Effectively, open borders are a bad idea. That’s true whether they result from explicit policy or from failure to enforce the law effectively.
The population of the world outside the United States is about 8 billion. Of that number, it appears that about a billion and a quarter would like to emigrate from their home countries, with around 230 million picking the United States as their top destination. A great many more would no doubt accept the United States as a second, third, or fourth choice.
It’s not clear what people would actually do if anyone with a ticket could hop on a plane and move here. Puerto Ricans have been able to do that as long as there have been plane tickets, and two-thirds of them now live on the mainland. It seems that open or largely open borders would bring far more immigrants here than the 50 million or so now present.
That would be disastrous for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it’s unlikely that the resulting aggregate of very different populations, without common memories and habits of cooperation to hold them together, could maintain an orderly political system involving extensive public participation. Such societies have not been common. They can exist most easily when people are generally comfortable, and the government does very little, as was long the case in America. Or if the society is united by a long history and deep cultural ties, as was the case in Western Europe until quite recently.
But when a great deal depends on control of the government, and the population is deeply divided culturally and historically, as in a multicultural society in which government often decides who gets what, they are fragile at best. That appears all the more true when the population includes numerous people from troubled regions with no tradition of free government.
Continual mass immigration also causes other problems. It stresses public services and brings in large numbers of people who compete with the less successful in the labor, housing, and other markets, reducing incomes and opportunities for citizens whose position is already difficult. And it disrupts the informal ties that connect people, foster mutual trust, and make them feel they are at home. Has it really helped America to create a situation in which people cannot say “Merry Christmas” without offending?
So it seems clear that restrictions that greatly limit immigration are needed for the common good. That remains true even though it is not intrinsically wrong for someone to try to better his situation by moving from one place to another. The harm arises when too many people try to do it.
We can only do what is possible. We cannot solve global poverty, war, and tyranny by moving the poor and oppressed to rich and peaceful countries. For one thing, those countries would have trouble remaining rich and peaceful if that were done on a large scale. For another, the prospects of the source countries would hardly be improved if all the honest, competent, and peaceably minded people moved to Iowa.
However, restrictions are useless unless generally and effectively enforced. That remains true even when those subject to them have sympathetic stories, which they often will in this case. But enforcement of law, especially against people who mostly lack local civic attachments and do not care much about penalties such as fines because they do not have money, often requires physical force. That never looks dignified or respectful and often looks bad, especially when activist organizations train people how to make it look bad, and journalists are sympathetic with the effort.
And sometimes the appearance of bad official conduct is accurate. But everything is often done badly, including law enforcement, especially when enforcement requires physical force and officers are constantly being harassed. When something necessary is done badly, we should all support practical improvements rather than oppose them as such.
But what could justify opposition to immigration enforcement as such? Christian opponents often resort to proof-texting. People point to Leviticus 19:34, “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born,” and to Deuteronomy 10:19: “You are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” And they point out that the Holy Family were refugees, Jesus enjoins us to welcome the stranger, and the Good Samaritan demonstrated that the “neighbors” we should love as ourselves include the foreigner and the heretic.
But there were obvious limits. The Israelites were also enjoined to exterminate the people of the land, and Ezra and Nehemiah drove out foreign women married to Jews. More generally, our fellow citizens are also our neighbors, the kind of assistance we give to people in need is a matter of prudence, and we have a greater obligation to those more closely connected to us. So “welcoming the stranger” does not always mean adopting him as a member of the household, the Good Samaritan did not sacrifice his own people’s basic welfare to the foreigner, and the Holy Family did not move permanently to Rome and demand civic rights there.
However, most criticisms of immigration restrictions and their enforcement relate to secondary matters.
Border controls often induce illegal immigrants to run great risks to evade them. If so, the answer is immigration enforcement that eliminates the reward for doing so. Enticing people to immigrate illegally, often at the risk of their lives, by hit or miss internal enforcement that allows them to work in the shadows as virtual peons is disgraceful.
Some restrictionists vilify immigrants. But lying, vilification, and other forms of rhetorical injustice are pervasive in democratic politics. It is hard to get people moving, so politicians routinely simplify issues, personalize them, and present them in inflammatory ways. Everyone should avoid that, but few practical politicians do.
And vilification includes not only the vilification of immigrants but also the vilification of ICE agents and immigration restrictionists. It is worth recalling that during the BLM period, the most respectable people and institutions in America carried on a campaign of vilifying law enforcement, along with America and her people generally. The result was a huge jump in lawlessness that led to the deaths of thousands, most of them black.
And opponents of immigration enforcement often go beyond vilification. Harassing law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties is illegal and wrong. It promotes lawlessness on the one hand and increased use of force by the law on the other. Failure of local police to protect anyone, including federal agents, against such harassment and even against actual violence is doubly wrong.
Further, the refusal of state and local officials to cooperate with federal authorities is also wrong. Releasing illegal immigrants who have committed other crimes to the street rather than to federal authorities upon completion of their sentences means the federal authorities will have to pursue them on the street. That is likely to involve the use of force. Why would anyone want that?
A stronger argument against enforcement in some cases is fairness to illegal immigrants who have established orderly and productive lives here after being allowed to come and stay due to apparently intentional non-enforcement. In private law, there are a variety of doctrines—adverse possession, abandonment, acquiescence, laches, estoppel—that nullify a legal claim when the holder consistently fails to assert it, giving rise to reliance and a reasonable expectation that the situation will continue.
These doctrines rarely apply against the government, since the government is presumed to be guarding the public good rather than asserting a mere private interest. Even so, similar considerations are relevant to enforcement policy—but within the limits of prudence and concern for the common good.
As always in government, those things are needed. Thomas Aquinas had both, and he briefly discusses immigration in Summa Theologica. There, he affirms that nations have the right to require assimilation for at least a couple of generations before granting citizenship, and limit, delay, or even permanently deny it to those from less compatible backgrounds. These are examples of reasonable and prudent limits, and he would undoubtedly recognize others.
Why can’t Catholics agree on his approach as a basis for discussion, on the need for real limitations, and on the necessity of practical and effective enforcement?
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
“Why can’t Catholics agree on his [St. Thomas Aquinas’] approach as a basis for discussion, on the need for real limitations, and on the necessity of practical and effective enforcement?”
Oh, most Catholics do agree. The Catechism, too, agrees with St. Thomas. So does the Old Testament.
But the pope and the bishops don’t. And that’s the problem.
Well said.
I have a different approach-personal responsibility. If you illegally enter into another country and put your family in peril, then it is your own fault if said country decides to crack own on illegal entry into the country. It’s time to stop treating people line little children. If you did it, do what you can to get legal and stop hiding behind the coat tails of the Church.
#1. As a tax-paying United States citizen I would not be so stupid as to try to gain re-entry into the United States from a foreign country without my passport. And, yet, 20,000,000 foreigners have successfully done so under the auspices of crooked leftist government operatives.
Answer one question for me: What effect does this fact have on the respect for laws in the USA?
#2. As a tax-paying United States citizen I would not be so stupid as to try to vote in any election in the USA without showing proof that I am whom I claim to be.
And, yet, millions of people are allowed to cast ballots in our country without showing proof of identity or using false identification papers. This effectively nullifies the votes of tax-paying legitimate citizens and corrupts our elections.
Answer one question for me: What effect does this fact have on the respect for laws in the USA?
Look no further for lawlessness in the USA. Is it your choice to live in a lawless society? Because when you acquiesce to both of these, you are answering in the affirmative.
“What effect does this fact have on the respect for laws in the USA?”
Bless me father, I have sinned. I cheated on my taxes. I didn’t have enough money to pay the bill, so I overstated my business mileage and meal expense.
That’s serious -you violated the Fourth Commandment. For you penance, make amends and render unto Caesar.
Bless me father I have sinned. I entered this country illegally.
Oh, you are undocumented? Don’t be a scrupulant. God understands, do you know we have a resettlement program? We can get you government aid. Call the parish office, we’ll get you in contact with the Diocese.
#1. There aren’t 20,000,000 people living in the U.S. illegally.
#2. Non-citizens aren’t provided with ballots to vote in any statewide or federal elections (Heritage Society’s decades-long fraud data might be of interest, particularly re: the oft-mentioned state of California).
#3. Undocumented workers pay billions in state and income taxes, including FICA, for which they are ineligible to claim benefits.
#4. Hospitals provide only the care necessary to stabilize true medical emergencies and then release undocumented patients; they do not provide ongoing medical care.
#5. There is nothing wrong with enforcing U.S. Immigration Laws. For as lenient as some consider the Biden administration to have been, it nevertheless deported more people under Title 8 (and Title 42) than Trump’s previous administration did.
#6. Many, or most, who have a problem with current enforcement efforts object to the tactics utilized, and against whom, ahead of the “worst of the worst”.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I have a different approach-personal responsibility. If you illegally enter into another country and put your family in peril, then it is your own fault if said country decides to crack own on illegal entry into the country. It’s time to stop treating people line little children. If you did it, do what you can to get legal and stop hiding behind the coat tails of the Church.
The vast majority of legal and “illegal” migrants in the US come from Catholic countries. Does not sound like a woeful addition to the US mix. Instead of asking why Catholics can’t agree on immigration, it might better ask why some Catholics can’t stop crying about the ongoing demise of WASP hegemony.
Originating from a Catholic family or a Catholic country does not make one a practicing Catholic. Slipping across the border of a country illegally, no matter how it’s done, is not honest. Which commandment supports that?
True, I know a recent immigrant (legal), SSA attracted person, actively looking for a SameS partner, who is from a Catholic country, and claims to be Catholic, but doesn’t go to Church.
Agreed. It’s time to stop treating these folks like they are children. They knew it was illegal, put their families in danger if they brought families-it’s time for some personal responsibility. You break a law, you reap the consequences. That’s not saying we can’t treat them with dignity, but we shouldn’t enable someone who breaks the law to hide in the shadows either.
Do you think a “WASP hegemony” is actually an issue concerning Catholic commenters in a Catholic publication Mr. Cervantes?
mrscracker: “wasp hegemony” is a constant preoccupation of mine. I fear their mighty power wherever I go. Those wasps keep buzzing around my face but trying to swat them away seems futile. But, of late, I have come to find the gnats that find themselves to these pages far more troublesome.
🙂
I appreciate wasps- the insect variety. Some eat insect pests in the garden.
But gnats, I agree. Very annoying.
“Miguel Cervantes” posts, and this is apart from the appropriation of a name that betrays delusions of literary grandeur indicate a clear pattern of promoting unlimited and unconditional foreign entry, claiming that most immigrants are Catholic-as if we’re supposed to believe that they are all pious and devoted. Is José Antonio Ibarra Catholic? I think Catholicism is still the dominant religion of Venezuela.
Here he says the quiet part out loud-clearly showing his concern is eradication of the phantom menace of “WASP hegemony”. Where is this? Other than the apostate Gorsuch, is there a single other Protestant on the Supreme Court now for example? Maybe KJB or is she an agnostic, atheist or autotheist?
In truth he’s revealed as an ethnocentric and ethnonepotist and is a prima facie demonstration of replacement theory as strategic reality, not paranoia.
My ancestors aren’t “WASPS”, but they came here legally and didn’t attempt to upend the prevailing culture, customs, language, and laws to match those of the people, culture and nation they left behind. They sought something other than what they left, and as result, they and their descendants were away from the worst parts of WWI, WWII and the Soviet reign of terror in Eastern Europe. Who knows how long before the EU demands that Eastern Europe Islamicizes?
Interesting too, that he he uses that term as a racial/cultural/religious pejorative. I guess all slurs are bad, but some are more worse than others.
His agenda is MAMA Make America Mexico or Argentina.
To be fair, a great deal of what is now the USA was a version of “Mexico/Argentina”. It’s not a foreign culture in those parts of the States.
Well then, by all means enjoy the Mexican narco-terrorism.
When Paul reached Athens, and found people worshiping the unknown god, he wanted to make the place more Catholic. He chose a strategy other than mass importation of Catholics to push those stupid unknown god worshippers into the background. I wonder why?
Do you mean the Catholics who practice Santa Muerte, or the Haitian voodoo Catholics, or both? After all, diversity is our strength -not.
Well, so many comments seeking to divert attention from the fact that most people originating from south of the Texas border, from that terrible Catholic region all the way to Tierra del Fuego, are brother Catholics. That early Christian communion with Christ’s baptised in the faith has well and truly gone. Once again, why do some Catholics in the US still cry over the ongoing demise of WASP hegemony? Perhaps, like Vance, technically Catholics but ideologically wedded to the worst enemy of Catholic culture in the Americas, WASP hegemony itself. No need for a history lesson on that here; it’s easy to look up. It does explain why some Catholics prefer English-literate pagans from India to Spanish-speaking Catholics. Without a Catholic reassessment of US history immigration will never be understood.
What’s the problem with people from India?
Goodness, I know some and they’re a wonderful addition to our communities.
They are not “brother” Catholics. They are actively and intentionally violating federal immigration law. Criminals are not my “brothers.”
Enough with the racial and ethnic slurs.
Mr Ron, we have communities in the US where voodoo type beliefs go back a couple or more centuries. It’s not something unique to Latin America.
I can find voodoo related material at almost any flea market and certain roadside stands.
Santa Muerte is something else. That really is a more recent import.
Its something most of us dont WANT to import into the country. I get many a letter asking for funds from animal protection groups showing horrific photos of abused animals we would consider pets being sacrificed by these crazies. If that means keeping out the folks who practice voodoo, it is our right to do so.
Voodoo doesn’t have to involve sacrificing animals.
The local variety uses roots and curses in bottles. It’s been practised in what’s now the US for hundreds of years. I’m not an advocate for that sort of thing but just explaining it’s not connected to illegal immigration.
So ignore lawlessness as long the person is “Catholic”.
Brilliant.
Well, the bishops need their collection plates filled somehow. I read that “immigration” is an important part of Church growth in the States.
“Wasp Hegemony”? Its disturbing how bashing whites has recently become an acceptable norm. Some of the greatest achievements in the USA in the area of democracy, invention, medicine and the military came during our majority period of “Wasp Hegemony”. Washington, Jefferson, General Patton. You get the picture. Law and order was much more of a given, people respected limits on certain moral and criminal behaviors, and respected authority. Civility reigned, even if you didn’t like the president. If you live in America, practice your religion in peace, have a decent job and know you are actually free to leave the country but won’t; thank a WASP. Wasps have not kept this to themselves. You may forget Obama was elected President twice, an impossibility without many white votes. Marco Rubio holds a prominent position in our government now. Nobody bats an eye. The US is full of Hispanics who fled their Hispanic birth nations because they were bad, if not dangerous, places to live. It looks like “do your own thing”, a lack of functional government, and rule by drug cartel and gangs evidently made them not such great places to live. So they come here to take advantage and disparage our culture?? Really?? Some Americans are dead asleep on this issue, but not all of us. Fix your own country before you tell us how to change ours. WE are not looking for over-immigration to turn this into a third world country. Biden and the democrats did enough damage in that regard.
I learned months ago that if Miguel is typing something, it is either overtly false, misleading, or ridiculous. Proceed accordingly.
Well said. A com box “Warning Label”.
Miguel’s anti-white bigotry is longstanding on this site. It’s like a broken record, sad to say.
Anti white or anti WASP? Neither one is good but there’s a difference-even if there was such a thing as “White”.
Define in specific, operationally quantifiable terms what a “Catholic country” is. You throw words around that are bereft of any meaning or empirical reference.
Why can’t Catholics agree on his [Aquinas] approach as a basis for discussion, on the need for real limitations, and on the necessity of practical and effective enforcement? (Kalb).
Former Pope Francis and successor Leo XIV have created a new inalienable right, that defies correlative rights and restrictions – the Right to Migrate. This new moral right in consequence deifies the migrant, absolving him from illegal entry, condemning a nation’s refusal to financially support the new arrival, or its efforts of deportation. Our USCCB complies.
Kalb offers reasoned assessment at its best of this immense problem we’re suffering from. The right of a nation to maintain its existence and the forces that impede even threaten that existence. Ancient Israel invited migrants, assumed them into the Hebrew community, under conditions, including a large number when Jews departed Egypt. Although these were limited entries, never mass migration. In fact upon arrival in the Holy Land restrictions regarding contact and intermarriage were severe due to the aliens’ demonic worship.
Our Church seems to have reduced itself to finding new Justice issues due to its own failure to keep the fires of the faith burning in its members.
Well reasoned. Thank you. And thank you, St Thomas.
Most American bishops and the Vatican apparatchiks see no problem with the organized unvetted mob rush at our border. Which, TBTG, is now under control.
Americans seeking to protect and the control our borders are viewed as bigots by the USCCB, the unofficial religion department of the DNC.
Follow the money, always.
The Trump Administration might eliminate much of the criticism with more humane treatment of illegal aliens. Obama deported many illegals with much less fuss.
As Colonel Sherman Potter used to say “horse puckey”.
The only reason there was “less fuss” was because it was Obama.
Citizens with outstanding warrants are arrested and detained every day.
“Humane” is a nebulous standard that always amounts to an unencumbered right to entry and a right to receive publicly provided food, healthcare and housing.
If the illegal aliens are in custody, then yes, they should be fed and housed. Quoting A fictional character? How eloquent and wise.
Not only are illegal aliens in custody housed and fed, they are housed and fed without being in custody.
Well, that’s because the media covered for Obama. Where was all the faux outrage when Obama was deporting millions of people?
To be fair, when Obama was in office he had more media on his side and they chose to present his immigration policies more sympathetically.
Our border and customs agents do a great job and it’s not a safe one. Much of their work involves keeping dangerous drugs off the streets and preventing human trafficking. I know they treat detainees with respect.
I don’t know what happens in detention centers where there are real criminals being held but I would think it’s similar to our correctional facilities.
I’m on the side of decent hardworking migrants who came here because they thought they were wanted and were told how to apply for asylum. I’m also on the side of our law enforcement officers putting their lives at risk to keep us safe.
Beautifully summarized so that all should understand, Mr. Kalb. Thank you.
You make excellent points. A second aspect is to help inform people what they can do to make a meaningful impact without making everything worse.
If you want to help immigrants, here are three good options:
1. Contact your local diocese and learn how you can get involved with or donate to their programs which already do this. Act local where you can.
2. Catholic Charities has some of the largest immigrant aid infrastructure in the entire United States, and they already have programs in place to vet recipients, to avoid for example, doling out money to fraudsters, human traffickers, and violent criminals. Donate through your local diocese or directly through Catholic Charities.
3. Directly contact the Catholic diocese in border areas and donate to their existing programs.
These 3 options ensures that your money goes to those in need.
The worst possible thing we can do is donate to politicians and PAC’s thinking that it will help the needy. Campaign finance laws require donations only fund campaign expenses. It is a felony for them to redirect political donation money to charities which help those in need. Political donations only go to consultants, advertisers, and political staff.
“If you want to help immigrants, here are three good options:”
You forgot buying a one-way ticket home.
John C , who believes that political contributions help the needy?
I’ve donated to Catholic Charities before & locally they do a great job. But I don’t confuse that with donations to political candidates or PAC’s. Two different things.
You may want to read some of the Lepanto Institute articles about Catholic Charities, notably the one about how much they pays some of their leadership in major cities, before you donate: https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/a-question-of-charity/
People need to understand how the “non-profit” sector operates. The term is a misnomer of the tax law term “not for INDIVIDUAL profit”, meaning there are no stockholders, no dividends to stockholders and no distribution to individuals upon a dissolution. It doesn’t mean they don’t care about the bottom line.
Nor does the label make such an organization more virtuous or moral than a “C” or “S” corporation as is often portrayed. Anything and everybody that operates that way is a bankruptcy in training.
The reality of many tax exempt organizations, especially those operate with significant direct government revenue (apart from their income tax exemption and the deductibility of donations) are operated for the benefit of their top executives often with superficial board oversight. The Red Cross for instance, in their most recent public inspection 990 (2023) , had 9 senior executives making over $500,000 in total compensation.
The Governor of my State (Pennsylvania) makes less than $300,000 per year, so for the ED of Baltimore CCHD to be making a half a million is patently ridiculous. The only stupider thing I’ve heard was Penn State paying former coach James Franklin about $10M a year with a $50M golden parachute for when his mediocre results simply became too much for University to stomach, but we all know the NCAA is a business.
I try to be cautious about that Mr. Ron. Thank you for sharing the link.
Our local Catholic Charities works with the homeless population, runs a soup kitchen,emergency shelter, disaster relief services, food bank, & provides laundry & shower facilities for those in need.
We’ve reached out to them recently about a homeless gentleman living with his dog in a truck.
We read: “Thomas Aquinas had both [public good and private interests], and he briefly discusses immigration in Summa Theologica.”
Four points and a recommendation:
FIRST, a major contribution from Aquinas is the ability and willingness to differentiate— to make distinctions, as he distinctively did between theology and philosophy.
One would like to see more of the seminary-trained bishops do the same. And then there’s the unmentioned distinction between migrants in a 13th-century/pre-modern world and what mass migration means in a world not of nations, but of nation-states wherein citizens are constitutionally bound to at least protect one another in a fallen world….
SECOND, and yet, St. John Paul II advances the notion of a “non-exclusive solidarity” (“Memory and Identity”).
What should this mean, thoughtfully, when migration does involve real asylum seekers— but also plus many more, attracted by the de facto zero-border policy, and by market economics and even subsidized welfare programs; plus cartel entrepreneurs marketing fentanyl/overdose deaths numbering 70,000/year (this figure down from before the border was recently secured) and even more than a few murderers and rapists on the loose.
THIRD, while the nuclear/extended family is the “cell” of society, what about “sleeper cells” embedded in the same society? Historically, the referenced Hebrews were given the land of Canaan— and the residents were driven out because (!) of their abominations including child sacrifice….which are to be excluded.
FOURTH, so, yes, we are to show mercy just as we have been shown mercy, but what does this mean when ours is not only a God mercy but also of complex justice and truth?
The Second Vatican Council was onto something when it explained that the Church affirms principles but does not have a possibly simplistic answer to every particular, convoluted, entangled and secular issue (Gaudium et Spes, n. 33) ….especially, when openness to mass migration also fails to distinguish overtly Islamic/pre-Christian (not chronologically) and even pre-secular elements persisting from 7th-century Arabia.
RECOMMENDATION: In my humble and fragmented opinion— with a limited budget, clearly seek out the racketeers first (rather than a quota?) and with local cooperation. And, the more assimilated/long-time extended-family members should avoid being caught in the same net— by their own extended-family open door policy.
The Church does have a balanced view of the immigration question as stated in the Catechism. But, from Pope Francis, Pope Leo and on down, the emphasis is one sided – a blind support for migrants as though they were all deserving law abiding people. That simply is not true.
Under the Biden administration the U.S. church took millions in federal money to facilitate the entry of illegals into the country – drug dealers, criminals, terrorists, human traffickers, etc. – no questions asked – from dozens of countries who were then rapidly dispersed through the country. Lawlessness flourished – a blind eye to all that.
We know what the common good requires. It is in the Catechism. We just don’t have a hierarchy that will uphold it.
Thanks to Mr. Kalb and his cogent analysis.
Everything about Francis could be encapsulated in a single mandate. The imperative is to be prudential, and the prudential is to be imperative. In all candor, while grew so sick of his chiding and his demanding and dour disposition-at least he was quite obvious.
Maybe Francis isn’t the single cause of the vocations bust, (diocesan ordinations fell nationwide (down 22% between 2014 and 2023)), but he certainly didn’t help. Now his acolytes are Bishops and Cardinals.
In the future when his files are opened, assuming they haven’t been ransacked by a legion of the invading hordes the hierarchy claims must be accepted without condition or limit, I suspect the name Francis will have the same Papal currency as Honorius.
“while many”
TPR: When Francis X. Maier interviewed 30 US Bishops he report that “not a single vocation to the priesthood” in their dioceses can be directly attributed to Francis’ example or teaching.
I don’t like speaking ill of the late Pope, but facts are facts, and we need to learn from past mistakes.
I didn’t know there was an attempt to quantify his effects, thanks for letting me know.
“It seems clear that restrictions that greatly limit immigration are needed for the common good.”
Well said. Indeed – well said to the extent that ANY discussion of this issue MUST start from there.
From a legal standpoint this subject should be treated like a jurisprudence case and the related issues should be shone in Ven Diagrams. This helps sort out the important needs and problems and proposed fixes and expenses.
“A stronger argument against enforcement in some cases is fairness to illegal immigrants who have established orderly and productive lives here”.
No. If you are illegal, you are neither orderly or productive.
Once you enter illegally or overstay a legal entry, every day the individual remains is a new offense. Illegals have a high rate public assistance receipt (and some businesses and industries abet this to offload their payroll costs-pay just enough to qualify for Medicaid, for example). Those that work deny citizens a job and suppress wage rates (it’s funny how the Episcopacy ignores this, now that it’s paid to ignore the plight of the worker.
There are citizens who are suspected or charged with the commission of a crime and are not promptly apprehended. However, once they come to the attention to law enforcement, they are detained, arrested and brought to justice.
Many laws are not enforced immediately for a variety of reasons, prosecutorial discretion, lack of evidence or oversight. Many perpetrators evade the resultant legal peril for years.
25 years ago, I worked indirectly for such an individual, Mark Mangelsdorf. When I met him, there was no way for me to know the what he did or the nature of his crime. He had all the bearing of a polished, professional executive.
Ironically, at the time, the company headquarters was on Lover’s Lane, Culpeper Virginia, often joked as “the most frequently stolen street sign in America”.
After he brutally killed the husband of his paramour, he “married” her, received a Harvard MBA and was a rising corporate executive. He probably thought he had successfully exceeded the limits of law enforcement as well. His “orderly and productive” life was not exonerative or exculpatory, once the cold case was reopened.
See :”A Knock on the Door “- 48 Hours (Season 19, Episode 24) – Apple TV
Biden’s intentional disregard of the duty to enforce the law does not translate to an erasure of the law. The longer an illegal stays, the more unfair it is.
Oh dear. Homicidal adulterers do differ some from migrants who await asylum hearings or are guilty of a civil misdemeanor.
I believe the gentleman you mention married someone else after the crime & so did the woman involved. Their defense was that was killing off her husband was the only way they could be together because their church didn’t condone divorce. Better homicide than divorce.
“Homicidal adulterers do differ some from migrants who await asylum hearings or are guilty of a civil misdemeanor.”
Not in the way that matters, they have an unadjudicated breach of the law.
I may have confused Mangelsdorf with some other adulterer who killed his paramour’s spouse, they had an affair that ended after the murder. Quite an experience to sit w/ the Mrs. and for her to think it was a colossal joke when I said “Holy cow, I worked for that guy, I met him on a site visit”. I said “you think you forget a name like Mangelsdorf?”
Yes,Mr Pitchfork it’s very unsettling when you find out someone you’ve interacted with at work was guilty of murder. We had a man who turned out to be a serial killer. I don’t know if you detected any red flags but ours gave off none. I’ve heard that’s how it can work with sociopaths.
For those of you Catholics (especially bishops) who align with leftist policies and thinking, I suggest that you demonstrate solidarity with the 20,000,000 “undocumented” persons here in the USA. You can best show solidarity with them by exiting the USA and then try to re-enter without the benefit of your passport. You too will be undocumented and will demonstrate to the rest of us your solidarity with the poor, marginalized and oppressed.
Thanks for a great essay.
I think the real solution to the immigration “problem” is to fix the countries from which the migrants are emigrating. I find it odd that very few ask the question: why would someone leave his own culture, make an often dangerous and expensive journey only to land in an alien place and people?
We’re “fixing” Iran right now.
Just like we fixed Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Vietnam…
Prepare for something worse and more appeals to accept more refugees.
The US already has lots of Iranian refugees going back decades. They’re great people, the ones I’m familiar with love America, & are assets to our communities. More Iranians wouldn’t be a bad thing at all but our hope should be that Iran’s people have a better life there minus the current regime.
They might be great people, but when Muslim mayors are telling citizens they aren’t “welcome here” and there are attempts to erect Sharia law enclaves here, we need to shut down all immigration. You think the people who are forced out of Iran as opposed to those that left voluntarily are going to be so thrilled with us?
You should post under the synonym “Polly Anna”.
Many Iranians see Islam as something having been forced upon them and they are more secular in their culture.
I have concerns. We’ve been down this road before. Lots of initial optimism, but rarely, do things end well.
How about arresting and perp walking the CEO’s of the companies who hire illegal aliens. I understand that some of them have worked at Mar a Lago and other resorts.
You mean the Epstein class. Never going to happen.
You are right. It won’t happen. Some companies are dependent on illegal immigrant labor.
It allows them to pay low wages with no benefits. We have tolerated this for too long.
Could you please share what the Epstein class is? Thank you.
Isn’t it ironic how our bishops can speak out so eloquently and collectively about politics but when it comes to the Church’s teaching on contraception, fornication and homosexuality, they lose their speaking voices. I can only conclude that speaking out on politics is far less risky.
It’s ironic certainly, but also quite sad. The bishops don’t see that their commitment to progressive ideology has effectively undermined their moral and spiritual authority. I’m not sure that anyone listens to anything they have to say at this point. I’ll start listening more carefully when they denounce homosexuality in their ranks as strongly as they lecture us about immigration.
“how our bishops can speak out so eloquently and collectively about politics”.
Most people do, and do so with surety because they are naive and uniformed. Here’s an example.
A few years back, an acquaintance was telling me how much they admired former PA Governor Wolf because (with a lot of fanfare designed to elicit admiration from political rubes) he declined residency in the Governor’s mansion and traversed I-83 from his home in York PA in his Jeep-because his bookish, geeky persona needed something manly, so he drove a Jeep.
I said “so you think this is good?” and got some idiocy about passing on a perk of the job. I responded by informing this poor rube that the governor’s “mansion” wasn’t some lavish benefit, it’s to ensure that the Commonwealth’s (PA is a commonwealth) chief executive is at the seat of power in the event of major crisis-Wolf wasn’t disclaiming some lavish excess, he was absenting himself from the required location of his employment and was in fact derelict in the performance of his duties. It’s not a 9-5 job, you’re on call 24/7/365.
Of course the necessity of gubernatorial physical proximity is far less obvious in an age when everybody has a mobile device on their person, but in the event of an infrastructure destroying crisis, such as military attack or a Tunguska event, that will remind us how that connectedness is fragile and not guaranteed-we’ll be abruptly reminded of “location, location, location”.
The guy had never considered this and realized only weakly his own ignorance made him vulnerable to propagandistic manipulation-but still thought Wolf’s heart was in the right place.
Add to this the typical Bishop has lived his entire adult in an eleemosynary way, with little participation in government or paying taxes and with no accountability save pleasing his colleagues in the echo chamber bureaucracy of the USSCB. In other words, they live in the land of make believe.
The Good Samaritan parable does not teach us to love any and all foreigners as our neighbors. It teaches us to love those foreigners who show mercy as our neighbors. And the welcome due to strangers in the Old Testament was conditional upon their respect for the God of Israel and his Law. Open idolatry would get you torn limb from limb. So much for welcoming the stranger. Do our bishops understand any of this? I suspect not.