I’ve written before about the over-use of allegations of racism. These are disturbing because racism is itself such a vile thing. To falsely accuse someone of racism is thus reciprocally vile. Falsely calling someone a racist is in this respect like falsely calling someone an adulterer or a child molester or a person given to any other form of moral turpitude.
Unfortunately, false allegations of racism are all too common in our society, and they appear in different contexts.
In the current debate over illegal immigration, for example, some have charged that those who want America to secure its borders and stop the influx of illegal immigrants are racists.
Such sentiments have even been expressed by some posters in the combox of late.
While there no doubt are individuals who harbor racial prejudice against Latin Americans, and while they no doubt disapprove of millions of Latin Americans entering this country illegally, it cannot be inferred that because someone disapproves of illegal immigration that one is racially prejudiced against Latinos.
Indeed, many Latinos who abided by the rules and entered this country legally–or whose parents or grandparents did–are opposed to illegal immigration, and it is hardly likely that they harbor such prejudice.
"Okay," one might say, "those who are Latino themselves should not be accused of racism if they oppose illegal immigration, but what about non-Latinos?"
It doesn’t make any difference. The formula "non-Latino + opposes illegal immigration" does not equal "racist."
The fact that one is white or black or Asian or what have you does not cause one’s brain to be unable to disapprove of millions of people entering one’s country illegally unless one is also a racist.
I’m quite sure that the vast majority of people who oppose the current influx of illegal aliens would be just as concerned if there were twelve million Canadians or Swedes or Germans or Russians or what have you who had entered America illegally.
In other words: Race has nothing to do with it.
At least in the mind of the great majority of people.
In view of how vile racism is, it is vile for anyone to carelessly lob charges of racism around, but it is particularly so for Catholics, who in the Catechism of the Catholic Church have a clear articulation of the following points:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
– of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
– of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
– of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
To simply assume that someone who says he opposes illegal immigration is a racist is–in the absence of further evidence for racism (e.g., the use of racial epithets for illegal aliens)–is to commit the sin of rash judgment, which is a sin whether one expresses this judgment publicly or not.
If the charge of racism is publicly made against someone who is not, in fact, a racist then the sin of calumny is committed.
As the Catechism explains, we must be on guard against the rash judgment and calumny that are often involved in playing the race card.
Much good would be done if people–inside and outside the Catholic community–would take the Catechism’s advice and attempt to give a favorable construction of others.
Justice and charity require that those who say they are opposed to illegal immigration are to have their statements taken at face value unless sufficient evidence of a sinister motive is present. The mere opposition to illegal immigration is not enough to infer racism. To do so is rash judgment and to say so will be calumny more often than not.
Honestly, Jimmy, I agree w/you about the immigration stuff, but I think it would help your cause if you would make better efforts to say nice things about Latin Americans once in a while. For example, no one would ever accuse me of racism, despite my views on immigration. I rather openly express my admiration for Latin American culture and all things Spanish. I live in Southern California, often shop at a Spanish-speaking grocery store, attend Mass with Latinos, eat various Mexican foods (not just tacos and burritos), have a devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe, and forcefully condemn the land grab of the Mexican-American War.
Given that there ARE differences between races (and more precisely, the cultures associated such races), how does one act on those differences and yet not actually be a racist?
For example, I would understand a Jew who runs his own business if s/he avoided hiring Arabs (rightly or wrongly), and vice-versa for an Arab not hiring a Jew.
I find it interesting that when I point out Hispanics are not particularly conservative on social matters (with their near 40% illegitmacy rate) that I get accused of racism.
Now, if I were to say that Irish Catholics in Massacheusetts aren’t particularly conservative, no one would accuse me of racism or hating the Irish, but to tell the truth about Hispanics makes you a bigot.
Inquisitor, when has Jimmy said anything NEGATIVE about a Latino because of his skin color or said that they are lesser beings because of it?
Nowhere.
Therefore, Jimmy is not racist.
One does not need to say something positive to show one is not a racist. Jimmy needs to to prove nothing. The burden of proof is upon those who make the accusation.
–Ann
What, so in order to not be a racist, someone would have to go on about how much they like, say, burritos, the mexican hat dance, and all those hot latino chicks. I don’t mind telling everybody how I love seeing good-looking latino women, but I don’t feel the need to say that in order to “prove” my non-racist credentials before joining in any discussions of this nature. People should simply be innocent until proven guilty.
You have claimed in the past that your statements are not a commentary on the 11 million illegal immigrants currently present. I believe you made that statement in the 2nd or 3rd post in this series. We are now on about the 7th post in the illegal immigration series. When are you going to address the people you don’t hate and aren’t a racist towards? You’ve quoted Charles Krauthammer, but you haven’t bothered to quote the USCCB. You did at least quote Cardinal Hoyos, but that was only to rip him and tell him he was wrong. You veil your expression of conscience in two sentences from the CCC.
Quite frankly I don’t lose any sleep at night over racism charges. What should bother you is the charge repeatedly brought against you by others that your views on immigration are not even remotely informed by the Church. Oddly enough the racism charge is the only thing that has given pangs to your conscience.
Yes, one can be vigorously opposed to illegal immigration without being racist, and I’m sure many such people exist. But to say that race has nothing to do with this issue is to display an astounding degree of naivete. Only 40 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to express vile, racist sentiments in public. Attitudes like that don’t disappear in 40 years. They just go underground.
I don’t see how anyone could read the rhetoric of some of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration – Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, to name a few – and not see what race has to do with all of this. Lou Dobbs, for example, had a news segment on his show claiming that Chicano activists who want to take back the part of the US that was once part of Mexico are now gaining a foothold among illegal immigrants (which is a ridiculous claim). The news segment displayed a map of the old Mexico these activists supposedly hope to rebuild. Know where they got the picture from? From a white supremacist group’s website. Right.
I can’t imagine how anyone could listen to the diatribes of some of the Minutement and not see racial issues underlying their beliefs.
Y’all do know, right, that there is a game on the internet where people can shoot Mexicans as they are crossing the border? You get the most points for shooting “breeders” – i.e., pregnant women with children. Thousands of people have played this game online, and it’s only one of several such games. Yea, it’s an extreme form of racism, but let’s not pretend that all other illegal immigration opponents are otherwise free from any sort of racist sentiment.
What should bother you is the charge repeatedly brought against you by others that your views on immigration are not even remotely informed by the Church.
Having read your comments on this issue before I would guess you are upset that Jimmy’s views on immigration are not even remotely informed by M.Z. Forrest.
It is really hard to take you seriously on this subject.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
M Z Forrest and Tope: Your apparent inability to conceive that someone could be opposed to ILLEGAL entry into this country without being atleast somewhat racist shows your intellectual vacuity. It makes me wonder if you might be projecting onto others what lies in your own hearts. (“Methink he dost protest too loudly.”)
Tope, none of that makes Jimmy a racist. You say ‘one can be vigorously opposed to illegal immigration without being racist’ but you seem to allow this only in theory.
Having been likened to a Klansman on another site because I suggested that it was at least somewhat immoral to have an open borders policy if it prevented Mexico from reforming itself, I completely agree with Jimmy on this issue. There are no doubt some people motivated by racism on this issue. It would be silly to deny that those extremes exist unfortunately. But they are a small minority, and the resort to accusations of racism is an ample demonstration of the other side’s intellectual vacuity. All they are left with are selective selections from the Catechism about “brotherhood” while leaving out other elements which categorically assert the right of nation-states to set their own immigration policies.
M.Z. Forrest– how’s this for informed by the Church?
“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Translation: follow the bloody law. In this case, doubly so, since there IS a legal route to come to the US. If you don’t like the law right now, work to change it.
Trope– Gaining a foot hold? A goodly number ARE illegals. I know a lot of anti-illegal folks who came from Mexico and are gettin’ kinda pissy that following the law is held in such low esteem.
For the guy who suggested that Mr. Akin make nice remarks about specific groups before he says anything negative related….
How about “Some of my best friends are X”?
“but you haven’t bothered to quote the USCCB…”
And your point is? What keeps the USCCB from being wrong on the issue? Like all Catholics, Jimmy is bound to obey his bishop. He does not have to agree with every opinion or activity of the USCCB.
“Quite frankly I don’t lose any sleep at night over racism charges.”.
Maybe you should.
As a hispanic woman who is opposed to illegal immigration I have been called both ‘racist’ and ‘not latina enough’.
I am not quite certain how I am racist against myself and my familiy and friends. I also wonder who determines what makes me ‘latina enough’.
Those charges are hurtful and crule and I know they are intended only to shut down the debate through cruelty. I refuse to let that happen.
It is possible for reasonable to disagree on this issue. Preferably without the personal insults.
My experience has taught me that racism comes in varying degrees and many people it would never dream that they are, in fact, harboring racist sentiment. Something I learned years ago taking sociology classes is that we all tend to be tribal. The problem is when the empowered group begins taking vocal stands for itself, over and above the needs of the powerless and marginal, it takes on the tone of racism.
A racist does not have to be a white-hooded, swastika waving sociopath. Sometimes racists are just common-sensical people that haven’t learned to recognize that their naive notions and speech reveal a world about how open they are to “otherness.”
When I hear entire classes of people referred to in terms of what they eat and what they wear, I’d think that I might be hearing from a bigot (not necessarily someone who has thought their racism through). When I read or hear in a public forum someone saying that he can life without burritos, therefore illegal immigrants are not needed in this country, I immediately associate the remark with racism.
Racism goes far beyond overt remarks regarding skin color, language and nationality. Racism is a deep-seated attitude that puts up a wall (figuratively, at least) against those who are somehow different.
Being opposed to illegal immigration does not make you a racist, but favoring positive solutions such as amnesty can make you less of one.
Racism comes in all shapes and forms. I wrote about the “Choose Black America” group. They oppose immigration but their reasoning is horribly racist. Race should not enter this debate. This is an economic and national security issue.
MZ,
If I were running a blog that claimed to be Catholic apologetics, I would make an effort to have it say what the church has said on immigration. Shame on Jimmy for not quoting extensively what the American and Latin American bishops as well as the USCCB as well as JPII have all said about the need to be generous on immigration. If Jimmy can take the trouble to drive down I-10 to the Mexican border to take pictures, you’d think it wouldn’t be too much trouble to consult documents that are easily available on line.
Either that, or he should just plug himself as a rightwing commentator and drop the Catholic stuff.
Note to objectors: I am fully aware that the church teaches the right to control borders. But you should be fully aware that the church’s teaching doesn’t stop with that!
“Being opposed to illegal immigration does not make you a racist, but favoring positive solutions such as amnesty can make you less of one.”
Good grief…how? I disagree with your assertion that amnesty is a positive solution. Coupled with our still-porous border, it would be a disaster.
Racism is a deep-seated attitude that puts up a wall (figuratively, at least) against those who are somehow different.
That’s totally crazy.
If you use that definition of racism then everyone is a racist because everyone as figuratively put up a wall against at least some people who are somehow different.
I have figuratively put up a wall against terrorists who want to kill me. The fact that they are terrorists wanting to kill me makes them somehow different than I am. But the fact I have figuratively put up a wall against them does not make me a racist.
If you want to accuse someone of racism, you have to accuse them of a hostility that has to do with *race,* not being “somehow different.”
I don’t know if you got this kind of sloppy rhetoric from deacon formation classes in “openness,” if you did then it’s not a good commentary on the state of diaconal formation.
It is not a good thing to be teaching deacons to go out and accuse everyone they minister to of racism, because we all have a figurative wall up against at least some people who are somewhat different.
Some differences (like being a terrorist who wants to kill people) NEED to have both figurative and literal walls up against them.
all right, Jimmy!
thanks for standing up for us!
by the way, Eva Mendes is attractive, I like tacos, and spanish is a nice language.
there! I guess I’m not a racist!
Wry-
Jimmy has assiduously laid out the WHOLE teaching of the Church on immigration, half of which many bishops wish to ignore.
I’ll take the Catechism over some USCCB committee any day.
OK, here’s a challenge to anti-immigrant Catholics: Find me a bishop who advocates your hard-line approach on Mexican immigration.
TimJ, I’ve never seen one of Jimmy’s immigration posts that advocates following what the bishops, the pope and the church are saying on immigration, other than the “right to control borders” mantra. Could you point me to specific examples?
wry, the issue is ILLEGAL immigration. And why should anyone find you a bishop who advocates a hard-line approach on Mexican immigration? Just because a bishop disagrees doesn’t make anyone wrong. Lots of bishops can be wrong about lots of things. Haven’t we all seen this proven frequently enough?
Apparently, people are eager to argue with Jimmy over what he has NOT said. gimme a break.
Either that, or he should just plug himself as a rightwing commentator and drop the Catholic stuff.
Sometimes I wonder if WRY and M.Z. Forrest actually read Jimmy’s post before commenting.
Most of us have read all the documents and statements from the popes. You are correct that it is Church teaching that a country does not have to have an open border policy. We have every right to expect immigrants to respect and follow our laws to enter the U.S.A.
Because someone does not agree with your opinion on this subject does not make them less Catholic than you.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Wry-
I don’t have to, and wouldn’t know how to start, though I’m sure others can.
There are practical as well as moral aspects to consider in the immigration debate. The arch-conservative, with an instinctive distrust of change, will insist on attending to the practical aspects at the expense of compassion.
An instinctive liberal (Oops! The “L” word) will tend to dismiss the practical aspects in the headlong rush to appear compassionate.
We must attend to both, which is why I am in favor of generous LEGAL immigration coupled with much greater law enforcement. Sealing the border does injustice to NO ONE, so long as we have a reasonable LEGAL immigration policy. The current chaos at the border is not good for anyone.
Therefore, I reject this idea that regulating immigration = a “hard line” approach. We must avoid both the Hard Line and the Soft Head.
OK, here’s a challenge to anti-immigrant Catholics
There really is no point in reading after the ridiculous “anti-immigrant” strawman comes into play.
Wry-
Jimmy has cited all the relevant passages from the Catechism, which, unlike the prudential opinons of individual bishops, is authoritative.
Why is the Catechism not good enough for you? It IS the teaching of the Church. An individual bishop, or even a national council of bishops, might say anything.
Well, I’m not American, but from observing this whole debate from a distance, I’d have to say that the most racist things I’ve seen were written on signs carried by Latinos during the protests.
If Jimmy can take the trouble to drive down I-10 to the Mexican border to take pictures,
Gee, and I thought I was driving down I-10 to go square dancing in Arizona.
I would never dream of making the racism charge.
But I think in the minds of many people, an “illegal immigrant” from Nova Scotia just seems different from one from a different culture. I worked in immigration for years and I’ve seen people dead set against immigration on principle find themselves all sympathy when dealing with a Scotsman or an Ontarian who was here working illegally.
Tim J.
The catechism gives the general principles on which we must base our actions, I think we would agree, but as you mention, it is prudential judgment that one follows to see how or whether a particular action falls under the cope of what the catechism says. For instance, we would be obliged to do war justly if we must, but the catechism cannot and does not give us a directive on whether any particular war or action of war is “just”, since that obviously depends on a host of circumstances that must be verified “on the ground” as it were.
So how and where do we form our opinions on what specifically to do on this specific example of immigration?
Here the principle of subsidiarity comes into play: we look to the local level – to the LOCAL bishops – who are in the best position to determine the how and under what circumstances the catechism here applies.
And these local bishops have spoken.
To trust an “authority” under which I make my prudential judgment, to be “right with the church” I would look to see:
–does the “expert” think with the church? Is the expert a practicing Catholic of some importance either by his position or expertise?
–are there reasons to believe, moreover, that this oxthodox church “expert” speaks in an area about which he has some knowledge (I would not trust an oxthodox bishop to design a ship to fly me to the moon, unless he were also an expert in spacecraft design!)
It seems to me that in both cases the bishops of the church as expressed in their collective wisdow meet the criteria for trust in terms of prudential judgment, and that moreover, by the principle of subsidiarity, that they are closest to the ground and can authoritatively interpret how we are to respond to immigration: they and their priests have extensive, first-hand experience with the shadows and light of this issue, and have drawn upon their own resources (their USCCB staff, among others) to supply additional knowledge on the subject.
For someone such as Jimmy or anyone else to change my *enthusiastic* support of what the *collective* assembly of bishops of my country have said, they are going to have to have more creds than running a webn site.
“I think in the minds of many people, an ‘illegal immigrant” from Nova Scotia just seems different from one from a different culture.” I don’t. More projection here?
WRY, please name one bishop who agrees with you and “has some knowledge” of national security and then cite the evidence that he has this knowledge.
At least locally Bill, every bishop and many priests marched in solidarity with the illegal immigrants in Wisconsin. For those curious, that would be Archbishop Dolan (Milwaukee), Bishop Zubek (Green Bay, my bishop), and Bishop Moreno (Madison). I don’t know specifically about the bishop of Superior, and I believe the bishopric in La Crosse is still vacant.
From the Wisconsin conference:
See here.
Bill and Hippo:
I’m not sure how my comments imply that Jimmy Akin is a racist, since I never once mentioned him. I was disputing his claim that “for the great majority of people”, race is not a factor in their attitudes towards illegal immigration. I think that’s bunk. Just because I think Mr. Akin is being naive at best does not mean I think he’s a racist. And just because I think race has a *lot* to do with this issue does not mean that I don’t see how opposition to illegal immigration could stem from something other than racist sentiments. In fact, I believe my VERY FIRST SENTENCE stated as much.
Don’t putting words in my mouth, please 🙂
“Accordingly, the Church also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of *undocumented persons*…”
It appears that the bishops, at least, had the sensitivity to recognize that the term “illegal aliens” bears the mark of being a “racial epithet,” which as described above would be evidence for racism.
Racism is, in fact, pervasive and insidious . It is something, like sin, with which we all must come to terms. We must ever be watchful that our speech and attidudes do not betray our prejudices; however, accepting the existence of such prejudices is the beginning of eradicating them.
For those who didn’t to bother reading the entire post, let me summarize:
1) I’m not racist.
2) If you accuse me of being racist, the Catholic church says you are a sinner.
3) Let me quote some church law.
Honestly Jimmy, if you want to debate whether or not you are racist, you can do better than threaten Catholics with church laws. You might try actually discussing the issue.
Respectfully,
April
The projection and intellectual vacuity goes on.
“In fact, I believe my VERY FIRST SENTENCE stated as much.” And the rest of your post said otherwise.
That should be “The projection and intellectual vacuity go on.” Me bad grammar.
Errr, don’t put words in my mouth, not don’t “putting.”
Re: Jeff’s point – you know, there are stretches of the border with our friendly neighbors to the north which are largely unsecured, and I have yet to see anyone foam at the mouth about illegal immigration from Canada. Yes, yes, I know the numbers of illegal immigrants from Mexico are far greater than those from anywhere else. But, you’d think that the border with Canada would be as big a national security talking point as the border with Mexico. And yet somehow . . . it isn’t. Hmm.
How many people who comment here have ever had to deal with the INS or other immigration services as an immigrant? My family and I are all naturalized citizens, and we’ve had to go through the whole visa/green card/citizenship process. We have many friends and acquaintances who are also very familiar with the ins and outs of the immigration process in the US. Speaking as someone familiar with the system, I can say this much with certainty: the immigration system in this country is unjust and profoundly racist. It is incredibly hard for racial and ethnic minorities to enter and remain in this country legally. Ask anyone who has had to deal with the INS – they run that organization like a dictatorship. I could tell you numerous stories of people – Mexicans, and Nigerians (like myself) – who have been denied entry into the US, despite having all the necessary documentation and having made all the proper arrangements. I could tell you stories of LEGAL immigrants who have to leave everything behind in the US when their visas run out, cross the border into Mexico, and hope to God that their visas are renewed so that they can return to their homes and jobs. Their chances of getting their visas renewed are much better if they come from Western cultures than if they come from Latin America, Africa, or South Asia.
Maybe we ought to think about reforming the immigration system so that it is fair and impartial before we throw hissy fits about people entering the country illegally to find work. Don’t you think most of those people would enter legally if they thought they could?
Um, Bill? You said: “Your apparent inability to conceive that someone could be opposed to ILLEGAL entry into this country without being atleast somewhat racist shows your intellectual vacuity.”
My first sentence was: “Yes, one can be vigorously opposed to illegal immigration without being racist, and I’m sure many such people exist.” I don’t really see how my comment shows that I’m unable to conceive that someone could be opposed to illegal immigration without being racist. Yes, my point was that a number of prominent opponents of illegal immigration seem to have racist or at least prejudiced sentiments. So yea, the majority of my comment was devoted to illustrating my point.
Plus, calling someone you don’t know intellectually vacuous because they happen to disagree with you? That’s not very charitable.
“Maybe we ought to think about reforming the immigration system so that it is fair and impartial before we throw hissy fits about people entering the country illegally to find work.”
And what impartial Solomon will tell us when we have reached this nirvana of impartiality?
PVO
I think the cries of racism are because everyone I’ve seen discuss the issue reads the phrase “there are 11 million illegal immigrants in this country” and translates it to “there are 11 million Latinos in this country who crossed the southern border illegally”.
That is not the case. There are 11 million illegal immigrants in this country: some are from the various Spanish or Portuguese speaking countries to our south; some are from middle-Eastern countries; some from European countries; some from Asian countries; some are from Canada. Some crossed a border illegally, some entered the country on a legal visa of one sort or another and overstayed their allowed time in the US. I’ve seen figures suggesting that up to 40% of illegal immigrants originally entered legally.
And yet almost every argument I’ve seen about immigration lately has focused exclusively on the category of illegal ‘indigent Latino who crosses from Mexico’. Is it any wonder that people are being accused of racism when they define the issue in that way?
mulopwepaul – We’ll never reach it, but it would be nice if we tried. The INS is in need of massive reform. When my 55 year old uncle (the head of pediatric medicine at a large hospital in Nigeria, with three kids and a wife at home, and no incentive whatsoever to risk his hide trying to emigrate to the US illegally) can’t get a stinking one-week visitor’s visa so he can come see his niece get married, just because some snotty-nosed twenty-something at the Nigerian embassy didn’t feel like even *looking* at his documents, we have a problem. When a high school graduate from Mexico, admitted into college in the US, is tricked by a border official into entering the US for student orientation with a day visa (because his student visa wouldn’t go into effect for another month or so), which he was told was perfectly legal, and has his record flagged by the same official, so that when he crosses back into Mexico, he finds that he has unwittingly violated US visa policy and is now prohibited from entering the US for TEN YEARS, we have a problem. So yea, I think at least *trying* to reform the system would be nice.
cjmr – Good point.
I think any system run by humans is going to have abuses, and those abuses need to be pointed out and addressed, but I don’t think rationalising our immigration policy needs to be held hostage until every aspiring immigrant feels the system is perfectly fair.
What I hear from most “immigration activists” (i.e., advocates) is “how dare you even think about controlling your borders, you evil oppressors, you!”
PVO
“…everyone I’ve seen discuss the issue reads the phrase ‘there are 11 million illegal immigrants in this country’ and translates it to ‘there are 11 million Latinos in this country who crossed the southern border illegally’.”
Baloney.
So yea, I think at least *trying* to reform the system would be nice.
Agreed reform the system but don’t ignore the laws in place.
There will be hardships on those who want to enter legally but to reward those who enter illegally is unjust.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
…but to reward those who enter illegally is unjust.
Hmm. Which bishop said that? My bishops say:
Who am I to believe?
‘What I hear from most “immigration activists” (i.e., advocates) is “how dare you even think about controlling your borders, you evil oppressors, you!” ‘
The trick is to pay attention, not to ‘immigration activists,’ or for that matter, opponents, but to read and reflect upon the very wise words of the bishops and John Paul II on this subject. There, one cannot go wrong. For, even if it were to turn out that their advice was misguided, the fault could not be charged to you because you followed their advice as a son listens to a father. On the other hand, those who blatantly reject what our teachers in faith teach will have to bear the responsibility on their own. I am not so brave and trust too little in my own wisdom.
MZ-
IMMIGRATION FROM A CATHOLIC PERSPECTIVE
As the U.S. Catholic Bishops stated in their 2000 statement, Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity, “WITHOUT CONDONING UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRATION, the Church supports the human rights of all people and offers them pastoral care, education, and social services, no matter what the circumstances of entry into this country, and it works for the respect of the human dignity of all—especially those who find themselves in desperate circumstances. WE RECOGNIZE THAT NATIONS HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR BORDERS. We also recognize and strongly assert that all human persons, created as they are in the image of God, possess a fundamental dignity that gives rise to a more compelling claim to the conditions worthy of human life. Accordingly, the Church also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons, particularly those who have built equities and otherwise contributed to their communities.”
Catholic social teaching holds that, like the right to property, THE RIGHT TO MIGRATE IS NOT UNLIMITED. It may be restricted when other, higher rights are endangered. IF THE SECURITY OF A NATION IS THREATENED or if the nation does not have sufficient resources to sustain its own inhabitants, IT IS LAWFUL TO HALT THE FLOW OF IMMIGRANTS. Such, however, is not the case in the United States, where the vast majority of immigrants are not a threat to our security, but rather are hardworking individuals who improve their lives and those of their new homeland while performing the work that native-born citizens are either unwilling or unable to perform.”
It all depends on what you choose to emphasize.I note that this statement makes a few assertions that fall well within the realm of prudential judgement that the bishops are no more qualified to answer than you or I.
The first is the judgement that a threat to security “is not the case in the United States.”. Since when are the bishops experts on national security?
The second is the implication that the US seeks to “halt the flow of immigrants”. This is false and misleading. All the US wants is to properly regulate immigration and curtail and discourage ILLEGAL immigration.
The third is the idea that immigrants are “performing the work that native-born citizens are either unwilling or unable to perform”. This is not the case either. Americans are both willing and able to perform these jobs, but not at the artificially deflated wages that are paid to disadvantaged migrant workers. The bishops aren’t economics experts, either, and on this point the statement is just wrong.
mulopwepaul – I agree. No system is perfect. But my point was not that every single immigrant has to believe the system is fair. My point was that the system is really quite corrupt. This is common knowledge among communities of legal immigrants, speak less of illegal ones. Given the choice, most rational people would prefer to emigrate within the law rather than outside of it. *Part* of the reason we have so many illegal immigrants in this country (not the only reason, and probably not the biggest reason, before anyone jumps on me) is the fact that the corrupt system makes it extremely difficult for certain groups of people to come here legally. I’m not talking about one person, or a handful of people. Every single Nigerian I know (and I know many) can tell you a story of mistreatment and corruption at the American embassy in Lagos. I know the plural of anecdote is not data – but these sorts of stories are so widespread that it would stretch the bounds of credulity to see them as just sour grapes or urban legends. My parents are staunch conservatives, and they would never dream of entering a country illegally (nor, needless to say, would I), but even they have serious problems with the way the INS is run. It is a very bad situation.
Bill – simply declaring stuff ‘baloney’ is not really an effective way to prove your point. In any event, I think one would have to be incredibly disingenuous to deny that many discussions of illegal immigrants assume that the immigrants in question are largely or even entirely Latinos.
“I am not so brave and trust too little in my own wisdom.”
So you selectively read what JPG and the bishops have said and written, pay attention to what you agree with, and ignore what you don’t.
Hmmm…
Accordingly, the Church also advocates legalization opportunities for the maximum number of undocumented persons..”
Legalization opportunities equals legal ways. How is that different from what I said? Or are you saying the bishops are instructing us to ignore the legislative system?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
That is just plain deceitful Tim. The first thing you highlight is a modifying clause that modifies the word “CHURCH”. Your second highlighted statement is immediately modified by the second statement, “We also recognize and strongly assert….”
C’mon Tim. You have been a moderating voice in this.
It is different than what you said. The sentence specifically referenced undocumented workers, in your parlance “those who enter illegally.”
Again, are you saying the bishops are instructing us to ignore the legislative system?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
read and reflect upon the very wise words of the bishops and John Paul II on this subject. There, one cannot go wrong.
“As regards immigrants and refugees, building conditions of peace means in practice being seriously committed to safeguarding first of all the right not to emigrate, that is, the right to live in peace and dignity in one’s own country.”
Make sure you stress that in point in the discussion.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
oops the last quote was from the Message of the Holy Father John Paul II for the 90th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2004
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Do you see an alternative route for legalizing undocumented people? If your question is “Are the bishops advocating amnesty or its equivalent?” I would say yes. I don’t see how the statement can be interpreted any other way. To assert the bishops advocate “ignoring the legislative system” would seem to be seeking an answer in totality rather than selectively.
Has anyone addressed the morality involved in encouraging people to commit crimes fueled by envy? B/c that’s what giving a free pass to illegal immigration is, no matter how you might try to tart it up in other terms.
We would rightfully resent that in any other venue. Why is this different?
Bill,
It is not a selective reading to say that the bishops have endorsed generous immigration and the opportunity for legalization among those already here illegally.
You obviously disagree with the bishops, but you cannot honestly say that is not what they are saying.
So it is not a “selective” reading at all.
And FWIW, I was always a believer in the death penalty, but when the church spoke against it, I *changed* my viewpoint.
C’mon, you can do it!
Others will accuse you of being a timid sheep, but “the sheep know the shepherd.”
MZ-
“That is just plain deceitful Tim. The first thing you highlight is a modifying clause that modifies the word
“Church”…”
Exactly. The CHURCH does not condone undocumented immigration. Tell me again how that is deceitful.
WRY-
“And FWIW, I was always a believer in the death penalty, but when the church spoke against it, I *changed* my viewpoint. ”
You are similarly messed up here. The CHURCH does not prohibit the death penalty, though I am not sure what you mean when you say you were a “believer” in the death penalty. But we digress.
Inocencio,
That is indeed really the whole solution in a nutshell. Unfortunately, our country’s ability to effect regime change successfully has been rather challenged as of late.
But economic policies – NAFTA was a good example – that can build the Mexcican economy are a key ingredient in immigration reform. But all we hear is “amnesty” and “walls.”
I have to say, this all reminds me somuch of the debate over welfare in the eighties.
You either supported increasing welfare entitlements, or you were labeled a racist. If you saw problems with the welfare system, or were of the opinion that welfare created more problems than it solved, you were at pains to PROVE you were not a racist (which is, of course, impossible).
That is why Tim I don’t get all excited about racism. Just because a policy disproportionately affects a race doesn’t make it wrong or imprudent. The problem in the immigration debate is that one side is so afraid of being labeled racist that they couch their opposition in such canards as national security. I would rather debate someone who said Mexican immigration is undesirable than someone who advocates those ends but does so dishonestly. Let us have a debate on whether Mexicans natural immigration rights should be respected. Lets not pretend that this isn’t about Mexicans – for if it wasn’t, there would be clamoring for a Canadian wall.
“…for if it wasn’t, there would be clamoring for a Canadian wall.”
Wrong.
The difference is in sheer numbers, not race. The recent arrest of memebers of a terror cell in Canada undercores the national security aspect of this debate, on BOTH borders, so I reject your implication that framing the debate in terms of national security is a red herring or a cover-up for racism.
T’aint so.
Lets have a debate on whether Mexicans natural immigration rights, AS WELL AS OUR NATURAL RIGHTS TO BORDER SECURITY, should be respected.
The title of this thread is: “The Race Card Continues To Wear Thin.” Unfortunately, not with some people. I’ve had it with their prejudice against those who disagree with them and will cease trying to point it out to them.
“Only 40 years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to express vile, racist sentiments in public. Attitudes like that don’t disappear in 40 years. They just go underground.
I don’t see how anyone could read the rhetoric of some of the most vocal opponents of illegal immigration – Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, to name a few – and not see what race has to do with all of this. Lou Dobbs, for example, had a news segment on his show claiming that Chicano activists who want to take back the part of the US that was once part of Mexico are now gaining a foothold among illegal immigrants (which is a ridiculous claim). The news segment displayed a map of the old Mexico these activists supposedly hope to rebuild. Know where they got the picture from? From a white supremacist group’s website.”
The thing about some Latino activist wanting to “reconquer” the American Southwest is true as far as I know. This may not be a widely held view among many Mexican immigrants, but most invariably give the fact that the American Southwest was claimed by Mexico before we gained control of it as being their justification for coming to the United States illegally or otherwise. It seems mistaken to me to say that opposition to mass non-white immigration is inherently racist or “vile” if it is motivated by a desire to preserve the white majority and prevent a racial balkanization of the country. It’s not racist. It’s just good sense.
well jimmy might not be a racist, but he sure makes it seem like it.
“mail a brick to congress”
Gee, that sounds, charitable.
But I think immigration is a deeper problem.
One that started years ago.
The unbalancing of wealth far beyond proportion.
The existance of the rich and poor is evil.
There should be unequal, but complimentary differences. Not everyone can be a king, but not everyone has to be a garbageman. The problem lies when some are TOO RICH and TOO POOR. There is the problem. The US, too rich.
Don Giovani – it’s true in the sense that there are some activists who want to “reconquer” American territories. They exist; I’m not suggesting otherwise. However, the movement is marginal. I very much doubt that many illegal immigrants are even aware of this movement, much less supportive of it. It’s something that Lou Dobbs and company have blown out of proportion in order to make it look as though it’s mainstream. It’s not.
“This may not be a widely held view among many Mexican immigrants, but most invariably give the fact that the American Southwest was claimed by Mexico before we gained control of it as being their justification for coming to the United States illegally or otherwise.”
Really? I’ve never heard any such thing. Do you have a reference for that? As far as I know, most Mexican immigrants list the desire for work and food and shelter as their reasons for immigrating – not some desire to stick it to the white man who took their land.
“It seems mistaken to me to say that opposition to mass non-white immigration is inherently racist or “vile” if it is motivated by a desire to preserve the white majority and prevent a racial balkanization of the country. It’s not racist. It’s just good sense.”
Well, that pretty much speaks for itself, doesn’t it?
Jimmy said: “The mere opposition to illegal immigration is not enough to infer racism.” I don’t think anyone who has commented here would disagree with that. Speaking for myself at least, I disagreed with this post not because of the above comment, but because Jimmy asserted that (for ‘most’ Americans) race has nothing to do with their attitudes towards illegal immigration. I think that’s incredibly naive and patently false.
Bill says: “I’ve had it with their prejudice against those who disagree with them and will cease trying to point it out to them.” Sure, feel free to take your ball and go home. That’s the hallmark of adult, rational debate.
As far as I can tell from your comments, you’re the one who is displaying prejudice against people who disagree with you. You’re the one who dismissed another person’s comment as “baloney”, without even the slightest attempt to make a rational counterargument. You’re the one who described anyone who dared to disagree with Jimmy’s post as “intellectually vacuous.”
And we’re “prejudiced” for merely suggesting that race may just have something to do with illegal immigration issues? Hmm. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
//The existance of the rich and poor is evil.
There should be unequal, but complimentary differences. Not everyone can be a king, but not everyone has to be a garbageman. The problem lies when some are TOO RICH and TOO POOR. There is the problem. The US, too rich.//
What if I say that you’re too rich, since you have a computer? What will you do about it? Who gets to make the decision?
“Really? I’ve never heard any such thing. Do you have a reference for that?”
I think a poll done in Mexico showed that 60 percent of all Mexicans say that they have the right to enter the United States illegally because the Southwestern portion of the United States rightfully belongs to Mexico, but I’m not sure if there has been a poll of Mexicans living in the United States. Certainly this reason is very commonly given by illegal immigrants as a justtification for why they have a right to come to the United States independent of what their actual economic reasons for coming are.
“Well, that pretty much speaks for itself, doesn’t it?”
If you’re saying that it’s an inherently racist statement, then I don’t agree with that because I don’t it’s racist to want to avoid the conditions that lead to racial conflict in the first place, especially when it may be possible to provide economic benefits to Mexico and other Latin American countries by changing the trade policies while simultaneously stopping the flow of immigrants. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying, though.
“Jimmy asserted that (for ‘most’ Americans) race has nothing to do with their attitudes towards illegal immigration. I think that’s incredibly naive and patently false.”
Based on what? What are YOUR sources that support this idea that most Americans are racist?
“Therefore, Jimmy is not racist.”
We never said Jimmy was a racist, so this is a moot point.
Ex catedra, you wrote: well jimmy might not be a racist, but he sure makes it seem like it.
“mail a brick to congress”
Gee, that sounds, charitable.
I suggest that what Jimmy meant when he wrote that sentence was that the brick might help send the message to Congress that it needs to build a wall, which Congress could do with the bricks it receives.
Jimmy didn’t write, “Throw a brick at Congress.”
But, I accept that I might have misinterpreted the comment; I’m sure that someone will disabuse me of the notion if I’m wrong.
I happen to be of middle class, and owning a computer is about all I own that would in your terms, make me too rich. But the main purpose of my computer is studies, as I happen to be a student.
And as a matter of poverty, I want to join a religious order, yet my parents won’t let me go as of yet, as I am not 18 yet.
And on where guidance comes from on these subjects, I suggest you read “Nobility and Analogous Traditional Elites in the Allucations of Pius XII” by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira.
The book is excellent, so are the writer’s other books. The people that sell it are garbage though, they are very contrary to the Vatican II, but to the point that they affiliated with schismatic people. Yet the book and Plinio are great, when he died, the people that sell the book broke from what he teached. Trust me, Popes and Saints have said plenty on the subjects of the rich and poor and the injustices of humanity agaist itself and God.
But, you’d think that the border with Canada would be as big a national security talking point as the border with Mexico. And yet somehow . . . it isn’t. Hmm.
I’ve no informed opinion on the subject, but it is possible that Mexico’s border controls re terrorists aren’t as rigourous as Canada’s. Which country is it easier to get into, would be the question. And then, which border is easiest to get into the US over? I don’t know the answers, but there could be reasons not to see both borders as equal risks.
From my vague knowledge, though, it seems like the terrorists manage to get where they want to go quite nicely anyway. 😉
Eileen R.,
Oddly enough Canada has a greater issue in this area. One of the biggest complaints about Canada is their willingness to grant refugee status to people. Mexico, as far as my understanding goes, is fairly restrictive on immigrants. There is the added factor of large Arab populations in Detroit and New Jersey that are far easier to reach from Canada than they are from Mexico. The other factor is the relatively recent change in immigration policy on the Canadian border. The former policy was to not regulate all entry points heavily (think Montana to western Minnesota.) Under the former policy, illegal immigrants were attempted to be located in local jails along the border and random employer checks. The new policy has stepped up entry point regulation, but given the breadth of the border, there is not heavy enforcement. In Vermont my understanding is that they have a large problem with Canadian loggers illegally coming in to work as well.
“Such sentiments have even been expressed by some posters in the combox of late.”
This is not true.
I live in a bordertown, across the river from Canada. We’re concerned about smuggling, mostly. We are trying to stop the huge, seldom-inspected garbage shipments that come from Ontario. (The joke is that someone could easily sneak in a “dirty” bomb – just wrap it in heroin and insert it a corpse within the load of garbage.) And we’re concerned about Canadians smuggling people across the river (our natural border). A man was dumped in the river last year – the smugglers saw a fisherman’s boatlight and thought he was border patrol, so they threw the man overboard. Thank God that the angler rescued him, for the ice had only recently broken. Sometimes they’re caught on the Canadian side, too, but we don’t hear much about that.
They are not, of course, natural-born or naturalized Canadians who are coming across. Canada has a good economy. In fact, its dollar has risen so much that our shopping centres and hospitals are getting more and more business. In the ’80s there was a problem with illegal Canadian immigrants (until about ’94, when their dollar went back up for a while). But not now. And the Canadian government certainly doesn’t encourage people to emigrate and send money home to Canada.
I also have to laugh when I read that Mexico is concerned about illegal immigration, too – from Central America, mostly. Some of the articles I’ve read in the on-line papers say that Mexican gobierno is concerned that economic and political changes may make other Latinos immigrate.
I thought this whole thing was about Jimmy asking the comboxers to be more charitable, and yet you’re all back to the same old bickering.
Never mind.
Don Giovani:
If you’re saying that it’s an inherently racist statement, then I don’t agree with that because I don’t it’s racist (sic) to want to avoid the conditions that lead to racial conflict in the first place, especially when it may be possible to provide economic benefits to Mexico and other Latin American countries by changing the trade policies while simultaneously stopping the flow of immigrants. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re saying, though.
This seems to suggest that you believe that merely having people of many races and ethnicities living together in one country is a “condition that leads to racial conflict”. And here I thought that sin and hatred were the conditions that led to racial conflict! You know, heaven will be a place where people of all tribes and tongues worship God together (see Revelations). The Kingdom of God on earth can never be that harmonious, not until Christ returns. We are nevertheless obligated to work towards racial harmony in the here and now – and not simply by preventing the “influx” of different races into the US. Good grief.