How about “objectively disordered”?
Lawrence Downes, who recently wrote a comment-catching “Editorial Observer” column about the return of the Old Rite, is back with a column in today’s New York Times titled “What Part of ‘Illegal’ Don’t You Understand?”. Amid the freeway pile-up of commentary about immigration reform, I found this an eloquent appeal for a return to first principles, and to human dignity–and a reminder of the power of language to wound people. Indeed, the piece resonates with a Catholic ethos:
“Since the word ["illegal"] modifies not the crime but the whole person,” Downes writes, “it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.”
It should also be noted that Pat Zapor of Catholic News Service (which is serially under-appreciated, and under-funded) had a similarly-themed story back in March. Zapor noted how the term “illegal” as regards immigrants is a recent coinage, and her lede says it all:
“WASHINGTON (CNS) — Here’s a little-understood fact about immigration law: Until well into the 20th century, pretty much anyone who showed up at a port of entry or walked across a border got to stay in the United States.”
Truly astounding is the ability willing or unwilling of human beings to deceive themselves. When condemning illegal immigrants Catholics presume that their parents or grandparents and further were “legal” immigrants. The fact is so many were illegal and still are.
Certainly, we have to leave the judgment to God but it is quite difficult to agree that anyone is “of God” who denys our brother and sister immigrants.
The sad truth is anyone who defends illegal immigrants seems to be in the minority and one has to really be crafty in explaining one’s viewpoint without getting a barrage of indignation. I have no doubt that many condoned the holocaust with the same reasoning.
You migh say how can we compare this to
the holocaust? Both categories come under wo/man’s inhumanity to wo/man. Matt: 25: 35-46 is always the key.
Bill refers to parents and grandparents. Working in the other direction, perhaps one reason Congress finds it conscionable to continue denying legal status to people brought here as children and infants through no fault of their own is the dehumanizing effect of that “illegal” label. I guess it turns these young people into something like a form of contraband. You hear truly heartbreaking stories of kids who are totally American linguistically and culturally, educated in our public schools, yet denied access to all but the most menial forms of employment.
Taking away the dreams of young people because their parents crossed a border when they were babies – grossly unjust is the kindest way I can put it.
Paul – originalfaith.com
Bill Mazella:
1) Whether or not one’s parents or grandparents violated U.S. immigration laws is irrelevant to the question of what should be done about present violators, other than that it allows you to play your hypocrite card. In addition, you yourself have no way of determining that my parents or grandparents came here in violation of our immigration laws. I happen to know that they followed the law.
2) You said, “”…it is quite difficult to agree that anyone is “of God” who [denys] our brother and sister immigrants.”" Denies them what? If you are unhappy about our immigration laws, you have a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress; what’s the problem?
3) Bill, comparing people who oppose the violation of our immigration laws to those who deny the holocaust does not become you; I believe you are better than that, in fact, I know you are, so I’ll let that pass as unintentional hyperbolic rhetoric.
Paul Maurice Martin :
1) It is the parents of the illegal immigrant children who are responsible for the predicament. The parents freely chose to violate our laws by coming here in violation of said laws and bringing their children. It is therefore the responsibility of the parents to resolve this issue. How would they do that? I don’t know, but I’m sure there are competent immigration lawyers who do.
2) You said, “Taking away the dreams of young people because their parents crossed a border when they were babies – grossly unjust is the kindest way I can put it.”
I agree. The parents were grossly unjust in bringing them here, thusly creating a cruel dilemma for them. I suggest you direct your anger towards the parents. And, again, if you are unhappy with our immigration laws, your Democrat majority ought to be able to change them.
I know this is probably not aprapos, but I have a very hard dealing with the term “illegal immigrant”. I believe that God made the world for all men, and, at the very least, each man has the right to have a means of sustenance for himself and his family. If he lives in a country where either through oppression or whatever he can’t care for or feed his family or worship his God, he has the right to emigrate. I have a very difficult time calling these people illegal. Their part of the society of man. Were we not all illegal when we took the land from the original inhabitants. Were we not all illegal when we extended ourselves into Mexico. I know its very difficult to run a country as such, but God did not make boundaries, man did, and if Jesus were practical, he wouldn’t have gotten himself crucified. I find calling the man illegal, who is picking our crops and and working in our meat packing plants so that he can send money back to his family, very difficult. I guess we’d rather let the crops rot in the field so that we can feel secure and andpreserve our somewhat pharasaical laws.
Amen, andrew -we’re working hard to create an Inspector Javert society where the “law is not mocked.”
I think this became an issue the Republicans thought they could manipulate to advantage for their by the book friends.
The hiss in the word amnesty tells you how they indeed did manipilate an ykind of baanced discussion.
The corruption of Christianity is evident when we call our brothers and sisters illegal. It is not a matter of law but of the Spirit. Ted Turner made a rule that no one in his company, especially on Cnn, was allowed to call anyone “foreigner.” How he puts so many Christians to shame.
We have too many Christians who are whitened sepulchers, white outside but full of dead bones inside.
So Bill, I’ll repeat my question: If you believe that our immigration laws are unjust, what is preventing you from inducing your Democrat allies in Congress to change those laws?
And it doesn’t make sense to me that opposing the violation of our immigration laws magically transforms one into a whitened sepulcher. That is not a logical position, and I believe that Christ would take exception to it. Because He is the author of reason as well as love, He can reconcile all things civil as well as spiritual; it is up to us to seek out and implement that Divine Reconciliation with the tools at hand which, in the present case, is our system of government. It does not help us to retreat into vague admonitions; there are hard realities that need repair. And in the meantime, can we please have a secure border?
Andrew Savarese (or anyone else):
I agree that everyone has the right to emigrate from any country they are in if that country cannot provide for them what they need … but does that same person then have the same right to immigrate to whichever country he wishes to enter? Even if he does so by violating the laws of that country? It is one thing to force someone to stay where they do not wish to be–that was what the Berlin Wall did. It is another thing entirely to try to control who comes into your country–that is what US border policy is trying to do. Remember: if I prevent you from leaving a house when you wish to do so, that is kidnapping–but if you force your way or sneak your way into my house against my will, that is illegal trespass or even breaking and entering. The vast majority of Americans want illegal immigration brought under control; only the farm and factory owners and others who wish to exploit cheap labor want illegal immigration to continue. As a society, we do not need the illegal immigrant labor–news reports indicate that some of the California agricultural counties with the highest levels of illegal immigration also have high levels of unemployment … the problem is not simply that Americans won’t take these jobs; the problem is that the current system allows them to refuse these jobs while still collecting various government benefits. The only rational immigration policy for the United States is one that actually meets the needs of the United States, of American society as a whole and not simply one that meets the needs or desires of the illegal immigrants (which is what we have now with our broken system and its unenforced laws). It is outright insanity that we must debate this at all, and a symbol of the grave threat posed to our nation.
Dear David,
“Objectively disordered” describes any sin that can never be not a sin. E.g. Killing in self defense is not sin, ergo killing is not objectively disordered.
It should not and is not used by Catholics to describe people.
Your analogy doesn’t hold.
Dear JC (is that for Jesus Christ by chance?):
I was being too cute by half in the title, in that I also meant to spoof our own predilection for taking most every thread down the “gay road.”
Still, I think the analogy holds, if not in the abstract world of Logic 101, certainly in the real world of human interaction. The Church says homosexuality, and homosexual acts, are objectively disordered. But that is a distinction without a difference. The locution effectively tars homosexuals with a label about their very being, just as the phrase “illegal immigrant” does.
Agree? Disagree?
Frist, the CCC says homosexual acts are intrisically disordered, not homosexuals. (Sec. 2353) No one should use it to describe persons. And, I have never heard anyone use it to describe persons, except by those who oppose the church’s teaching and wish to make the church’s teaching appear hateful.
Second, homosexuality, like race, is a social construct. It is not a description of anyone’s “very being.” Ergo, the description of homosexual acts as intrisically disordered does not describe anyone’s “very being.”
So, how do we go forward with this in a pastoral way? We should be able to ally with the liberals, who brought to our attention the constructed nature of social interacations, to see that no person is defined at their “very being” by something that is sinful. Rather, we are all children of God.
We all define ourselves by our choices. If we choose to violate the immigration laws of another nation we choose to commit illegal acts. (I need not add that the majority of those who enter our country illegally also commit Social Security fraud, either by stealing someone else’s SS number – called Identity Theft – or by using a fraudulent card).
Attempting to silence opponents of illegal immigration by using the “racist” ploy is offensive; I believe that the vast majority of Commonweal bloggers are better then that.
A couple of comments on this very depressing thread.
There has been no mention the the real people you are talking about as “illegals” are in the largest part Mexicans. I read somewhere where the government has created more immigration laws in the past year than the previous Century. That says something doesn’t it.
Isn’t it about time America realized that the situation with respect to Mexico is special and needs special laws to deal with, one that recognizes Mexican labour in a special way, something akin to cross-state border labour.
And JC if you self identify as a heterosexual is that just a social construct too? Is male-female sex just then a social construct? Something defined okay by us because we are in the majority but not by male-male or female-female because they are not in the majority. Assuming that too is a social construct are you not falling into the trap of relativism. You seem to guzzy up your thinking with we all children of God but we all have personal identities because we are free thinking beings. Somehow, something is missing or I see a double standard something like my social construct is okay but yours isn’t. Race, nationality, gender, sexuality are are social constructs but they are very real differences. Somehow you make them into abstractions, things of the mind. The world God created is very messy and that’s no social construct. Live it; recognize it; it is part of your being!
Robert, You make some legitimate points.
As far as our immigration laws go, sad to say, you are dealing with a congress that is paralyzed by partisan politics, and doesn’t do what is right for anybody unless it happens to aid them to get re-elected, or help their party. As far a the large farmers go they’re solving their problem by planting crops in this country can be picked mechanicly and are subsidized. They’ve bought farm land in Mexico for the hand picked crops and are paying even less money to get them picked; with the result that we are now importing more food with everytrhing else. As far do we need immigration? This country was built on immigration- legal, Ilegal, and any other way. Look at the countries that have no immigration, They also have popualtion problems. I also think that we have to be a little more futuristic. We live in a global world. We have a global economy. We have the European Union. We see an Asian union coming. Not in my life time because I’m old, but in the next few generation or centuries I could forsee a global society, and people immigrate freely to where opportunity is.
I think your analogy about breaking into your house limps a little bit. You built your house for yourself. God created the world for all men.
Dear jborst,
Let me explain futher. Of course, heterosexuality is a social construct too. But, sexual attraction is real.
My point, put another way, is simply that no one should be defined, labeled or categorized by their sexual attractions because our real identity is found in the fact that we are all children of God and, those of us Christian, are disciples of Christ. These are our real identies. These are the identies we should embrace, advertise, discuss, etc.
Is that clearer?
JC,
Do you not have an abstract concept of idea “real identities”?
Is not the concept of “children of God” a social construct? Not all people believe in a God. Is it not a social construct.
I am glad you admit that sexual attraction is real. That means my body is real. That means when I am attracted to another’s body whether male or female that too is real. Does that then not make the name we give to a male’s attraction to female and vise-versa real and is that word not heterosexuality.
Thus if that is so that realness of attraction we call homosexuality must also be real.
The fact that I am black, white, brown, in colour is real. The word we have as a color may be an abstraction or social construct but the reality of my difference in colour exists. and so on.
To deny homosexuality as a social construct does a disservice to the dignity of the real person made in the image of Christ. Homosexuality is part and parcel of such a persons being a child of God. In my view you have it the other way around.
I hope that is a clear view of why we are miles apart and likely never to agree.
John Borst
Today’s 2nd reading seemed pertinent:
1Jn 3:1 “See what love the Father has bestowed on us that we may be called the children of God.” The love of the Father is real.
I’m not really sure what your view of this question is because we seem to have discussed my view mainly.
It seems you think that the object of one’s sexual attraction is the major definition of a person’s identity. What if a person is attracted, in part, to both sexes? Has crushes on people of either sex?