![\"Jason](\"https://catholicstand.com/wp-content/uploads/Jason-Hall-Immigration.png\")
Last week, I had the pleasant surprise of meeting a very well-known figure in Catholic media. We were attending the same conference, and I practically ran into him on my way back from a break. Excitedly, I introduced myself. He very pleasantly told me his name (as if I didn’t know it), and asked, with what appeared to be genuine interest, what I did for a living and what brought me to the conference we were attending. I explained that I represented Kentucky’s bishops in public policy matters. With that, merely two minutes into our acquaintance, we immediately began a heated, half-hour argument about immigration reform.
What is it about this issue that gets people so fired up? I think I understand what motivates some Catholic opponents of reform (as promoted by their bishops), but then again, it doesn’t completely make sense. My new friend’s main hang-up was that the bishops have declared support for the current Senate bill “practically a matter of dogma.” I explained that my work required me to review the policy documents on immigration from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and their immigration reform advocacy office, Justice for Immigrants. These statements hardly treat the so-called “Gang of Eight” proposal as perfect. My friend rolled his eyes and said, “You know what I mean.” I really didn’t.
Another major problem my new friend saw with the USCCB position was that it did not sufficiently take into consideration the “political repercussions.” When I asked what he meant by that, he said that if this bill passes, the political environment for the next generation will be hostile to the issues of life and family. I assumed he meant that new Hispanic voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrats (an oft-repeated, but somewhat questionable, expectation) and explained that the U.S. bishops had fought hard in support of President Bush’s immigration reform effort in 2007 (Justice for Immigrants was created during that effort), but that failed primarily because of opposition among Republicans.
How can Catholic bishops change their position on a substantive issue simply because the party it is likely to help has changed? And, with all due respect to my wise and generous employers, does anyone think the bishops are competent to predict the impact of the passage of a major piece of legislation in 2013 on the presidential elections of 2020, 2024, or 2028?
Then we came to the truly contentious aspect of the immigration issue. Why haven’t all these “illegals” come here legally? My new media-trained friend assured me that he has relatives who have applied for visas, waited for a few years, and then been approved. There is no reason anyone else can’t do the same.
I have no doubt my friend is correct about his relatives. But this, dear readers, is where things get complicated. Our immigration system is not simply a line that you get into that is currently 8 years, 10 months long. It treats people radically differently for no rational reason. It keeps families separated for decades. It punishes those who simply want to work hard and try to support their families but can’t do so in their home countries.
There is almost no easy way to migrate legally and quickly to the United States (provided you aren’t a star athlete). To illustrate this, let’s assume you were born in Mexico. Unlike most of your countrymen, you have not only a college degree, but also a PhD. A major American corporation believes you are the only person who can head up their new division that is going to revolutionize American industry. You can’t wait to come to the U.S. and get started. You also hope you can bring your brother along, who isn’t educated but is the hardest worker you know and has no opportunities in your home town.
You are very lucky, because there is a clear legal path for you to immigrate. Your potential employer only needs to complete a mountain of paperwork and spend over $10,000 in legal fees, and you will be awarded a green card. Well, six to ten years from now, that is.
Obviously, your new employer isn’t going to wait years for you to start work. So, they will likely help you apply for an H1-B temporary worker visa. Those are capped by statute, though, so maybe you’ll get one and maybe you won’t. Let’s say you do. Congrats! You can come to the U.S. and start work.
You talk to your employers and they are more than willing to give your brother a low-level job, if he is able to work legally in the U.S. You look into it and learn that there is no legal means for an unskilled worker from Mexico to enter the U.S. legally without family legally residing in the country already. So, he does some odd jobs when he can and you send him some of your salary each month and he gets by until you become a permanent resident. After eight years, you finally do!
Unfortunately, even though you are now a legal permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, there is no family visa category for brothers and sisters of LPR’s. So, he has to wait another five or six years (at least) for you to become a U.S. citizen. But, glorious day, after 13 years of waiting, you finally take your citizenship oath and your brother applies for a F4 Visa (Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens)! It won’t be long now! According to the current visa bulletin (see page 2), applications are currently being processed for those added to the waiting list prior to….September 15, 1996.
So yeah, why don’t they all just come here legally?
[Author\’s Note: Here is a brief statement of the USCCB\’s position on immigration reform.]
© 2013. Jason Hall. All Rights Reserved.
62 thoughts on “Why Don’t They Come Here Legally?”
goverment has strict to immigration issues.
http://www.immigrationlawyer90210.com/
Leaving aside whether or not the present immigration law is too cumbersome or even unjust (but then again, does anyone have an unqualified right to emigrate here?), the bishops have absolutely no business taking sides on issues such as this particular one or capital punishment for that matter where a Catholic is free to take either side. That is the domain of the laity, period!!!
The disastrous results of this ideology-runneth-over-my-theology and Casearo-papism in reverse approach taken by the bishops on issues of this nature are numerous and plain to see. First of all, this only serves to confuse many well-meaning Catholics as to what Catholic teaching allows in forming opinions on issues of this nature. Secondly, by taking sides, the bishops leave themselves to exploited by one side and to alienate the other. This has happened in spades.
It seems that the bishops do not even think or even want anyone to think that the other side has a legitimate view. Heck, they don’t even seem to think they have to take the time to understand, much less not misrepresent the other side. For example, have now-Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s vicious, and I think calumnious, accusation that equates Arizona’s SB 1070 to the conduct of the KKK and the Know Nothing Party: http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=36322
It seems given the USCCB’s horrendous record on matters that do lie within their competence and they are responsible for speaking about, they ought to, other than outline the moral principles within which opinions must, be formed, remain neutral and quit wasting precious resources on these other issues.
Great article Jason. And I admire your patience in engaging some of your detractors who almost seem to have stronger allegiance to their political identity than their Church. What characterizes them is not the fact that they disagree with the Bishops but that they do so in such a disrespectful and arrogant manner. It’s difficult for many ideologues of both the Left and Right to acknowledge that the Church and the Truth don’t fit neatly into our American political categories. I also note that many who are so outraged by illegal immigration have a fetish for the law, as though they’ve never read Thoreau, King, Ghandi, or the New Testament for that matter. There’s a reason so many immigrants come from Central American countries ravished by civil war, (and now the drug wars), and the Mexican farm belt ravished by our global economic system. They are desperate. But this fact seems unworthy of consideration by many who nevertheless are followers of our God who so loved the poor (the word itself is met with disdain by some, as if they can’t even fathom that most of the world, and many illegal immigrants, are exactly that). Anyway, good job.
Jason, thank you for writing about this topic. As an immigration lawyer and Catholic immigrant, you point out many things I’ve experienced on a personal and professional level. I was going to write about this topic and interview Archbishop Gomez but I can’t thank you enough for writing it from your perspective as an American Catholic (in the South!) God bless you.
This country will become a leftist fiefdom is 33 million Mexicans, {almost 1/3 of the present population of the country of Mexico} are allowed entry.
Texas will go left, likewise Florida. California will become the rule, not the aberration.
We will become a one party state, where the Left the dominates.
The United States will cease being that thing we knew and loved.
That dread occurrence will become a humanitarian disaster, for it will cede global leadership over to the unfriends of freedom, and to China.
All immigration must cease forthwith. Otherwise, —————- we’re done…………
Pingback: Illegal Immigration and Injustices | Paul's Blog
Pingback: Illegal Immigration and Injustices | The American Catholic
As for the writer’s new acquaintance’s comment about the bishops’ support of this “gang of eight’s“ proposed legislation being, “practically a matter of dogma,” he’s correct. The U.S. bishops are using a quote from Mathew 25, 35 and a talk by John Paul II in his Annual Message for World Migration Day, 1995, in their teaching on immigration – Strangers No Longer – “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”
The problem with their using Mt 25, 35 is the footnote in my Catholic Bible which clearly says this about interpreting that passage:
“It seems the stronger case can be made for the view that in the evangelist sense sufferers (strangers, etc) are Christians, probably Christian missionaries whose suffering was brought upon them by their preaching of the gospel. The criterion of judgement for ALL THE Nations is their treatment of those who have borne to the world the message of Jesus.and this means ultimately their acceptance or rejection of Jesus himself; cf 10, 40 “Whoever receives you, receives me.”
Are these illegals, “missionaries” coming here to evangelize us? Are these Hispanics who support the pro-abortion, pro homosexual marriage, anti-freedom of religion Democrat Party here to build up our Catholic Church? Yet, the USCCB is 100% for this “reform legislation” just like the were for the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare; just like they were for Community Reinvestment Act which led to sub prime loans to help the poor and low income that crashed the banking and real estate markets leading to the worst economy since the Great Depression.
As for the effect this inappropriately named “Immigration Reform Legislation” (it’s really about the illegal aliens) will have on our country, politically, will be profoundly negative. Obama got 75% of the Hispanic vote. Assuming that Hispanics are mostly Catholic, and Catholics, as a group, voted for this pro-abortion, pro-infanticide president twice, 54% and 50%, respectively, then Catholics will continue to be the reason the pro-abortion, pro-same-sex marriage, anti-Freedom of Religion Democrat Party will continue to have Elective Power to keep abortion legal, and enable it to have control over our Constitutional Rights to Freedom of Religion for decades.
So, I moved away from Joliet, Ill to Southern CA 46 years ago; away from my divorced parents and two older brothers and two younger sisters. What does their lives have anything to do with my moving away? What responsibilities does the state of CA have to my parents and siblings to facilitate any of them coming to live or work with me? None. The same goes for a foreigner who wants to move to the U.S. That is their decision to make, not our government’s responsibility to facilitate his or her family arrangement afterwards, especially today with global phone and internet connections and Skype.
“There is almost no easy way to migrate legally and quickly to the United States”
One hundred and twenty years ago, the US was not the bloated progressive welfare
state that it has become. In those days, the financial consequences of legal
immigration of people with low skills on the national purse was much lower.
Thus, the laws permitted much higher volumes of immigrants, though the
culture was significantly more anti-Catholic (and one could argue that
since American Catholicism was more counter-cultural then, being
discriminated against was something of a badge of honor).
Sooner or later the Bishops are going to notice the tension between a huge
social safety net (repeat ad nauseum “We’re a rich country!”), religious freedom,
and private charity. Or perhaps they’ll continue to wave their hands and
tell the faithful in public service to just deal with it.
Jason
I have another question which you can respond to when you have a moment. You imply that our immigration laws disrupt family life. But is not the break up of the immigrant family done by the member of that family who (possibly illegally) enters the country and leaves his/her family behind? That person, and only that person, decides to stay in the country and not be reunited with his/her family. Is not that person 100% responsible for refusing to be re-united with his/her family by staying away from his/her family? The choice between family life and employment in the USA is up to the immigrant. I echo what paulzummo writes: what is unjust about our immigration laws that must be fixed? We need to hear about that and work for that but please do not try to make us feel guilty about the breakdown of the family life of the immigrant when it is within the power of the immigrant to solve that problem.
The bishops handle that one in their inimitable style by mumbling that
conditions in the country of the emigree should be improved so that
the volume of immigration decreases “over time”.
I don’t feel like being uncharitable
today, so I won’t comment on the disconnect
between the hell-freezing-over timeframe of some
of their program vs. the now!now!now! parts.
I have great respect for our priests and bishops. We must take what they say seriously but they are human and capable of individual and collective blundering. It is no answer to say “but bishop so-and-so” disagrees with you, or even that the whole council reached a conclusion in opposition to a view. That answer must stand on its own.
The USCCB is often sucked into taking popular stands, particularly where justice issues are concerned. At the core is an honest concern for the poor and disadvantaged. This is laudable but the results have not always been.
Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) suffers from the same defect as healthcare reform. Both are omnibus proposals that jam together remotely related issues in an effort to coerce, manipulate, and mislead.
An honest attempt at immigration reform would treat the issues with separate, defensible bills that every American could read and understand. For example, if Dems honestly wanted the Dream Act to go through, it could have been done in 10 pages or less. If the GOP honestly wanted Border Patrol to technically deprt every unlawfully present person they arrested, it could be done with a similarly simple, direct bill.
1000+ page bills, even if honest but misguided attempts to solve every problem at the stroke of a pen, include so much unintended principles and avenues for unscruluous lawyers to manipulate that no reasonable person should support them. Such is the case here and we should drum out of office any representative who votes in favor of such bills. With regards to our bishops, asking us to support these bills, knowing they are horribly defective and that implementation will widen the scope of effect far beyond what can be foreseen is wrong.
The bishops need to take care of a few problems closer to home and more directly within their control like Dolan’s scandalous NY insurance problems, dioceses with schools that are far from or embarrassed to be, Catholic. How about the receiving of the Eucharist by public figures that are openly engaged in unrepentant sin like Pelosi and Biden?
The bishops hae a lot on their plate and are frequently on the wrong side of political questions. Their duty is to a church that is shattered and broke, with falling numbers, half-hearted faithful, and confused and lost youth. Start there and, once their houses are in order, they will have greater influence and authority on the national stage.
The question of whether the current process of legal immigration is cumbersome (almost all would agree that it is) is not germane to the question of what to do with those individuals who have nonetheless entered the country illegally. I have heard the refrain in some quarters that unjust laws are not to be respected. I’ll leave aside some of the philosophical difficulties with such a stance for now, but are the immigration laws fundamentally “unjust?” The the bureaucracy is slow to move does not mean that the laws are in and of themselves unjust, just that we must reform the bureaucracy and make changes to the laws where appropriate.
Immigrating legally to the United States is very difficult – more so than is likely necessary. But in a sense that means that those who have broken our laws and have essentially cut in line are themselves guilty of carrying out a grave injustice.
Jason, thanks for your article. Can you explain this statement from JusticeforImmigrants.org:
‘State and local law enforcement should not be authorized to enforce immigration laws.’ [Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Important Principles]
It seems to me that, in general, all citizens and authorities are in some way responsible for obeying and enforcing laws. In this case, the Bishops seem to be saying that properly elected and constituted authorities should to turn a blind eye to illegal activity. Why?
Thanks Jason for an interesting and thought-provoking article. I recall taking an immigration course in law school. My impression then was that the entire process has become a rather unworkable inefficient bureaucratic mess. I can’t pretend to know what the answer is. Keep up the good work!
I am with you Matthew…I hope the Holy Spirit has got some spare time to give our political leaders some good old “Solomon’s Wisdom”…especially us Catholic Americans…we all, I believe, want to support our bishops and bend over backwards to help those who are most in need. Sometimes though I feel like this Immigration reform issue is akin to comedians Abbot and Costello’s old Baseball shtick…”who’s on first? what’s on second” I remeber what President Regan did to valiantly fix this proble in 1986…at great political risk…
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Pub.L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3359, enacted November 6, 1986, also Simpson-Mazzoli Act, is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law.
In brief the act:[1]
required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million undocumented immigrants were granted legal status.
Now I feel like screaming comedian Oliver Hardy’s enduring line to his partner Stanley Laurel:…”well here is another fine mess you have gotten me into.”
I find it a little disheartening that this particular issue generates so much negative reaction. Xenophobic jingoistic tribalism is probably the most apt way to describe it. It’s not name calling – it’s just the way it is. My wife went through the green card process after we got married, and if it weren’t for my company letting me work from down there, I would have had to pack up and leave her 2 days after our wedding and wait another 4 months or so to see her again – some honeymoon. The system is horribly flawed and is designed to generate as much money as possible for DHS, the state department, and lawyers. The process for an American Citizen to bring his wife to this country is outright embarrassing. The immigration system will go the way of the IRS or any other government department – it will get bigger, more expensive, and more complex as time goes on no matter who wins these little battles.
Don’t even get me started on the H1-B issue. The amount of money and stress that this causes companies is astounding. It increases the cost of IT budgets big time and this cost simply gets passed down to customers (whomever they are). I bet it adds $5 to everyone’s cable and cell phone bill every month! And where are all the American citizens that are qualified IT workers? Someone please answer that for me – because I certainly can’t find them.
Please also explain to me why we need to be so focused on protecting American jobs. A job is a job – there is no such thing as an American job or a Mexican job. If you can’t successfully compete with illegal immigrants for work, then you should point the finger at yourself – not at them.
The people of the US need to get with the program and realize that market forces and the drive for a better life for self and family are unstoppable. No wall or better immigration law or sheriff is going to stop people from trying to come here just the same as our drug laws only stop a small pittance of a % of the drugs that come into this country. You cannot stop this – you can fight all you want, but it won’t have an impact.
My advice to those in the US and to all the children out there is : instead of fighting an unwinnable battle against a steady Latin American migration into the US, buy yourself Rosetta stone, get a conversation partner, and learn Spanish as fast as humanly possible. Catch the wave instead of trying to swim against it, tell your kids to study math and science, and think what you would do if you had to walk a mile in their moccasins.
Yeah, just roll over and surrender, After all, the United States is not a nation, just a big jobs mart for the world. This “ustoppable” crap is just that, crap. It’s the result of conscious government policies for the last 50 years starting with the immigration act of 1965.
I agree that something tangible should done to help our neighbors. Trafficking of guns, drugs and people are a crisis. We must do something that allows people freedoms without allowing criminals access to this great nation to rob, rape and murder. They must honor our flag, our language and our constitutional laws and freedoms. As far as our under employment and unemployment for our citizens is concerned; it’s our own government that created the unemployment mess. The divide and conquer mentality is straight from the Alinsky rule book. It is sad that it is working so well.
Typical: All illegal immigrants are cast as refugees, even though we already let refugees in (albeit with the obvious need to recognize a refugee crisis). And not one shred of concern for the 20 million unemployed Americans. Try this one on for size, from Rerum Novarum: Importing laborers for the purpose of suppressing the wage market (which is unquestionably the purpose of this bill, as most of the so-called Gang of 8 readily admit) is a crime which cries out to the Heavens for vengeance.
First, I did not cast all immigrants as refugees. Second, the bishops support limits on visas that are adjustable based on labor demand instead of arbitrary and unchanging. Why have limits at all? To protect American workers. And you’ll have to show me where the Gang of 8 openly admitted their purpose was to suppress the wage market.
If the bishops are supporting limits on visa that are based on labor demand, then I’d expect to see their vigorous opposition to the Immigration reform bill in front of Congress. Since I’m hearing “prayers of the faithful” for the passage of the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” their message has been fantastically muddled.
Whether the bishops ultimately support the final bill or not depends on what’s in the final bill. They do want to see the process move forward and the bill improve. Hence, the prayers.
They certainly leave the impression that they desperately want the Senate bill to pass.
They certainly want the Senate bill to pass if it is a vehicle that includes a significant improvement in the system and an advancement of their principles. And, if it doesn’t pass, it doesn’t go to the House, which then won’t pass anything, which will eliminate the conference committee process and the negotiation of a final bill.
But, anyway, the current bill does not provide unlimited visas. There are caps, in some cases moveable ones, in other cases simply changed statutory ones.
Doesn’t provide unlimited visas? It provides FIFTY-SEVEN MILLION visas. True, that’s technically unlimited, but that’s also sixteen times the entire population of Ireland. Or twice as many immigrants in a single decade as the during the entire Ellis Island era. (Of course, 24 million won’t be true immigrants, and will thus be thoroughly abusable, politically.)
O come on, the bill is out of committe, the framework of amendments established, and the Gang of 8 sworn to mutually prevent any amendment.
Bishops gotta refill the churches to replace the native American born Catholics they ran off by coddling pedo priests
Gee, I remember the Bishops using that very same rationalization when they were throwing their support behind the early days of ObamaCare.
And look how that legislative fiasco turned out for them.
But did they learn their lesson? Nope. Instead they turn right back around to the very same Democrat platform.
The reason I asked the question regarding other people getting citizenship easier is because I have witnessed people from other regions of the world get citizenship quicker and easier… Exp. Africa, Canada, India…. What causes some quick citizenship and others years upon years? It should be straightforward for all.
There are often statutory per country visa limits. So, countries from which many are trying to migrate will have much longer waits than other countries. If you look at the visa bulletin that I linked to, you will see this often leads to some crazy results. For example, Mexican children of LPR’s have a much shorter wait that Mexican children of U.S. citizens.
The U.S. just sent back a family from Germany who had come legally because they wanted to home school their children. It is against the law in Germany to home school. YET…we allow illegal immigrants from the south to come and go with no repercussions. A young man who came to stay with us from England on a Visa. He overstayed his Visa and now will not be allowed back into the U.S. for not going back in time, there is a punishment. Yeah. We have a problem with our immigration laws, The injustice is it appears if you are from south of the border you have nothing to worry about. Isn’t “justice” a concern for everyone, or only Mexicans?? And how is it okay to allow this out of control illegal immigration from the south, stealing social security numbers and yes committing crimes (my son is in law enforcement and has been hit numerous times, the last time by a drunk driver, an illegal immigrant)…I am American and I teach my children to respect and obey the laws of the land. Sadly, it appears obeying our laws is only required by some, not all??
Michele, I agree with the first part of your comment. Indeed, I make the point in the article that our system is much too arbitrary, treating people differently for irrational reasons. That is the primary reason our system needs reform.
As for the rest of your comment, yes, justice is a concern for everyone. And yes, crimes should be prosecuted. But, it is not just the people “from the south” who are engaging in identity theft. Nor is it true of people Latin American immigrants generally that they have a lack of respect for the law. Nor, I would argue, are all American parents raising their kids to be responsible citizens, as you are, but that’s another issue.
I find this comment highly offensive, Jason. There is no discussion as to whether Latin American immigrants generally lack a respect of law, but whether those Latin Americans who broke the law respect the law. The first assertion smacks of playing a race card, the second is tautological.
I keep hearing this argument about immigration that we need to keep immigration illegal because it’s illegal, as though somehow law defines our morality.
I deleted my original comment to this because someone pointed out it came across as highly offensive, which I certainly didn’t intend. Suffice it to say, Michele, that you and I agree the system is incredibly unfair. And yes, justice is a concern for everyone, not just Mexicans. Reform would affect immigrants from everywhere, not just Latin America. It is the opposition, or the “border security first” crowd, that are focused on the southern border.
look lots of people from all over the world including Latin America find ways to come and remain here legally. So what’s their excuse now? A lack of respect for the rule of law and the come have a heart attitude without any regards to precedents, or rule of law is what has fucked up that continent so royally. Case in point Venezuela.
Why do I see people of other countries getting citizenship much easier and quicker?
I would love it if the Bishops would comment in generalities about current issues (i.e.
1- Laws should be respected. 2- Those laws should be fair and easy to comply with, and perhaps a new path needs to be forged. 3- Lawbreakers shouldn’t be rewarded. 4- Countries have obligations to not only be compassionate to those who want to come in, but to their own citizen AND those who are willing to comply with said country’s laws. etc…. for example…)
I would love it if the Bishops did not comment on particular bills. They get used in the political debate, and often Church teaching is more complex than the 3 1/2 second attention span many observers have. It can be embarrassing for us fatihful Catholics to try and explain apparent discrepancies between the unerring Teachings of the Faith and the political positions of some Churchmen.
The Church and Her Bishops have an obligation to teach Faith and Morals to us Catholics, and an equally important obligation to not fall into Clericalism.
“they” ; you objectify and reduce to an abstraction other primates (like us).
And what title should be used in your estimation?
BTW your exclusive use of the word “you” objectifies Mr Hall and reduces him to an abstraction with the rest of us primates.
My title is based on what many people say, a charge my article is intended to answer.
That was a complete non-answer.
“Why Don’t They Come Here Legally?” is a question I often hear. My article addresses that. What is the question I’m supposed to answer?
Uhm…. yeah. That was nothing more than a non-answer.
“I assumed he meant that new Hispanic voters will overwhelmingly vote for Democrats (an oft-repeated, but somewhat questionable, expectation) and explained that the U.S. bishops had fought hard in support of President Bush’s immigration reform effort in 2007 (Justice for Immigrants was created during that effort), but that failed primarily because of opposition among Republicans.”
There are two fundamental problems with this flawed statement:
1) The overwhelming polling data leaves no doubt whatsoever that Illegal Immigrants (and that IS the most accurate term for them) do INDEED favor the Democrat Platform (warts and all) by HUGE margins. And any voiced doubt about this provable salient fact is pure political spin:
Pew Research: Hispanics Favor Bigger Role for Government: “75% Three-quarters of U.S. Hispanics prefer a big government which provides more services to a small one providing fewer services. This figure is significantly lower among the public at large…. By contrast, just 41% of the public at large voice support
for a bigger government.”
2) Bush was no Conservative on many issues. In fact he was much closer politically to the Democrat ideology on Illegal Immigration. Thus his so-called “compassionate conservatism” (the title of which is misleading in its unjust condemnation of Conservatism’s supposed lack of compassion) was little more than reckless Democrat policies at a slightly slower pace. In the end, the results would be the same as the Democrats intended goal. A domination of Hispanic Democrat voter registration that would easily negate the percentage of Legal American voters.
All of this quickly and easily demonstrates that (from the very get-go) Mr Hall’s assumptions and conclusions are based upon misleading and dis-ingenuous starting points.
What this all comes down to is the fact that the Bishops (in their ivory towers of intellectual elitism) suffer from the same malaise of misguided compassion that infects the average Democrat Policy pundit. In their delusions of “compassion” they are seeking a bureaucratic solution that will in turn create misery and heartache for legal citizens both in the short term and in the foreseeable future.
This is quite remarkable given the current revelations of the Democrat’s Big Government overreach and abuses ranging from political control through wealth redistribution in the form of inferior and deceptive “healthcare for all” (which the Bishops supported in principle), to the attempt by Democrats to abolish gun ownership through the deception of “gun-control” (which the Bishops also supported in principle) to the Democrat’s Big Government pursuit and punishment of Conservative Groups. Not to mention the Democrat Party’s non-stop Culture of death goal to destroy The Catholic Church’s Religious liberties through gay-marriage, abortion, birth-control, euthanasia, etc etc.
But see, this is EXACTLY how the Devil works: he hijacks “good intentions” with misguided compassion (usually through the self-inflated egos of haughty intellectualism), and uses it all for the “unintended results’ that ultimately serve his destructive purposes.
The primary urgency caused by Illegal Immigration that needs to be addressed is national security and the sovereignty of our LEGAL citizens. As of yet, I’ve yet to see any starving Mexicans in this country who are gasping for their last breaths of life. And yet, the Left (and the Bishops) can’t stop bemoaning the supposed endless “crisis” of our own supposedly “starving poor” and “growing number of homeless”.
If the Bishops want to advocate this destructive nonsense, then I challenge them to remove all the locks from the doors and windows of their own houses, put a giant sign in their front yards and place corresponding ads in all the local, state, and national papers advertising the fact that their own personal homes are wide open harbors for all who wish to enter without restriction.
Let them first walk in the shoes of the Legal Americans who are living with the repercussions of this ideological disaster. THEN, and only then, should they even think about uttering this nonsense to the rest of us.
“Government has become ungovernable; that is, it cannot leave off governing. Law has become lawless; that is, it cannot see where laws should stop. The chief feature of our time is the meekness of the mob and the madness of the government.”- G.K.Chesterton
So, let me get this straight. The fact that many Hispanics favor government action on poverty issues combined with the fact that you do not consider President Bush to be a true conservative “quickly and easily demonstrates that (from the very get-go) Mr Hall’s assumptions and conclusions are based upon misleading and dis-ingenuous starting points?” Oh, and the bishops of the Catholic Church are a bunch of commies hell-bent on destroying our country. When they all declare their allegiance to the political Right, then they can talk about the teachings of the Church.
Is that about it? Does this apply to Pope Francis? Or Pope Benedict? Or have all the recent popes had a secret agenda of advancing the Democratic Party in the U.S.?
Pope Benedict was expected to comment in favor of CIR reform when he visited DC. Instead, he affirmed the right of nations to control their borders. And Pope Francis has worked hard to stop the importation of laborers across the Argentine border.
As to your first point: Define “Government action on poverty”. But first, define “poverty”.
And where did I say the Bishops are Commies hellbent on destroying our country? I clearly indicated that they are delusional in their misguided compassion.
And what does an “allegiance to the political Right” have to do with anything? Do you assume that the political Left in this country has some validity on these issues? Did the Democrat Party recently abandon their Political Platform that advocates the Culture Of Death? Do tell
And I wasn’t aware that the Popes were voicing there opinions on specific US policy. Do tell that as well.
You brought up the point about government action by citing that poll. I was responding, not introducing a new issue.
Ok, you weren’t saying the bishops were evil. Just stupidly supporting the Democratic Party’s left-wing efforts. I came to talk about immigration reform, not how the bishops should be ignored on this because you disagree with them on other stuff. That was the point I was rather badly making.
“Do you assume the political Left in this country has some validity on these issues?” No. No, I do not. But again, you raised the test of President Bush’s conservatism and the badness of the Democratic Party and how the bishops are helping push a left-wing agenda. My original point was that the bishops’ position has been the same whether supported by Republicans or Democrats. Which is as it should be. The true wisdom comes from the teaching of the Church, not from an American political camp.
The popes have talked a great deal about the right to migrate and how wealthy countries have the responsibility to welcome those coming from extreme poverty. They weren’t usually commenting on specific U.S. policy. But, when the U.S. bishops cite those papal teachings, you say they are buying in to the Democratic Party’s agenda. So, I was asking if that meant the popes were as well (which, of course, they weren’t).
“You brought up the point about government action by citing that poll. I was responding, not introducing a new issue.” –
Actually YOU brought up this point in your article. You tried to dismiss the claim that Illegal Immigrants favor the Big Govt policies of the Democrat Party. I provided polling evidence to the contrary.
“Ok, you weren’t saying the bishops were evil. Just stupidly supporting the Democratic Party’s left-wing efforts. I came to talk about immigration reform, not how the bishops should be ignored on this because you disagree with them on other stuff. That was the point I was rather badly making.”
Uhm, the Bishops support of “immigration reform” IS “stupidly supporting the Democratic Party’s left-wing efforts” – What part of that association did I not make clear? And I cited the recent history of the Bishops ill-fated support of other destructive Democrat policies to support my over all analysis of the Democrat Party’s evil intentions and the Bishops misguided clericalism in the guise of “compassion.
What part of that assessment and summation do you not understand?
“My original point was that the bishops’ position has been the same whether supported by Republicans or Democrats. Which is as it should be.” – My point is that you are confusing and conflating two political Parties with political ideologies. The Bishops have supported destructive political ideologies (which are predominantly Left-Wing) that were advocated by Democrats AND misguided and deceptive Republicans alike.
“The true wisdom comes from the teaching of the Church, not from an American political camp.” – Well then, WHY are the Bishops seeking political solutions in the form of spiritual suicide pacts from Caesar? Where is the wisdom in that?
My point in the article was that treating immigrants justly should not be subject to a political calculation about how they might vote in the future. Even if they are likely to vote for Democrats, that doesn’t give us license to deny them just treatment. If you would be fine with a path to citizenship if you knew most immigrants would be conservative Republicans, you are looking at people as a means, not an end.
You disagree with the bishops on a lot of stuff. I get that.
Why are the bishops working with Caesar on immigration? Because immigration laws are laws. Earlier you said, “The primary urgency caused by Illegal Immigration that needs to be addressed is national security and the sovereignty of our LEGAL citizens.” How are you going to address that without political solutions involving the government? If the government isn’t empowered to “enforce the law” how is what you want going to be accomplished? We advocate for just laws, not just on immigration. Sometimes we may agree with someone on something, and disagree with that same person on something else. We press forward. I’d even support a “pact with Caesar” to end abortion in the United States.
I would not characterize the teaching of the bishops the way you do (if that wasn’t already clear). You are largely arguing against a straw man. Click on the link at the end of my article, with the short statement on the USCCB position on immigration. Our nation need not suspend our sovereignty or security. But, as for the recent popes, there hasn’t been a rift between them and the American bishops on this issue. Quite the contrary: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2012/06/pope-benedict-immigration-reform
I honestly don’t understand why you want me to do this, but ok:
Poor: as to material poverty, lacking access to those things which are necessary for a person to achieve a reasonable standard of living and his or her full potential as a human being in accordance with their particular vocation. There is, also, of course, such a thing as spiritual poverty.
“My point in the article was that treating immigrants justly should not be subject to a political calculation about how they might vote in the future.”
What? They are here illegally are they not? “Just treatment” should mean jail and or exile. And the Bishops are advocating a political solution that is perfectly in-line with the destructive political ambitions of the Democrat Party and THAT is completely subject to the Democrats political calculations. So why advocate it?
“Even if they are likely to vote for Democrats, that doesn’t give us license to deny them just treatment.” – What part the legal definition of “ILLEGAL Immigrant” seems to be eluding you? What legal right do they have to citizenship in this country? What moral right do you and the Bishops have to advocate the violation of US law?
“If you would be fine with a path to citizenship if you knew most immigrants would be conservative Republicans, you are looking at people as a means, not an end.” – First of all, I would be fine if these Illegal Immigrants came to this country LEGALLY. Secondly, I would be fine if they didn’t bring their misguided socialism with them. As a Catholic why SHOULD I be “fine” with them if they supported the Democrat Culture of Death Party? Why are YOU (as a Catholic) fine with that political/spiritual suicide pact?
“You disagree with the bishops on a lot of stuff. I get that.” – No, the Bishops play fast and loose politics that ultimately distort or outright violate Catholic teaching. THAT’S what you need to get. Throughout the Church’s 2000 year history, it’s periods of spiritual decline have come predominantly through corrupt Bishops and priests. And this age is no exception.
Why are the bishops working with Caesar on immigration? Because immigration laws are laws. Earlier you said, “The primary urgency caused by Illegal Immigration that needs to be addressed is national security and the sovereignty of our LEGAL citizens.” How are you going to address that without political solutions involving the government? – Uhm newsflash: WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS ON THE BOOKS THAT GRANT US SOVEREIGNTY AND SECURITY, BUT THEY ARE NOT BEING ENFORCED. WHY NOT?
“If the government isn’t empowered to “enforce the law” how is what you want going to be accomplished?” – THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT ENFORCING THE LAWS OF BORDER SECURITY THAT ARE ALREADY ESTABLISHED. WHY DO YOU WANT TO TRUST THEM WITH EVEN MORE POWER?
“We advocate for just laws, not just on immigration. Sometimes we may agree with someone on something, and disagree with that same person on something else.” – The laws that are being advocated are in and of themselves unjust to the American people.
“We press forward. I’d even support a “pact with Caesar” to end abortion in the United States.” – Again you seem to have a problem comprehending my ideological point. If an ultimate good can come from Caesars support, then great. However, in this age of anti-Christian Secular State-ism, what good comes from compromising with a tyrannical Caesar?
“Our nation need not suspend our sovereignty or security. But, as for the recent popes, there hasn’t been a rift between them and the American bishops on this issue. Quite the contrary:” – Again, our nation is NOT currently enforcing its legal sovereignty or security because of the political pressure and ambitions of the Democrat party and a mostly dumbed-down secular society that has bought into the nanny-state mentality.
“I honestly don’t understand why you want me to do this, but ok: Poor: as to material poverty, lacking access to those things which are necessary for a person to achieve a reasonable standard of living and his or her full potential as a human being in accordance with their particular vocation. There is, also, of course, such a thing as spiritual poverty.”
Define “material poverty”. Define “access”. Define “reasonable standard of living”. Define “full potential”. Define “particular vocation”.
And now tell me. Why aren’t YOU and the Bishops sacrificing your own security by opening up your own homes to illegal immigrants?
And why is there no demand from YOU and the Bishops for the Mexican Government (and other Central and South American Governments) to provide these “necessities” for their own people?
And why are you advocating help for illegals when supposedly there are plenty of US citizens who are in need of assistance?
This is bullshit…they don’t have any damned right to invade my country and we have no responsibility to take in these parasites. The catholic church is proving at last that the old Know Nothings were right. The Catholic Church is a threat to the American Republic,
Well the Bishops sure have a left wing agenda….what’s so all important about flooding our country with illiterate third worlders Mr. DoGooder?? More warm bodies in the pews?
Pingback: Why Don’t They Come Here Legally? - CATHOLIC FEAST - Every day is a Celebration