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

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.