How the Left Will Repay the Catholic Church on Immigration
#11
This article's logic isn't that great. The Church supports X and Y.  Some bad people also support X and Y. Therefore the Church is bad for supporting X and Y.  The same bad people also support Z.  Therefore the Church cannot oppose Z and support X and Y.

It is also false to say the Church does not have a position on immigration.  The Church considers it a natural right (CCC 2211, 2241; St. John XXIII, Pacem en Terris 25; Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, etc.).  

It is a natural right because the whole earth was originally given for the good of all men--this right precedes the formation of separate states.  Since the right to migrate precedes the formation of the state, the analysis of the justness of immigration laws (of which the article contains none) must begin with this right unhindered, and then proceed to justifying any limits to it.  We don't start with the idea that the state has the right to forbid immigration outright, and then proceed to justify limits to that.

The article provides zero analysis that the bishops' position applies false principles, or even that it applies good principles to erroneous facts and therefore reaches wrong conclusions.

Also, while the cameraman said the speech was about "illegal immigration", the author doesn't mention it even coming up.  He says it was about pushing for a change in legislation, not about breaking laws.  Conveniently for his narrative, he didn't have time to listen to the answer to the question, "is this really about illegal immigration?"

This author seems to be making a political platform the thing that is one and indivisible, rather than the Catholic faith.
Reply
#12
(06-26-2014, 04:06 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 03:50 PM)J Michael Wrote: One thing further, though--you wrote, "'Illegal' is the key word here. People who are illegal immigrants are, on the face of it, breaking the law."   The PC crowd and progressives in general of all ilk and color, have eliminated, in one fell swoop, that problem.  These people are now not "illegal immigrants" but rather, "undocumented aliens". 

Have you driven 1 m.p.h. or more above the speed limit?  Yes?  Then you're illegal, too.

There are laws and there are laws.  Immigration law is civil, not criminal (with only a few exceptions).  But you and Vox Clamantis want to see them as "law breakers."  I see them as men, women and children in need.  I'm sure that's how Our Lord sees them, too.  And frankly, I think your attitude toward these people is odious to Him.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel.  It is contrary to the social teaching of the Catholic Church.  And it contravenes the natural law, according which human beings have a right to work and feed themselves and their families.

:eyeroll: :eyeroll:  Oh, please.....Get off your high horse, Clare.

Yes, I have.   And  law enforcement usually allows me a little leeway, like 5-10 mph above the limit before pulling me over, even though there is no requirement to do so.  But, there's a difference between a little leeway and totally allowing me and anyone else to consistently speed 20 mph or more over the limit any damn time in any damn place I want.   I'm sure you can discern the difference.

Well, "illegal immigrants" are "law breakers".   If you break the law you are, by definition, a law breaker.   

This may come as a surprise  to you, but I see them as men, women, and children in need too.  I work with a number of such folks.  Some of the nicest people I know.  But...they're still here illegally and working illegally.  I know there's a way through this maze but I'm not smart or wise enough to come up with a comprehensive solution to the issue, and that's probably a good thing  :).   I'm pretty sure, however, that just letting people stream across the borders with little or no regulation, in absolute contravention of this country's sovereignty (which I duly recognize *and* recognize as being subservient to God's sovereignty) and laws is not a good thing for anyone, really.   There is a way (or are ways) to help relieve the sufferings of many of these immigrants without just throwing our borders completely open to anyone and everyone who wants to come here for any reason whatsoever, which is, in fact, what is basically happening.

There's more, but I don't have time now to get into it. 
Reply
#13
(06-26-2014, 04:06 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Have you driven 1 m.p.h. or more above the speed limit?  Yes?  Then you're illegal, too.

There are laws and there are laws.  Immigration law is civil, not criminal (with only a few exceptions).  But you and Vox Clamantis want to see them as "law breakers."  I see them as men, women and children in need.  I'm sure that's how Our Lord sees them, too.  And frankly, I think your attitude toward these people is odious to Him.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel.  It is contrary to the social teaching of the Catholic Church.  And it contravenes the natural law, according which human beings have a right to work and feed themselves and their families.

But if I were wanting to get my driver's license, I wouldn't speed while taking the driving test, if you get my point.

Of course they're people in need -- as are many people who live here (the middle class is going, going, almost gone). And of course Jesus sees them as people in need, because that's what they are. But Jesus also sees the poor black family who lives in the United States already -- born and raised here -- who can't get a job working construction because a contractor prefers to cut corners, pull up to a Home Depot in the morning, and get some illegal workers he can pay much less than he would the American citizien who also has kids to feed. There's nothing "odious" about the traditional teaching of taking care of one's own first, before taking care of others. And that IS Catholic teaching -- at least insofar as how some major Doctors of the Church believed and wrote.

It isn't against the social teaching of the Church to not allow your country to implode in order to take care of your own citizens before you take care of another country's citizens. A government would be absolutely remiss if it were to do otherwise. The Catechism says this, my emphasis:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

To what extent we are able, at this point in our History, is the question. I maintain that we are not able to absorb a new underclass. The rich and the upper middle class might well be able to help the folks who want to cross our borders by sending them support. But bringing that group here to compete with an already-existing underclass doesn't serve the common good of the people who already live here.  The Catechism also says:

2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged. The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good.

Come to my neighborhood and ask my predominantly African American neighbors if it serves the common good to import cheap labor. I could be mean and say your attitude toward our fellow Americans of African ethnicity is "odious," but c'mon, Clare.

Saying people have a "right to work" means that either a) they have a right to find a way of making a living on their own, OR, b) someone has a legal duty to hire them. In the ideal world, some -- most -- folks would work for themselves, and there'd be enough businesses around that'd be able to hire everyone elsle. But in reality, small businesses are getting the shaft, aren't operating on an even playing field because of political corruption, and can't afford to hire a lot of people, and big business only hires people with doctorates or whatever.  The Silicon Valley CEO types are all about immigration because they want to pay cheap wages to engineers from India rather than pay American engineers a competitive salary. Zuckerberg and Gates -- all about throwing open our borders so they can pocket a few more billion instead of paying people what they're worth.

And if everyone has a right to work, shouldn't that include African Americans? And once hired, shouldn't Americans earn wages that are fit for the American way of life they grew up with instead of having those wages "dumbed down" so folks raised in a culture whose people don't mind sleeping 6 to a bedroom will get hired instead?

With things as they are now, immigration is only good for big business and for the immigrants who go from living 6 to a bedroom to living 4 to a bedroom. But meanwhile, the way of life Americans have become accustomed to is disappearing, is now unaffordable. What we have that's attracted folks to this place will be no more if we allow too much immigration at the wrong time, in the wrong way, at too fast a rate. Hell, a few years back, Mexicans were going back to Mexico because things got so crappy up here. Is that what we want for our children -- for them to live in a place so crappy that people who are used to sleeping 6 to a bedroom are turning around and leaving it?

The help Mexican immigrants need is the eradication of corruption in Mexico -- from the government on down to the police. Bringing third world problems to America just displaces the problem, helps a few people in the interim, saves big business some payroll, and costs the American taxpayers jobs, wages, tax money spent in services, and a way of life. How is that just?

My attitude toward immigration is realist. I have great compassion for the poor folks who really are just wanting a better way of life. But I can't allow them to get it at the expense of the culture my grandson and other American kids will grow up in. My grandson -- and to others, their grandsons -- come before anyone else. And once our kids' needs are met, the needs of the people of my town come before the needs of the people of another town. And, being from Indiana, the needs of Hoosiers, for me, comes before the needs of folks from Florida. And the needs of my countrymen come before the needs of the French. And when all those needs are met, and when we're all healthy, then bring on "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - hell yeah -- and at a rate that can be easily assimilated. But as I ascertain the reality of the state of this country, I just think that now is not the time. We are not healthy. We're a sick, dying nation.

None of this precludes rooting for an end to Mexican political and police corruption, sending money to poor Mexican families (for those who can afford it), praying for the Mexican people, etc. It simply doesn't.

Reply
#14
(06-26-2014, 04:34 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: This article's logic isn't that great. The Church supports X and Y.  Some bad people also support X and Y. Therefore the Church is bad for supporting X and Y.  The same bad people also support Z.  Therefore the Church cannot oppose Z and support X and Y.

It is also false to say the Church does not have a position on immigration.  The Church considers it a natural right (CCC 2211, 2241; St. John XXIII, Pacem en Terris 25; Pius XII, Exsul Familia Nazarethana, etc.).  

It is a natural right because the whole earth was originally given for the good of all men--this right precedes the formation of separate states.  Since the right to migrate precedes the formation of the state, the analysis of the justness of immigration laws (of which the article contains none) must begin with this right unhindered, and then proceed to justifying any limits to it.  We don't start with the idea that the state has the right to forbid immigration outright, and then proceed to justify limits to that.

The article provides zero analysis that the bishops' position applies false principles, or even that it applies good principles to erroneous facts and therefore reaches wrong conclusions.

Also, while the cameraman said the speech was about "illegal immigration", the author doesn't mention it even coming up.  He says it was about pushing for a change in legislation, not about breaking laws.  Conveniently for his narrative, he didn't have time to listen to the answer to the question, "is this really about illegal immigration?"

This author seems to be making a political platform the thing that is one and indivisible, rather than the Catholic faith.

SS, doesn't beginning from the "natural rights" of the individual seem backwards to you? As far as I can tell, it completely overturns the insistence on the primacy of the common good taught by Aristotle, St. Thomas, and other thinkers who appear to have received some approval from the Church while also being completely oblivious to the existence of "natural rights." The concept of "natural rights" has unfortunately made its way into official Church teaching over the past century or so, but once one accepts the existence of these so-called rights and their priority over the common good, what is there to stop one from raising the black flag; declaring one's belief in liberty, equality, fraternity; and strangling the last king with the entrails of the last priest?
Reply
#15
I am going to keep my comments short, but the only winners in this tragedy are the kleptocrats in Washington, Mexico City, and elsewhere.  It really is the new triangular trade, you have the immigrants who come here to provide cheap labor to keep our costs down, they send what little they make back to their home countries, which in turns prevents any real structural change in their native country as their politicians complain about how terrible the Gringos are while getting kickbacks from cartels and other enterprises that fuel further emigration.

The question for me is Obama, King Vortigen?  And are we just inviting Hengist and Horsa for our own doom, waiting for the night of the long knives? 
Reply
#16
(06-26-2014, 05:04 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 04:06 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: Have you driven 1 m.p.h. or more above the speed limit?  Yes?  Then you're illegal, too.

There are laws and there are laws.  Immigration law is civil, not criminal (with only a few exceptions).  But you and Vox Clamantis want to see them as "law breakers."  I see them as men, women and children in need.  I'm sure that's how Our Lord sees them, too.  And frankly, I think your attitude toward these people is odious to Him.  It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel.  It is contrary to the social teaching of the Catholic Church.  And it contravenes the natural law, according which human beings have a right to work and feed themselves and their families.

But if I were wanting to get my driver's license, I wouldn't speed while taking the driving test, if you get my point.

Of course they're people in need -- as are many people who live here (the middle class is going, going, almost gone). And of course Jesus sees them as people in need, because that's what they are. But Jesus also sees the poor black family who lives in the United States already -- born and raised here -- who can't get a job working construction because a contractor prefers to cut corners, pull up to a Home Depot in the morning, and get some illegal workers he can pay much less than he would the American citizien who also has kids to feed. There's nothing "odious" about the traditional teaching of taking care of one's own first, before taking care of others. And that IS Catholic teaching -- at least insofar as how some major Doctors of the Church believed and wrote.

It isn't against the social teaching of the Church to not allow your country to implode in order to take care of your own citizens before you take care of another country's citizens. A government would be absolutely remiss if it were to do otherwise. The Catechism says this, my emphasis:

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

To what extent we are able, at this point in our History, is the question. I maintain that we are not able to absorb a new underclass. The rich and the upper middle class might well be able to help the folks who want to cross our borders by sending them support. But bringing that group here to compete with an already-existing underclass doesn't serve the common good of the people who already live here.  The Catechism also says:

2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged. The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good.

Come to my neighborhood and ask my predominantly African American neighbors if it serves the common good to import cheap labor. I could be mean and say your attitude toward our fellow Americans of African ethnicity is "odious," but c'mon, Clare.

Saying people have a "right to work" means that either a) they have a right to find a way of making a living on their own, OR, b) someone has a legal duty to hire them. In the ideal world, some -- most -- folks would work for themselves, and there'd be enough businesses around that'd be able to hire everyone elsle. But in reality, small businesses are getting the shaft, aren't operating on an even playing field because of political corruption, and can't afford to hire a lot of people, and big business only hires people with doctorates or whatever.  The Silicon Valley CEO types are all about immigration because they want to pay cheap wages to engineers from India rather than pay American engineers a competitive salary. Zuckerberg and Gates -- all about throwing open our borders so they can pocket a few more billion instead of paying people what they're worth.

And if everyone has a right to work, shouldn't that include African Americans? And once hired, shouldn't Americans earn wages that are fit for the American way of life they grew up with instead of having those wages "dumbed down" so folks raised in a culture whose people don't mind sleeping 6 to a bedroom will get hired instead?

With things as they are now, immigration is only good for big business and for the immigrants who go from living 6 to a bedroom to living 4 to a bedroom. But meanwhile, the way of life Americans have become accustomed to is disappearing, is now unaffordable. What we have that's attracted folks to this place will be no more if we allow too much immigration at the wrong time, in the wrong way, at too fast a rate. Hell, a few years back, Mexicans were going back to Mexico because things got so crappy up here. Is that what we want for our children -- for them to live in a place so crappy that people who are used to sleeping 6 to a bedroom are turning around and leaving it?

The help Mexican immigrants need is the eradication of corruption in Mexico -- from the government on down to the police. Bringing third world problems to America just displaces the problem, helps a few people in the interim, saves big business some payroll, and costs the American taxpayers jobs, wages, tax money spent in services, and a way of life. How is that just?

My attitude toward immigration is realist. I have great compassion for the poor folks who really are just wanting a better way of life. But I can't allow them to get it at the expense of the culture my grandson and other American kids will grow up in. My grandson -- and to others, their grandsons -- come before anyone else. And once our kids' needs are met, the needs of the people of my town come before the needs of the people of another town. And, being from Indiana, the needs of Hoosiers, for me, comes before the needs of folks from Florida. And the needs of my countrymen come before the needs of the French. And when all those needs are met, and when we're all healthy, then bring on "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" - hell yeah -- and at a rate that can be easily assimilated. But as I ascertain the reality of the state of this country, I just think that now is not the time. We are not healthy. We're a sick, dying nation.

None of this precludes rooting for an end to Mexican political and police corruption, sending money to poor Mexican families (for those who can afford it), praying for the Mexican people, etc. It simply doesn't.

:clap: :clap:

Once again, you say it far more eloquently and thoroughly  than I could, and so save me the mental anguish  :LOL: :LOL: of retrieving, completing, and organizing my thoughts in a manner fit to appear in public.  Mil gracias!!! :)
Reply
#17
(06-26-2014, 09:32 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: SS, doesn't beginning from the "natural rights" of the individual seem backwards to you? As far as I can tell, it completely overturns the insistence on the primacy of the common good taught by Aristotle, St. Thomas, and other thinkers who appear to have received some approval from the Church while also being completely oblivious to the existence of "natural rights." The concept of "natural rights" has unfortunately made its way into official Church teaching over the past century or so, but once one accepts the existence of these so-called rights and their priority over the common good, what is there to stop one from raising the black flag; declaring one's belief in liberty, equality, fraternity; and strangling the last king with the entrails of the last priest?

I'm not sure how it seems backwards.  The end of the state is the common good, but man precedes the state.  Man therefore first has rights and duties and the state then comes in to coordinate and regulate the exercise of them for the benefit of the common good.  The state does not bestow rights and duties as a function of its service to the common good. 

The kind of declaration you cited flows from a kind of absolutist notion that denies this role of the state or the common good at all, and that's not what I'm saying, nor what the Church teaches on this topic of rights, even in the last century.

Anyway, unlike Vox who makes an argument above about how the state should regulate this right according to the needs of the common good, the author in the OP just threw outs some red herrings, non sequiturs, and ad hominems, a falsehood, and some narrative flourish, and called it a day.

Vox's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea since they would be too harmful to the common good in these particular circumstances (a fine argument, IMO--it seems she and the bishops are applying the same principles, but since neither is omniscient, they disagree as to the facts the principles are being applied to, thus yielding a different conclusion).

The article on the OP's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea because it associates you with people who are pro-abortion, plus you have an ugly building, made me pay for parking, and broke your vow of celibacy (bad argument based on bad principles, if any principles at all).

 
Reply
#18
[quote='SaintSebastian' pid='1250581' dateline='1403876054']
I'm not sure how it seems backwards.  The end of the state is the common good, but man precedes the state.  Man therefore first has rights and duties and the state then comes in to coordinate and regulate the exercise of them for the benefit of the common good.  The state does not bestow rights and duties as a function of its service to the common good. 

I think it's family before state, not "the individual."

[quote] The kind of declaration you cited flows from a kind of absolutist notion that denies this role of the state or the common good at all, and that's not what I'm saying, nor what the Church teaches on this topic of rights, even in the last century.

Anyway, unlike Vox who makes an argument above about how the state should regulate this right according to the needs of the common good, the author in the OP just threw outs some red herrings, non sequiturs, and ad hominems, a falsehood, and some narrative flourish, and called it a day.

Vox's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea since they would be too harmful to the common good in these particular circumstances (a fine argument, IMO--it seems she and the bishops are applying the same principles, but since neither is omniscient, they disagree as to the facts the principles are being applied to, thus yielding a different conclusion).

The article on the OP's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea because it associates you with people who are pro-abortion, plus you have an ugly building, made me pay for parking, and broke your vow of celibacy (bad argument based on bad principles, if any principles at all).
[/quote]

I don't have to be omniscient to look at the data and see what's going on. Facts are facts, and people can't sanely disagree about them.

My take on the OP isn't that supporting liberal immigration law is bad because Democrats like it. I see it as having said that Cardinal Mahony allowed radicals to speak to Catholics and radicalize them, turning them into good little revolutionaries, which he apparently did, and that those same radicals are pro-abortion.

Reply
#19
(06-27-2014, 09:34 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(06-26-2014, 09:32 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: SS, doesn't beginning from the "natural rights" of the individual seem backwards to you? As far as I can tell, it completely overturns the insistence on the primacy of the common good taught by Aristotle, St. Thomas, and other thinkers who appear to have received some approval from the Church while also being completely oblivious to the existence of "natural rights." The concept of "natural rights" has unfortunately made its way into official Church teaching over the past century or so, but once one accepts the existence of these so-called rights and their priority over the common good, what is there to stop one from raising the black flag; declaring one's belief in liberty, equality, fraternity; and strangling the last king with the entrails of the last priest?

I'm not sure how it seems backwards.  The end of the state is the common good, but man precedes the state.  Man therefore first has rights and duties and the state then comes in to coordinate and regulate the exercise of them for the benefit of the common good.  The state does not bestow rights and duties as a function of its service to the common good. 

The kind of declaration you cited flows from a kind of absolutist notion that denies this role of the state or the common good at all, and that's not what I'm saying, nor what the Church teaches on this topic of rights, even in the last century.

Anyway, unlike Vox who makes an argument above about how the state should regulate this right according to the needs of the common good, the author in the OP just threw outs some red herrings, non sequiturs, and ad hominems, a falsehood, and some narrative flourish, and called it a day.

Vox's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea since they would be too harmful to the common good in these particular circumstances (a fine argument, IMO--it seems she and the bishops are applying the same principles, but since neither is omniscient, they disagree as to the facts the principles are being applied to, thus yielding a different conclusion).

The article on the OP's argument in a nutshell: supporting more liberal immigration laws is not a good idea because it associates you with people who are pro-abortion, plus you have an ugly building, made me pay for parking, and broke your vow of celibacy (bad argument based on bad principles, if any principles at all).

 

I suppose I was thinking of Aristotle's claim that the political community is prior to the individual in the order of nature:
Quote:Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their working and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they have the same name. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole.

If we deny this and say that the abstraction "Man" is prior to the state and, consequently, that individuals have rights that take priority over the political community and the common good, then it seems to me that, whether we mean to or not, we more or less give everything up to liberalism, which of course is what many in the Church have done in recent decades.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)