Bishops urge: show false, idiotic compassion to illegal aliens

Dear Archbishop Michael Sheehan of the New Mexico archdiocese:

I read that you want us to show "compassion" to "immigrants". In fact, you say: "We don't condone illegal entry, but when someone is here, we try to take care of them."

Let me try to put this in a way that you might understand. (Regular readers are invited to skip this post since you already know this, but the archbishop probably doesn't.)

Let's say you set up an ice cream stand in Afghanistan, and you gave out free ice cream to anyone who shows up. (Afghanis love ice cream!) There's just one catch: your stand is surrounded by a mine field.

Most of the people who come for the free ice cream make it, but a certain percentage don't.

Obviously, you don't want people to be blown up. But, at the same time, you're smarter than Archbishop Michael Sheehan, so you realize that you can't just build giant bridges over all the mine fields, because everyone in Afghanistan would come for the free ice cream.

Hmmmmm.... That's a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it?

Hey! Here's an idea! Let's say you stopped giving out the free ice cream. That way, no one would get blown up trying to cross the mine field. If anyone does make it through, you send them back without free ice cream, and you make sure they tell their friends. That way, fewer and fewer will get blown up.

If you're thinking compassionately, that is your only option. Every other option might sound compassionate, but it isn't. In fact, it's easy to question whether someone is really compassionate if they support anything else. If anyone tries to claim there is some other option, then they're literally living in a fantasy world.

Plus, that will encourage the Afghanis to build up their own ice cream manufacturing infrastructure, even if they need to replace their current corrupt political system to do that.

So, Archbishop Michael Sheehan, do you want to be truly compassionate, or do you want to just look like you're being compassionate?


I'm not opposed to feeding illegal aliens, I just want them to be fed either while waiting to be deported or while being monitored pending their day in court.

That way, no one starves, and fewer people try to come here illegally.

If you want to prevent deaths by border crossers, enforcing our immigration laws is the only way.

If you just want to look like you're compassionate, choose the Mahoney/Sheehan/Amy Sullivan ( approach.

So the Archbishop is Christian. To that we can all agree. The point of view being expressed in this post is broadly speaking utilitarian. The idea is that if we do not show direct compassion to illegal immigrants, they will stop coming, and that will be better for everyone involved. The good consequences in this case justify the fact that you will at some point have to deny a starving man food, a sick man medicine, a pregnant woman a place to give birth, etc. I disagree about the facts of the matter (in particular I think the suggestion that the reason Mexicans are so poorly off in Mexico is that they have no incentive to develop wealth in Mexico, because they can go to the US to be just silly and completely out of touch.) But even were people like me and the Archbishop to grant you the empirical facts, that doesn't settle the issue. In particular you seem to be just ignoring a dominant (I would say the dominant) strain in Chrisitian Ethics. The ethical doctrines advanced by Christianity, and accepted in Christendom for most of its history are profoundly non-utilitarian. Generally speaking ends do not justify the means in the Christian tradition (the Commandment doesn't say 'Thou shalt not steal, except for when it works out best overall' it says 'Thou shalt not steal' - well it doesn't actually say that, but I don't know the best translation from Greek off the top of my head, and you can probably find something like that in the NIV). There are some strict fairly straightforward rules in Christianity, and they do not have exemptions for cases where it seems like it would be a beneficial state policy to ignore the rules. The important thing is that these rules aren't supposed to be followed because they produce the most happiness, so far as you can tell, they are to be followed because they are God's will. There is no wiggle room, and no condition under which you get to disregard them, and stay true to God. Perhaps you think such religious attitudes are silly or outmoded. I don't think so, but even if you are an atheist or agnostic (I have no idea about your religious affiliation, this is my first time on your site), there are secular variants of this kind of ethical view (Kant being the most famous expositor), where the commands are not God's but the commands of Reason. Essentially you are ignoring a tradition in morality and religion which you ought to know about, if you went to church or took an ethics class in college.

Since no one else will go for the alleged "cheap shot" I (as someone who was baptized RC) will.
What do a gang of pedophile enablers know about true compassion? This has nothing to do with compassion, it is simply about the left-wing politics of the homosexual left and filling the emptying pews with people(Mexicans) who are culturally Catholic.


So right. He is another enabler, allowing Mexico to treat its citizens like dirt (until they start earning money in the US, that is). He is no different from a person who makes drinking easy for an alcoholic.

With all due respect, Archbishop Sheehan, Cardinal Mahony, and all the rest are morons. They may be book smart, and know lots of big words so as to sound high-minded, but take all that away, and these people are stupid. It was not that many years ago that the archbishop of Guadalajara (?) was gunned down by drug traffickers. Do these "men" think that kind of thing will not start happening here if we continue to import Mexico and Central America's problems?

Lone, you are correct. Anyone who encourages conspiracy to break the law and breaking the law is corrupt. No doubt the good Bishop will talk of a higher law. Perhaps he should render unto Caesar. Does anyone really want to destroy the rule of law in America?