I made a few edits...

Why then, if we recognize this fact, do we throw this thought process out the window when discussing illegal immigration? If this occurred within Christendom, then I think we could be on the same side here. But this state that our World governments are in is really just a farce. If one country can be economically raped, while the other is not, for the evil purpose of those who control things in this world, how can we not expect that those in another country to try to get to, what they think is, 'greener pastures', in the US?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but I take it that your implication (correct me if I'm wrong) is that American elites and other assorted transnational power brokers, are economically raping Mexico in order to increase the riches of the Anglosphere. This is simply not true. If anything, it's the other way around. Apart from the millions of Mexicans who live here illegally, and thus reap all the tangible and intangible rewards of American society while costing the US citizens much both financially and socially, there is the unquestionable fact that NAFTA, engineered by the socialist Clinton administration, has drained hundreds of thousands of jobs from the US economy. Now add to this the billions of dollars of remunerations sent to Mexico by illegal aliens, and the hundreds of billions extracted by Mexican narco-traffickers, and it's quite clear just who is raping whom.

Not that this would be possible without the cooperation of certain interested parties within the American establishment. I've already mentioned the Clinton administration, but the blame really belongs to a coalition of several self-styled elitist camps who each have their own separate reasons for pursuing a policy which favors illegal immigration. First, there is the academic-marxist axis of universities, think tanks, and NGOs, for whom illegal immigration is a convenient pawn in their battle for domestic policy supremecy, and useful to them on many fronts simultaneaously; for it not only depresses wages and weakens the middle class (which are necessary precursors of a marxist revolution) but it also provides a relatively malleable mob of underpaid, socially unconnected canaille who can be readily mobilized for Alinskyite psy-ops. The mainstream media must also be considered a willing participant in the latter.

Second, there are the libertarian business-philistines who thrive on cheap Mexican labor, who have no intention of paying socially enfranchised American workers a "living wage," and who cloak their true intentions behind a lot of high-minded free market ideology. They are the most visible, but not the most malicious, exploiters of the illegal workers, as their principal aim is to depress wages as low as possible but not to subvert the sovereignty of the United States nor to otherwise make such waves as would destabilize their money-making enterprises. But these low wages end up hurting everybody on the lower end of the economic spectrum, immigrant and native alike. It was for this reason that Caesar Chavez, who for some reason has become the patron saint of the current amnesty movement, was actually militantly opposed to illegal immigration.

Third, and present only as a led rather than a leading element, there are the millions upon millions of muddle-headed US citizens for whom unlimited immigration, racial assimilation, one-worldism, and reflexive anti-Americanism have become almost aesthetic conceits in whatever bizarre vision of reality they happen to harbor. They are a diverse group consisting of simple-minded peaceniks, Hollywood junkies, sentimentalists, the young and mis-educated products of public schools, silly women, effeminate men, and well-meaning dolts. As an aside, the Conciliar establishment Novus Ordo Church is comprised almost entirely of members of this third group, and its "handlers" are drawn from the first. These are the people who have dutifully absorbed the PC nonsense and Gramscian agitprop of several generations, and who therefore regard an attitude of permissiveness towards illegal immigration as a prim and almost all-excusing moral imperative. The professional theologians and literatures who provide this lot with their reading material (one might mention Archbishops Roger Mahoney and Charles Chaput) have to work mighty hard to try to dissimulate their stances such that they appear to derive them from traditional Catholic social teaching, but the fact remains that their is no universal human right to "greener pastures," as you put it. Being poor in one country does not in itself entitle you to immigrate to another country, especially not illegally. There is no Christian duty, either of justice or of charity, to come to the material assistance of foreigners who are not destitute of the goods of this life (as Mexicans are not) but who merely have "less than you do." Furthermore, there is no duty (nor justification, nor excuse) for welcoming immigrants of any sort whose numbers or practices make them socially disruptive to the host country. There is, however, a very clearly defined Catholic doctrine which charges the secular rulers of a nation to keep the peace in their own domains, and to see to it that the just claims of their own citizens are not denied. When millions of illegal aliens are wondering about the country, depressing wages, committing crimes, and trespassing the property of the native citizens, it is quite correct to say that the peace is not being kept. Therefore, illegal immigration is neither Catholic nor tolerable.

What I'm wondering is, why do we blame the poor and unjustly marginalized? Are they actually being blamed? I think so. But maybe my perception is just off since one of my parents is one who has come here illegally.

I don't think anybody blames the poor for being poor, but there's nothing that can be done about that. The poor we have with us always. As to the claim that they are unjustly marginalized, it sounds like a rhetorical flourish gone slightly amiss. When you enter a country illegally and cause trouble, then you are justly marginalized. There is no other country in the world, besides America, which must even affect a pretense of extending civilities to illegal aliens. Try entering China or Saudi Arabia illegally, or even Mexico for that matter, and see what happens to you there.

But actually, I prefer not to blame anybody when I make my prescription for correcting this situation. I merely emphasize that the forms of justice and the right ordering of civil society demand that illegal immigration not be tolerated. A government which does not defend and control its own border is failing in one of its primary duties as government, and it must do better or risk annihilation. Let this much suffice for a cursory exposition of my thinking on the subject.

apart from anything that outside-the-SSPX-there's-no-salvation-Caminus may say or think

For a man who seeks justice, one wonders what prompted such an unjust statement.  As to your point, I wholeheartedly concur.  I deal with illegal immigrants on a regular basis and talk to them about their varying situations.  I asked one individual why he preferred the U.S. to Mexico, one would think that a Mexican would prefer his home country.  His reply was that he doesn't necessary dislike Mexico or prefer the U.S., rather it was a state of necessity that drove him here due to the fact that he couldn't support his family.  Twelve hours a day bringing home one hundred dollars a week.  All this rhetoric about "illegals" misses the point and the cause entirely, which is the corruption and extortion of the Mexican government itself.  Why the U.S. has not dealt with this blatant fact is beyond belief while the pompous politicians keep harping on the subject who enter our country illegally.  What about the crimes and illegality of the Mexican government?  These people do not want to leave their home, but they are practically forced to do so.  And the fact that it is not dealt with on a national level, one country addressing the injustices of another is sickening in light of all the talk regarding the "illegals" crossing the border.  Then, like self-righteous fools, the proud neo-conservative has the bright idea to "turn off the magnets" viz. employment that attracts the illegals to our country, again betraying a probably willful ignorance of the cause itself which is not our "magnets" but Mexico's corruption.  The fact of the matter is that illegals are in many instances harder working, more productive, possessing even a certain superior natural virtue and law abiding than your average conceited American citizen.  If all illegals were forced back into Mexico, the economy would certainly collapse.      

Caminus, neocons are typically against anti-immigration.

The laws and the border exist for a reason.  They have their country, we have ours.

1) The premise that the laws and the border are not to be enforced because of corruption in Mexico that the US doesn't "do anything about" is inadmissible.  It is also interventionist - which is neo-conservative.


2) The idea that the gradual destruction of the US economy and unemployment opportunities for native born Americans and the alleged dependence of the US economy on illegal foreign labor is a result of the bad work ethic of Americans are not claims to be taken seriously.

3) The people do have a right to their own country, and that means the right to regulate the borders and to regulate who is permitted to reside here.  The politicians  who have turned a blind eye to immigration are derelicts.

4) The motivation to be against immigration - the claim that it's a result of unjust hatred of immigrants is not just.  It is no more just to say that someone hates homeless people because they do not take them into their house or want them coming into their house without permission.  It is a form of Marxist slandering.  And while I have nothing against Mexicans and other migrants, the attitudes of many who come here towards the laws and the native born peoples of this country and their rights is unacceptable.

You have the reading and reasoning capacity of a five year old child.  Maybe six or seven at best.  

1.  Gratuitous statement, strawman that contains a logical fallacy (or a dishonest caricature, nah...I have to remember your level of reading comprehension, sorry for the internal thought).  Even if I conceded your garbled version of my statments, why?  You don't say, you merely assert it's "inadmissible."  You apparently have no historical knowledge of treatises between countries viz. immigration.  You also seem to confound addressing the true cause and somehow "intervening" in the foreign country.  Another rash and deeply confused statement.

2.  I suppose you mean "employment" opportunities?  You're entire sentence is a construct of your own imagination, which hardly makes any sense, but again, I recognize your level of reasoning ability so I do have some sympathy.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

3) No one said otherwise

4) Another sad product of your imagination, that is, if you are referring to what I wrote.  

Nice try though, thanks for playing.  Now go outside and play in the sandbox Jimmy.    

Quote from: Caminus

1.  Gratuitous statement, strawman that contains a logical fallacy (or a dishonest caricature, nah...I have to remember your level of reading comprehension, sorry for the internal thought).

Just more proof Caminus cannot be honest about his premises.  I'm quite certain my level of reading comprehension and intelligence are superior to yours.  As for your hypocritical "I'm sorry" - it is evident that like many  you are not even ashamed of your overt hypocrisy. (something that is typical among SSPXers, especially the "double-tongued" ones)

I would like to point out something to the daft Caminus.  I never explicitly stated that my post was a direct response to yours.  I simply laid out four points that expose the shameless arrogance of the immigration defenders and enablers for what it is.

But let's look at your post directly:

  And the fact that it is not dealt with on a national level, one country addressing the injustices of another is sickening in light of all the talk regarding the "illegals" crossing the border.  Then, like self-righteous fools, the proud neo-conservative has the bright idea to "turn off the magnets" viz. employment that attracts the illegals to our country, again betraying a probably willful ignorance of the cause itself which is not our "magnets" but Mexico's corruption.

Let's try to comprehend these vapid and confused thoughts.  First of all, you put "illegals" in quotes.  You are upset about "all the talk" of illegals crossing the border.  Then you discuss someone unnamed discussing "turning off the magnets" - very obscure terminology - which is why you can cry "straw man" like the blatantly intellectually dishonest person that you are - obviously no one is talking causing destroying jobs to keep illegals away.  They are talking about punishing those who hire those you call "illegals" (are they not illegal?  the law says they are.)  Is the border to be enforced or not?  You complain about "all this talk of "illegals" crossing the border."  Your premise is clearly that it is wrong for politicians to complain about the immigration laws and the border not being properly enforced because of the corruption in Mexico that the government should do something about.  That's clearly your position, no matter how you try to obfuscate it.  And you speak of "self-righteous" fools who are indignant that the laws of the country are not being enforced.  Offensive and sneering language that is typical of you.

Quote

Even if I conceded your garbled version of my statments, why?  You don't say, you merely assert it's "inadmissible."  You apparently have no historical knowledge of treatises between countries viz. immigration.  You also seem to confound addressing the true cause and somehow "intervening" in the foreign country.  Another rash and deeply confused statement.

It's inadmissible for someone who is acting like a "self-righteous fool" to tell Americans that the non-enforcement of their laws regarding the border and citizenship are to be rectified by our intervention with Mexico on a state to state basis.  Yes, you are saying we need to deal with Mexico's corruption in some way.  That requires some form of intervention.  And in fact your position on this issue cannot be distinguished from the "neocon" position.  So I find it strange you're bringing up "neocons" when they are overwhelmingly against cracking down on immigration.  You are doubtless trying to distinguish yourself from them when you take the same positions that they take.

Quote

2.  I suppose you mean "employment" opportunities?  You're entire sentence is a construct of your own imagination, which hardly makes any sense, but again, I recognize your level of reasoning ability so I do have some sympathy.  Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

You said the US economy would collapse without illegal labor.  While I doubt that's true, if there is any truth to it at all, it is because of the gradual destruction of the US economy.  Your insults directed at American workers as an excuse for permitting vast migration across the border and saying that it's necessary to preserve the economy show a truly contemptible attitude towards your own country.

Quote

3) No one said otherwise

You disparagingly spoke of "all the talk regarding the "illegals" crossing the border."  And of "self-righteous" fools who want to stop businesses from hiring them.  Now either you believe they have a right here (which you evidently do) or you don't believe the US has the right to deport them.  In fact the government has negotiated with Mexico, and Mexico encourages illegal immigration.

Quote

4) Another sad product of your imagination, that is, if you are referring to what I wrote.  

  I simply laid out four points.  I never said they were a direct response to your post.  I didn't quote your post in my post.  I'm simply explaining the gross flaws in the positions of those who enable and defend illegal immigration.

Quote

Nice try though, thanks for playing.  Now go outside and play in the sandbox Jimmy.    

Another non-response from Caminus.  Caminus is not interested in debate.  I laid out four points.  If he agreed with them he should explain, if he disagreed, he should explain, instead he simply began invective.  He knows his positions are very weak so he never addresses arguments directly.  It's just the same way he never acknowledged that "an instrument of heaven preparing the way of the Lord" compared to St. John the Baptist and Isaiah says infinitely more than that one school of Pharisees had a better interpretation of the law than the other.  He never admitted that, never acknowledged that, because he's fundamentally dishonest.  I'd much rather have poor reading comprehension (a laughable claim, although I can understand why many people would not understand Caminus' intentional obscurity) than to be someone whose integrity is fundamentally crippled because he's adopted the cultish "style" of "apologetics" that is prevalent in the SSPX.

"cultish "style" of "apologetics" that is prevalent in the SSPX". What do you mean by that?

Stonewalling like refusing to answer a direct question or diversion as in, for example, making bizarre incessant reference to someone's career as if this has any bearing on the debate?  Apparently you must think that traditional Catholics cannot work in any field without somehow disqualifying them from rational thought.  So what exactly do you do for a living?  My, my, that sounds awfully familiar.  You're so blind in issuing your decrees that you can't see that you are extremely guilty of the very things that you so flippantly and recklessly charge others.