My response to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, because they were cut from government funding, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mark 12:17)
Meaning you work for God, not for your beloved government. “No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24)
I have no problem with the USCCB/Catholic Charities/other Catholic organizations providing humanitarian aid to illegal immigrants. The USCCB needs to answer many questions. In this article, there is a list of questions. It is not comprehensive by any means.
The line in the sand is: this “humanitarian aid” needs to be tempered by the staggering amount of taxpayer money that is already being spent. And does this “aid” include enabling illegals to stay hidden from law enforcement?
I personally would rather see more money being spent on our citizens. As a Christian, we treat these people with respect, but we should not by these good intentions, allow them to break the law, and cause them to commit a sin.
Good comments. The article addresses many of the concerns you raised and goes further.
@Sam40 Could you please explain why you think crossing a nation’s border without authorization is “commit[ing] a sin”?
I’m not Sam, but I would like to ask you what time Dinner is. The walls of your home is a sort of border. If I enter without your permission, you are cool with this? What about tomorrow night. and the next? What if I bring friends and family? Still cool?
The Bible tells us as Christians that we are to treat “aleans” with dignity and not mistreat them (Leviticus 19:33-34; Exodus 23:9).
What Scriptura is referring to here is how we treat others who are not from where we are from. It is not referring to policy.
I am a Libertarian and there are many debates on where the border line should be or if borders should be recognized at all.
Some believe the line is your private property line. Others believe City, County, or State boundaries. Some believe the line is a Federal line. And some are closed borders until other things change policy wise first and then they will entertain for a more open border policy. Our last Presidential Candidate was for an Ellis Island approach to immigration.
My point is that this issue is often framed in an emotional manor, which is designed to get you to be politically active so that one team or another can leverage your anger to win more power and control over those they disagree with. So Republicans will paint all individuals coming here as violent criminals, while Democrats view individuals coming here as saints, victims, or future voters ; )
There are valid arguments for not allowing anyone to come here. Let’s say an impoverished Country without medicines contract certain diseases and they bring it here, that is an issue. Let’s say many individuals form a Country who’s preferred system of law is tied to a pervęrted ideology? All they would need to do is get enough individuals to inhabit a certain area and they can elect themselves into office, because they have the numbers to do so. There is a documentary called Wile Wild Country, where a cult did just that.
When it comes to some things, I boundary is at my private-property line. I should be allowed to invite anyone whom I want to my property, but if I do, I should also be held accountable for there well-being. So if they were to starve to death while visiting me, then I should be held accountable. If they commit a violent crime while here, I should be held somewhat accountable for that, since they were visiting under my supervision and request.
Sanctuary Cities, as they are called, draw the line on a city level, but if these individuals commit a violent crime or starve to death, then the City should be held accountable.
With freedom, there needs to be responsibility, otherwise it is not liberty, but libertinism.
Japan has a very strict immigration policy. They want to protect their Japanese culture. Christianity was banned for most of her existence. Only like 13% of their citizens were not born there and those who have been granted citizenship cannot vote in their elections.
We have about half of Americans who believe in assimilation and roughly the other half believe in multiculturalism. And each side demonizes the other. Individuals who believe in assimilation are called “Fascists” or “Christian Nationalists,” while individuals who value multiculturalism are called “Globalists” or “Cultural Marxists.”
I don’t think slinging these insults are helpful to the conversation. What is the answer? In the words of the great Thomas Sowell, in his book A Conflict of Visions, “There are not real solutions, only trade-off’s.”
When you have completely closed borders, you might encounter what Japan is having an issue with; they sell more adult diapers than baby diapers and young people are not pro-creating at a sustainable rate. When you have entirely open borders, you lose your shared culture, may have the spread of disorder and disease. I don’t know where the balance is. But, I do now what God asks of us and that is to treat everyone with human dignity and love whenever we encounter one another.
Hi @Cade_One,
Thank you for your reply. Some of it I agree with (political parties trying to exploit emotions around immigration, name calling being unhelpful), and other parts I do not agree with.
I know you aren’t @Sam40, but I think you did sidestep the question I asked to @Sam40 in my previous comment: Why is crossing a national border without authorization a sin?
If @Sam40 is correct, and immigrating without authorization is a sin, then that would have profound implications for the rest of the conversation about unauthorized immigration.
As it stands, I’d say the burden of proof is on @Sam40 to back up his previous assertion (but @Cade_One, you are welcome to make the case for his position, if you happen to agree with him).
I would argue that it is not a sin.
There are reasons to enforce the border (especially if you believe in “protecting democracy”).
The way in which our electoral system works (democracy works) is that the number of representatives each State gets is bases on the population. If there are some States taking in illegal immigrants and counting them as part of their population. The US Census, which is used to determine State populations, includes all people residing in the United States, regardless of their legal status. This population count is then used to allocate resources, determine representation in Congress.
This means that in State where they have Sanctuary Cities (presumably so-called, Democratic States) can get more Representatives in Congress and thus push their agenda’s. At best, this is just politics; at worst this is undermining democratic elections and is a real “threat to democracy.”
I am not a Republican and I already see how democracy is “the god that failed,” however I do think there is somethin unethical about using immigration as a way to cheat in governance. And the Catholic Church does talk a lot about usery, though it is not most often referring to using someone for political gains, but rather when it comes to charging someone interest when lending them money.
Is it a sin for a political Party to cheat in elections? Debatable. Is it a sin to accuse someone else of being a “threat to democracy,” when they themselves are doing things that actually are a threat to democracy? It is not in The Ten Commandments, but Ephesians 4:25 urges believers to “put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor.” However, is this a sin or simply a discipline that only applies to Christians or to all people?
This brings me to the next question. Is doing things that threaten democracy a sin? Democrats pretend like it is a grave sin. My point is, if President Trump (who I never voted for nor would I ever vote for; and who is not a moral person) was doing things to undermine democracy, would that be a sin?
I believe morality is being an upright individual. If I go to another Country uninvited one could argue that I am not acting in an upright manner. Does this make me a violent individual? No. Are my intentions to hurt others or to manipulated that country’s electoral process? Probably not. Chances are I am being used as a pawn by a political entity claiming to care about me and democracy, while the reality is they are using me.
Note: I am a registered Libertarian and I do not make my politics my religion. I see how both sides use fear and shame to manipulate you into voting a certain way and how they use groups of individuals as tools to get what they want.