- This topic has 1 reply, 3 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Mexican cardinal calls fence along U.S.-Mexican border shortsighted
” title=”Neutral” />
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News ServiceVATICAN CITY (CNS) — Building a fence along the U.S.-Mexican border is a shortsighted move that may hurt the U.S. economy and shows a serious lack of respect for the dignity of Mexican workers, said a Vatican official.
“This wall, together with the fact that this border is patrolled by thousands of armed men ready to shoot on sight those who try to cross it, certainly is not respectful of the dignity of the human person,” said Mexican Cardinal Javier Lozano Barragan.
The cardinal, president of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry, spoke about the fence in an Oct. 29 interview with Avvenire, the Italian Catholic daily newspaper.
President George W. Bush signed a bill Oct. 26 authorizing construction of the fence along a total of 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexican border.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire the bill’s passage and signing were a sign of a “lack of intelligence” in U.S. efforts to find solutions to its border problems as well as a lack of political courage to take a moral stand just before the November elections.
He said the fence is unlikely to stop illegal entry into the United States, but is likely to lead people “to try to cross the border in increasingly risky ways or by putting themselves into the hands of unscrupulous traffickers.”
In addition, the cardinal said, “from an economic point of view, it does not seem to me to be a very farsighted choice.”
The millions of dollars that Mexicans working in the United States send home to their families is essential for their survival and for the Mexican economy, he said.
And if they can afford to send so much home, “how much greater is the profit earned by their bosses” in the United States? the cardinal asked.
“Does it make sense for the United States to kill this goose that lays golden eggs, which objectively is what the phenomenon of immigration is doing?” he asked.
Cardinal Lozano told Avvenire that Pope Benedict XVI had spoken on other occasions about the need to build bridges, not walls.
Walls and fences, he said, are not the solution, “not along the border between Mexico and the United States, not in the Holy Land, not anywhere. Let us hope that they meet the same end as the Berlin Wall did.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/storie … 606169.htm
It is shortsighted, in the sense that it’s about a third as long a fence as it needs to be (and no funds have actually been allocated for its construction).
If the United States need more immigrant labor from an economic perspective, or want to help Mexicans from a humanitarian perspective, then those are the debates we should be having. Whether or not to look the other way at continuous and flagrant lawbreaking is another.
Right now, those who come here are self-selecting lawbreakers. The scrupulous ones stay home and are poor, while those who are willing to take advantage of others get the benefits.
We end up with a population in the US that has no respect for the law, and no respect for the government, who have their noses out of joint about being second-class “citizens” and (in most cases) having to sneak around and keep a low profile. Increase the quota for legal immigration if necessary, but the current situation is untenable.
If the Mexicans and their government put the same energy into building Mexico’s economy as they do into sneaking people across the Rio Grande, everybody would be better off.
And the Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN. There’s an enormous difference between walls to keep people in and walls to keep people out.
[color=darkred:3jznhzj6]I’m all for correcting the problems that encompass the US, but it’s the approach, expression, and way it’s being done that is not only unproductive but pisses off Mexicans and the world in general.
Paint a certain group a certain way (which is mostly all negative) and watch what happens. Haven’t we learned our lesson? I guess not.[/color:3jznhzj6]
Please, what about [i:2pymy3g0]their[/i:2pymy3g0] appreach? Breaking the law, demand rights they don’t have, acting put upon when they’re denied, and they have no desire to become part of our culture, they only want to push it out in favor of their own.
Nationwide walkouts, trying (and failing, btw) to shut down the country? Thanks a bunch! When there are thousands of them jamming the streets in Lincoln, Nebraska, you know something’s wrong. Statements on Spanish language radio like “Los Angeles is ours” exemplify their take on the situation.
Why is nobody worried about (pardon my phrase, but I’d like to flip your point around) pissing us off?
[quote:2nwb2jqt]Please, what about [i:2nwb2jqt]their[/i:2nwb2jqt] appreach? Breaking the law, demand rights they don’t have, acting put upon when they’re denied, and they have no desire to become part of our culture, they only want to push it out in favor of their own.
Nationwide walkouts, trying (and failing, btw) to shut down the country? Thanks a bunch! When there are thousands of them jamming the streets in Lincoln, Nebraska, you know something’s wrong. Statements on Spanish language radio like “Los Angeles is ours” exemplify their take on the situation.
Why is nobody worried about (pardon my phrase, but I’d like to flip your point around) pissing us off?[/quote:2nwb2jqt]
[color=darkred:2nwb2jqt]I didn’t say you shouldn’t or that it wasn’t justified. It certainly is. All I’m saying is that you don’t fight fire with fire. Both sides are angry and both sides are unwilling to understand the otherside.
You may not think they have nothing to be upset about but you would be wrong in your assesment. Whether you find their emotions justified or not is irrelavent to the fact they are and calling them lawbreakers and a laundry list of other things is not going to help the situation.
Do you want to fix the situation or do you just want to kick them out?
I hope you see the difference.[/color:2nwb2jqt]
Sorry, y’all, I was incommunicado for a few days.
[quote:34zs4d0j]
You may not think they have nothing to be upset about but you would be wrong in your assesment.[/quote:34zs4d0j]Okay, what are they upset about? I honestly don’t know, except that they’re demanding government cheese from a government other than their own.
[quote:34zs4d0j]Whether you find their emotions justified or not is irrelavent to the fact they are and calling them lawbreakers and a laundry list of other things is not going to help the situation.[/quote:34zs4d0j]
The ones who are here illegaly are, by definition, lawbreakers. Pretending they’re not isn’t going to make anything better. That’s a description, not a name. I didn’t call them any names or falsely accuse them of anything. Their walkout [i:34zs4d0j]was[/i:34zs4d0j] an attempt to shut down the country; that’s what they said it was.
[quote:34zs4d0j]Do you want to fix the situation or do you just want to kick them out?
I hope you see the difference.[/quote:34zs4d0j]
Kicking out the lawbreakers is definitely part of the solution. Granting amnesty again for everyone who’s broken the law will, once again, encourage more of it. That’s why we’re in this mess.
Again, I’m not saying we don’t need and/or want immigrants in this country. But it is imperative for a multitude of reasons that we get control of the border. A debate on immigration is a completely different question from a debate on [i:34zs4d0j]illegal[/i:34zs4d0j] immegration.
I’m going to stray from this topic for a bit, but more towards the direction of the site as a whole: this is one of the things that would make me nervous about Catholicism. If a higher-up (or, come to think of it, anybody) in the Church says something goofy, like the Cardinal comparing US border security to the Berlin Wall in the original post by weather, am I allowed to think, say, or act as though it’s goofy, or do I have to go along with it? What if it’s the Pope?
” title=”Neutral” />
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.