In this section of my blog I will answer the many heresies regarding immigration. My main argument will precede the objections. A reply will follow each objection. The objections themselves are taken from social media, in which I have answered many of these myself. But now it is time for a more systematic way of dealing with heresy.

It is important for people to understand that truth is on the side of illegal immigrants. All the objections are either difficulties or sophistries.

Last note, this section is under construction. If the objections below do not have a reply, do not make the mistake of thinking there can be no reply. I happen to be a very busy person, full time teacher, student, engaged in a variety of other activities, one of which is to oppose heresy. Lastly, more objections may be added, and these may be edited for clarity and to take away any expletive.

Whether immigrating illegally is immoral

Whether deporting illegals is immoral

What a fair immigration policy is.

Whether immigrating illegally is immoral

Whether deporting illegals is immoral

Whether it is morally permissible for the United States to deport 12 million illegal immigrants

It is immoral for any country to deport 12 million people, if it can absorb them into its economy, and if they pose no security threat. And this is the situation of the United States.

The first proof comes from the gospel message. Christ loves the poor to such a degree that he is in them, to the effect that whatever you do to the poor you do to our Lord. And according to this we will be judged when he comes again. This much is clear from gospel parables. But illegal immigrants are poor people searching for a better life. Therefore, deportation not only means deporting Christ, but also condemning ourselves on judgment day. From this, it can also be concluded that Catholics who support this are not in communion with Christ or his Church, and that this position is heretical.

The second proof comes from reason. It is always immoral to hurt people, who happen to be in need, without good reason. But, that people broke a human law is not sufficient reason for hostility, or to take offense, or for removal. For, the well-being of a person is greater than the need to fulfill a law made by man.

Obj.: How many homeless strangers do you shelter in your home?

Reply: It is not necessary, and many times not wise, to publicize one's deeds. However, one must do the good that one can do. The United States is able to forgive this transgression, and therefore it should.

Furthermore, many factors contribute to how evil a sin is. These include the relative ease of making the right choice and the gravity of the matter. But the United States is able to forgive this transgression and allow illegal immigrants to stay. And the matter of this act is the treatment of the poor. Therefore, mass deportation is a sin and a crime.

Obj: Sanctuary cities should not receive support from the bishops, because the Church does not support the violation of legitimate laws.

Furthermore, it is wrong for the bishops to promote disobedience of the nation's law.

Reply: On the contrary, an immoral law is not a law, whether it is legitimate or not, and there is no obligation to anybody, except the one that could come with coercion. The Church teaches this. Also, according to reason, since reason is itself the maker of human law, every human law must be reasonable when it is followed. But immorality is contrary to reason, and harming those in need when it is not necessary is immoral. Therefore, no just authority or private citizen ought to cooperate with deportation forces, and bishops are most certainly compelled by Christ to support the former.

Furthermore, promoting sanctuary places may be morally wrong according a certain ideology, but not according to reason, as has been proven, nor according to the faith that was handed down to us.

Obj.: It is a valid law that a country has a right to secure its borders, otherwise it is not a country. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with mass deportation.

Reply: Securing the border of a country and deporting people do not necessarily follow upon each other. The morality of securing the border comes from the responsibility to protect communities from security threats. But this end is not served by deporting people who have shown to not be a threat, but only people guilty of criminal acts (e.g. murder, rape, violence).

Finally, a country does not fail to be a country because its borders aren't well secured. However, it can be said that the government has failed in sufficiently protecting the country.

Obj.: I disagree with the Council of Bishops [who are protecting illegal immigrants] on this issue. Its one thing to be caring and compassionate to those who need us, but you can do that and still obey our laws. Therefore, sanctuary cities should be destroyed.

Reply: If a law does not offer compassion, then you cannot be compassionate and at the same time cooperate with that law.

Obj.: It is not unjust to expect immigrants to come here by legal means. The bishops are being unjust to all those who came here legally.

Reply: Expecting immigrants to come legally is not in itself unjust. But it can be made unjust by accompanying circumstances. For instance, if the country of destination has a vibrant and does not allow those in most need to immigrate, then it is unjust and unreasonable to expect the latter to use legal means only.

Obj.: God's law allows control and management of immigration to protect the citizens of that sovereign nation. Please don't twist it into a limitless philanthropy.

Reply: A country does have the right to regulate immigration. But this does not imply that a country can do whatever it wishes on immigration. So, in the same manner that an individual's freedom is limited by morality and reason, a country's freedom is also thusly limited. Now, regulating immigration has two main purposes. One of them is to protect a people economically and from security threats. So, while this part does allow a limiting of immigration, it is clear that if a country can absorb a number of low-skilled immigrants, it must receive them, and it has no moral right to refuse. This much is sufficient to defeat the first proposition.

The other moral purpose of immigration is to help as many foreigners as possible. While, realistically, it is not possible to help everybody, one should be open to that ideal. This is sufficient to defeat the second proposition regarding limitless philanthropy. It also clearly violates the Lord commandments, unless by that phrase what is meant is to give money irresponsibly, which is not at all included in the accepting of immigrants.

Obj.: Tell that to the family of Kate Steinle.

Reply: Citing one or more cases of criminal activity by an illegal immigrant does not prove that deportation of non-criminals is justified. It only proves that all illegal immigrants with a criminal record should be deported or imprisoned.

Furthermore, it may be understandable for the families of victims to fall into unfair generalizations, and to try to justify an injustice. This is because the emotional impact weakens a person's will and reason. But when others fall into this error, there is no excuse and it is deplorable. 

Obj.: The biggest crime illegals commit is identity theft. If I stole someone's social security number to get a job I'd be prosecuted but they hardly ever are.

Reply: All crimes need to be prosecuted, but this needs to be done fairly.

There is a big difference between an illegal who steals documentation to get work, and a someone residing legally who does the same. The latter has the legal right to work, and therefore there are no mitigating circumstances (as far as we know). The former does not have the legal right to work, but needs to do so in order to live, and therefore there are mitigating circumstances.

Punishments should be given accordingly, one harsher than the other. Fairness also leads us to conclude 1) that identity theft by illegals is a necessary consequence of an unfair immigration policy, and 2) that mitigating circumstance generally render a wrongdoing "understandable" (understandable being defined as, something most people would do if they were under those circumstances).

Obj.: A country has a right to its sovreignty.... Bishops need to be Pastoral, not Political

Reply: Sovereignty is a country's right to govern itself, it can also mean the ability of country to do just that. Therefore, sovereignty is the freedom of a country. But human freedom is such that while man may have the physical or political ability to do as he wishes, he does not have the moral permission to do so, but only what is good. So, while the country has sovereignty and the political right to remove illegal immigrants, and even legal immigrants, it doesn't always has the moral right to do so.

This limitation on human freedom is predicated of both individuals and collectives. But heretics on the conservative side seem to acknowledge only the former in some issues, like abortion and gay marriage.

Obj.: Since when does the Church involve itself in internal national matters like how the federal governments of countries distribute their tax revenues among states or provinces?

Reply: The Church is obligated to preach the gospel and the teachings of Christ. Part of this has a moral nature. So, when politics intersect morals, the Church will speak out on affairs that relate to national and also international politics. If distributing tax revenues among states or provinces acquired for some reason a moral quality, then the Church would be obligated to speak on this issue.

Obj.: We have laws here. Maybe the bishops [i.e. people protecting illegal immigrants] should read more on the doctors of the Church. St Thomas for example.

Reply: St. Thomas Aquinas, after whom this undertaking is modeled, never justified mass deportation, nor any injustice against illegal immigrants, as far as we can tell from his writings. From his life, we can tell that he was extremely humble and obedient to the Church. He was a loving man without malice in his heart. It is unlikely he would side with those who can't seem to forgive a foreigner's minor transgression.

However, the Summa Theologiae, First Part of the Second Part, Q. 105 Art. 3, is often cited to use the Angelic Doctor to prove the catholicity of deportation and other punitive acts against illegals. But this article in no way confirms such crimes. The article states that the Law of the Old Testament made suitable precepts regarding peaceful relations with foreigners, because 1) when foreigners passed through a land or came to reside in it, they were not to be molested, and 2) when they sought citizenship, it was not necessarily given or given immediately.

The text proves the contrary, for since foreigners are not to be molested, they should not be burdened with unfair immigration policies that forbid their entrance. Scripture does state that the foreigner should not be burdened, and also that Israelites should remember that they were once foreigners. So, Scripture invites all Americans, of Italian descent, Irish descent, and others, to remember that they were once foreigners. And while they came here legally, it could've easily been decided that immigration of low-skilled workers should be halted.


Obj.: It is illegal to harbor illegal aliens. They need to begin the process to be here legally and if they choose not to do that, they need to leave the country. They should not be deported if the process has been started. This "politically correct" [...] is infiltrating everything including the churches and it should not be allowed.

Obj.: If there is uncontrolled illegal immigration, we will cease to a what we are now. I have a right to say that I don't want hoardes of illegals coming here, as well as people that cannot love our country. We don't need that.

What a fair immigration policy is.