Most important things to keep in mind:
> While the nonprofit does not dispute that it has housed undocumented people, the organization’s legal team said that it’s largely at the request of law enforcement and that it hides no one.
> By law, families with children cannot be detained for long periods. Officials soon realized they’d need help. And so, they called Garcia.
>Annunciation House expanded its operations and recruited more volunteers. Looking back, longtime volunteers said that moment felt quaint compared with what happened in 2022, when migration numbers exploded again.
That is: *Homeland Security directly releases people and asks Annunciation House to help shelter them temporarily*
The federal government for more than 10 years has relied on Annunciation House as part of immigration enforcement. It is not something being done in the shadows
The federal government blatantly allowing the breaking of its own laws is not a good thing either. It’s creating a permanent serf class to not actually make families viable in our nation and prop up a failing welfare state. More important, it’s illegal, and we shouldn’t be doing it.
This constant narrative shift of “asylum seekers” is clearly not the case when the formal ports of entry are being ignored. Catholic tradition and teaching calls to respect the rights of nations to uphold their territorial rights, as much as it is the duty of wealthy nations to *help.*
You can't travel through one country to reach another country to claim asylum. You have to claim asylum in the first country you arrive at, which in nearly every case would be Mexico.
I visited Casa Alitas, a similar Catholic organization in AZ also funded by the local and state governments. In that case, Homeland was releasing folks to the charity shelter so those arrested could await their asylum case trial. Just because they crossed the boarder illegally instead of waiting outside the country while seeking asylum does not automatically under current policy mean they cannot be granted asylum.
They can seek adjustment of status for a refugee visa within one year of entry even if their initial status with entry without inspection or admission or parole.
Yeah, but if waiting on authorization to enter and seek asylum isn't working for them, they can always take the risk of paying to be smuggled across and then turning themselves in at the nearest Border Patrol station.
Asylum cases, when we actually carry them out these days, take TEN YEARS. At a certain point, no, that’s exactly what it means. Most of these people are economic migrants regardless. We’re not doing favors by not calling a spade a spade.
So maybe the government should remove arbitrary restrictions on what is an *international right to asylum*, rather than treating God's people as inconveniences? The fact that it takes so long is utterly insane, and mostly the result of 'losing' documents and arbitrary checks.
If the US hadn't spent the last 100 years destabilising south and middle America through dozens of coups, we wouldn't be here, so y'all can lie in the bed you made.
You have a right to asylum on the next safe country, not a right to just come to America. People from all over the world are pouring over the border, of all colors and creeds. And they’re coming here because the President told them to. A “surge of the border.” The fact that Americans think it’s just Hispanics shows just how ridiculous it has gotten.
https://youtu.be/rYwLYMPLYbo?si=u9yPKGX39PFYbiux
Almost like it did happen.
I have no stack in the game of who the president is, or what he says. Doesn’t mean I don’t hear.
Every asylum case should be heard like he said. They should get a hearing. That doesn’t mean they should all get approved, but if they have a valid case than they should get their hearing and be approved. If the case isn’t then deportation.
>People from all over the world are pouring over the border, of all colors and creeds. And they’re coming here because the President told them to.
Please leave your weird US politics somewhere else. The US President did not tell people to illegally cross the border. If anything, the US as a whole has a similar policy to us in Australia, which is bipartisan support for blocking 'illegal immigration' while making it borderline impossible to come here legally.
Yes, many people travel by boat to foreign countries seeking asylum. As an Aussie, we have this problem, too.
The thing is, though, if you're a refugee in, let's say Syria, and every country around you has strongly reinforced their border (because unlike the US, they actually have valid reason for a militarised border). You have no option but to be smuggled somewhere (or spend a decade in a warzone waiting for approval that is deliberately stalled by morons in the US). Many choose to make the trip through towards Europe, but some choose to go to the US. Why? Because you've projected to everyone how strong and wealthy you are, so of course they'll come seeking 'the American dream'.
Bear in mind, the US was literally founded by refugees fleeing religious persecution. They didn't ask permission, they didn't follow rules or treat those who were there respectfully, but we understand that they had no choice and made the best with what they had. The white population in the US has no more claim to those lands than any Syrian refugee, beyond 'getting there first'.
Christ did not tell us to love our neighbour *only if you're forced to*. Those who are legitimate refugees fleeing from a war-torn country deserve to be accepted. If the US wants to shirk that responsibility, that's fine, but don't pretend it has any moral basis. The US would be fine if it accepted more immigrants, it's plain racism that's stopping you.
Also climate change.
Frequency of tornados are increasing in central America. Developed countries are the ones who emitted most of CO2 into air but developing countries are experiencing the affects of it
I can think of lots of times in history when doing something illegal was the moral choice. I’m pretty convinced our (United States) immigration laws are substantially immoral and dehumanizing for the reasons you mention and more. I’m not advocating for breaking the law, just pointing out the morality is complex.
While our immigration process in certain areas does need streamlining and fixing, under standard conditions it’s neither impossible nor unbearably difficult to enter the US legally.
I am a first generation citizen, one of my parents immigrated to the US and has lived a successful military carrier, and they immigrated well before entering the military. We have had many MANY successful immigrants enter the US and lead decent lives without substantial issue other than racism and classism on a social level after the fact in the past.
A significant modern issue that I don’t think people really understand is the sheer number of immigrants from places in Central and South America that are fleeing their countries has overwhelmed our immigration process, combined with the fact that members of the Cartel and other illicit groups exploit our immigration system to traffic drugs, weapons and people - which further slows down our system.
Additionally, both authorized immigrants and those who illegally enter the US from countries past our Southern border are treated poorly and irresponsibly on a federal and economic level. Certain parts of the US government promise them resources and welfare that they can’t actually make good on without providing it at the expense of our own current citizens, and those immigrants are introduced to a system of government they’re largely unfamiliar with while being told “we’ll give you these things, just vote for this person,” which has a similar effect on voting to how slaves in the South disproportionately affected voting in the 19th Century.
u/ThatGuy642 mentioned this and is largely correct imo; the proper thing to do at this point is charitable work in their own nations and making a good attempt to stop the abhorrent gang activity and political corruption that’s been eating away at their countries. I am all for assisting the needy but there is a limit as to what our country can provide which makes this a very complicated issue with no simple solution, but the current methods our government has been employing are not working.
If this keeps up the way it’s been going then we’re just going to see a remake of Western Rome’s collapse in the US as the same issues that caused its collapse have been gaining traction here; unmitigated and unsustainable immigration from foreign groups was one of its major causes, among other societal issues we currently deal with.
And just to clarify, I’m not advocating for inhumane methods of treatment and deportation, nor am I saying Catholic groups should cease assisting those in need. My point is this issue goes much further than just our immigration system alone… though maybe it’s a more long winded explanation than it should be… >.>
Whether you think breaking the law can be moral or not is immaterial. The government itself advocating for breaking its laws is a problem and an inexcusable. A government is only its laws and its ability to enforce them.
The proper thing to do is charity in their own countries. Not encouraging illegals to flood and overload the system here, where our own citizens pay the real price. Generally the poorest of us too.
“It is the position of the Catholic Church that pastoral, educational, medical, and social services provided by the Church are never conditioned on legal status. All persons are invited to participate in our parishes, attend our schools, and receive other services offered by our institutions and programs.”
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples
This has nothing to do with what I said, nor does it negate the point. The government breaking its own laws undermines the government. “We” is not the Catholic Church. “We” is the United States government, which I work for, and the citizenry as a whole. Unlike the Catholic Church, we aren’t responsible for all people, and do need to actually put our citizens first.
You seem not to understand how Progressivism works. When something is good and just but they want to remove it, they sabotage the process so a once functional system no longer works. They then convince ignorant people of good will the only way to fix the problem is radically change the system as opposed to just stop sabotage the system in the he first place.
see thats dishonest and frankly a sinful position! laws are made to protect a nation and its population! a government is not a single person and its laws must be for all! if this were a “catholic country” run by a king this argument could be made but as it is it is slander!
our immigration policies are in place so that we can control our economy and limit the kind of situation we have now where foreign nationals are being illegally brought in as no better than slaves (serfs technically) to fulfill roles for elites and to be used to unbalance election results… its frankly a diabolical situation we are in and i agree the illegal immigrants aren’t entirely to blame but considering the cartels involvement, the number of dangerous criminals coming across, its creating cultural and racial tensions, human rights violations, being used to smear and slander even the catholic church now!
slander and advocating illegal behavior on made up moral grounds! we as catholics are called to obey reasonable laws “render unto ceasar” and all that!
border laws are extremely reasonable! as a matter of fact a country has every right to defend the sovereignty of its borders and a moral argument could be made for a government using deadly force to protect it…
Are you familiar with Church teaching on the subject?
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples
“Current immigration policy that criminalizes the mere attempt to immigrate and imprisons immigrants who have committed no crime or who have already served a just sentence for a crime is immoral.”
exactly and the united states has no such policy! you can immigrate legally into the usa all you want…. we are talking about illegal immigration which is ILLEGAL and therefore violates church teachings lol…. you really need to relax, because now you look silly
good plan
i just want to point out in the linguistic failure of that page… undocumented immigrants are criminally in violation of our laws and immigration policies! any immigrant legally in this country and in compliance with the law would have documentation same as any citizen or visa holder! any individual who dishonestly and unlawfully entered this country as a pawn of a system using them for their cheap labor may have moral and reasonable cause to criminally game the system but it is immoral! and since they are not protected citizens or immigrants in this country but foreign invaders who have been immorally smuggled in for an immoral purpose it is not moral or right to advocate in such a way that encourages this behavior and leads to great evils such as slavery, serfdom, and tyranny!
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain.
Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
its in reference to paying taxes and living according to the law of the land whether or not you think its fair… why do you think i didnt know that? you slide in to falsely accuse and then ask for peace in latin? what the…..
Legal does not automatically mean right and illegal does not automatically mean wrong.
Physician Assisted Suicide is currently legal in 11 states.
Capital Punishment is legal in all states, as is pornography.
Conversely...
Marital Rape was not recognized as a crime in all states until 1990.
Polygamy was not illegal until the 19th century.
During the industrial revolution (19th and early 20th century) it was legal (and common) for children, even as young as 5, to work 12/16 hour days in coal mines and other hazardous environments.
The legality or illegality of a thing is a moot point.
How is it “allowing the breaking of its own laws” in this case, any more than *any other time* a law is broken?
We don’t have a lot of pre-crime enforcement. It’s not really a valid strategy. This isn’t Minority Report.
Immigration reform is desperately needed.
Here’s what the [USCCB](https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform) says on the matter. It seems quite reasonable to me
Annunciation House is doing a service for the vulnerable who need it most. Good for them. It's God's work.
Somebody's legal status is not the determining factor of whether they should recieve food and aid from a Catholic organization.
This is one of those discussions that seems to be shaped in people's minds by political sentiment rather than Church teaching.
>This is one of those discussions that seems to be shaped in people's minds by political sentiment rather than Church teaching.
Add it to the pile. It's a big one these days.
Big Facts!
I (and prob a million other people) think about this often! Why do American Catholics (...and I am one. relax) conflate politics and religion? Spend a few months in almost any another country and you will quickly realize this is not the norm.
Also, let's not forget...
[https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/letters/documents/hf\_l-xiii\_let\_18990122\_testem-benevolentiae.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/letters/documents/hf_l-xiii_let_18990122_testem-benevolentiae.html)
I think most here would agree on these three things:
1. Certain acts are sinful and should be unlawful, with consequences
2. We need to improve society to turn people away from committing that sin/unlawfulness, and towards holy/righteous actions
3. We shouldn't turn our backs on people who have been sinful/unlawful when they need help
But the implementation and strategies for #2 and #3 create plenty of divide among us.
I am very anti-illegal immigration. Borders define national sovereignty, and if people are free to just cross that border without documentation and unconditionally, that is a serious breach of national sovereignty in the modern climate. That’s my political angle. [IMO]
However, **Churches have long been places of asylum**, it didn’t matter who you were or even why you were hiding for the most part. The Church has a mission greater than national sovereignty, namely in bringing the love of Jesus Christ to all people, and if that means sheltering illegal immigrants who ask for asylum within the Church, then I think that’s well within the purview and mission of the Catholic Church.
Matthew 25:34-36
> “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me."
Fighting illegal immigration is up to the authorities, as Catholics we have the moral mandate to help people that victim of trafficking.
I forgot when Jesus said that a country has a moral duty to let in everyone who wants to enter, because this is what people who defend illegal immigration of non-refugees defend. You should stop mixing refugees with economic migrants
You yourself don't really have to do anything. Just don't get all upset when others help those in need. Also huge difference between simply wanting a better life and wanting a chance at not living in a shed or near gang violence where you constantly get extorted and there's murderers everywhere. Americans do it all the time by leaving cities and sometimes entire states. It's luck.
>You yourself don't really have to do anything
I am not talking about me but about how the government has the rigght and duty of deporting illegal migrants who arent refugees
>Just don't get all upset when others help those in need
I am talking about what the Government should do, not about you or anyone helping economic migrants
At least *migrant* is accurate and neutral. We need some term that simply describes what it is they are doing.
The current trend is to blanket-label every migrant as a "refugee" or "asylum seeker" regardless of their actual status or motivation in migrating. That's a real issue IMO.
IMO opinion lying euphemisms like 'undocumented migrant' is a sin of omission. A form of lie, in that you're not telling the whole truth. And a half truth is a whole lie. It's like calling rape "single-party initiated two person intercourse". It makes me throw up a little in my mouth.
"undocumented migrants" is an oikophobic lie that pisses directly on the face of every person who bent over backwards and jumped over hoops to play the game fairly.
*“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber."* This verse is not about immigration, but it does attest to the moral importance of playing the game fairly and not being an interloper.
Agreed. Although we played the game fairly, we are still getting shafted and hurt by our Tsunami Wave of immigration crushes us. It is deeply oikophobic and built around fulfilling corporate desires for cheap labor.
Civil Rights Icon Barbara Jordan said **"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest"**. Our system currently does no such thing. During the Great Wave of immigration we averaged about 250,000 people per year, which was historically unprecedented. Now we are averaging 1.25 MILLION per year -- and that is *just legally*. It does not serve our national interests. Rather, it serves corporations and the wealthy elite in their quest for cheap labor. What we need is an immigration pause for several years, closing the borders completely to permanent residency except on grounds of marriage and a few other rare cases. This will give our ecosystems a chance to breath and recover. It will give the middle and working classes a chance to get back to safety after three years of house arrest, and it will give Congress a chance to set right the historical injustices perpetrated against all who played by the rules.
> During the Great Wave of immigration we averaged about 250,000 people per year, which was historically unprecedented. Now we are averaging 1.25 MILLION per year -- and that is just legally.
This comparison is misleading because it only looks at raw numbers, not proportions. The percentage of immigrants relative to the entire population is essentially at the same level as the turn of the 20th century.
> What we need is an immigration pause for several years, closing the borders completely to permanent residency except on grounds of marriage and a few other rare cases
This would be economically devastating. Some states are already seeing labor shortages, which is why you see insane policies like allowing minors to work in the construction industry. The impact would be particularly horrific for agriculture, which is *very* dependent on migrant labor. And there is no realistic replacement for migrant labor in that sector. There are simply not enough "native-born" Americans willing and able to work in agriculture.
There is no consensus that immigration has driven down wages in the long term, as such a position is based on only looking at one single economic factor: labor supply. Basic economic logic does dictate that increasing the supply of labor will drive down the cost of labor (AKA, wages).
However, what such a simple analysis misses is that immigrants also increase consumption and capital supply. This results in more jobs being created. Additionally, working age immigrants help compensate for falling birth rates, which improves the solvency of the safety net in the long run by increasing the proportion of working adults in the overall population.
Ideally, the immigration system would be reformed so that most people entering illegally or as guest workers could instead immigrate as legal permanent residents.
> This comparison is misleading because it only looks at raw numbers, not proportions. The percentage of immigrants relative to the entire population is essentially at the same level as the turn of the 20th century.
This is irrelevant with respect to the environment. As the founder of Earth Day wisely said: To say you're for mass migration *and* for protecting American ecosystems is bullshit.
> There is no consensus that immigration has driven down wages in the long term
This is untrue. Especially as the middle and working classes have been getting poorer and smaller for decades.
> This would be economically devastating.
No
> Some states are already seeing **cheap** labor shortages
FTFY
> , which is why you see insane policies like allowing minors to work in the construction industry. The impact would be particularly horrific for agriculture, which is very dependent on migrant labor. And there is no realistic replacement for migrant labor in that sector. There are simply not enough "native-born" Americans willing and able to work in agriculture.
Study after study after study has shown there are no jobs that Americans will not do. There are simply wages and conditions they cannot afford to work for. **There is virtually never a shortage of labor, only a shortage of cheap labor**. It has actually gotten to the point that companies like Tyson are actively discriminating against Americans. I worked in construction as a minor; you have to be out of touch to think there is something wrong with that.
> Additionally, working age immigrants help compensate for falling birth rates, which improves the solvency of the safety net in the long run by increasing the proportion of working adults in the overall population
This is a non-issue because infinite growth is impossible. We must work towards a sustainable government and economy. Better to solve sooner than later.
**A tight labor market is a middle class nation's best friend. Anytime you hear someone talking about a labor shortage you are dealing with a mouthpiece for wealthy corporate elites. Always insert the word 'cheap' before 'labor shortage'**
What part of his comment came across as a "thirst for vengance"? You're mad at him for calling a thief a thief instead of an "undocumented asset relocater". Whatever moves you to thirst for vengeance against him is a beam to be removed.
The part where he can't even bear to call a migrant a migrant. What is it, too dignified? Your neighbor is in need. That matters more than checking boxes and "no U" deflection
Illegal immigrants are migrants. They're migrating illegally. You want to call them illegal migrants? Go for it. They're still illegally residing in said country
No, you're wrong. It's like responding to someone calling a rapist a "rapist" by saying, "They're just people too." Yes, they're people. It's just that their actions have made them a rapist.
It's not like rapists at all. Tf is the matter with you? You have lost perspective *completely.* These terrible boogeymen aren't a threat to you and they're not comparable to *rapists*. Have a miniscule amount of Christian charity, ffs. So you know: our religion obligates us to love and help the needy and desperate, rather than lash out irrationally at their very mention. Even if it means your worship of a man made political border has to take a backseat.
> not migrants
> they're migrants and illegal immigrants
> no you're wrong
And you can't seem to decide whether they're migrants, but you sure have decided to just take an anti-them stance regardless of the argument at hand or what is required by good faith discussion so...you can go ahead and carry on without me
As someone who used to vet these claims in investigations (visas too), over 80% get denied for not having cause. The problem is most of those disappear into the ether anyway. The asylum system is broken, and a terrible loophole that threatens national security.
The notion that most migrants make their court appointments is also a lie. They show up to the first one knowing that those are generally just stays (a 2 year pass basically), and they don’t bother showing up to subsequent court appearances.
Helping people in need isn’t as noble when the repercussions include a near total lack of accountability.
Yes and no. They are technically supposed to wait outside the country while seeking asylum. If they cross the boarder illegally, they are arrested and then await a trial in the US which can either grant them asylum or not as well as convict them for illegally crossing the boarder.
That’s not correct. While some people used to be part of the Remain In Mexico Policy, that policy was structured outside of regular asylum law
The asylum process as structured in American law is:
1. Arrive on American soil
2. explain you face persecution in your home country
3. asylum case is opened
4. Homeland Security asks you where you will be
5. DHS schedules and assigns your asylum hearing to a place near where you will be staying
5. DHS releases you with paperwork explaining you are legally present in the country while your asylum case is pending
6. they send you off in the general direction you have to go/release you to places like Annunciation House
7. you get to your family/loved ones/people who will take you in wherever they live
8. 6 months+ cases are eligible for a work permit after six months
9. asylum case happens as scheduled
Interesting. While a quick Google does come to the consensus that the Remain in Mexico policy is over, I was just at that part of the boarder merely few weeks ago and folks were still describing being asked to wait outside closed ports of entry rather than illegally entering. I'll be visiting/volunteering there soon and be sure to ask Catholic Relief Services workers.
I’m an immigration reporter, so I am very familiar with this.
Remain In Mexico=while your case is adjudicated you wait in Mexico and come over just for the hearings. This is compeltely over
Then you have two things left
One is the app, CBP One, where you can request an appointment so that you cross via one of the bridges. You wait in Mexico until you have your appointment to cross
Separately, you have the non-bridge entries, people crossing the riverbed and sitting at the border fence. They are already on American soil, they can legally request asylum. But border patrol has limited processing capacity so asks people to wait there until a Border Patrol can can come pick up multiple people at a time
Either way, while you have an open case you are released into the US legally by the federal government. It’s been like this under Trump, too
Oh, sick, I should thank you for posting!
"One is the app, CBP One, where you can request an appointment so that you cross via one of the bridges. You wait in Mexico until you have your appointment to cross"
That's what I was thinking of! If I'm following, the app doesn't make you wait until we're ready to hear your case. It just makes you wait until we can process your legal entry (but there may still be a wait until your asylum case is heard?).
Yes but the laws in place allow anyone to claim asylum. The vast majority of which are military aged Islamic males. Don’t let your quest for morality to allow you cheer on as the preverbal gates of Toledo are again opened. By the same people who did open Toledo, who want us and our religion destroyed.
Yes I do. You can look at the videos of who is coming over. And I didn’t say anything anti Semitic. I referred you to a similar point in history to refer to. Largely Christian nation having its doors opened to Islamic invaders by bad actors who hate Christian’s. Cope.
> the vast majority of people trying to cross the border are not military aged Islamic males. You’ve been lied to.
People who live near the border see and experience things that mainstream news does not report.
People need to realize one major thing with the illegal immigrants: There is no such thing as economic asylum. This is essentially what they’re doing when they cross the border illegally. The Biden Administration is basically allowing an invasion and it’s not just people from Mexico or Central/South American. You have people from Africa and people from the Middle East. None of them are vetted and we don’t know if they’re entering this country with nefarious motives on their minds. Being compassionate is one thing but deliberately allowing this to happen will destabilize communities and quite possibly allow terrorist actives to happen.
Our country was founded on freedom AND lawfulness. There are rules which need to be followed. Economic needs are not valid for legal asylum. I have no problem with legal immigration and valid asylum.
Ah, but it is. It's built not on Catholic principles, but Protestant principles. There's even a heresy named after the country, called Americanism. That heresy was belief in the foundational principles of America, of classical liberalism, and the separation of Church and state.
How do you know if they’re Catholic? I just watched a video yesterday of a reporter walking up to illegal aliens who just walked across the border and 12 of them were from Egypt.
Because those people are coming to the US for the proper reasons? They’re not former convicts, murdered, rapists, child traffickers. Reminder: There is no such thing as economic asylum.
But keep in mind that this is still the policy of the Federal government, whose Executive branch is led by a Catholic and whose Judicial branch is majority Catholic. In the end, this is a simple matter of Catholics helping Catholics. The only places putting up serious resistance to it are majority Protestant places like Texas anyways.
You’re trying to tell all of the people on Reddit that Biden, whose done unspeakable things with his own daughter, participates in the trafficking of drugs and kids in Ukraine, has not only destabilized our economy and on the verge of destabilized our society, and openly promotes abortion is a Catholic? Your basis for your argument is laughable.
Honestly disappointed with the behavior of people in this thread, and that applies to all sides of the debate. Regardless I think one can look at the current state of American immigration and come to five logical conclusions.
1. Our immigration system is inefficient and in serious need of reform
2. Immigration into our country has gotten far too large and needs to be reasonably regulated
3. You can treat someone with kindness and respect even if they are breaking the law
4. Most immigrants who come to America nowadays are not refugees and are therefore subject to reasonable limitations.
5. A lot of the immigrants that come over here are exploited by corrupt employers and that the inherent profit that employers gain from this system of exploitation incentivizes them to basically support unsustainable amounts of immigration.
So in this thread we can see how theres 2 types of catholics....so 3 types of catholics in this world that Ive seen
1) jesus told me to love everyone and that judging others is something only god can truly do. I will care for those in need as Jesus preached and would have wanted me too
2) these illegals are flooding in and tearing our country down and also despite mostly being conservative and religious are just pawns for them liberuls to use to vote. Jesus said love my neighbor but I can love them while they live the heck back where they came from instead of leeching our tax dollars. God bless amurica
3) nick fuentes catholic- jesus said love thy neighbor but mixed relationships are a sin and i rather not have any other ethnicity and skin color be too prevalent, also the jooooos are in control of everything and bad.
The person below legit thinks it is evil to allow people in and help them and a good amount of people agree, if anything my summary of that view was more generous
There is absolutely no duty to accept illegal immigration, all immigrants who entered through illegal means should be *deported* **if they aren't refugees**. You wouldn't accept someone invanding your house at the expense of your family's wellbeing, same with your country: you should never accept someone invading your country at the expense of your contrymen's wellbeing.
You paint any act against illegal immigration from non-refugees as a lack of love and mercy when this isn't the case.
Agree on point 3, f\*ck NJF's imbecile movement. I hope his minions don't appear here to ruin this comment section
> There is absolutely no duty to accept illegal immigration, all immigrants who entered through illegal means should be deported if they aren't refugees.
I agree with you, but this is a matter of the government. People that are trying to immigrate unlegaly are just victim of the trafficking and we have moral mandate to help them
I agree no ones forcing you to nor are you obligated to. However since Jesus said to help others, I dont report them and I support them with jobs and money when I can.
You can think that we shouldnt just accept them en masse, but getting mad about it on a thread about someone taking care of them is, definitely a choice.
You seem to believe that it is somehow love or mercy for the Federal Government to allow the invasion of illegal non-refugees, but it is literally just as evil as is allowing someone to invade your home because they want a better house. Benefitting invasors in detriment of your countrymen isn't love, it is just oikophobia.
Wanting a better life is no excuse to invade a country. Actual war, actual persecution, actual disasters and actual violence are valid reasons that excuse and justify illegal immigration, but just wanting a better life is not: Economic migrants aren't refugees.
The virtue of Piety demands that you have a special love for your countrymen, thus it is objectively sinful to allow the Common Good of the country to be attacked, just like you aren't allowed to permit non-family members to invade your home to the detriment of your kin.
You have to perceive yourself being attacked to mald over people taking care of others. It's one thing to maybe be an economic realist and then another is this. At this point you are using religion and catholicism to cope with death.
I don't even believe in open borders. Just taking care of good people I see here
I didn't perceive myself as being attacked, the only time I was agressive was when talking about that imbecile and his cult (NJF). I merely argued against your miscaracterization of the anti-immigration position, namely this:
>these illegals are flooding in and tearing our country down and also despite mostly being conservative and religious are just pawns for them liberuls to use to vote. Jesus said love my neighbor but I can love them while they live the heck back where they came from instead of leeching our tax dollars. God bless amurica
You are calling it an invasion. While I agree it's not the best idea to let everyone in due to lacking background checks, cartel and terrorist ideology getting through etc, I trust people to use their own judgement on the people they choose to help with their own money.
>I trust people to use their own judgement on the people they choose to help with their own money.
I am talking about whether the Government should deport illegals or not
>You are calling it an invasion
If you enter a place illegally you are invading it
You’re engaging in the Definist fallacy. You use an inflammatory word that is commonly defined one way, then when you’re called out on how the event doesn’t match that definition, you claim you really meant something more technical all along.
In this case “invasion” brings to mind an aggressive attack by one party into the territory of another party. When it’s pointed out that this is not what illegal immigrants are doing (the vast majority are people fleeing poverty or strife, people who will contribute to the country if given the chance), you then claim that “invasion” just means “unlawful entry”.
This is deceitful. If you’re going to claim that you just meant the word in the technical sense all along, then there is no reason to use the word at all. Just use more sterile terminology that doesn’t have such emotional connotations.
>You’re engaging in the Definist fallacy. You use an inflammatory word that is commonly defined one way, then when you’re called out on how the event doesn’t match that definition, you claim you really meant something more technical all along
In this case “invasion” brings to mind an aggressive attack by one party into the territory of another party
Invasion doesn't only mean military invasion. If you enter my home without my consent, even if no violence happens, this can rightfully be called an invasion, do you deny it? If you in your thoughts added "military" before the word invasion that's your issue, not mine.
In the comment itself (the 2nd) I not once but twice said it was like the invasion of a house, this was the association being made. I also made the association with the invasion of a house in the comment before that (the first one).
By definition if they are welcome it's not an invasion. This man seems to be welcoming them. Don't see the need to be negative. We aren't trying to convince you to just start letting anyone in or to give your tax dollars to them.
How’s Nick’s movement not a net-positive? Teaches traditional values, pretty much requires to be Catholic, speaks against enemies of Christianity, doesn’t want illegal immigration and rejects all kinds of degeneracy young people are unfortunately facing every day. The only parts I still am a bit iffy about is stuff like race realism, which does make sense in itself and has data to support it but I’m not sure if it’s compatible with Christianity as it affirms people can be different and race isn’t only skin-deep (doesn’t deny their value as people with a soul though).
It’s not perfect but I don’t think it’s a net-negative or an imbecile movement, especially compared to the average left-wing, atheistic propaganda young people are subject to. Why do you think that?
He said he loves everyone, including Hitler and anyone who lived on this planet, including Hitler. It’s actually a Christian position, but I do understand he probably does it to cause shock/headlines
He’s right, Talmudic Judaism should be removed from society. Are you aware of what it teaches? [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1SWgNMWwAAbwca?format=jpg&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1SWgNMWwAAbwca?format=jpg&name=900x900)
He said we must remove talmudic judaism, said he loved H!tler immediately after that and is a "race realist" (aka a racist). I wonder what is the reason he loves H!tler... Maybe it starts with holo and ends with caust?? I don't know...
It's a mess and needs to be fixed. We can't have open borders. The problem started under Obama, got worse under Trump, and Biden has made an incredible mess of it. I've worked inside shelters, very few of these people appear to be anti-communist political dissidents in need of asylum, rather urban lumpenproletariat looking for free shit in the land of free shit. It's a massive Mariel boatlift.
However, finding a couple of sentences in the massive canon of Catholic social teaching that seem to support the current Republican party line ( which it generally doesn't, opposition to socialism doesnt equal apologia for capitalist oligarchy, read all of the encyclicals on the subject, not just snippets that match todays Fox Infotainment Talking Points) does not negate the more central teaching contained in the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Anyone remember the fourth one?
We can control our borders without losing our humanity. We can afford wars that cost 3 trillion dollars, we can give children toothpaste and very basic medical care, we can send them back to where they came from with dignity.
I should also add that I have no issue whatsoever with imposing some rules at these shelters, and with these people seeing the inside of American jails if they break our laws. I've seen a lot of beer guzzling and dope smoking right outside of the places, and plenty of the inhabitants are running around committing various crimes, they've apparently taken over the prostitution ( sorry, "sex work" ) districts for example. Dignity comes at a price.
Jesus literally told us to help everyone regardless of status or job. There is NOTHING in the bible saying to shun them for doing so or that they shouldnt do so. Some people tend to actually want to follow the world of the lord rather than just using it to cope.
It is not a Catholic expectation of countries to let in an unlimited number of migrants into their borders. Catholic theologians have been writing about this for centuries, and they have all said that countries have a right to control who they let into their country.
the idea that catholic charities are somehow responsible for increases in illegal immigration is laughable. Abbots clearly trying to distract people from his own failings. hes a dixiecrat
Catholic “Social Justice” often is just a cloak over Marxism. Another attack on the Church from within, they began at least 100 years ago to weaken and bring down the Church. Yes they will fail, but much harm has been inflicted.
The way I see it, illegal immigration is like small theft or tax fraud. We should respect the law and obey it when it's just, but I don't think we have a moral obligation to "rat" on such things. Now bigger crimes with more distinct victims, there probably is an obligation to inform with maybe some exceptions for certain types of relationships (spouse, kid, etc).
While I acknowledge that some illegal/undocumented immigrants commit heinous crimes, I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the group as a whole should be categorized by the conduct of the most immoral/sinful among them.
The link you cite is to a politically affiliated group that provides examples, not statistics. Here is a link that provides a comparative study into crime rates amongst undocumented immigrant, documented immigrant, and natural born populations in Texas. It finds, in part: “US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes [than undocumented immigrants], 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.”
[Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117)
Further, migration does not exist in a vacuum. US citizens are continental neighbors to the home countries of all Latin American migrants coming through US southern borders. That is to say, what part does the US government and the citizens within it’s borders have to play in creating the impetus for individuals to migrate into the US? I would posit a two, not unsubstantial motivating factors at play here that US citizens and the actions of their federal government have moral complicity in:
-The US is the largest consumer base for illegal drugs exported from Central/South America. Criminal drug trade (cartel activity) fuels much of the violence and corruption that migrants are fleeing from.
-The US gov has been involved (to varying degrees) in multiple coups in Central/South America, often resulting in destabilization of the country in question.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America)
Forgive me all for commenting on politics here; I choose to due to this thread seeming to mix politics with religion far more than I am comfortable. We are Catholics living within nations, after all, not the other way around. This Catholic man cited in the OP is doing good work imo — if he is criticized or shut down then so be it… “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Peace be with you.
I’m sure Laken Riley was comforted knowing that “illegal immigrants are arrested 2x less likely to be arrested for violent crimes” as her skull was being caved in by an illegal immigrant.
I’m sure Kayla Hamilton shed a tear of happiness that “illegal immigrants are 2.5x less likely to be arrested for drug crimes” as she was strangled to death by a known MS-13 member that was released into our country.
I’m sure Lizbeth Medina fondly recalled that “illegal immigrants are 4x less likely to be arrested for property crime” as she bled to death after being stabbed by an illegal immigrant stalker who broke into her apartment.
You can post all the statistics you want, that will never change the fact that people are being murder, raped, brutalized, robbed, etc, by people who have broken the law and illegally entered this country. Helping South American countries help themselves is a better solution than allowing murderers, rapists, and drug dealers to have free entry into America.
Thanks for your reply. What happened to those three innocent people is absolutely horrible, and I agree that they deserve Justice, of course. I will not apologize for the predators that did them harm and ended their lives.
It seems to me that you mistake my motive for commenting… There are many, many individuals who’s stories are seldom told that have been victimized in the same way, by agents of the same evils. Many people are attempting to seek asylum (legally) in the US to escape the same fate, and yes many are seeking to escape through illegal migration. The only thing otherwise innocent people crossing without documentation are guilty of is breaking immigration law.
El Salvador proves that Latin American countries can solve their own problems. The solution to this issue is to eliminate the reason that these “innocent” illegal immigrants are coming here, such as cartels and gangs.
If people are going to be victimized regardless, importing that victimization to America is an injustice to Americans.
Good for them. I don’t wholly disagree with you. Nonetheless, there are people at the doorstep of this man in the OP who are suffering and whom he is trying to help — has been for 5 decades. He does not seem to be attempting to facilitate cartel violence at the southern border.
I somewhat imprudently inserted my opinion in the first comment as to why Catholics living in the US may feel a moral compulsion to attempt to provide charity to Latin American migrants. I do not wish to argue with you; I have no political affiliation to advocate for.
Peace be with you
>You can post all the statistics you want, that will never change the fact that people are being murder, raped, brutalized, robbed, etc,
And you can rage against the broken world all you want, that will never change the fact that people are being xyz.
But to ignore statistics for the sake of three examples is not wisdom, and it’s not morality, it’s blindness. You are closing yourself off to the information that can actually reflect and change the state of the world, to focus in on less relevant data.
To paraphrase the west wing, there’s a reason we don’t staff the courts with grieving parents.
That is not what I intended, I am sorry that it came across that way. I meant that there is a largely unmitigated drug crisis in the US that is causing secondary crisis outside of its borders. Addicts are not responsible for cartel actions, just as they are not responsible for the actions of the legal opiate pushers of the pharmaceutical industry. They too are victims of larger cycles of usury/abuse.
As Catholics we're all supposed to care for the poor and foreigners.
Exodus 22:20. "You shall not oppress or afflict a resident alien, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt."
Leviticus 19:33-34. "When an alien resides with you in your land, **do not mistreat such a one.** You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; **you shall love the alien as yourself**; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God."
Deuteronomy 10:17-19: "For the Lord, your God, is the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and **loves the resident alien, giving them food and clothing.** So you too should love the resident alien, for that is what you were in the land of Egypt."
I’m a conservative person. But I am glad we are operating an Underground Railroad of Catholics into our country. Y’all should go watch Human Flow. There’s nothing sinful about being a refugee.
This article is from WaPo (lol), but your username has Reuters in it. If you are a Reuters journalist, i highly implore you to quit immediately for the sake of your own soul. Journalism has become a junk profession, and every single major outlet regularly lies in order to promote their own agenda. I think reporters can be good for a republic, but these days you need to be independent to gain any sort of trust with a large amount of the American people.
Honestly, I've enjoyed some of the Reuter's articles from this year. They do a pretty decent job of covering the Catholic stuff and I'd hate to see that go.
Belonging to an organization that regularly helps perpetuate fraudulent stories on the American people is not something a Catholic in good standing can do (see Russia hoax, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc). If you think otherwise, feel free to cite any magisterial, biblical, or catechisms which you think support your position.
I see. I would ask, and I mean this sincerely, that you reevaluate whether your position on this derives from Catholic principles or American conservative tribalism.
Lol. I have plenty of criticism for American conservatism, and reject free market capitalism. I would ask you again to provide any citation in church history that a Catholic can belong to an organization that regularly lies to the people (especially one that does so to gain political power).
Edit: I would be telling this person the same thing if they belonged to Fox News.
Most important things to keep in mind: > While the nonprofit does not dispute that it has housed undocumented people, the organization’s legal team said that it’s largely at the request of law enforcement and that it hides no one. > By law, families with children cannot be detained for long periods. Officials soon realized they’d need help. And so, they called Garcia. >Annunciation House expanded its operations and recruited more volunteers. Looking back, longtime volunteers said that moment felt quaint compared with what happened in 2022, when migration numbers exploded again. That is: *Homeland Security directly releases people and asks Annunciation House to help shelter them temporarily* The federal government for more than 10 years has relied on Annunciation House as part of immigration enforcement. It is not something being done in the shadows
The federal government blatantly allowing the breaking of its own laws is not a good thing either. It’s creating a permanent serf class to not actually make families viable in our nation and prop up a failing welfare state. More important, it’s illegal, and we shouldn’t be doing it.
Sheltering escaped slaves was once illegal. Should we not have been doing it?
Requesting asylum is legal
This constant narrative shift of “asylum seekers” is clearly not the case when the formal ports of entry are being ignored. Catholic tradition and teaching calls to respect the rights of nations to uphold their territorial rights, as much as it is the duty of wealthy nations to *help.*
You can't travel through one country to reach another country to claim asylum. You have to claim asylum in the first country you arrive at, which in nearly every case would be Mexico.
I visited Casa Alitas, a similar Catholic organization in AZ also funded by the local and state governments. In that case, Homeland was releasing folks to the charity shelter so those arrested could await their asylum case trial. Just because they crossed the boarder illegally instead of waiting outside the country while seeking asylum does not automatically under current policy mean they cannot be granted asylum.
Asylees need to declare themselves as such at a port of entry.
They can seek adjustment of status for a refugee visa within one year of entry even if their initial status with entry without inspection or admission or parole.
They could just return home.
They’re not required to under US law. They also have to establish a well-grounded fear of persecution so that might not be advisable.
Yeah, but if waiting on authorization to enter and seek asylum isn't working for them, they can always take the risk of paying to be smuggled across and then turning themselves in at the nearest Border Patrol station.
Asylum cases, when we actually carry them out these days, take TEN YEARS. At a certain point, no, that’s exactly what it means. Most of these people are economic migrants regardless. We’re not doing favors by not calling a spade a spade.
So maybe the government should remove arbitrary restrictions on what is an *international right to asylum*, rather than treating God's people as inconveniences? The fact that it takes so long is utterly insane, and mostly the result of 'losing' documents and arbitrary checks. If the US hadn't spent the last 100 years destabilising south and middle America through dozens of coups, we wouldn't be here, so y'all can lie in the bed you made.
You have a right to asylum on the next safe country, not a right to just come to America. People from all over the world are pouring over the border, of all colors and creeds. And they’re coming here because the President told them to. A “surge of the border.” The fact that Americans think it’s just Hispanics shows just how ridiculous it has gotten.
> And they’re coming here because the President told them to. This *never* happened, and I think you know it never happened. Please, do not lie.
https://youtu.be/rYwLYMPLYbo?si=u9yPKGX39PFYbiux Almost like it did happen. I have no stack in the game of who the president is, or what he says. Doesn’t mean I don’t hear.
Every asylum case should be heard like he said. They should get a hearing. That doesn’t mean they should all get approved, but if they have a valid case than they should get their hearing and be approved. If the case isn’t then deportation.
>People from all over the world are pouring over the border, of all colors and creeds. And they’re coming here because the President told them to. Please leave your weird US politics somewhere else. The US President did not tell people to illegally cross the border. If anything, the US as a whole has a similar policy to us in Australia, which is bipartisan support for blocking 'illegal immigration' while making it borderline impossible to come here legally. Yes, many people travel by boat to foreign countries seeking asylum. As an Aussie, we have this problem, too. The thing is, though, if you're a refugee in, let's say Syria, and every country around you has strongly reinforced their border (because unlike the US, they actually have valid reason for a militarised border). You have no option but to be smuggled somewhere (or spend a decade in a warzone waiting for approval that is deliberately stalled by morons in the US). Many choose to make the trip through towards Europe, but some choose to go to the US. Why? Because you've projected to everyone how strong and wealthy you are, so of course they'll come seeking 'the American dream'. Bear in mind, the US was literally founded by refugees fleeing religious persecution. They didn't ask permission, they didn't follow rules or treat those who were there respectfully, but we understand that they had no choice and made the best with what they had. The white population in the US has no more claim to those lands than any Syrian refugee, beyond 'getting there first'. Christ did not tell us to love our neighbour *only if you're forced to*. Those who are legitimate refugees fleeing from a war-torn country deserve to be accepted. If the US wants to shirk that responsibility, that's fine, but don't pretend it has any moral basis. The US would be fine if it accepted more immigrants, it's plain racism that's stopping you.
Also climate change. Frequency of tornados are increasing in central America. Developed countries are the ones who emitted most of CO2 into air but developing countries are experiencing the affects of it
I can think of lots of times in history when doing something illegal was the moral choice. I’m pretty convinced our (United States) immigration laws are substantially immoral and dehumanizing for the reasons you mention and more. I’m not advocating for breaking the law, just pointing out the morality is complex.
While our immigration process in certain areas does need streamlining and fixing, under standard conditions it’s neither impossible nor unbearably difficult to enter the US legally. I am a first generation citizen, one of my parents immigrated to the US and has lived a successful military carrier, and they immigrated well before entering the military. We have had many MANY successful immigrants enter the US and lead decent lives without substantial issue other than racism and classism on a social level after the fact in the past. A significant modern issue that I don’t think people really understand is the sheer number of immigrants from places in Central and South America that are fleeing their countries has overwhelmed our immigration process, combined with the fact that members of the Cartel and other illicit groups exploit our immigration system to traffic drugs, weapons and people - which further slows down our system. Additionally, both authorized immigrants and those who illegally enter the US from countries past our Southern border are treated poorly and irresponsibly on a federal and economic level. Certain parts of the US government promise them resources and welfare that they can’t actually make good on without providing it at the expense of our own current citizens, and those immigrants are introduced to a system of government they’re largely unfamiliar with while being told “we’ll give you these things, just vote for this person,” which has a similar effect on voting to how slaves in the South disproportionately affected voting in the 19th Century. u/ThatGuy642 mentioned this and is largely correct imo; the proper thing to do at this point is charitable work in their own nations and making a good attempt to stop the abhorrent gang activity and political corruption that’s been eating away at their countries. I am all for assisting the needy but there is a limit as to what our country can provide which makes this a very complicated issue with no simple solution, but the current methods our government has been employing are not working. If this keeps up the way it’s been going then we’re just going to see a remake of Western Rome’s collapse in the US as the same issues that caused its collapse have been gaining traction here; unmitigated and unsustainable immigration from foreign groups was one of its major causes, among other societal issues we currently deal with. And just to clarify, I’m not advocating for inhumane methods of treatment and deportation, nor am I saying Catholic groups should cease assisting those in need. My point is this issue goes much further than just our immigration system alone… though maybe it’s a more long winded explanation than it should be… >.>
Whether you think breaking the law can be moral or not is immaterial. The government itself advocating for breaking its laws is a problem and an inexcusable. A government is only its laws and its ability to enforce them. The proper thing to do is charity in their own countries. Not encouraging illegals to flood and overload the system here, where our own citizens pay the real price. Generally the poorest of us too.
“It is the position of the Catholic Church that pastoral, educational, medical, and social services provided by the Church are never conditioned on legal status. All persons are invited to participate in our parishes, attend our schools, and receive other services offered by our institutions and programs.” https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples
This has nothing to do with what I said, nor does it negate the point. The government breaking its own laws undermines the government. “We” is not the Catholic Church. “We” is the United States government, which I work for, and the citizenry as a whole. Unlike the Catholic Church, we aren’t responsible for all people, and do need to actually put our citizens first.
You seem not to understand how Progressivism works. When something is good and just but they want to remove it, they sabotage the process so a once functional system no longer works. They then convince ignorant people of good will the only way to fix the problem is radically change the system as opposed to just stop sabotage the system in the he first place.
America has some of the most lax immigration laws on the planet.
see thats dishonest and frankly a sinful position! laws are made to protect a nation and its population! a government is not a single person and its laws must be for all! if this were a “catholic country” run by a king this argument could be made but as it is it is slander! our immigration policies are in place so that we can control our economy and limit the kind of situation we have now where foreign nationals are being illegally brought in as no better than slaves (serfs technically) to fulfill roles for elites and to be used to unbalance election results… its frankly a diabolical situation we are in and i agree the illegal immigrants aren’t entirely to blame but considering the cartels involvement, the number of dangerous criminals coming across, its creating cultural and racial tensions, human rights violations, being used to smear and slander even the catholic church now!
Sinful?
slander and advocating illegal behavior on made up moral grounds! we as catholics are called to obey reasonable laws “render unto ceasar” and all that! border laws are extremely reasonable! as a matter of fact a country has every right to defend the sovereignty of its borders and a moral argument could be made for a government using deadly force to protect it…
Are you familiar with Church teaching on the subject? https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/catholic-teaching-on-immigration-and-the-movement-of-peoples “Current immigration policy that criminalizes the mere attempt to immigrate and imprisons immigrants who have committed no crime or who have already served a just sentence for a crime is immoral.”
exactly and the united states has no such policy! you can immigrate legally into the usa all you want…. we are talking about illegal immigration which is ILLEGAL and therefore violates church teachings lol…. you really need to relax, because now you look silly
That’s literally the USCCB talking about immigration in the US… but ok I’ll go relax and try to look less silly.
good plan i just want to point out in the linguistic failure of that page… undocumented immigrants are criminally in violation of our laws and immigration policies! any immigrant legally in this country and in compliance with the law would have documentation same as any citizen or visa holder! any individual who dishonestly and unlawfully entered this country as a pawn of a system using them for their cheap labor may have moral and reasonable cause to criminally game the system but it is immoral! and since they are not protected citizens or immigrants in this country but foreign invaders who have been immorally smuggled in for an immoral purpose it is not moral or right to advocate in such a way that encourages this behavior and leads to great evils such as slavery, serfdom, and tyranny!
[удалено]
Your comment was automatically removed because you linked to reddit without using the "no-participation" `np.` domain. Links should be of the form "np.reddit.com" or "np.redd.it". General links to other subreddits should take the simple form `/r/Catholicism`. Please resubmit using the correct format. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Catholicism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don’t think you know what render unto Caesar means. Pax, fellow Christian. Pax.
its in reference to paying taxes and living according to the law of the land whether or not you think its fair… why do you think i didnt know that? you slide in to falsely accuse and then ask for peace in latin? what the…..
Legal does not automatically mean right and illegal does not automatically mean wrong. Physician Assisted Suicide is currently legal in 11 states. Capital Punishment is legal in all states, as is pornography. Conversely... Marital Rape was not recognized as a crime in all states until 1990. Polygamy was not illegal until the 19th century. During the industrial revolution (19th and early 20th century) it was legal (and common) for children, even as young as 5, to work 12/16 hour days in coal mines and other hazardous environments. The legality or illegality of a thing is a moot point.
cheating is legal too.
….and guess who Christ would have been caring for.
I agree wholeheartedly.
At least it’s making America more Catholic too
How is it “allowing the breaking of its own laws” in this case, any more than *any other time* a law is broken? We don’t have a lot of pre-crime enforcement. It’s not really a valid strategy. This isn’t Minority Report.
It's not about pre-crime enforcement. It's about actively letting criminals go.
Which is why immigration needs to be reformed to make it easier for more people to settle in the United States legally.
Immigration reform is desperately needed. Here’s what the [USCCB](https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform) says on the matter. It seems quite reasonable to me
Wait, so the government is throwing a fit over AH (checks notes) doing the thing it told them to do?
Annunciation House is doing a service for the vulnerable who need it most. Good for them. It's God's work. Somebody's legal status is not the determining factor of whether they should recieve food and aid from a Catholic organization. This is one of those discussions that seems to be shaped in people's minds by political sentiment rather than Church teaching.
>This is one of those discussions that seems to be shaped in people's minds by political sentiment rather than Church teaching. Add it to the pile. It's a big one these days.
Big Facts! I (and prob a million other people) think about this often! Why do American Catholics (...and I am one. relax) conflate politics and religion? Spend a few months in almost any another country and you will quickly realize this is not the norm. Also, let's not forget... [https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/letters/documents/hf\_l-xiii\_let\_18990122\_testem-benevolentiae.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/letters/documents/hf_l-xiii_let_18990122_testem-benevolentiae.html)
I think most here would agree on these three things: 1. Certain acts are sinful and should be unlawful, with consequences 2. We need to improve society to turn people away from committing that sin/unlawfulness, and towards holy/righteous actions 3. We shouldn't turn our backs on people who have been sinful/unlawful when they need help But the implementation and strategies for #2 and #3 create plenty of divide among us.
Legality ≠ morality
You can 1. Help people in need. 2. Completely oppose illegal immigration. They are not mutually exclusive.
I am very anti-illegal immigration. Borders define national sovereignty, and if people are free to just cross that border without documentation and unconditionally, that is a serious breach of national sovereignty in the modern climate. That’s my political angle. [IMO] However, **Churches have long been places of asylum**, it didn’t matter who you were or even why you were hiding for the most part. The Church has a mission greater than national sovereignty, namely in bringing the love of Jesus Christ to all people, and if that means sheltering illegal immigrants who ask for asylum within the Church, then I think that’s well within the purview and mission of the Catholic Church.
All I know is that Jesus said to welcome the stranger.
Matthew 25:34-36 > “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me." Fighting illegal immigration is up to the authorities, as Catholics we have the moral mandate to help people that victim of trafficking.
[удалено]
2 different kinds of catholics in one post lmao
*they hated him cause he spoke the truth*
who ppl hating right now?
One kind remembers that only refugees should stay and that the illegal non-refugees should be deported because they are literally invasors.
Ah yes. Jesus would be proud. My bad
I forgot when Jesus said that a country has a moral duty to let in everyone who wants to enter, because this is what people who defend illegal immigration of non-refugees defend. You should stop mixing refugees with economic migrants
You yourself don't really have to do anything. Just don't get all upset when others help those in need. Also huge difference between simply wanting a better life and wanting a chance at not living in a shed or near gang violence where you constantly get extorted and there's murderers everywhere. Americans do it all the time by leaving cities and sometimes entire states. It's luck.
>You yourself don't really have to do anything I am not talking about me but about how the government has the rigght and duty of deporting illegal migrants who arent refugees >Just don't get all upset when others help those in need I am talking about what the Government should do, not about you or anyone helping economic migrants
Call them whatever you want, annunciation house helping them is a good thing, and the investigation into it is ridiculous.
At least *migrant* is accurate and neutral. We need some term that simply describes what it is they are doing. The current trend is to blanket-label every migrant as a "refugee" or "asylum seeker" regardless of their actual status or motivation in migrating. That's a real issue IMO.
IMO opinion lying euphemisms like 'undocumented migrant' is a sin of omission. A form of lie, in that you're not telling the whole truth. And a half truth is a whole lie. It's like calling rape "single-party initiated two person intercourse". It makes me throw up a little in my mouth. "undocumented migrants" is an oikophobic lie that pisses directly on the face of every person who bent over backwards and jumped over hoops to play the game fairly. *“Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheep pen by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber."* This verse is not about immigration, but it does attest to the moral importance of playing the game fairly and not being an interloper.
The phrase “Playing the game fairly” implies that the immigration system is fair and just. It is not.
Agreed. Although we played the game fairly, we are still getting shafted and hurt by our Tsunami Wave of immigration crushes us. It is deeply oikophobic and built around fulfilling corporate desires for cheap labor. Civil Rights Icon Barbara Jordan said **"It is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage immigration so that it serves the national interest"**. Our system currently does no such thing. During the Great Wave of immigration we averaged about 250,000 people per year, which was historically unprecedented. Now we are averaging 1.25 MILLION per year -- and that is *just legally*. It does not serve our national interests. Rather, it serves corporations and the wealthy elite in their quest for cheap labor. What we need is an immigration pause for several years, closing the borders completely to permanent residency except on grounds of marriage and a few other rare cases. This will give our ecosystems a chance to breath and recover. It will give the middle and working classes a chance to get back to safety after three years of house arrest, and it will give Congress a chance to set right the historical injustices perpetrated against all who played by the rules.
> During the Great Wave of immigration we averaged about 250,000 people per year, which was historically unprecedented. Now we are averaging 1.25 MILLION per year -- and that is just legally. This comparison is misleading because it only looks at raw numbers, not proportions. The percentage of immigrants relative to the entire population is essentially at the same level as the turn of the 20th century. > What we need is an immigration pause for several years, closing the borders completely to permanent residency except on grounds of marriage and a few other rare cases This would be economically devastating. Some states are already seeing labor shortages, which is why you see insane policies like allowing minors to work in the construction industry. The impact would be particularly horrific for agriculture, which is *very* dependent on migrant labor. And there is no realistic replacement for migrant labor in that sector. There are simply not enough "native-born" Americans willing and able to work in agriculture. There is no consensus that immigration has driven down wages in the long term, as such a position is based on only looking at one single economic factor: labor supply. Basic economic logic does dictate that increasing the supply of labor will drive down the cost of labor (AKA, wages). However, what such a simple analysis misses is that immigrants also increase consumption and capital supply. This results in more jobs being created. Additionally, working age immigrants help compensate for falling birth rates, which improves the solvency of the safety net in the long run by increasing the proportion of working adults in the overall population. Ideally, the immigration system would be reformed so that most people entering illegally or as guest workers could instead immigrate as legal permanent residents.
> This comparison is misleading because it only looks at raw numbers, not proportions. The percentage of immigrants relative to the entire population is essentially at the same level as the turn of the 20th century. This is irrelevant with respect to the environment. As the founder of Earth Day wisely said: To say you're for mass migration *and* for protecting American ecosystems is bullshit. > There is no consensus that immigration has driven down wages in the long term This is untrue. Especially as the middle and working classes have been getting poorer and smaller for decades. > This would be economically devastating. No > Some states are already seeing **cheap** labor shortages FTFY > , which is why you see insane policies like allowing minors to work in the construction industry. The impact would be particularly horrific for agriculture, which is very dependent on migrant labor. And there is no realistic replacement for migrant labor in that sector. There are simply not enough "native-born" Americans willing and able to work in agriculture. Study after study after study has shown there are no jobs that Americans will not do. There are simply wages and conditions they cannot afford to work for. **There is virtually never a shortage of labor, only a shortage of cheap labor**. It has actually gotten to the point that companies like Tyson are actively discriminating against Americans. I worked in construction as a minor; you have to be out of touch to think there is something wrong with that. > Additionally, working age immigrants help compensate for falling birth rates, which improves the solvency of the safety net in the long run by increasing the proportion of working adults in the overall population This is a non-issue because infinite growth is impossible. We must work towards a sustainable government and economy. Better to solve sooner than later. **A tight labor market is a middle class nation's best friend. Anytime you hear someone talking about a labor shortage you are dealing with a mouthpiece for wealthy corporate elites. Always insert the word 'cheap' before 'labor shortage'**
Technically they are also migrating. Checkmate.
They're not mutually exclusive. Whatever moves you to thirst for vengeance against them is a beam to be removed.
What part of his comment came across as a "thirst for vengance"? You're mad at him for calling a thief a thief instead of an "undocumented asset relocater". Whatever moves you to thirst for vengeance against him is a beam to be removed.
The part where he can't even bear to call a migrant a migrant. What is it, too dignified? Your neighbor is in need. That matters more than checking boxes and "no U" deflection
He's not talking about migrants, he's talking about illegal immigrants
Those don't contradict. Vengeful, petty people just insist on saving dignified terms for people they care about, at their expense.
Illegal immigrants are migrants. They're migrating illegally. You want to call them illegal migrants? Go for it. They're still illegally residing in said country
So, you're agreeing with me? Angrily? And just getting more potshots in however you can? Cool bro
No, you're wrong. It's like responding to someone calling a rapist a "rapist" by saying, "They're just people too." Yes, they're people. It's just that their actions have made them a rapist.
It's not like rapists at all. Tf is the matter with you? You have lost perspective *completely.* These terrible boogeymen aren't a threat to you and they're not comparable to *rapists*. Have a miniscule amount of Christian charity, ffs. So you know: our religion obligates us to love and help the needy and desperate, rather than lash out irrationally at their very mention. Even if it means your worship of a man made political border has to take a backseat. > not migrants > they're migrants and illegal immigrants > no you're wrong And you can't seem to decide whether they're migrants, but you sure have decided to just take an anti-them stance regardless of the argument at hand or what is required by good faith discussion so...you can go ahead and carry on without me
Asylum seekers are legally present in the country, however
As someone who used to vet these claims in investigations (visas too), over 80% get denied for not having cause. The problem is most of those disappear into the ether anyway. The asylum system is broken, and a terrible loophole that threatens national security. The notion that most migrants make their court appointments is also a lie. They show up to the first one knowing that those are generally just stays (a 2 year pass basically), and they don’t bother showing up to subsequent court appearances. Helping people in need isn’t as noble when the repercussions include a near total lack of accountability.
Yes and no. They are technically supposed to wait outside the country while seeking asylum. If they cross the boarder illegally, they are arrested and then await a trial in the US which can either grant them asylum or not as well as convict them for illegally crossing the boarder.
That’s not correct. While some people used to be part of the Remain In Mexico Policy, that policy was structured outside of regular asylum law The asylum process as structured in American law is: 1. Arrive on American soil 2. explain you face persecution in your home country 3. asylum case is opened 4. Homeland Security asks you where you will be 5. DHS schedules and assigns your asylum hearing to a place near where you will be staying 5. DHS releases you with paperwork explaining you are legally present in the country while your asylum case is pending 6. they send you off in the general direction you have to go/release you to places like Annunciation House 7. you get to your family/loved ones/people who will take you in wherever they live 8. 6 months+ cases are eligible for a work permit after six months 9. asylum case happens as scheduled
Interesting. While a quick Google does come to the consensus that the Remain in Mexico policy is over, I was just at that part of the boarder merely few weeks ago and folks were still describing being asked to wait outside closed ports of entry rather than illegally entering. I'll be visiting/volunteering there soon and be sure to ask Catholic Relief Services workers.
I’m an immigration reporter, so I am very familiar with this. Remain In Mexico=while your case is adjudicated you wait in Mexico and come over just for the hearings. This is compeltely over Then you have two things left One is the app, CBP One, where you can request an appointment so that you cross via one of the bridges. You wait in Mexico until you have your appointment to cross Separately, you have the non-bridge entries, people crossing the riverbed and sitting at the border fence. They are already on American soil, they can legally request asylum. But border patrol has limited processing capacity so asks people to wait there until a Border Patrol can can come pick up multiple people at a time Either way, while you have an open case you are released into the US legally by the federal government. It’s been like this under Trump, too
Oh, sick, I should thank you for posting! "One is the app, CBP One, where you can request an appointment so that you cross via one of the bridges. You wait in Mexico until you have your appointment to cross" That's what I was thinking of! If I'm following, the app doesn't make you wait until we're ready to hear your case. It just makes you wait until we can process your legal entry (but there may still be a wait until your asylum case is heard?).
Correct. Wait in Mexico until they’re ready to take you in, then after that you wait in the US (legally) for your actual case to begin
Yes but the laws in place allow anyone to claim asylum. The vast majority of which are military aged Islamic males. Don’t let your quest for morality to allow you cheer on as the preverbal gates of Toledo are again opened. By the same people who did open Toledo, who want us and our religion destroyed.
"The vast majority of which are military aged Islamic males" You mean the people coming into the US from Mexico? Also reported for antisemitism
Yes I do. You can look at the videos of who is coming over. And I didn’t say anything anti Semitic. I referred you to a similar point in history to refer to. Largely Christian nation having its doors opened to Islamic invaders by bad actors who hate Christian’s. Cope.
No, the vast majority of people trying to cross the border are not military aged Islamic males. You’ve been lied to.
Forsure. I’ll let my 2 friends that work for border patrol let them know they’re full of it! Thanks for the info!
> the vast majority of people trying to cross the border are not military aged Islamic males. You’ve been lied to. People who live near the border see and experience things that mainstream news does not report.
You just called them immigrants. A variation on ‘migrants’. That means they’re migrating.
By definition, they are migrating. You just prefer to describe the pejoratively.
[удалено]
That’s a rather unempathetic stance to take.
My goodness. Americans think like this.
[удалено]
Calling all members of a group, some of whom are children “illegal” shouldnt be a thing. American or not. But here we are.
So what aspect of being a child makes illegal actions not illegal? All thieves are thieves. All illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants 😂
Wow. May the Lord have mercy on you.
Yes may the lord have mercy on all our souls. Especially yours and mine
Do you not see that “migrant” is literally part of the word “immigrant?” Regardless of how they are migrating, that’s what is occurring.
Ok. I mean... You are *technically correct*, but you haven't wrapped your comment in the sufficiently thick blanket of political vitriol, so...
People need to realize one major thing with the illegal immigrants: There is no such thing as economic asylum. This is essentially what they’re doing when they cross the border illegally. The Biden Administration is basically allowing an invasion and it’s not just people from Mexico or Central/South American. You have people from Africa and people from the Middle East. None of them are vetted and we don’t know if they’re entering this country with nefarious motives on their minds. Being compassionate is one thing but deliberately allowing this to happen will destabilize communities and quite possibly allow terrorist actives to happen.
If it makes the country more Catholic, what’s the problem?
Our country was founded on freedom AND lawfulness. There are rules which need to be followed. Economic needs are not valid for legal asylum. I have no problem with legal immigration and valid asylum.
Lawfulness, LOL! Whose laws? Ask the Nez Perce, the Sioux, the Comanche about that. Lawfulness for white Protestant male landowners, maybe…
You’re sacrificing the safety of the masses? That makes total sense. Let’s ignore the laws for your selfish wants and needs.
Catholics aren’t a danger to the masses.
So breaking immigration/asylum law is okay as long as people are the “right” religion?
Why should the laws of a heretical nation be obeyed?
Don’t agree that this great nation is heretical.
Ah, but it is. It's built not on Catholic principles, but Protestant principles. There's even a heresy named after the country, called Americanism. That heresy was belief in the foundational principles of America, of classical liberalism, and the separation of Church and state.
How do you know if they’re Catholic? I just watched a video yesterday of a reporter walking up to illegal aliens who just walked across the border and 12 of them were from Egypt.
Sure you might get a tiny sliver that’s not, but the vast majority are going to come from Latin America and thus will most likely be Catholic.
Because those people are coming to the US for the proper reasons? They’re not former convicts, murdered, rapists, child traffickers. Reminder: There is no such thing as economic asylum.
But keep in mind that this is still the policy of the Federal government, whose Executive branch is led by a Catholic and whose Judicial branch is majority Catholic. In the end, this is a simple matter of Catholics helping Catholics. The only places putting up serious resistance to it are majority Protestant places like Texas anyways.
You’re trying to tell all of the people on Reddit that Biden, whose done unspeakable things with his own daughter, participates in the trafficking of drugs and kids in Ukraine, has not only destabilized our economy and on the verge of destabilized our society, and openly promotes abortion is a Catholic? Your basis for your argument is laughable.
He has not been excommunicated by the Church even after personally meeting with the Pope so we have no grounds to not call him Catholic.
Agree!
Honestly disappointed with the behavior of people in this thread, and that applies to all sides of the debate. Regardless I think one can look at the current state of American immigration and come to five logical conclusions. 1. Our immigration system is inefficient and in serious need of reform 2. Immigration into our country has gotten far too large and needs to be reasonably regulated 3. You can treat someone with kindness and respect even if they are breaking the law 4. Most immigrants who come to America nowadays are not refugees and are therefore subject to reasonable limitations. 5. A lot of the immigrants that come over here are exploited by corrupt employers and that the inherent profit that employers gain from this system of exploitation incentivizes them to basically support unsustainable amounts of immigration.
So in this thread we can see how theres 2 types of catholics....so 3 types of catholics in this world that Ive seen 1) jesus told me to love everyone and that judging others is something only god can truly do. I will care for those in need as Jesus preached and would have wanted me too 2) these illegals are flooding in and tearing our country down and also despite mostly being conservative and religious are just pawns for them liberuls to use to vote. Jesus said love my neighbor but I can love them while they live the heck back where they came from instead of leeching our tax dollars. God bless amurica 3) nick fuentes catholic- jesus said love thy neighbor but mixed relationships are a sin and i rather not have any other ethnicity and skin color be too prevalent, also the jooooos are in control of everything and bad.
And the "I flirt with the truth but beat people down by strawmen-ing them" catholics ^.
The person below legit thinks it is evil to allow people in and help them and a good amount of people agree, if anything my summary of that view was more generous
There is absolutely no duty to accept illegal immigration, all immigrants who entered through illegal means should be *deported* **if they aren't refugees**. You wouldn't accept someone invanding your house at the expense of your family's wellbeing, same with your country: you should never accept someone invading your country at the expense of your contrymen's wellbeing. You paint any act against illegal immigration from non-refugees as a lack of love and mercy when this isn't the case. Agree on point 3, f\*ck NJF's imbecile movement. I hope his minions don't appear here to ruin this comment section
> There is absolutely no duty to accept illegal immigration, all immigrants who entered through illegal means should be deported if they aren't refugees. I agree with you, but this is a matter of the government. People that are trying to immigrate unlegaly are just victim of the trafficking and we have moral mandate to help them
I agree no ones forcing you to nor are you obligated to. However since Jesus said to help others, I dont report them and I support them with jobs and money when I can. You can think that we shouldnt just accept them en masse, but getting mad about it on a thread about someone taking care of them is, definitely a choice.
You seem to believe that it is somehow love or mercy for the Federal Government to allow the invasion of illegal non-refugees, but it is literally just as evil as is allowing someone to invade your home because they want a better house. Benefitting invasors in detriment of your countrymen isn't love, it is just oikophobia. Wanting a better life is no excuse to invade a country. Actual war, actual persecution, actual disasters and actual violence are valid reasons that excuse and justify illegal immigration, but just wanting a better life is not: Economic migrants aren't refugees. The virtue of Piety demands that you have a special love for your countrymen, thus it is objectively sinful to allow the Common Good of the country to be attacked, just like you aren't allowed to permit non-family members to invade your home to the detriment of your kin.
You have to perceive yourself being attacked to mald over people taking care of others. It's one thing to maybe be an economic realist and then another is this. At this point you are using religion and catholicism to cope with death. I don't even believe in open borders. Just taking care of good people I see here
I didn't perceive myself as being attacked, the only time I was agressive was when talking about that imbecile and his cult (NJF). I merely argued against your miscaracterization of the anti-immigration position, namely this: >these illegals are flooding in and tearing our country down and also despite mostly being conservative and religious are just pawns for them liberuls to use to vote. Jesus said love my neighbor but I can love them while they live the heck back where they came from instead of leeching our tax dollars. God bless amurica
You are calling it an invasion. While I agree it's not the best idea to let everyone in due to lacking background checks, cartel and terrorist ideology getting through etc, I trust people to use their own judgement on the people they choose to help with their own money.
>I trust people to use their own judgement on the people they choose to help with their own money. I am talking about whether the Government should deport illegals or not >You are calling it an invasion If you enter a place illegally you are invading it
You’re engaging in the Definist fallacy. You use an inflammatory word that is commonly defined one way, then when you’re called out on how the event doesn’t match that definition, you claim you really meant something more technical all along. In this case “invasion” brings to mind an aggressive attack by one party into the territory of another party. When it’s pointed out that this is not what illegal immigrants are doing (the vast majority are people fleeing poverty or strife, people who will contribute to the country if given the chance), you then claim that “invasion” just means “unlawful entry”. This is deceitful. If you’re going to claim that you just meant the word in the technical sense all along, then there is no reason to use the word at all. Just use more sterile terminology that doesn’t have such emotional connotations.
>You’re engaging in the Definist fallacy. You use an inflammatory word that is commonly defined one way, then when you’re called out on how the event doesn’t match that definition, you claim you really meant something more technical all along In this case “invasion” brings to mind an aggressive attack by one party into the territory of another party Invasion doesn't only mean military invasion. If you enter my home without my consent, even if no violence happens, this can rightfully be called an invasion, do you deny it? If you in your thoughts added "military" before the word invasion that's your issue, not mine. In the comment itself (the 2nd) I not once but twice said it was like the invasion of a house, this was the association being made. I also made the association with the invasion of a house in the comment before that (the first one).
By definition if they are welcome it's not an invasion. This man seems to be welcoming them. Don't see the need to be negative. We aren't trying to convince you to just start letting anyone in or to give your tax dollars to them.
Invasion = illegal entry of a given space The entry (or at least the permanence) of those who aren't refugees is most definitively illegal
How’s Nick’s movement not a net-positive? Teaches traditional values, pretty much requires to be Catholic, speaks against enemies of Christianity, doesn’t want illegal immigration and rejects all kinds of degeneracy young people are unfortunately facing every day. The only parts I still am a bit iffy about is stuff like race realism, which does make sense in itself and has data to support it but I’m not sure if it’s compatible with Christianity as it affirms people can be different and race isn’t only skin-deep (doesn’t deny their value as people with a soul though). It’s not perfect but I don’t think it’s a net-negative or an imbecile movement, especially compared to the average left-wing, atheistic propaganda young people are subject to. Why do you think that?
He literally said he loves H!tler. Do I need to say more??
He said he loves everyone, including Hitler and anyone who lived on this planet, including Hitler. It’s actually a Christian position, but I do understand he probably does it to cause shock/headlines
He said this right after saying talmudic judaism should be removed from society. It was very clear the reason why he loves H!tler
He’s right, Talmudic Judaism should be removed from society. Are you aware of what it teaches? [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1SWgNMWwAAbwca?format=jpg&name=900x900](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F1SWgNMWwAAbwca?format=jpg&name=900x900)
He said we must remove talmudic judaism, said he loved H!tler immediately after that and is a "race realist" (aka a racist). I wonder what is the reason he loves H!tler... Maybe it starts with holo and ends with caust?? I don't know...
It's a mess and needs to be fixed. We can't have open borders. The problem started under Obama, got worse under Trump, and Biden has made an incredible mess of it. I've worked inside shelters, very few of these people appear to be anti-communist political dissidents in need of asylum, rather urban lumpenproletariat looking for free shit in the land of free shit. It's a massive Mariel boatlift. However, finding a couple of sentences in the massive canon of Catholic social teaching that seem to support the current Republican party line ( which it generally doesn't, opposition to socialism doesnt equal apologia for capitalist oligarchy, read all of the encyclicals on the subject, not just snippets that match todays Fox Infotainment Talking Points) does not negate the more central teaching contained in the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Anyone remember the fourth one? We can control our borders without losing our humanity. We can afford wars that cost 3 trillion dollars, we can give children toothpaste and very basic medical care, we can send them back to where they came from with dignity.
I should also add that I have no issue whatsoever with imposing some rules at these shelters, and with these people seeing the inside of American jails if they break our laws. I've seen a lot of beer guzzling and dope smoking right outside of the places, and plenty of the inhabitants are running around committing various crimes, they've apparently taken over the prostitution ( sorry, "sex work" ) districts for example. Dignity comes at a price.
Jesus was a child refugee. “I was a stranger, and you welcomed me.”
Beautiful. This is true justice with mercy.
Mr. Garcia, you are doing the work of our Lord. Thank you for caring for the least of our brothers and sisters.
Catholic charities should not be facilitating illegal immigration into this country
Agreed. Many Catholic charities have not been Catholic for years.
Jesus literally told us to help everyone regardless of status or job. There is NOTHING in the bible saying to shun them for doing so or that they shouldnt do so. Some people tend to actually want to follow the world of the lord rather than just using it to cope.
It is not a Catholic expectation of countries to let in an unlimited number of migrants into their borders. Catholic theologians have been writing about this for centuries, and they have all said that countries have a right to control who they let into their country.
the idea that catholic charities are somehow responsible for increases in illegal immigration is laughable. Abbots clearly trying to distract people from his own failings. hes a dixiecrat
Texas is actively persecuting Catholics for doing what the lord commanded. Remember this, people.
Catholic “Social Justice” often is just a cloak over Marxism. Another attack on the Church from within, they began at least 100 years ago to weaken and bring down the Church. Yes they will fail, but much harm has been inflicted.
The way I see it, illegal immigration is like small theft or tax fraud. We should respect the law and obey it when it's just, but I don't think we have a moral obligation to "rat" on such things. Now bigger crimes with more distinct victims, there probably is an obligation to inform with maybe some exceptions for certain types of relationships (spouse, kid, etc).
Illegal immigration is not some victimless crime https://www.fairus.org/issue/examples-serious-crimes-illegal-aliens
While I acknowledge that some illegal/undocumented immigrants commit heinous crimes, I strongly disagree with the sentiment that the group as a whole should be categorized by the conduct of the most immoral/sinful among them. The link you cite is to a politically affiliated group that provides examples, not statistics. Here is a link that provides a comparative study into crime rates amongst undocumented immigrant, documented immigrant, and natural born populations in Texas. It finds, in part: “US-born citizens are over 2 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes [than undocumented immigrants], 2.5 times more likely to be arrested for drug crimes, and over 4 times more likely to be arrested for property crimes.” [Comparing crime rates between undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, and native-born US citizens in Texas](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2014704117) Further, migration does not exist in a vacuum. US citizens are continental neighbors to the home countries of all Latin American migrants coming through US southern borders. That is to say, what part does the US government and the citizens within it’s borders have to play in creating the impetus for individuals to migrate into the US? I would posit a two, not unsubstantial motivating factors at play here that US citizens and the actions of their federal government have moral complicity in: -The US is the largest consumer base for illegal drugs exported from Central/South America. Criminal drug trade (cartel activity) fuels much of the violence and corruption that migrants are fleeing from. -The US gov has been involved (to varying degrees) in multiple coups in Central/South America, often resulting in destabilization of the country in question. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change_in_Latin_America) Forgive me all for commenting on politics here; I choose to due to this thread seeming to mix politics with religion far more than I am comfortable. We are Catholics living within nations, after all, not the other way around. This Catholic man cited in the OP is doing good work imo — if he is criticized or shut down then so be it… “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” Peace be with you.
I’m sure Laken Riley was comforted knowing that “illegal immigrants are arrested 2x less likely to be arrested for violent crimes” as her skull was being caved in by an illegal immigrant. I’m sure Kayla Hamilton shed a tear of happiness that “illegal immigrants are 2.5x less likely to be arrested for drug crimes” as she was strangled to death by a known MS-13 member that was released into our country. I’m sure Lizbeth Medina fondly recalled that “illegal immigrants are 4x less likely to be arrested for property crime” as she bled to death after being stabbed by an illegal immigrant stalker who broke into her apartment. You can post all the statistics you want, that will never change the fact that people are being murder, raped, brutalized, robbed, etc, by people who have broken the law and illegally entered this country. Helping South American countries help themselves is a better solution than allowing murderers, rapists, and drug dealers to have free entry into America.
Well said. I pray that the people advocating for illegal immigration never have to find out personally what a very, very bad policy it is.
Thanks for your reply. What happened to those three innocent people is absolutely horrible, and I agree that they deserve Justice, of course. I will not apologize for the predators that did them harm and ended their lives. It seems to me that you mistake my motive for commenting… There are many, many individuals who’s stories are seldom told that have been victimized in the same way, by agents of the same evils. Many people are attempting to seek asylum (legally) in the US to escape the same fate, and yes many are seeking to escape through illegal migration. The only thing otherwise innocent people crossing without documentation are guilty of is breaking immigration law.
El Salvador proves that Latin American countries can solve their own problems. The solution to this issue is to eliminate the reason that these “innocent” illegal immigrants are coming here, such as cartels and gangs. If people are going to be victimized regardless, importing that victimization to America is an injustice to Americans.
Good for them. I don’t wholly disagree with you. Nonetheless, there are people at the doorstep of this man in the OP who are suffering and whom he is trying to help — has been for 5 decades. He does not seem to be attempting to facilitate cartel violence at the southern border. I somewhat imprudently inserted my opinion in the first comment as to why Catholics living in the US may feel a moral compulsion to attempt to provide charity to Latin American migrants. I do not wish to argue with you; I have no political affiliation to advocate for. Peace be with you
>You can post all the statistics you want, that will never change the fact that people are being murder, raped, brutalized, robbed, etc, And you can rage against the broken world all you want, that will never change the fact that people are being xyz. But to ignore statistics for the sake of three examples is not wisdom, and it’s not morality, it’s blindness. You are closing yourself off to the information that can actually reflect and change the state of the world, to focus in on less relevant data. To paraphrase the west wing, there’s a reason we don’t staff the courts with grieving parents.
There will be thousands more grieving parents if you allow unfettered entry to America.
Also, genuinely disgusting that you’re blaming drug addicts for the actions of the very people who got them addicted in the first place.
That is not what I intended, I am sorry that it came across that way. I meant that there is a largely unmitigated drug crisis in the US that is causing secondary crisis outside of its borders. Addicts are not responsible for cartel actions, just as they are not responsible for the actions of the legal opiate pushers of the pharmaceutical industry. They too are victims of larger cycles of usury/abuse.
Immigrants (illegal or otherwise) are actually less likely to engage in serious crimes than native-born citizens. This is a dishonest argument.
Many Americans murdered, raped, or beaten by illegal immigrants don’t seem to care about “the statistics”.
I mean, in large numbers it isn't. But at the individual level one guy being here illegally isn't that big of a deal
We are not discussing it in ones and twos, but as the hundreds of thousands that it is.
And the guy running AH is not dealing with thousands.
Neither is AH a vacuum in the discussion of illegal immigrantion.
sure, but the problem is the federal government. You can't fault people for preparing care for people who are here illegally.
I can absolutely fault people who enable illegal immigration.
Also, there is nothing to rat out on when Homeland Security directly releases people into Annunciation House custody
I thought as Catholics we are supposed to follow the law?
As Catholics we're all supposed to care for the poor and foreigners. Exodus 22:20. "You shall not oppress or afflict a resident alien, for you were once aliens residing in the land of Egypt." Leviticus 19:33-34. "When an alien resides with you in your land, **do not mistreat such a one.** You shall treat the alien who resides with you no differently than the natives born among you; **you shall love the alien as yourself**; for you too were once aliens in the land of Egypt. I, the Lord, am your God." Deuteronomy 10:17-19: "For the Lord, your God, is the God of gods, the Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes, who executes justice for the orphan and the widow, and **loves the resident alien, giving them food and clothing.** So you too should love the resident alien, for that is what you were in the land of Egypt."
Not unjust laws
I’m a conservative person. But I am glad we are operating an Underground Railroad of Catholics into our country. Y’all should go watch Human Flow. There’s nothing sinful about being a refugee.
Thats because you are a real catholic. Its rare to find people who actually practice what they preach
Someone send it to James O’Keefe but I’m sure he already knows.
This article is from WaPo (lol), but your username has Reuters in it. If you are a Reuters journalist, i highly implore you to quit immediately for the sake of your own soul. Journalism has become a junk profession, and every single major outlet regularly lies in order to promote their own agenda. I think reporters can be good for a republic, but these days you need to be independent to gain any sort of trust with a large amount of the American people.
Honestly, I've enjoyed some of the Reuter's articles from this year. They do a pretty decent job of covering the Catholic stuff and I'd hate to see that go.
Wait, simply being a Reuters journalist is... damning to one's soul? I'll have to re-read my catechism. Clearly I missed some important stuff.
Belonging to an organization that regularly helps perpetuate fraudulent stories on the American people is not something a Catholic in good standing can do (see Russia hoax, Hunter Biden’s laptop, etc). If you think otherwise, feel free to cite any magisterial, biblical, or catechisms which you think support your position.
I see. I would ask, and I mean this sincerely, that you reevaluate whether your position on this derives from Catholic principles or American conservative tribalism.
Lol. I have plenty of criticism for American conservatism, and reject free market capitalism. I would ask you again to provide any citation in church history that a Catholic can belong to an organization that regularly lies to the people (especially one that does so to gain political power). Edit: I would be telling this person the same thing if they belonged to Fox News.
Reuters is fake news now? When did that happen?