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.