The View From 1776

Immigrants: Personal Morality, not Welfare State Social Justice

If we feel compassion for someone, does that entitle him to break the law?

Much very confused thinking has poured forth in response to Congress’s finally trying to come to grips with the illegal immigration problem. 

Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Catholic Church in Los Angeles has reportedly urged his church members to break the law should Congress enact measures to stop illegals.  This, of course, is the mode of ‘thinking’ supporting liberals’ judicial activism, not to mention the Parisian college students rioting in the name of social justice: not the law enacted by representatives of the people, but what the liberal-socialists think ought to be the law.

For others, it’s an application of John Dewey’s amoral, atheistic doctrine of pragmatism: do whatever works for you, if you can get away with it.  Support and hire illegals because you want cheap labor.

The social justice argument for letting illegals flood the country is a variant of the socialistic objective of income redistribution.  Freedom, say the liberals, can exist only when everyone has nearly equal income and everyone has unlimited free access to all of society’s goods and services. 

As Alain asks below, why stop with the illegals? The socialist ideal always has been a world government such as the UN, so why not share our wealth equally with all of Mexico? 

Let’s not forget that Jesus, when asked about the hated taxes imposed by the Roman Empire, replied, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” (Matthem 22:21).  Respect for the law is essential to everyone’s well-being.  Flouting the law is an injury to the whole of society.

It’s one thing to give water and medical aid to an illegal who is near death crossing the desert to enter the United States illegally, but quite another to support his breaking the law.

Alain deals with this issue in the following post:

Alain’s Response to Jackie T. about illegal immigration

Posted: March 27 2006

This is my response that I wrote to a woman named Jackie T. Here is the letter she wrote to me:
?(RE: Socialists attack Minuteman Protestor in Chicago)

Dear Alain,

I am a Republican, but I am also a Christian, and after reading the hateful, un-Christianlike article about illegal immigrants, I do not want to receive any Email from you. I suggest you read the 25th Chapter of Matthew in the Bible and rethink your attitude toward the poor Mexicans who only came here to feed their starving families. Jesus would not smile down upon the Minutemen. You are on the wrong moral side of this!

?Jackie T.


Dear Jackie T.,

I have removed you, and am sorry to see you leave my newsletter. I do want to say though, there is nothing hateful about wanting to uphold the law, nor was there anything hateful being done by the Minuteman who was attacked - he had just arrived and gotten out of his car to peacefully protest against the bank giving home owners loans to people who are here in America illegally. Though the people who assaulted him I would say were hateful, and I make this assumption based on their actions of physically assaulting him.

Just wondering, where would you personally draw the line?

Would you welcome with open arms the entire population of Mexico, all the countries of Latin America, all the countries of South America, not to mention the other parts of the globe. How about the entire population of Sudan, Nigeria or other poor African nations? Can they ALL come over here and walk across our borders since they are poor and want a better life?

Where would you personally draw the line?

We already have more than the entire population of many countries here illegally; that is they came into our country against the law and do not have citizenship.

I am not even asking you to consider the criminals, the gangs, the drug runners or any of that ilk right now, just the normal every day working people.

There is nothing wrong with people wanting to move to America. My ancestors did. The difference is they followed the rules. They came here legally.

If we do not draw a line some where, we are not a sovereign nation. If we say it is ok for the current 20 million or so to be here, and the thousands more who cross our borders illegally daily, then we must simply get rid of all immigration laws and have totally free and open borders. Then any one who feels like it can just walk in and claim American citizenship on a whim.

You can not say “leave these illegal’s alone, they are just poor people wanting to make a living”, but then tell others they can not come in. The rules (Read that as the LAW) must be applied evenly and equally to everyone.

There must be a line some where.

Right now, we have a line. Our government has rules and regulations in place that people can follow, they can go through the process, and become American citizens with all that entails.

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, and myself personally, support those who follow the rules. We also believe that the line, the LAW, needs to be enforced.

Otherwise we must simply throw up our hands and say, “Well we gave it a shot, but America simply does not exist anymore.” One of the founding principles, one of the things that has made America stand out against the weird tapestry of our globe, is that we are supposed to be a nation of laws. If our laws no longer have any meaning, then neither does the once great country called the United states of America.

I will stand with law and order, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

As for Matthew 25, I assume you are talking about Matthew 25:31-46. All Christians should do their best to help feed and cloth the poor. You must understand though, this is the individual Christians job, not the nations. It is the individual Christian who will be standing in judgment before our Lord, not our nation. I myself work weekly helping people in need, and I give more than my tithe to the church to food pantries on a regular basis. These are my individual works.

Matthew 25:31-46 does not apply to the nation, but it does apply to me.

That is my opinion.