It doesn't mean some kind of communist enforcement of equal opportunity.
Would you be denying your neighbor's kid their human rights if you refused to let them use your car, when you allow your own child to do so? Are they not equal?
Mexico is a country where there are far less opportunities for the poor. I would love for that to change considering that Mexico is not a poor country, and is home to of the worlds richest men, if not the worlds richest man.
However, the pursuit of happiness doesn't just mean material wealth.
Our Constitution, which is the document that defines the United States of America unquestionably treats citizens differently than immigrants. It also charges the Federal government with the responsibility of protecting our borders.
America is a wonderful country, but we simply cannot take everyone in the world that might want to come here.
When our country was founded there was great opportunity, but there was also not a huge government supported safety net. People had the opportunity to succeed or fail based on their own merits, but the government did not try to force some kind of mandated equal opportunity on people coming here.
Those with skills and strong work ethics mostly succeeded. Those without often failed, and in many cases starved as the result.
In that kind of harsh reality unchecked immigration works well.
In today's reality, those that cannot contribute more resources than they consume, become an increasing burden on our society, and in reality we can only bear so much.
Because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, even federal income taxes work as a form of welfare to the poor. People who make little not only don't contribute toward paying for the government services they receive, they actually get back more than they paid.
Workers do not have to be completely dead weight to be a drain on the productive. We have become a country where the majority votes for representatives will give them benefits paid for by those who earn more.
If all men are created equally, why are we not taxed equally? If not by equal amounts, or by excise taxes that are the same regardless of who buys the goods, at least an equal percentage of income.
Chaput isn't a proponent of equality. He has a warped view of compassion in which he wants the government to force us to help everyone regardless of if it is reasonable or practical.
The real solution to the problem of Mexico's lack of opportunity must occur in Mexico, and despite the deluded views of some liberal portions of the church, socialism won't solve those problems. You can't make people productive and self sufficient by continually giving people what they need.
I'm NOT saying that many immigrants from Mexico won't become, self sufficient and productive, and even make large contributions to our society. Some obviously will, and since we simply cannot take everyone, we need to give preference to those who show a higher likelihood to be productive.
Maybe if other countries start losing a lot of their best people, they will be forced to create more opportunities for those people at home. It might even give those people a greater chance at Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness at home.
....Chaput isn't a proponent of equality. He has a warped view of compassion in which he wants the government to force us to help everyone regardless of if it is reasonable or practical.
All great points.
The equal protection clause has been interpreted by the courts to include all persons within the borders of the US.
Chaput isn't a proponent of equality. He has a warped view of compassion in which he wants the government to force us to help everyone regardless of if it is reasonable or practical."
Archbishop Chaput has as much right to advocate for his beliefs and those of the nearly 70 million US Catholics as anyone else with a differing. In his book Render unto Caesar Chaput has said that;
"A democracy depends on the active involvement of all its citizens, not just lobbyists, experts, think tanks and the mass media. For Catholics, politics -- the pursuit of justice and the common good in the public square -- is part of the history of salvation. No one is a minor actor in that drama. Each person is important.".
Archbishop Chaput further states;
" in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil. Likewise, democratic pluralism does not mean that Catholics should be quiet in public about serious moral issues because of some misguided sense of good manners. A healthy democracy requires vigorous moral debate to survive. Real pluralism demands that people of strong beliefs will advance their convictions in the public square -- peacefully, legally and respectfully, but energetically and without embarrassment. Anything less is bad citizenship and a form of theft from the public conversation.".