Skip to main content

A Word On Sanctuary Cities And Immigration

It is profoundly immoral for the government of the United States to deport anyone whose only crime is crossing the United States border illegally. Ostensibly in defense of families harmed by people who crossed the border illegally to commit violent crimes, the Trump administration has initiated crackdowns against illegals residing in the United States.

It is my firm belief that orthodox Catholics of a conservative political persuasion here in the United States have accepted this grave violation of human dignity, because the prospect of a Democrat, and their hostility to human life in the womb, blinds these voters to the moral problem presented by Trump's immigration policies.

There may be an elected progressive somewhere who would aid an illegal immigrant who had also committed violent crime, and I do not support the use of sanctuary cities for that purpose. Yet for the misdemeanor of crossing the US border looking for a better life, I would stand with an immigrant and defy the federal authorities, because ICE is currently under orders in that respect which violate the natural law, and the natural rights of human beings. If ICE returns to a more humane focus of arresting and deporting violent felons, there would be no reason to defy them. Crossing the border illegally as such is morally on the order of a traffic ticket, in my opinion. Most high profile cases of murderous immigrant trespassers have as the salient fact that they are also killers, not simply that they cross the border illegally. It is not that those of us who dare to question the "holy" Trump administration believe that the nation should not be governed by laws; rather, I believe in this case that the administration's erstwhile defenders simply lack proportion in justice.

We do not have to choose between the good of outsiders, and the good of ourselves. We are however invited to consider that those outsiders and neighbors are themselves people made in the image of God, even when such people tragically choose the path of crime and violence. I do continually ask myself in my thoughts how much of the anxiety about immigrants is due to the skin color of those who cross the border. The president did not refer to any of the Scandinavian countries as "shitholes," to borrow the notable vulgarity. There is no anxiety about bands of white Canadians crossing the northern border. There is plenty of anxiety about the fact that 40% of the US population will allegedly be nonwhite Hispanic by 2050. You'll have to pardon me on this one; I'm just "telling it like it is." And I'll leave you with this: Is America based upon a set of ideals, or an acceptable set of racial categories?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...