First Principles of Immigration

December 17th, 2007 by Paul B Hunker III Print This Article Print This Article ·

"Romney Targets Rudy on Immigration," "Edwards' Immigration Stance Muddled," "Hillary Uses Flak Over Immigrant Issue as Rallying Cry" — these recent headlines show that immigration is a hot issue in the United States 2008 Presidential election.  The estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and the hundreds of thousands illegally entering each year have made the issue acute.

Initiatives aimed at reforming our immigration law, including legalizing millions of illegal aliens and expanding the availability of temporary work visas, have been zealously promoted by the White House but zealously rejected in Congress.  Passions run deep on both sides of the issue.   

Where do you begin in considering this complex issue?  What are the first principles of immigration law and policy?  One source of such principles is the social teaching of the Catholic Church.  The social teaching provides principles derived from a considered reflection on the Gospel applied to immigration.  But the relevant principles of such teachings also make moral and common sense.

Perhaps the broadest first principles of immigration are the following:  Nations are "obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin" (1).  Nations, "for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions" (2).

A nation has a duty to welcome the foreigner in search of security and livelihood.  Why is that?  One must consider it from the perspective of the immigrant.  A person has a right to emigrate from his own country when conditions in such country do not provide what is necessary for basic human dignity (3).  The "right" to immigrate can be considered a specification of the "universal destination of human goods," a principle of social justice.  "God destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity" (4).  Specifically, a person without the necessities of life for himself and his family in his own country has the right to seek those goods elsewhere.

Well, does this mean the borders are open?  Does policing the border and removing aliens who jump the border violate social justice?  Happily (in particular for those tasked with protecting the border), they do not.  Immigration can and should be regulated according to the common good of each nation.  The common good indicates "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (5).  Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the political community that its most complete realization is found.  It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies" (6).

 From this, it is evident that the United States (and any country) can regulate immigration and protect its borders.  This makes common sense.  The United States has a particular obligation to care for its own citizen, now near 303 million persons (7).  Professor Mary Ann Glendon, recently nominated by President Bush to be the U.S. Ambassador to the Holy See, stated that "the nation-state, for all of its weaknesses, allows great numbers of peoples to live together in peace and freedom, with space allowed for the exercise of virtues which promote the common good" (8).  An unrestricted influx of immigrants into the United States would greatly impede civil peace and well-being.  Immigration should be restricted, keeping the common good of the United States in mind.

One element of the common good of the United States is the "rule of law."  The common good of our society thrives in part since people know that the laws are respected and enforced.  Does it not hurt rule of law when aliens who illegally enter and reside in the U.S. are rewarded with amnesty and granted legal residence?  This is a relevant question to ask.  But to the extent one concludes that the immigration laws of the U.S. should be reformed to more adequately promote a just immigration policy, such reform could include respect for the rule of law.  For example, the failed immigration reform bill proposed by President Bush included provisions whereby illegal aliens would have to pay fines due to their illegal presence in the U.S, and/or return to their native country and then immigrate to the U.S. legally. 

Nevertheless, the obligations of the United States are not limited simply to its own particular common good.  "Human interdependence is increasing and gradually spreading throughout the world.  The unity of the human family, embracing people who enjoy equal natural dignity, implies a universal common good" (9).  For that reason, the United States immigration policy must also be concerned with what promotes the social conditions of all persons, even if they are not U.S citizens.  Moreover, there is greater interdependence between the United States and certain countries, such as Mexico, given that we share a common border which brings with it greater social and economic ties.

Certainly, the United States' facilitating the admission of hard-working law-abiding immigrants, whose lives in their own countries have little human dignity, promotes their social condition.  When I drive through the security gates to fly out of Dallas/Ft. Worth International Airport, it is often a person of Somali or Ethiopian descent who cheerfully hands me my parking receipt.  Their cheerfulness strikes me.  I wonder if their joy comes in part from appreciating their lives in the U.S, compared to the horrors from which they fled. 

However, concern for the dignity of non-United States citizens is not simply a matter between the United States and the immigrants.  "Migration today is practically an expression of the violation of the primary human right to live in one's own country" (10).  The point here is that people have the right to live in their own cultures without having to flee because of persecution or poverty.  (One need only watch a film such as El Norte to appreciate the truth of this statement (11)).  Foreign policy and immigration policy must keep in mind what promotes the economic and social development of foreign nations and the rights of persons to reside in their own nations and cultures with human dignity.

A closely related principle to the principle of the universal common good is that of solidarity.  This is a broad term; among other things, the principle recognizes "the bond of interdependence between individuals and peoples" (12) and a desire for "the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all" (12).  The principle is implicit in one of the more striking biblical exhortations regarding the alien — "The stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt…" (14).  A nation that does not seek to help people in nations less fortunate than itself does not recognize the common aspirations that all men have to further their own development and that of their families. 

Finally, a key principle of immigration is family reunification.  If someone can legally reside in the United States, his immediate family should be able to reside with him (15).  "The family is a divine institution that stands at the foundation of life of the human person as the prototype of every social order" (16).

The principles set forth above provide a starting point to consider just and effective immigration law and policies.  It is in the nature of principles that they are fairly straightforward and abstract.  Applying them is more challenging, in particular given the complexity of immigration and the variety of potential immigrants.  But understanding the first principles must come first.


1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2241

2. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2241

3. See Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, paragraphs 25, 105.  Under a subsection entitled "The Right to Immigrate," the Pope states that "when there are just reasons in favor of it, [a person] must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there." (paragraph 25).   He does not describe what is "just reason."  However, in 1969, the Holy See stated that "where a State which suffers from poverty combined with great population cannot supply such use of goods to its inhabitants, or where the State places conditions which offend human dignity, people possess a right to emigrate, to select a new home in foreign lands, and to seek conditions of life worthy of man."  Instruction on the Pastoral Care of People Who Migrate, (1969), quoted in Terry Coonan, There are no Strangers Among Us: Catholic Social Teachings and U.S. Immigration Law, 40 Catholic Lawyer 105, n. 62 (2000)

4. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #171  

5. Gaudium et Spes, #26

6. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1910  

7. http://www.census.gov/

8. http://www.zenit.org/article-19518?l=english

9. Catechism of the Catholic Church, #1911

10. See the Introduction to the Catholic Church's Pontifical Counsel for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Norte_(film)

12. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #192 

13. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #193 

14. Leviticus 19:33

15. See Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #298 ("The right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted."); Charter on the Rights of Families, art. 12. ("Emigrant workers have the right to see their family united as soon as possible."); Message of His Holiness Benedict XVI for the 93rd World Day of Migrants and Refugees (2007) ("If the immigrant family is not ensured of a real possibility of inclusion and participation, it is difficult to expect its harmonious development.")

16. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church, #211

© Copyright 2012 Catholic Exchange

Paul Hunker practices immigration law in Dallas, Texas. He graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1992.

 




  • Guest

    I agree with what the article states.  And immigration when done properly and legally is wonderful (otherwise my wife would not be here) but, what I see is the bigger issue is how to deal with illegal immigrants.  Do we do a wholesale recognition of their presence and grant them legal status?  What message are we sending to the millions of legal immigrants in this country and the multitude of those of waiting lists to get here?  I'm not advocating a massive deportation of known illegals but we should not forget the intent of our existing immigration laws.  Many illegal immigrants are in this country for the very reasons mentioned in the article and are here to obtain a better life.  But there are those here illegally that cannot abide by our laws.  These are the ones I feel should be deported.  Those that are working in jobs at various places around the country should be allowed to apply for legal status.  Their employer should be required to help them in this process and pay whatever fees are required.  Plus the employer should pay back taxes and social security on these employees.  My reasoning is if employers were honest about their hiring practices then there would not be so many immigrants working illegally here.

     

    The problem I think America sees as a immigration problem is not truly "an immigration" problem.  Our real immigration problem is dealing and addressing imllegal immigration.  And unfortunately too many Americans assume to quickly that all immigrants are illegal.  Kind of like you are guilty until proven innocent. 

     

    The issue that must be dealt with is illegal immigration and we must deal with it in a manner that maintains human dignity,

     

    Tarheel

  • Guest

    Mexico, as a sovereign nation, needs to deal with its social issues and not shift the solution up to the USA, unless they want to give up their sovereignty.  Of course, with all the oil in Mexico, that might not be a bad deal for the USA.

  • Guest

    In the "old days" (think Ellis Island…"give us your tired…yearning to be free"), the concept of ILLEGAL immigration was nonexistent.  If you check your history it is only in the very last few years that our government has set up fairly impossible laws to become an immigrant.  When truly studied, most of the laws are unjust and unethical and certainly are not in keeping with the original priinciples of the U.S. and our founding fathers. 

    Yes, it is a compliated issue, but I think issues run high because most people get tied up in the term "illegal" and don realize the ridiculousness of it.  If we used the same principles for our ancestors, NONE of US would be here and the land would still belong to American Indians (maybe not a bad idea????)

    –You have made us for yourself, O Lord; and our hearts are restless until they rest in You. — St. Augustine

  • Guest

    The estimate of 12 million illegals is extremely low-balled. Whenever I hear that number, I know instantly where the author is coming from (considering the actual number is closer to 30 million).

    Yes, we get it. We know there are reasons for people to immigrate, that's why we take in more legal immigrants than the rest of the world combined. We don't need people preaching to us about why there should be a double-standard in our system of justice for foreign nationals who are breaking our laws. The American people have decided they don't want to become South America.

    Lack of assimilation is the issue that will confront the next generation like a punch to the stomach. Why do I never hear socialists like Paul Hunker III or his ilk stressing this. We love America, and know that it can only continue to exist with the unique character of it's people. Go to the Balkans if you want to see the inevitable rewards of diversity and multi-culturalism.

      

    http://www.thegio.net/kazakhstan/blogger/2005_07_01_archive.html   

  • Guest

    Suz slu:

    I have to disagree with you about Ellis Island and its reception of immigrants.  Although I am NOT an expert in the field, I do know there were high standards for being admitted to the US and quotas.  Families were torn apart by the system because if one member didn't live up to the standards for health, as an example, that person could be returned to the country of origin.  (Most countries have this standard.  St Elizabeth Ann Seton's own husband was quarantined in Italy because of his illness. He died while under quarantine.  Mexico is notorious for its treatment of migrants.)  Also,thousands of Jews were not allowed to emigrate here prior to WW II.  How do you think they eventually died?

     The concept "illegal  immigrant" has always existed.  In the past the law wasn't flaunted by  immigrants, employers, and the government the way it has been over the last 20 years.  My husband's grandfather entered this country in 1912ish as a sailor.  He overstayed his welcome as an illegal immigrant.  Despite his youthful age, he knew he wanted to live here legally.  Therefore, he left this country, returned to the seas and his native Sweden, and legally emigrated here with his English bride in the early 1920s.

    The word "illegal"  is not simply a term, it is a status which is the result of behavior that breaks laws.  If one thinks the laws are unjust, then work to change them. 

    And, sorry to be blunt, but enough with the Native American "nonpoint".  It's not helpful to the discussion….The world is currently under a system of sovereign Nation-States (which the VATICAN recognizes as legitimate.  Oh! Notice the Swiss Guards too). If you would like a Global Country, work for that, if you dare, and suffer the consequences of such a "political system".

  • Guest

    Emigrants who come here illegally are not nearly as dangerous to this country as the "do what thou wilt" crowd who is overrunning the country from inside. I say let them come so this country will not have to linger in death while it postpones the inevitable. You see five bedroom houses being built all over the country for a citizenry that do not intend to have more than one child if any. Most of the native Americans have died off because the European populous would not follow George Washington's wish to allow the native Americans a way to thrive.  Europeans descendants  do not have a divine right to occupy this land and neither did my native American  fore bearers.       

  • Guest

    Hey! Show me that 5 bedroom house–that's under 800 grand!  I need it for my 11 young 'uns!  Actually, forget it….my kids don't need anymore house to clean than they already have!  Good Points, geraldgrandfather…enjoy your grandkids, I hear they're the true reward of parenting.  I'm glad your kids made you a grandpa.

  • Guest

    As a retired INS officer, I can tell you that many of the laws on the books today are identical to those in force during the early 1900's and the "Ellis Island days," when my own grandparents came to this country.  Back then, however, there were no lobbying groups that hollered about compassion whenever somebody was sent back–as many were.  Would-be immigrants followed the rules, and if the US chose to allow them into the country, they were glad to get the privilege, even though they weren't automatically entitled thereby to all the welfare benefits that are thrown at them by many states today.  Our ancestors came here to work, and as we all know, they worked hard.

     

    By the way, it is ALWAYS a crime under federal law to enter the US illegally.  Only US citizens have the right to enter the country.  Non-citizens have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER, and every time any non-citizen legally comes into the US it is a privilege that can be revoked.  Depending on the circumstances, illegal entry into the US is either a misdemeanor or a felony (punishable by up to five years in federal prison).  Few offenders are actually prosecuted, however, because it's preferable to send them back.  Why pay tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to support somebody in prison, if he doesn't belong in the country anyway?  That's the major reason why you don't see many illegals in prison!  It is pure fantasy to suggest that being an illegal immigrant isn't a very serious offense.  

  • Guest

    God loves you .

    Ah, Clare, but many illegals populate our prisons as local felons – and should be deported after sering their penalty.

    We first have to secure borders.

    Next, we have to eliminate the ridiculous ‘born-here-automatic-citizen’ law.

    And, we have to chase down and deport those who over-stay visas.

    Then, we have to deport anyone here for more than two years who does not speak adequate day-to-day English. Such persons clearly have no intention to assimilate. If necessary, deport whole families to ‘keep the family together’, if that is (and, it is) a vital issue.

    Then, we can review ‘illegals’ for possible ‘legal alien’ status. Part of that passage to legality has to be like legal immigrant standards – what value is this person/family to the U.S.A, as immigration laws have had it for many years.

    Of the noblesse oblige of the U.S.A, we have long been open-handed with other countries, where other ‘developed’ nations have paid little attention let alone support except to their own strict advantage. I refuse to permit our charity to be questioned. Since the era of the Marshall Plan, we have been most generous. How we have permitted various local tyrants and their cronies to pocket our largesse – well, that is a debatable circumstance, just for being an American taxpayer. Our charity usually has purpose; make sure the money is applied to the purposes.

    Remember, I love you, too .

    In our delighted glory in our Infant King,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @newcesite.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    I'd be inclined to require all immigrants to enter from their own country only, to forbid them taxpayer-funded aid until they become citizens, require they pass their citizenship test in English, and get rid of any barriers based on either numbers or how they would support themselves.  As long as they're supporting themselves, and as well as or better than they did at home, that's good enough.

  • Guest

    It seems to me we first have to fix the source of the problem(s) and then ask the question "what do we do with the 12 (or 30) million that are here illegally."

    Fix the problem.  Enforce.  Then deal with the "errors of the past system".  Simply throwing our hands up in the air because we don't know what to do with the 12 (or 30) million that are here already and refusing to do anything until THAT is solved is ridiculous.

    It's like a family.  Parents may be lax about a rule (or not even think about the rule needing to exist to begin with) until they see there's a problem with the children.  The parents decide what the new rule should be.  Then they tell the children "We know it was different in the past, but mom and dad have talked about this, and here's the new rules, and we expect they be followed because they will be enforced."  Before the new rule is clearly defined, the hammer of justice is probably lighter.  Once defined and enforced, it's another story.

    We just need to get a spine.

  • Guest

    The problem with illegal immigrants that come here for a job that legal citizens won't do is that we are creating a slave strata. Illegals are paid less than anyone else.  They are wanted for cheap labor.  We do not want to pay more for our food or houses. 

     

    Justice cries for paying all workers a just wage and for all workers to be legal!

  • Guest

    Jejkke:

    Illegals drive down wages by their self inflicted status.  Also, it is a fallacy to say "jobs citizens won't do".  The end of that statement is, "….won't do at that wage."

    My black brick mason friend, who was raised in the poverty of the rural South, has been driven from the business because of the illegals.  He had a thriving business, which he built up.  He started as a simple mason himself and grew to running two crews. Six years ago he was earning about $200,000.  Now he can't earn a living because the illegals have over-run the construction industry and have driven down wages such that he won't work for that low price.  (The builders are getting rich as evidenced by the price of new construction for the buyers.)

    Another problem is that many, many of the workers don't speak English and it is legitimate communication problem in getting the job done according to my laborer friends in various segments of the construction industry (masons, electricians, etc…).

    The self serving politicians and corporate america drive this problem.  Most of the rest of us suffer.  The only ones who freely chose to suffer is the illegal immigrant.  (and I know S. America wasn't a paradise either.) 

  • Guest

    And what was Ellis Island? A processing entry point for legal immigrants. Right now the way the laws work and are put into practice; the best way to enter the country is illegally. The last paragraph of elkabrikir's above comment is the reason.

  • Guest

    The real issue is that this is happening because corporations and our political leaders have come to the conclusion that an economic union consisting of Canada, the US and Mexico is the way to prosper in the world economic community.  This can only be done by permitting 20 or more immigrants to flood  the country, destroying the identity of our country as we know it.

     

    It meqans nothing that illegals overwhelm our welfare, school and health systems.  What is most important to the authors of this policy is that wages get driven down to earn more money for these corporations.

     

    When my father  and 80 million like him emmigrated, he did it legally,.  He waited his turn, had a medical exam and became a memember of our society.

     

    20 million people entering the country illegally insults my father and the millions like him who did things the right way.

     

    Our bishops are misguided on this one. In attempting to "welcome the immigrant", they ignore economic, health and social issues caused when such a large group of people flood the country.

  • Guest

    Mr. Hunker is very selective (dare I say manipulative?) in his quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) and other sources to support his desire for open borders or whatever his agenda is.

    He cunningly avoids mentioning the fact that Article 2241 of the CCC states, too, in plain English, that "immigrants are obliged to respect the material and spiritual heritage (English and The Rule of Law…the material heritage… and Christianity… the spiritual heritage) of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."

    Church doctrine, thus, teaches that immigrants are obliged to obey the laws of the country they wish to settle in, provided, that is, they are allowed entrance to that country in the first place since nations are only obliged to welcome the foreigner "to the extent they are able."

    And there are plenty of laws (and dollar costs) governing entry by immigrants into the USA…I know as I am a legal immigrant from Africa to this country, currently with a greencard and awaiting US citizenship processing, a wait of nearly thirteen years.

    For Mr. Hunker's information I utterly resent and reject his and the USCCBs' positions on the presence of illegal aliens in this country and the latter's constant drumbeat from the pulpit and elsewhere justifying their illegal presence here with rhetoric designed to make Catholics feel guilty if they disagree, when, in fact, it is they who are wrong.

    Their positions are not only immoral, they create a double-standard and are discriminatory against those of us who have have had to endure more trauma and stress than any illegal alien "hiding in the shadows" as the USCCB is so fond of saying in an attrempt to evoke sympathy for these witting and malicious lawbreakers. So much for them being good people.   

    In fact, I would state that Mr. Hunker, if he's a Catholic and the US Bishops are promoting and teaching heresy or something very close to it since what they are saying flies in the face of "give unto Caesar what is Caesars" and the Church's concomitant teaching in 2241 of the CCC.

    I and my family are the good guys in this matter. We have followed US requirements and obeyed US law. I insist others who want to come here do the same. But my Church and bishop take me to task and have made me feel very unwelcome for holding the position I do.

    Right now I find myself totally disillusioned with being a Catholic, if I am one at all, or, ever was for that matter and only hope that, since with God all things are possible, He will in his love and mercy provide me with the perseverance not to leave the Church for good.

  • Guest

    God loves you .

    ides1946,

    From Frank Sheed:
    “We are not baptized into the hierarchy; do not receive the Cardinals sacramentally; will not spend an eternity in the beatific vision of the pope. Christ is the point. I, myself, admire the present pope, but even if I criticised him as harshly as some do, even if his successor proved to be as bad as some of those who have gone before, even if I find the Church, as I have to live with it, a pain in the neck, I should still say that nothing that a pope (or a priest) could do or say would make me wish to leave the Church, although I might well wish that they would leave.”

    . . . or, no matter who else is around who we’d just as soon were at least silent out-of-kilter Catholics.

    Have no illusions about the persons of the Church – all sinners as you and I, and subject to flaws, weaknesses, etc. A pectoral cross does not perfect the man.

    I am Catholic not because of Francis Cardinal George, my ordinary in the Chicago archdiocese; and just the latest, after all. I am Catholic because of God, His Son and me.

    Remember, I love you, too .

    In our delighted glory in our Infant King,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @newcesite.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    To wljewell 

    I am intrigued, initially, as to how you actually found my reply to Mr. Hunker's article since I am unable to access it on CE at all. I have to access it by bringing it up on "my favorites."

    Secondly, I thank you for your input even if I can't agree with it.

    But, I would add to your newsflash that it is not just Catholics who believe in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit… all Christians do. It is our core belief. 

    Frank Sheeds comment is interesting but really not very convincing if one is being true to oneself and following what the Church teaches, which is what every bishop's mandate is or should be. Its like saying I'm a member of this family but what my father and mother say or do is of no consequence. In fact, just ignore them altogether. As long as we're a family. Thats all that counts.

    As I know Catholicism, the Church teaches in three ways, through the Bible, the Magisterium and the CCC, the latter translating the two former sources into language the man in the street can understand.

    My bishop accepts the CCC as authoritative, and, presumably, every bishop in the USA does too, yet they wittingly and vociferously teach exactly the opposite of what is in the CCC on immigration (article 2241)and castigate all who do not accept their heretical urgings.

    If your ordinary, Cardinal George does this too, he with all the bishops who contradict the the teachings of the Church should be excommunicated immediately. I think that you as a priest or deacon, as I think you are, should be leading the charge to do this otherwise how can you have a clear conscience and be at peace with The Prince of Peace?

    Unless of course you teach the same heresy as my bishop which would then lead me to wonder if the CCC is mistaken in matters of faith and doctrine. But if that's the case where from the "imprimi potest" to the CCC by then Cardinal Ratzinger? And what of pope John Paul 11, in the introduction to the CCC (page 6) asking all pastors to use the CCC "….in fulfilling their mission of proclaimimg the faith" and that the CCC "…is a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine"

    If the USA wants to know whether it should have open borders or become a bilingual country with Spanish as the other language let its citizens decide on that. Until then it has very clearly defined borders which must be respected and protected and its mother-tongue is, incontovertably, English

    For your information I speak a second language but it is not Spanish. Why then am I not offered the option of being spoken to in this language if I am more comfortable speaking it?

    Why am I offered Spanish at all?

    This is not Spain or Mexico or some other South American country the mother-tongue of which is Spanish and where I would have to communicate in Spanish if I lived there which would mean I would have to learn Spanish and that country's heritage and customs and do my best to fit in.

    This is the difference in being here illegally as a non-immigrant and being an immigrant in the real meaning of the word and doing things as your host country requires.

     

  • Guest

    God loves you .

    Dear ides1946 (March 15, 1946? Fellow Boomer, eh?)

    I am intrigued, initially, as to how you actually found my reply to Mr. Hunker’s article since I am unable to access it on CE at all. I have to access it by bringing it up on “my favorites.” (Call on the local help about that.)

    Secondly, I thank you for your input even if I can’t agree with it. (Just what don’t you agree with? As Mr. Sheed notes, I (or you) can be the last Catholic on earth – as in Purgatory I am likely to be – without any human help, except as Christ is example and His writers reveal Him.)

    But, I would add to your newsflash that it is not just Catholics who believe in God, His Son and the Holy Spirit… all Christians do. It is our core belief. (In terms I wrote, how is this pertinent?)

    Frank Sheed’s comment is interesting but really not very convincing if one is being true to oneself and following what the Church teaches, which is what every bishop’s mandate is or should be. Its like saying I’m a member of this family but what my father and mother say or do is of no consequence. In fact, just ignore them altogether. As long as we’re a family. Thats all that counts. (First, there is nothing in Mr. Sheed’s statement that calls for disobedience or dissidence – just that no Catholic depends on any other Catholic, per se, as a human person. My Catholicism is not nearly dependent on ‘following orders’ as ‘following Christ’. If my bishop errs in his orders, if I am in line with Christ in His general Magisterium, my bishop can and will be ignored.)

    As I know Catholicism, the Church teaches in three ways, through the Bible, the Magisterium and the CCC, the latter translating the two former sources into language the man in the street can understand. (The Church does teach through her bishops, as lead shepherds and pastors. But, each bishop must be led by the Spirit through the Bible and Apostolic Tradition, and as elaborated in general Magisterium.)

    My bishop accepts the CCC as authoritative, and, presumably, every bishop in the USA does too, yet they wittingly and vociferously teach exactly the opposite of what is in the CCC on immigration (article 2241) and castigate all who do not accept their heretical urgings. (I daresay that if what you state here is true, that pure adherence to the CCC must be abided, we are all heretics. If I disagree with this statement about adhering to the CCC as we know of it, show me how I did so. Plus, I would say that the orders from vague-immigrant issues are less heretical than portentously mistaken in a minor key. Most messages have been vague about whether they were concerned with Catholic treatment of legal immigrants and/or illegal aliens, though that may have been intentionally tactical.)

    If your ordinary, Cardinal George does this too, he with all the bishops who contradict the teachings of the Church should be excommunicated immediately. I think that you as a priest or deacon, as I think you are, should be leading the charge to do this otherwise how can you have a clear conscience and be at peace with The Prince of Peace? (I am a lay Catholic; but, as it stands, Cardinal George has said little, himself. Then again, too, I might lead a plan to correct; or, some initiative to replace; however, hardly to excommunicate.)

    Unless of course you teach the same heresy as my bishop which would then lead me to wonder if the CCC is mistaken in matters of faith and doctrine. But if that’s the case where from the “imprimi potest” to the CCC by then Cardinal Ratzinger? And what of pope John Paul 11, in the introduction to the CCC (page 6) asking all pastors to use the CCC “….in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith” and that the CCC “…is a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine” (Has anyone so far here argued the validity of the Catechism?)

    If the USA wants to know whether it should have open borders or become a bilingual country with Spanish as the other language let its citizens decide on that. Until then it has very clearly defined borders which must be respected and protected and its mother-tongue is, incontrovertibly, English. (While I whole-heartedly agree, these are issues very much up in the air due more to long-time and ongoing political malfeasance than to the influence of Catholic ordinaries. Take the issues here to your representatives at the state and federal levels.)

    For your information I speak a second language but it is not Spanish. Why then am I not offered the option of being spoken to in this language if I am more comfortable speaking it? (I have heard no requirement to speak any other language than English. That her San.Franess Pelosi would require it in all governmental offices has as much chance of passing as requiring postal service to the Moon.)

    Why am I offered Spanish at all? (Well – ‘offered’ isn’t ‘forced’. )

    This is not Spain or Mexico or some other South American country the mother-tongue of which is Spanish and where I would have to communicate in Spanish if I lived there which would mean I would have to learn Spanish and that country’s heritage and customs and do my best to fit in. (Agreed – I would think that even if I was just going on vacation, I would attempt to pick up some of the local lingo, no matter the language. “Toilet”, comes to mind.)

    This is the difference in being here illegally as a non-immigrant and being an immigrant in the real meaning of the word and doing things as your host country requires. (I still cannot find the bone(s) you wish to pick with me. I apologize.)

    Remember, I love you, too .

    In our delighted glory in our Infant King,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @newcesite.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    To wljewell

    Initially, please know I have no axe to grind with you

    And there's really nothing you have to apologise for. You were simply stating your thoughts and I, mine, yours based, apparently, on feelings and Frank Sheed, mine on the hard text of the CCC.

    But I would tell you this: you are not privy to the correspondence between me and my bishop wherein what I have written about in response to Mr. Hunker's article and to you takes its root. 

    Furthermore either the CCC has it right in article 2241 or it has not. (Have you actually read 2241?) If the former then Catholics are obliged to live by it, no ifs and or buts and that includes cardinals, bishops, priests and laity. If the latter then why did pope John Paul 11 state, explicitly, that it is a "sure and authentic reference for teaching Catholic doctrine?"

    Or are you suggesting we all can interpret the CCC as each one deems fit…molding it to whatever position best suits us, or, worse, ignore it altogether?

    I think, too, you are being more than a bit disingenuous by commenting that Spanish is being "offered" and not "forced" on Americans. It clearly is being foisted on citizens and residents alike, both overtly and subtly. Just go into any Lowes or Home Depot for overtness and call any government agency for the subtleness…push one for Spanish. But neither Speaker Pelosi nor President Bush is too concerned about that. Who says there's no unity between Democrats and Republicans? For a better understanding of what's happening in the USA read a few of Pat Buchanan's books.

    Just fyi toilet is hardly local lingo. Maybe to some in the USA, yes, but it is routinely used in everyday language by the rest of the English-speaking world. Perhaps, though, you were thinking of the word loo, but even that is no longer a novelty or local lingo to so many English-speakers outside of the US.

    Go well.

     

  • Guest

    This is one of the best, most balanced reviews of the immigration issue.  Thank you!  Somewhere between the "kick everyone out who doesn't speak English fluently" and the "there is no difference between citizens and non-citizen" extremes, this finds the middle ground in Catholic teaching.

    We need people who are here to be WORKING, and we need the non-citizens who are working here to PAY TAXES.  We have a non-functioning guest worker program and that must be fixed BEFORE we simply crackdown in a Don Quixote attempt to kick 12 million people out of the country.

    If the "kick them out" crowd wins, there will be a rebellion on the other side when grocery bills plunge us into a Depression and our food – like our fuel – is suddenly all held hostage in foreign lands. LEGAL immigrants help our economy.

     

    If the "just let them stay with no accountability" crowd wins, then we will have unaccounted for terrorists and gangs overwhelming local law enforcement – people will be shot and something will blow up eventually.

     

    I pray for the middle ground of legalizing millions as guests who pay taxes for SEASONAL work, paying taxes while they are here but returning home with hard earned money to feed their families while some of them pursue eventual citizenship.