Posted on 06/19/2012 5:55:13 AM PDT by raulgomez05
Hypothetically, if Marco Rubio were not an American citizen and could not provide food for his family, he says he would cross the border illegally to come to the United States.
While discussing immigration policy in his new memoir, An American Son, Rubio called for "common decency" in dealing with undocumented immigrants and said that if put in a similar position as those who are fleeing destitution, he would break the law, too.
"Many people who come here illegally are doing exactly what we would do if we lived in a country where we couldn't feed our families," Rubio writes in his book, which went on sale Tuesday. "If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn't give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn't a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Yes, indeed, immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of the countries they enter, just as all are obliged to obey the commandment and not to steal.
But just as the injunction not to steal is superseded by dire need in the case of the starving man or the man with a starving family, there are exceptional circumstances in immigration.
And that's what I was talking about:
“The illegal immigrant who comes to our country truly out of final desperation objectively breaks the law, but it may be that he does not sin.”
Certainly, the refugee from war who, to avoid death, crosses the international frontier between two states and enters illegally into a second state, objectively breaks the law of the second state. But I don't think most folks think that people in these circumstances have sinned, even though they may have been breaking the law of the land that they entered.
The question is whether or not the circumstances are sufficiently dire that objectively breaking the law becomes the final way one may preserve life and limb. Whether or not that is the case with any, or with a large number of illegal immigrants is beyond my knowledge. I'm only showing that Mr. Rubio is on the right track here:
“Hypothetically, if Marco Rubio were not an American citizen and could not provide food for his family, he says he would cross the border illegally to come to the United States.”
sitetest
Your objection generally to Catholic moral theology is noted, along with the fact that you fail to evince an understanding of the underlying premises of either Catholic moral theology or your own statements.
sitetest
“Are you kidding?”
No, I think someone should pose these questions to the senator in a public forum, and give him a chance to explain why non-citizens who enter the country illegally should be given more favorable treatment than the rest of us.
Well said, dragnet2.
All those millions of largely low-educated, welfare-tapping illegals are citizens of other countries to which they should return—ever appreciative of the free-ride education and vocational training they got here in the US on the US taxpayer’s dime.
This last thing this country needs is to add 10’s of millions of voters coming from countries that largely vote for Marxist policies and who automatically qualify for affirmative-action benefits over the majority of regular US citizens once they set foot on our soil.
Pope Benedict XVI:
At the same time, States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity. “The challenge is to combine the welcome due to every human being, especially when in need, with a reckoning of what is necessary for both the local inhabitants and the new arrivals to live a dignified and peaceful life”
I’m not as pessimistic as you, but it’s odd that during the primary this was a big issue.
Rick Perry had a plan to close the border within a year.
Others supposedly had plans.
Now, nobody is talking about the border.
The border must be secured before we even DREAM (get it) of doing anything else.
What does Romney say on this?
I’m for Romney anyway, because we know what Obama wants.
As far as 'doing something' about the problem, how about we remove incentives for illegals flowing in? No ER primary care, no anchor babies, no jobs, no access to taxpayer funded amenities, etc etc.
The problem is OVER. Fixed. Solved.
No huge expenditure or 'rounding em up in cattle cars' required. The citizenry would LOVE it.
After a few year of this, if there are a few thousand who have stuck it out and are self supporting then we can talk about getting them on the tax rolls with the rest of us.
I’m not as pessimistic as you, but it’s odd that during the primary this was a big issue.
Rick Perry had a plan to close the border within a year.
Others supposedly had plans.
Now, nobody is talking about the border.
The border must be secured before we even DREAM (get it) of doing anything else.
What does Romney say on this?
I’m for Romney anyway, because we know what Obama wants.
I’d provide the ER care—and then deport them.
But even at that, those who hold on against the disincentives should NOT be rewarded. I’d stop all affirmative-action goodies for even new legal immigrants as well. And I agree, no anchor babies, no jobs or food stamps of Section 8 or all of that stuff.
I wouldn’t leave it to the states, I’d declare them all federal felons and impermissible to give them aid and comfort.
Yeah, it sounds hardline, but none of this would be required if we’d simply enforce the law.
Absolute horse crap...Perry had year and year after year and year to act....And suddenly when he runs for yet ANOTHER government office, why....he suddenly had a plan!!
Coulda woulda shoulda...
Pure, 100 percent government babblesh*t.
We've had several locals hospitals close because of this habit of illegals. They were the canary in the coal mine. We'd better take notice.
Yeah, I’d just say illegals who go into ERs should get care—and then be deported.
“How stupid can some Americans possibly be? “
I think we’re about to find out....
“RE :”Marco Rubio says he would come to the U.S. illegally if he had to””
This is what ticks me off most about the new ‘immigrant’...they refuse to stay and fight for their own nation, but I’m supposed to believe they will stand by me to fight for mine?? They’ll take to the streets to bitch and whine about the laws of the USA, that’s for sure!
What Rubio said was: "If my kids went to sleep hungry every night and my country didn't give me an opportunity to feed them, there isn't a law, no matter how restrictive, that would prevent me from coming here."
To accuse him of advocation breaking the law, or to suggest that the statement is evidence that he does not respect the laws of U.S. is quite a stretch.
Unlike Obama's immigration fiat, Rubio has advocated changing the laws to make them (in his opinion) more just. Rubio is pointing out that sometimes civil laws are violated in order to abide by natural laws. Natural law requires that parents care for their children (cf. Blackstorne). Rubio is also pointing out that deporting those who enter the country through no fault of their own violates the Natural Law.
As Hadley Arkes argues in a great article here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1875/article_detail.asp
Consider for example that proposition the Scottish philosopher Thomas Reid regarded as one of the truly "first principles" we draw from the logic of moral judgment itself, a principle I've restated in this way: that we do not hold people blameworthy or responsible for acts they were powerless to affect. That principle may cover a wide variety of things where people really had no causal powers over their condition or their acts and should not be held culpable. We may argue in different cases as to how powerless or incapable people actually were, but no one doubts the validity of the principle—
Or here where Charles Kesler argues about the validity as law that which passes the Congress.
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1684/article_detail.asp
Can you have a bill, a single law, that is almost 3,000 pages long? In the old days, that would have constituted a whole code of laws. When our founders thought about law, they often thought along the lines of John Locke, who described law as a community's "settled standing rules, indifferent, and the same to all parties," emphasizing that to be legitimate a statute must be "received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies" between citizens.
Very good post. Thank you.
If it is possible to contact legitimate authorities without risking further or additional danger, one should do so. One should arrange to return as soon as is possible and, while a refugee, do as much as possible to contribute positively.
I still think that one would need to be conscious of the potential sinfulness of the act. I don't know if Rubio is Catholic, but even the bishops rarely mention the responsibilities of the immigrant.
Hannity’s big thing seems to be fitting in with minorities and liberals. Makes his show a bit of a turn-off at times.
Hannity’s big thing seems to be fitting in with minorities and liberals. Makes his show a bit of a turn-off at times.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.