Actually, the exploitation by some building companies of cheap, illegal labor that enjoys none of the workplace protections (like workers comp) that the rest of us think of as standard probably ought to give the good Christian pause.

Which is why we have a moral obligation to legalize them.

Until you've had dealings with INS, it's hard to understand how corrupt and evil they are. I think that's where many conservatives get tripped up. Twenty five thousand or more in bribes? Not in America!

Gentlemen: put all of your comments together: if the illegals became legals and got the full load of benefits and protections they would no longer enjoy their competitive advcantage and their places would be taken by newer, less-legal illegals.

I mostly look at this as a moral problem, with corruption prevasive. Many, many people are living a lie, living in economic sin, as it were, participating in theft, fraud and every injustice with each breath.

And they still manage to send $40 Billion a year back home.....

It's not about competitive advantage. Natives just don't think they should have to work hard.

Lou:

Economic sin? Give us a break, it's a full time job just keeping ahead of the non-economic ones.

What in the world are you saying? There are millions of real people with real families caught in a real mess. Wherever we stand, let's at least realize we have a very poignant human story here and dispense with the faux-theology. Throwing in abstract drivel like "economic sin" reminds me of Stalin suddenly announcing that everybody has to fight "cosmopolitanism"

The article states: "...the walls of million-dollar homes..."

I must be missing something, oj. When you say "... homeownership more affordable"

Peter B: You are missing the import of the words, "living in economic sin, as it were."

The home builder who gave himself an advantage overf his more scrupulous competitors has unjustly harmed both those competitors and the legal, higher-priced workers. That is an economic sin.

Just as the adulterer sins not just once, as at the inception of a meretricious relationship, but again and again, at each act of adultery, so the thief and cheat offends again and again, by retaining the fruits of his theft and fraud, until amendment and restitution are perfected.

Just saying, "I'm sorry," is not enough: one must stop doing it, and give back what has been stolen. Otherwise, the actor is "living in sin."

As to the distinction between non-economic and economic sin, we may suggest that the relative importance and impact on our neighbors of the two domains be considered. I am little affected directly by my neighbor's neglect of the Lord's Day, but rather more by his theft and fraud.

Now bring market economics to the analysis. The immigration-law cheat wouldn't be doing it if there were not an economic advantage. Either the houses he builds are less expensive and he can sell more of them, or he is simply enjoying more profit. In the first case, he is harming his competitors as noted above; in the second, the entire community, by having bidded up demand via his ill-gotten gains.

None of them are scrupulous. They hire from amongst those who will do the work, which is immigrants.

Lou:

The home builder who gave himself an advantage overf his more scrupulous competitors has unjustly harmed both those competitors and the legal, higher-priced workers. That is an economic sin.

Says who? That sounds more like something from Socialist International than theology.

Don't you think one of the implications of "Render unto Caesar..." is that we don't attribute spiritual consequences to breaking Caesar's rules? This is no more "sin" than failing to file an income tax return and it is darn dangerous to talk as if it is.

The whole thing was illegal and everyone involved should have been prosecuted, fined, deported and jailed.

To the Camps!

What a great thread! We should envy our Jewish friends their tradition of such disputation.

Peter B: STFB, "This is no more 'sin,' than failing to file an income tax return. . .."

Well, there it is:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2240.htm

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Para 2240:
Submission to authority and co-
responsibility for the common good
make it morally obligatory to pay taxes,
to exercise the right to vote and to
defend one's coluntry.

For the Sola Scriptura set, we have Romans 13:6ff

"For therefore also, you pay tribute. For they[the state] are the ministers of God serving unto this purpose. 7 Render therefore to all their dues. Tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom is due; fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."

Of course let us not forget Our Lord's teaching of the coin of tribute.

I am actually shocked and somewhat appalled that anyone would suggest that it is other than sinful to cheat on taxes, given that the harm to one's neighbors is so immediate and apparent. If the swindler paid too little, others paid too much.

Show us the man who pays all his taxes and we shall crucify him.

Lou:

You would make a good Metternich. We'll leave aside for the moment the dicey notion that any one church can define sin for public purposes in America in 2006 on the basis of internal "credos" and doctrines. Are all the illegals sinning or just the Catholic ones? There are hundreds of thousands of laws and regulations out there. Are you suggesting it is the teaching of the Church that: A)disobeying any of them is by definition a sin ("coin of tribute" 'n stuff); B)the Church endorses the secular authority punishing these sins as it sees fit as a matter of theology;

And wouldn't an amnesty wash away the sin ? I knew the U.S. Government was a superpower, but I never realized its writ extended quite that far.

But hey, don't fret, it isn't just you Catholics who have lost your way on this one. The very liberal Protestant Church I used to attend up here makes it very clear God expects me to adhere to municipal recycling regulations and is taking no responsibility for my soul if I don't.