of cheap goods produced in Japan after WWII helped finance that country�s transition from a country of unskilled labor to a well educated, relatively wealthy society. The same thing is happening now in Korea and China (in a single generation Korea has gone from being about only to produce junk goods to producing automobiles that rival the best in the world for quality). What prevents this from happening in many Central and South American nations is the corrupt governments they have. Market economies are far from perfect but they do work in the long run. We know that socialism is bunk and only leads to the creation of very poor nations. The way to help underdeveloped nations is to push for market economies while at the same time pushing for just treatment of the worker. Just treatment of the individual does not and cannot equate to socialism.

You have a very strange definition of �condemning�.

There is nothing condemnatory about asking people to follow the rules in order to come to the United States.

There is nothing condemnatory about stating that we cannot allow the whole world to move here.

There is nothing condemnatory about stating that we need to limit the number of poor from south of the border we take in so that we can be also take in the same number of poor from Africa, India, Asia and elsewhere.

There is nothing condemnatory about stating we must cajole poor nations to enact reforms to help their own people live decent lives.

One could easily make an argument that fits very nicely with Christian ethics that best thing we could do for the poor of Central and South America is to close the border completely so that those countries with bad governments would loose the option to export their poor and be forced to enact reforms. [Our continued acceptance of the poorest of the poor without demand for reform by the countries that generate them only exacerbates the problem.]

Remember the adage �Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day but teach a man to fish and you feed him for life�? Apply it to nations with a �tough love� spin. If you keep feeding the poor (or, in our case, accepting the poorest of the poor) you do not address the cause of why the poor are poor. If you feed him PLUS address the reasons he is poor in the first place you make it possible for people to feed themselves for life.

I agree. A moral obligation to do what is right remains forever. Financial reparation has its limits. The people of today�s Germany and those yet to be born are not forever responsible for the sins of their parents. Helping to stamp out anti-Semitism world wide is an ongoing task. I argue that Germany is not obligated to open its border to every Jew (or any group they oppressed in the past).

I disagree. I see the satire as pointing to the very real need not to give preferential treatment to those who have broken the law. If we are to grant some sort of legal status to illegals it must come with a penalty. It must place them behind those who followed the rules and must not give them benefits denied to citizens and legal residents.

Dear Administrator:
I'm not advocating socialism (although I would add that capitalism-at least as it is actually practiced-has been and is the root of a great deal of sin as well) and I'm not suggesting that the governments of poor countries are free of responsibility for the miserable conditions in which their people live. I'm merely stating that I believe that the wealthy nations bear some responsibility as well because we profit from the exploitation of the poor in many nations, including Mexico. I don't think that amounts to a false accusation. I would point to the anti-immigrant rhetoric of many politicians (although not President Bush-immigration is one of the few issues where I believe President Bush is actually trying to be charitable), including those made by certain politicians in Texas where I live as evidence of strong hostility towards immigrants. I would also point to the rhetoric of Congressman Tancredo from Colorado. Furthermore, I've seen bumper stickers and billboards that say, "Keep our nation safe. Stop the alien invasion." I do not retreat one iota from my assertions about that. Unfortunately we have a long and shameful history of fear and hatred towards immigrants that stands alongside a nobler history of welcoming immigrants. I fear right now, those who would engage in hatred and fear-mongering are becoming very vocal in certain places; I will not sit silently and allow my silence to be understood as complicity. You keep talking about our right to keep criminals out-I think that sort of rhetoric is stereotyping and is just the sort of rhetoric I find to be so troubling.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Folks,

Labor in other countries may consider to us "cheap labors" whereas in other countries it's not so.

Last week, I watched a documentary on cheap labor in China and how so many countries in the world have companies in China for cheap labor. They have shown that it is certainly not "cheap labor" per se IN China. People make good money there, but for us it's cheap. WHY? Because their money values are far lower than ours. For example: $1.00 American Dollars might equal to "$50 bucks" to them.

So, the wording "cheap labor" is not accurate. It's not cheap labor in other countries, but "cheap to us" meaning it's "affordable" to us.

I want to comment about illegal immigration.

If I was to go to Mexico illegally, there is 100% absolute chance that I would be arrested for that, pay huge fines perhaps PLUS jail time and immediate deportation. In other countries, there are absolutely NO mercy for illegal immigration.

And yet some of you, including those who were "illegal immigrants" on the forum have to rub it into our (Americans) noses by saying how cruel we are if we want to tighten up our borders and deport them if we have to.

People making comments against border control on American soil has got to be the stupidest people I've known around here. Of course! It is OUR American soil, we have fundamental RIGHT and duty to protect our country by securing borders. Certainly OTHER countries including Mexico are DOING IT!

So, I don't buy this FALSE "Christian charity" towards Illegals.

It is very unChristian for us to allow Americans be robbed by the illegals through their fleecing and freeloading of this country...free education (including college), money (Social Security Checks), jobs (that rightfully should to go Americans FIRST), on and on and on and on under FALSE pretenses. That is STEALING!

WHY do Christians want to advocate STEALING in an appearance of "Christian Charity"? That is so far beyond me!!!

WHY are the illegals "sneaking" around here? Why do they act like they're guilty of something? The answer: BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY ARE GUILTY!

Thank you!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.

Ryan,

The false accusation you are making is when you state that I am suggesting that we are not responsible to be part of the solution. We did not create the economic conditions in these countries. We can and should act to help change them.

Purchasing goods produced cheaply might be temporarily exploitive but can, in fact, be good for those nations. In the 1950s and 1960s there were complaints about how we were exploiting Japan by buying cheap goods produced in sweat shops. Yes, the average worker was poorly treated but that poor treatment was better then if we chose not to purchase their cheap goods at all. And cheap goods were all they were able to produce at that time. Look what happened. In a short time Japan went from a poor country where the workers were mistreated to a wealthy one with a highly educated workforce. Korea is currently in the middle of such a transition. Obviously we need to do what we can to improve working conditions. But we are not miracle workers and refusing to purchase anything from countries with bad working conditions only makes it worse for people in these countries. For most, an equivalent of $1/hour with a 14 hour day is better than no work and no food on the table. The way to enact change is not to blame the American consumer but to create conditions in these countries that prompt change.

Please define �anti-immigrant rhetoric of many politicians�. There is absolutely nothing unjust about calling for limits to immigration and strict enforcement of those limits. I watch the news closely and I see very little anti-immigrant rhetoric and lots of illegal immigrant rhetoric. The latter does not equate to the former.

�Keep our nation safe. Stop the alien invasion� can be either hostile or not hostile. It is very legitimate to argue that the federal government has failed in its constitutional responsibility to secure the borders and keep the nation safe (~10% of those crossing into the United States illegally are violent criminals in their own countries). It is also very legitimate to argue that we are being invaded by aliens crossing the border illegally (although such polemics does not help resole the issue). I�ve been to the Arizona / Sonora border and have seen people simply walking across the border at dusk. I�ve seen the conditions of the land they cross and read the stories of locals who have been terrorized or killed.

You also need to define what you mean by �those who would engage in hatred and fear-mongering are becoming very vocal in certain places�. Calls for a secure border are not hateful or fear-mongering. Calls for limits on immigration (be they double, triple or quadruple) are not hateful or fear-mongering.

It is certainly not stereo-typing to state that we have a right to keep criminals from crossing illegally (or legally). Again, ~10% of those crossing illegally are violent criminals (our jails are full of those who came here only to commit more violent crimes). The government of Mexico is known to release it�s convicted felons near the border with an implicit understanding that they will enter the United States.

There is absolutely nothing unchristian about 1) securing the borders, 2) setting limits on immigration and 3) making sure that those we do let in do not have criminal records in their home countries. The idea that we cannot correctly and accurately describe the issues without being called hateful and fear-mongering is very troubling indeed. That, in my opinion, is a very large part of the problem.

John

Deaf Byzantine:
I suggest that you read what Jesus had to say about the one who would call his brother stupid or a fool. You will find that he has no tolerance for that. I am many things, but I'm a far cry from being stupid. The hateful tone of your post actually detracts from your argument and vindicates my claims about the hatefulness that exists in this country towards immigrants.

I agree with Ryan that one should not call another stupid. SPDundas�s point crosses the line into uncharity with that comment.

SPD�s comments about �cheap labor� are not hateful. They are also not totally inaccurate.

SPD�s comments about what happens when one enters Mexico illegally are accurate and not hateful.

SPD�s comments that some consider Americans who want a secure border to be cruel are accurate. We see this in the media.

SPD�s calls for tight border controls are not hateful.

SPD�s calling people stupid is uncharitable, though probably not hateful. His comment that some accuse those of us who support tight border control as being hateful is legitimate. Every country has the fundamental right and duty to protect itself by controlling its borders (Catholic teaching recognizes this and does not demand a borderless world).

It is legitimate for SPD to hold the opinion that a demand for no border security (open borders) and amnesty is false Christian charity. There is absolutely nothing unchristian about demanding that those here legally be at the front of the line for jobs and that those here illegally resolve their status before being allowed to work here. �Stealing� is too strong a descriptive (IMHO) yet I do not see it as automatically hateful.

I think that Ryan needs to be very specific about what specifically he considers to be hateful. It seems that he considers all those who do not hold his opinions to be hateful. I consider Ryan (and others) to be wrong in their conclusions on this issue. I also acknowledge that they mean well and are not at all hateful.

This is from the American Heritage Dictionary -

stu�pid (stpd, sty-) Pronunciation Key
adj. stu�pid�er, stu�pid�est
Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

The term stupid isn't an insult per se as a way to demean or belittle anyone. It simply means that people don't have clear common sense (or slow to understand) as to what our problems really are in this country and in Mexico and not really having enough sense to come up with concrete and sensible solution.

So, I'm sorry that if anyone felt insulted by this.

By the way, stupid is just another term "foolish." Certainly Jesus have said it many times in the scriptures. Not only Jesus said it but G-d has spoken through the prophets in the Old Testament that way.

I am just so fed up with people being so blinded by "false charity." Charity also means to do what is right. G-d didn't say anything about feeding the poor in the 10 Commandments, but He DID say something about lying, stealing, etc.

The Golden Commandments ARE the combination of Obeying 10 Commandments as a whole. That is true love.

It's FALSE "love" or "charity" to ignore the crime just so that you could "fulfill" your Christian "charity" by pampering them with stuff that American Citizens can't even get.

In other words, you can't ignore the 10 Commandments and help feed the poor at the same time.

Jesus even said that there will ALWAYS be poor people out there but His words will never disappear.

So, it's okay that we FOLLOW 10 Commandments and still help the poor. That is precisely why we have charities that send food, clothes, etc. TO MEXICO and other Countries. Especially so that they don't have to come here to get it!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

To me, the issue comes down to accountability � on BOTH sides of the border. Yes � the US should secure the border � but so should Mexico. Yes, US corporations and individuals should stop providing employment for illegals � but Mexico should do just the opposite. Neither side is willing to hold themselves accountable for their failures to do any of these things (to list only a few).

The reasons for the American disinclination to do so has been discussed countless times, but less so the reasons of the Mexican side.

Plain and simple - Mexico has NO interest in halting the export of its poor to the US. Why? Because Mexico�s second greatest financial resource (after its oil) are its poor. Mexican illegals in the US export dollars back to their homeland in such vast quantities that it is Mexico�s second greatest source of income (again, after oil). This is absurd. Mexico will never curtail the export of its poor to the US and focus on fixing its economy until there is no longer a financial incentive for them to do otherwise. To me as an American, the solution is simple � stop the flood of illegally earned dollars being wired to Mexico � how hard is that? Cut off the cash flow and you cut off the benefits the failed state south of the border reaps from perpetuating the current chaos in both the US and in Mexico itself.

Will this ever happen? :rolleyes:

Not likely, as politicians on both sides of the border are notably lacking in spines. Just my two cents.


~Isaac

Dear Isaac you said:

Dear Isaac I say:

My priest goes down with some teenagers to Mexico each year in order to build a house for a family. He says that the house consists simply of four walls, yet the gratitude is immense. Seeing that poverty, changes those teenagers lives for ever, so cutting off the money to Mexico is a no-no...and how can one differentiate the legal from the illegal?

The other thing is that we do need workers. Without workers our economy will falter, so again stopping all immigration is a no-no.

Now about the Mexican government, the alternative government would be communist, and certainly no friend of ours. Can we afford that? Especially today when Cuba is hosting a 'hate America party', consisting of Iran, N. Korea, Venezuella, and so forth. :rolleyes:

You know these countries are quite close to us, and what do we do if Chavez decides to buy missles? And then again, what do we do if he decides to buy nuclear arms from N.Korea to arm those missles? Oh Vey!

If I recall correctly, wasn't Pat Robertson attacked for saying that it would be better to assisinate Chavez rather than going to war?

Zenovia

I would like to say one thing. We do need secure borders, especially considering that terrorists can come through. I also know that the Mexican population in California is immense, and not everyone that comes into this country is a hard working individual....YET! At the same time, I know that if I was a young man, and if my family went hungry, I myself would cross that border illegally, just the way my father did in the 1920's.

From then on he was a hard working citizen that contributed quite a bit to this country. :p

Oh and one more thing! Let's thank our lucky stars that these illegals are Christians and not Muslims. The illegals in Europe are Muslims, and they are caught throughout the Mediteranean each and every day trying to sneak into a Greek island, Sicily or Spain.

Zenovia

My comment points out the irony of being in this country legally. If illegal aliens are suddenly given legal status, guess what, they can longer qualify for the give-away programs that are satirized.

I agree with the Administrator, these arguements are not new. Border security is important. Screening for criminals is important. ID theft prevention is important. All of these could be addressed by a realistic comprehensive immigration policy that is responsive to the need of businesses. After all it is the needs of businesses that are drawing these people here.

Given our current system, illegal immigrants are not criminals just because they enter the US illegaly. Illegal immigration is not a crime, but a civil offense. Illegal immigrants may be criminals because of false documentation, etc., but if the immigration policy was more efficient, these people would not resort to these other acts which are criminal. However, for those who have entered this country illegally, citizenship should not be offered.

Every ethnic group which has arrived in this land has faced hurdles. Eg, Irish immigration in the 18th Century was the "cause" of low wages, increased disease, a drain on public services, etc. There was no immigration restrictions, so the Irish were in fact legal immigrants. Yet, they faced discrimination and ridicule by the nativist parties. Now, however, we even celebrate the Irish by "becoming Irish" one day each year.

Perhaps this is the price of assimilation.

I thank Father Deacon for his post. It greatly clarifies what he meant in his earlier post.

Yes, it does seem a bit of an irony that a change of status from illegal to legal means instant access to certain benefits. But being legal has benefits!

I agree with most of what Father Deacon has written.

I would, however, make illegal presence felony, as it is in most other countries of the world. I would attach to this crime immediate deportation, not jail time.

I agree (and have spoken to) that the desire of business for cheap labor attracts people to come here illegally. But this can never be divorced from the fact that the reason people consider leaving their home countries is because their governments choose not to give them the tools to improve their situation. I daresay that most poor people don�t want to come to America so much as they want to have access to the things (i.e., opportunity and liberty) that Americans have access to.

I sort of agree with Father Deacon�s comment that citizenship should not be offered to those here illegally. Once the borders were secure I would find a way to legalize those here who came here to work. I would not deny them citizenship forever but I would give them some sort of penalty. Certainly they should go to the end of the line after those who are already legally waiting to come here. Perhaps there could also be some sort of permanent residency without citizenship. I do know that a sizable number (I don�t remember the percentage) are not really interested in citizenship, but only want to be able to work.

I agree with Father Deacon�s idea that there is something of a national culture that everyone must embrace. But then I was raised on hamburgers, hot dogs, Hunan Beef, Holupki, Baklava and football!

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22

Ryan,

But Spundas wrote nothing at all about hating anyone. How does the quote from scripture apply?

CDL

To all:
The tone on this thread has gotten hostile at times and I'm concerned that I'm at fault for creating some of that hostility. I don't retreat from my position about the way in which I believe we should respond to immigrants who want to come to the USA, but I do apologize for not being respectful towards those whose views differ from my own.
Sincerely,
Ryan

I think we've forgotten the only way the problem can be solved, and will be solved.

We need workers here, and the Mexicans need jobs desperately. Now the only thing that can be done is to give out work permits. That way they can work here when necessary, and send money home to help their families.

Now in order for that to be accomplished, we need to have secure borders so that they won't come in illegally...for if they did, then why would they bother with work permits.

Problem solved! I think that's what the government plans to do...but it better hurry up. :rolleyes:

Zenovia

Ryan,

You are the only one posting on this thread who has accused another of being hostile and hateful. Please finally give specific examples of what you consider to be hostile and hateful (quote a line and explain your accusation). Quoting back a whole post with a scripture quote is just not acceptable. You seem to be accusing all those who disagree with your position as hostile and hateful.

This is a formal request and I expect you to respond with specific examples or post that you withdraw your accusation.

Admin

I must say I'm quite perplexed by your request. In my most recent post, I was offering an apology to anyone who has taken offense for any disrespect that I have shown in any of my posts on this thread. I said that I am at fault in fostering hostility. I don't know why I'm getting slammed for offering an apology. As for the quoting Matthew 5:22, I did that because those of us on this thread who take a liberal stance on immigration were called "about the stupidest people I've known around here" by a member of the forum. To me, calling someone the stupidest person you know does add to a spirit of hostility and more or less equates with calling someone a fool-so to me, the Matthew 5:22 seems like an appropriate response. I admit that I've been uncharitable in several of my posts on this thread. I think in all fairness though, I'm not the only one who has shown a lack of charity. I will reiterate, I do think that this thread has become a bit hostile at times and I bear responsibility for fostering that and I apologize for being uncharitable and disrespectful in some of the posts I've made. I really don't know what more I should do beyond that. Again, I'm quite perplexed.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Maybe your views on what is hateful may be quite different from another's?? Maybe there is not just one view of SPD's comments??? Maybe??

An apology that contains within it an unsubstantiated accusation of hostility by another is not an apology.

Ryan might consider that his tendency to label opinions that differ from his as hateful might be prompting people to respond in the ways that they do.

A very valid question! I don�t usually attribute emotional intent to what people post. In this internet medium it seems best to always take posts at face value since most of the emotion one might find in them might be our own, something of an emotional response we read into a post by someone who disagrees with us.

If I were troubled by someone�s post I would ask them to explain rather than make accusations that very well could be false.

If I had to attribute underlying emotion to SPD�s post (since that is the one Ryan objected to) I would attribute a bit of fear (maybe of the unknown, or for personal safety) rather than hate.

Apparently you have no problem in attributing emotional intent in my case since you've come to the determination that I was not sincere in my apology. I was or I would not have offered it in the first place. I do regret having offended others. At the same time, I think it is simply not the case that I'm the only one who has contributed to the hostility here-and one of the other moderators agreed with me that there were hostile or offensive posts made by others on this thread. I really think you are being very unfair to me simply because you despise my views.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Ryan,

Thank you for your post.

I attributed no emotional intent to you at all. It was your use of the words �gotten hostile� that made your apology insincere.

Moderators will certainly disagree with one another. I have not seen any of them publicly assigning motives of hatred toward another poster. The reason we have moderators from across the spectrum is so that all viewpoints are respected.

Your suggestion that I despise your views is incorrect and I�m not sure why you keep making it. As I have already stated a number of times, I disagree with some of what you have posted, since it seems to smack of the �forget law and order and just do what is right� variety of social justice. I also know that your intent is ultimately for the good and I have no doubt that you are a good person.

But let�s review the substantive portion of our disagreement.

I believe that we should welcome immigrants in a legal fashion (double or triple the annual number we welcome now) and that we should be treat them with hospitality. I believe that we should secure the borders so that we can keep out people who are criminals in their home country as well as those who would come here purposely to do us harm (terrorists). I believe that we should find a way to grant legal status to those who came here (with good will) without putting them ahead of the line before those who followed all the rules to come here. I believe that we must care for the poor among us and across the entire world, and that in some cases this care must take the form of cajoling governments to make changes so their people can have the liberty and opportunity to create better lives for themselves (so that they do not have to leave their homes for a better life).

I still do not understand why you think my position is so utterly unacceptable or what your position actually is. I again invite you to demonstrate where you believe my position falls away from Catholic Teaching.

Two more things.

First, you will note that there are people who post here with very different views. They cover the entire political and religious spectrum (from extreme left to hard right politically and morally conservative to morally liberal). These views are always welcome so long as they are presented with charity and with the assumption that the other poster intends to be charitable. Assigning motives of �hostility� to another crosses the line into uncharity. Posts are to be interpreted in the best light possible. If you see one that you believe is uncharitable, then use the report a post feature and explain exactly what it is in that post that you believe is uncharitable. That way a moderator can understand both sides.

Second, I learned a long time ago that when I am demonstrated to be mistaken the best thing to do is to acknowledge it without any �buts�. Posters here regularly provide evidence of my mistakes. When they do I always �stand corrected� and re-evaluate my position based upon the facts. A simple "stand corrected" or apology without �but if�s� ends the matter quickly. [Those who don�t believe this need to just watch our politicians on both sides of the aisle �open mouth and exchange feet� for apologies that start with �If anyone was offended I apologize�. An apology like that always makes me complete the thought for them ��and if no one was offended I don�t apologize.�]

John / Admin

John:
I read your post very carefully. I really think that your stance on how to deal with immigrants is one of the more charitable ones I've heard. I also think that I can be persuaded that your goal of a secure border is a position I could ultimately accept-with certain conditions, or at least two conditions. My first condition would be that we end our hypocritical policy with respect to Cubans (and I'm a little reluctant to say this since I've had so many Cuban friends over the years). Cubans who enter the country illegally cannot be deported. Now I have no sympathies whatsoever with Fidel Castro and I personally welcome any and all Cubans who wish to escape the misery that has been caused by Castro. However, it seems unfair to me that of all the illegal immigrants who enter our country, only Cubans have this status. Haitians who are captured by the Coast Guard are routinely returned to Haiti-a country where the poverty is even worse that that in Cuba. My second condition would be that we also consider that those who would seek to enter the country to commit acts of terror may possibly come by way of Canada, and not Mexico, and impose greater scrutiny on the Canadian border than is currently the case.

I appreciate greatly your willingness to allow those who are already here and have no malevolent intent to stay-I'm sure you're aware that many of them have children who were born here (making them US citizens) and have lived here their entire lives.

So I don't take issue with most aspects of your position. What was frustrating me was that I got the impression that you were defending views that are far less charitable than yours, while at the same time attacking my views If that was not your intent, and I now believe it wasn't, please accept my apology.

I would add that there indeed are many people whose political learnings are similar to yours (conservative) who are advocating for positions far less charitable than those you have advocated and seem to me to be motivated by anti-Hispanic bias. I am very sensitive to that-perhaps too much so, which could lead me to make errors in judgment about the motives of others. I live in Houston, TX and I work as a substitute teacher in a school system with a student population that is about 70% Hispanic. No doubt, some of them-perhaps many of them-have parents who entered illegally. I love them just as much as I do the African American students or those students whose skin is as pale as mine. I find the idea that some would seek to send them and their families back to Mexico, or Honduras, or the Dominican Republic, or wherever to be repugnant. Also, I've lived in communities in Florida and North Carolina where I had a great deal of contact with Hispanics, some of whom are here illegally. Most of them are very hard working, honest people contribute far more to society than they ask in return.

I would encourage those who want to see the border secured make very judicious use of their language so that it is clear that their concerns have nothing to do with racism, but with concern for obedience to the law and to make sure that we are tending to the needs of our own people as we also seek ways in which we might contribute to the improvement of the lives of all people everywhere. We should direct our frustrations to our political leaders (in a respectful manner), who perhaps are neglecting their duties with respect to the immigration question.

Lastly, for the third time I do apologize for any offense I've given in any of my posts on this thread, and I ask that you not accuse me any more of being insincere. I am not insincere and I never was-otherwise, I never would have offered the apology to begin with. I don't think you are able to read my mind or look into my heart-so please, don't accuse me of being insincere.


Sincerely,
Ryan