Letter to Editor - Illegal Immigration - Ask Bishop when is okay to break law!

Georgia Bulletin ^ | 3/30/2006 | Lisa Olwine

[petkus]

LETTER To the Editor. A s a Catholic who struggles to reconcile the U.S./Mexican illegal immigration crisis with Christian principles, I was grateful to see and eager to read Bishops Gregory and Boland's pastoral letter on immigration reform. However, after studying the document I was disappointed and dismayed—not by what was said but by what was left unsaid.

Expecting a comprehensive exploration of the moral responsibilities of all parties involved, I found the overwhelming focus of the letter to be, in essence, the failure of U.S. taxpayers to be sufficiently generous to those who reside here illegally. While I appreciated our bishops' insistence on the protection of the human rights of all immigrants, legal status or no, it is only one part of the moral equation.

Entirely ignored was the question of the extent to which immigrants are morally obligated to observe a country's laws governing entrance and residence. And if one's moral obligation to abide by the law is mitigated by one's difficult financial circumstances, how are we to discern to which situations this moral leniency does and does not apply? If 1 am in dire financial straits through no fault of my own, may I, with moral impunity, choose to cheat on my taxes (say, by forging Social Security numbers to obtain tax credits for nonexistent offspring) rather than attempt the lengthy process of going through the proper IRS channels for possible relief? Consistent pastoral guidance for individuals in such situations is essential.

Moreover, unlawful activity begets more of the same. Because they have chosen to enter the U.S. by other than legitimate means, illegal immigrants must choose between having their illegal status discovered or the breaking of additional laws—e.g., driving without a license or driving with a forged license. Paradoxically, the thing that gives the U.S. its stability—its rule of law—is the very thing being undermined by those who seek the stability offered by this country. To what degree can the escalating unlawfulness be morally justified? At what point does Jesus' injunction to "render unto Caesar" become applicable?

Referenced only in passing within the pastoral letter is the moral obligation of Mexico (a developed country with natural resources) to rise to its potential and provide adequate opportunities for its own citizens. As jointly stated by U.S. and Mexican bishops, its failure to do so is the root problem of illegal immigration. What pressure are Mexican bishops exerting to make their government more accountable to its people? Do not measures (by both the U.S. and Mexico) that embolden and encourage illegal immigrants ultimately serve to enable Mexico to persist in its dysfunctional state? If so, are our good intentions perhaps misguided compassion? If a person is not seeking asylum due to starvation, persecution, etc., is he ever morally bound not to simply abandon his troubled country but to work toward, fight for its improvement?

The purpose of my letter is not to argue but to beseech our bishops to shepherd us to a comprehensive understanding of the morality involved in all the various components of this dilemma.

Lisa Olwine Lawrenceville

[SuziQ]

I WAS a member of a Catholic parish. Growing up, all I heard every sunday is about a poor Cuban or Mexican who just came over the border, or arrived here somehow, in need of appliances, clothing, and on and on. It has hardened me to the point of no return.

That CAN'T be the only reason you left the Church. Ever heard of Jesus's words, "whatsover you do for the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"? We are called to help those who are least fortunate. I agree that a steady diet of it can get old, but that would never make me leave the Church; I'd just find another Parish that was more 'balanced'.

[ridesthemiles]

Okay, when is it right to break the law? I believe Christian charity applies when you encounter a beggar by the roadside or at your front door...

I do not believe it applies to the thief who sneaks over the fence and into the sheep pen. As it turns out, that is one of the parables in the Gospel of John.""

Charity is just that: Charity!! The last I looked, it was totally VOLUNTARY. Providing services for illegal intruders from anywhere is not voluntary on my part nor yours.

I DECIDE WHERE AND WHEN I VOLUNTARILY GIVE TO ANYTHING.

Not the church. Not the US government. Not a cardinal of a church I never belonged to and never will belong to.

Let me ask you:
Marriage vs shacking up.
Withdrawal from the bank vs Bank robbery.
Consentual sex vs rape.
Shopping vs shop lifting.
Driving vs road rage.
Invited into my house as a guest vs breaking and entering.
Purchasing my gasoline vs pumping and driving off.
Waiting my turn and going thru the paperwork process vs coming across the border in the dark of the night.
ETC ETC ETC.

In the eyes of the liberals and many in the churches, they see the same activity---only with different eyes.

I say there is a BIG difference.

The first is totally legal. The second is totally against the law.

Some can say INTENT is the difference, and I agree.
If we let lawbreakers continue to break the laws and give them "amnesty", we are asking all the laws of this nation to break down. Where is the line we draw?

If we don't tell your politicians NOW that there are lines which are being wantonly broken all over the place, we deserve what happens next.
Does all your private property have to be taken and given to "the original holders of this land"??? Will that be YOUR line???
Wake up America. The invading hordes ARE at your door.

[Petronski]

Is there some reason you approve of people who conspire to bugger boys?

That's a lie.

Can you why you don't want to see a large group of pedophiles punished in the civil and criminal courts?

That's another lie. They are both personal attacks that violate the terms of service of FR.

You won't find any proof of those two assertions because they're not true. The pedophiles (prepubescent victims) and the pederasts (postpubescent victims) should face criminal charges, just as the bishops who shuffled them should. I've said this before. These people represent a disease afflicting the Church, not the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church (which sadly must be operated on this earth by fallible humans).

But most rational people can seperate the criminal behavior of individuals from the whole of the organization. You choose not to because you hate the Catholic Church and, like Michael Weiner, you want to use the pedophilia scandal to silence the Church.

No lie is too big, no smear too shameful, for you in your campaign against the Roman Catholic Church and those who dare to defend it.

[Rooivalk]

And how is the Church going to do that? Buy Western Union? Do you REALLY believe ole Vincente Fox is going to let the Church get their hands on the only money that's propping up his puppet government?

How can he stop it? The chruch could easily set up a program that helps illegals send money back to Mexico as part of a package of services they provide

The banks are already itching to get into the game. A church - bank alliance could become a seamless skim of illegal cash

[HiJinx]

The banks are already itching to get into the game.

I haven't followed this conversation and I'm not going to get too deeply involved in it, but I will point out that the banks are already 'skimming' a fair portion off the top of the remittances.

Wells Fargo and Bank of America are two of the larger banks involved.

[Brytani]

Well isn't this special. Not only do we have this wonderful conspiracy theory that the Church wants illegals because of the huge amount of money they have, and will give to the offering plate. Now, we have the Church setting up clandestine programs to skim money off of the Mexicans before sending it to Mexido.

Ok, I've got an idea. Instead of Dan Brown speculation, why doesn't anyone prove, through facts, that the Churches stance of charitable assistance for illegals will provide the Church with a financial windfall.

[Brytani]

Standing ovation!!!!!!!!!!

[hispanichoosier]

Yes, but its his bill.

That is irrelevant. If a court is asked whether such a law applies in any particular situation, the beliefs of legislators are not determinative. They may be evidence of legislative intent but are by no means the final word.

[sgtyork]

Yes, the courts are a crapshoot, and in the west we can guess that they would favor illegal immigration can't we?

I guess we should just give up and agree to have our illegal population double again in the next 10-15 years.

[bobwilgo]

When is okay to break the law?




Jesus Christ.... never broke the law.

[sgtyork]

Good faith attempt at dialaog

Republican congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, Henry Hyde, and Pete King have sent an open letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. An excerpt:


Since the House bill's passage, many have misconstrued the House's good-faith effort to bring human traffickers to justice as a way to criminalize humanitarian assistance efforts. The House bill does no such thing, nor did it intend to.

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. 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 years.

Nonetheless, we stand willing to work with you and other persons of good will to ensure humanitarian assistance efforts are not mistakenly ensnared in this moral effort to end suffering at the hands of human traffickers. We remain optimistic this goal can be achieved.

Lastly, we know many of you are concerned about the House bill's provision making illegal presence a felony. We share that concern. As you should know, during the House debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the bill's penalty for illegal presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, this amendment was unsuccessful, primarily because all but eight of our Democratic colleagues decided to play political games by voting to make all illegal immigrants felons. A felony penalty is neither appropriate nor workable. We remain committed to reducing this penalty and working with you to this end.