Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Redtown]

Lets stop hiding behind “the law” on this issue and do what Jesus would have us do. Create a true path to citizenship now.

We know this how? Where does Jesus say that we must grant the full rights of citizenship to everyone who jumps over the fence/ breaks into our homes?

And to how many immigrants, legal or illegal, would Jesus have us grant citizenship to?

The US currently allows one million legal immigrants annually on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year. Is that enough? Why stop there? Why not allow 5 or 10 or 20 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship? Why not wide open borders without any limits?

Ah, hard questions which challenge the warm, fuzzy sentiments.

 

[Sherry_G]

We know this how? Where does Jesus say that we must grant the full rights of citizenship to everyone who jumps over the fence/ breaks into our homes?

And to how many immigrants, legal or illegal, would Jesus have us grant citizenship to?

The US currently allows one million legal immigrants annually on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year. Is that enough? Why stop there? Why not allow 5 or 10 or 20 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship? Why not wide open borders without any limits?

Ah, hard questions which challenge the warm, fuzzy sentiments.

My point exactly. From my entire post only one sentence about the LAW was snipped! Being a Christian Catholic is hard work. Can we focus on solving the problem? Jesus would have us do the charitable thing at all times and at all cost.

 

[Tigg]

This is not a political issue. It is a moral issue.

It is political and the Federal Government is allowing an unlawful invasion.

It is estimated that, in 2004, three million illegal immigrants entered the United States. In addition, the border with Mexico has never been properly secured, with only 9500 border agents trying to police an eight thousand mile border until 2005.

These factors have lead to an illegal immigrant population that has grown by at least 37% since the last United States census in the year 2000. This increase in illegal immigration will provide a political firestorm in Washington D.C. in the next few years since illegal immigrants are still included in the congressional apportionment calculation for 2010.

Congressional apportionment is the distribution of the 435 seats in the United States House Of Representatives among the 50 states. The calculation is done every decade and is based on the census of a state’s total population. The calculation includes citizens and non citizens including illegal aliens. The last calculation was done by Congress in the year 2000 and the next calculation of apportionment will be done in 2010. In addition this once in a decade population tally is used as the basis to distribute more than $200 billion in federal aid to the states each year.

When examining the last congressional apportionment in the year 2000, several interesting things become apparent. Seven million illegal aliens were counted in the 2000 United States census. In total the census counted 18.5 million non-citizens. These illegal aliens and non-citizens tend to live in several states in a concentrated fashion. Since apportionment considers non-citizens and illegal aliens in its formula, the result in 2000 was a redistribution of nine congressional seats. The result was that low immigration states that seem unaffected by immigration experienced a loss of their political influence. This loss of political influence occurred through the loss of congressional seats in the House of Representatives. The presence of non citizens in the census and apportionment calculations had some dramatic political consequences. Due to the fact that non-citizens were factored into the 2000 calculation, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi lost one seat each. The states of Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, and Utah each failed to gain a seat they should have had. The states with a high number of illegal aliens and non citizens gained the seats. California gained six seats and Florida, New York, and Texas gained one seat each.

Now consider the recent report by the University of Connecticut State Data Center . The report is an early projection on how the nation’s growing population of illegal immigrants would amplify the movement of Congressional seats to the South and West when seats in the House of Representatives are next divided up in 2010. The Connecticut report predicts that “Arizona, Texas and Florida will all hold additional seats in Congress after the next census, in part because of their illegal immigrant populations. California and New Jersey would keep their current amount of seats in the House under the current system. Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Ohio will each have one fewer seat than they would otherwise have because they have relatively few undocumented immigrants. New York, which would lose two seats under the current system, would lose only one if illegal immigrants were excluded.” Two of California’s projected fifty three House seats would be the result of its undocumented population.

The report makes this conclusion, “Illegal immigration is concentrating the power of voters in states such as California, Texas and Arizona, which have more seats in Congress per legal resident than many states where the number of illegal immigrants is much smaller”. Orlando Rodriguez, the demographer of the report adds: “If you look at it, if the undocumented population is included, then you get a real shift in seats from the Northeast to the South and the Southwest, and it’s a disproportionate shift because the people who are included in the count, not all of them vote”.

Future Presidential elections will also be impacted by the 2010 Congressional apportionment. Illegal immigration will not only redistribute seats in the House of Representatives, but will impact the Electoral College as well because it is based on the size of congressional delegations. This influence comes from a population of people who are not citizens and who are by law not allowed to vote. These people are residing in this country illegally.

ezinearticles.com/?The-Politics-Of-Illegal-Immigration&id=808567

I believe it to be extreme naivete to think that favoritism of an ethnic group does not buy votes in Washington. If the illegals don’t vote, they surely have relatives who do which will ensure the progressives stay in power. And of course there is the higher business profits resulting from low labor costs. As wages for U.S. workers become depressed, benefits are withheld and the poverty level increases for middle class America. Is this the social justice you were hoping for?

 

[rodomonte]

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS been against segregation.

Funny you should mention. There was an article in the Sacramento Bee religious section on a Saturday in 1997 if I remember correctly, about a black Catholic family who attended a suburban church. Every Sunday they arrived early and went down to the very first pew. No one ever joined them in that pew. Eventually they smelled a rat and went to another church where they were welcomed.

I know what the Church says, but I can provide other examples that there was no concerted “Catholic action” to desegregate neighborhoods. I would say the Church was complicit by its silence in maintaining segregated neighborhoods. This is why the Church’s relationship with Hispanics looks, well, unusual.

 

[WatchingMedia]

According to the CCC, Second Edition, Immigrants are to obey the laws of the land.

There is no excuse for not having Green Cards (or other Federally required paperwork).

Mahoney and Dolan forget to include ALL parts of the Catechism. We can not be selective.
When leaders of the Church express their personal opinions, they should not use their Church Titles, wear Church garb, or any other way reflect on the Catholic Church.
This merely confuses Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

 

[WatchingMedia]

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS been against segregation.

By Rodomonte - - “Funny you should mention. There was an article in the Sacramento Bee religious section on a Saturday in 1997 if I remember correctly, about a black Catholic family who attended a suburban church. Every Sunday they arrived early and went down to the very first pew. No one ever joined them in that pew. Eventually they smelled a rat and went to another church where they were welcomed”.

When are you going to stop believing everything you read in the Media !

The Catholic Church has always been against segregation. If you believe otherwise please provide documentation from the Magesterium (the Pope in conjuction with the Bishops).

However - I did not say there were no sinners in the Catholic Church. All of us including you are sinners in some way or another.
Martin Luther King, Jr. carried a Rosary given to him by a Catholic woman even through he was not Catholic, but a man of Faith.

 

[pnewton]

Please, anyone, answer some key questions:

Should there be any limits on how many immigrants we allow into our country? Or should there be no limits (open borders)?

I am of the opinion that there should be no numerical limits. Those who have committed crimes or represent an individual threat to security should be excluded. All should be ID’ed and all should pay some amount of tax.

 

[sidbrown]

I am of the opinion that there should be no numerical limits. .

5 billion poor people coming to the USA seems to be a lot of people. How will the US taxpayer be able to pay for the food, clothing, health, education and shelter for 5 billion poor people? A lot of Americans are being forced to foreclose on their houses and they are out of work.

 

[kimmielittle]

5 billion poor people coming to the USA seems to be a lot of people.

Especially, if we can’t count / account for the people who already enter illegally. We see ESTIMATED figures of 1.2 million illegals entering…

 

[pnewton]

5 billion poor people coming to the USA seems to be a lot of people. How will the US taxpayer be able to pay for the food, clothing, health, education and shelter for 5 billion poor people? A lot of Americans are being forced to foreclose on their houses and they are out of work.

Five billion? Are you familiar with a strawman argument, or do you think five billion is a realistic figure?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I will answer for him. No, not the entire world, but much more of the Third World (which is huge) than you seem willing to think about. In a recent survey, more than half of poor Mexicans stated that if amnesty becomes a reality in the U.S., they are likely to immigrate. I don’t know about percentages in other countries per se, but you can count on a very large percentage from other Latin countries, as well as from China, India, and most poor Africans with enough basic skill & mobility to make it here. Ditto for many in the Middle East. Those who would not come would be on the extreme ends of the spectrum – the already extremely at-risk nutritionally, for whom travel & transplantation could be fatal, as well as those who enjoy a decent lifestyle and some benefits, opportunities in their homelands. In other words, the more Third-World any particular country is, the much more likely would it provide a gigantic population of eager immigrants to the U.S. Immigration is always based on better opportunity. Third World countries which are not in a situation of rapid development cannot provide nearly what the U.S. can provide, within the lifetime of that foreigner and that foreigner’s descendants.

We wouldn’t see a huge increase from citizens of countries who don’t need our largesse so much – such as most of Europe and Canada. It would be the huge populations in Latin America, Africa, Asia that would want to come here and whom we could not accommodate without immorally putting at risk our own citizens already here.

 

[pnewton]

I will answer for him. No, not the entire world, but much more of the Third World (which is huge) than you seem willing to think about.

I am more than willing to think about others. It occurs to me though that God must love non-Americans as much as he does Americans. I disagree with the dire situation that has been laid out. In the past, large scale immigration has been a source of strength. More people opens up the possibility of greater productivity. That is what history has taught.

I do not agree that the influx would be anything like the doom and gloom you present. Again, when any and all could come here, most chose not to come. Here are the figures.

latinamericanstudies.org/immigration-statistics-1.htm

The more Catholics post here, the more I see the wisdom of our bishops in this issue. We in America have grown so comfortable with prosperity that we see it as a divine entitlement. I am going to contact my bishop with a message of support and see what I can do to help.

 

[kimmielittle]

The more Catholics post here, the more I see the wisdom of our bishops in this issue. We in America have grown so comfortable with prosperity that we see it as a divine entitlement. I am going to contact my bishop with a message of support and see what I can do to help.

Are you saying that Catholics should not have personal or value opinions?

You say we Americans see things as entitlements - Yet, you are suggesting a population be given entitlements over another population.

Good for you with finally getting involved

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying that Catholics should not have personal or value opinions?

You say we Americans see things as entitlements - Yet, you are suggesting a population be given entitlements over another population.

I am saying our values should be an eternal reflection of God’s values. And no, I never said one population should be given an entitlement over another, nor do I believe that.

 

[Sherry_G]

Are you saying that Catholics should not have personal or value opinions?

You say we Americans see things as entitlements - Yet, you are suggesting a population be given entitlements over another population.

Good for you with finally getting involved

Opinions are like belly buttons, everybody has one. Of course we all can express our opinion, that is why we are on this forum. It is far fetched to say that anyone suggests that any entitlements be given. That is a huge leap from the original thought concerning fair treatment for all of God’s children.

We Americans who post here now are only in the USA by the grace of God. We are no better or worse than the rest of the world’s population. As I stated earlier, we share a border with Mexico, making migration much more plausible for the poor and downtrodden. Since the Mexican government is totally corrupt and content to allow its own to starve or suffer from diseases that are easily preventable, human nature would certainly lead any one of us who happened to be born there to seek a way out. All I can say is that Jesus expects us to share what we have. If a man asks for your cloak, give him your tunic also. If he asks you to go a mile with him, go two. Have mercy on those who have not.

 

[4elise]

I am more than willing to think about others. It occurs to me though that God must love non-Americans as much as he does Americans. I disagree with the dire situation that has been laid out. In the past, large scale immigration has been a source of strength. More people opens up the possibility of greater productivity. That is what history has taught.

I do not agree that the influx would be anything like the doom and gloom you present. Again, when any and all could come here, most chose not to come. Here are the figures.

latinamericanstudies.org/immigration-statistics-1.htm

The more Catholics post here, the more I see the wisdom of our bishops in this issue. We in America have grown so comfortable with prosperity that we see it as a divine entitlement. I am going to contact my bishop with a message of support and see what I can do to help.

Well said…I think the blessings the US has experience is the result of a history of welcoming the huddeled massas yerning to breath free

 

[rodomonte]

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS been against segregation.

By Rodomonte - - “Funny you should mention. There was an article in the Sacramento Bee religious section on a Saturday in 1997 if I remember correctly, about a black Catholic family who attended a suburban church. Every Sunday they arrived early and went down to the very first pew. No one ever joined them in that pew. Eventually they smelled a rat and went to another church where they were welcomed”.

When are you going to stop believing everything you read in the Media !

The Catholic Church has always been against segregation. If you believe otherwise please provide documentation from the Magesterium (the Pope in conjuction with the Bishops).

However - I did not say there were no sinners in the Catholic Church. All of us including you are sinners in some way or another.
Martin Luther King, Jr. carried a Rosary given to him by a Catholic woman even through he was not Catholic, but a man of Faith.

You imply you don’t believe that story in the Sacramento Bee, the newspaper of record in Sacramento, California. It was a full page article, complete with pictures of that black family. The Sacramento Bee has an Ombudsman that would have investigated any complaints about the story being false. The story is true.

I was scandalized by the story. I would have liked the Bishop there to have removed the pastor of that church for not rebuking his congregation.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am more than willing to think about others. It occurs to me though that God must love non-Americans as much as he does Americans. I disagree with the dire situation that has been laid out. In the past, large scale immigration has been a source of strength. More people opens up the possibility of greater productivity. That is what history has taught.

The economic, educational, demographic situations are vastly different than what was historically true, so your analogy cannot be directly applied.

The more Catholics post here, the more I see the wisdom of our bishops in this issue.

The more statements I see from CAF members who are not directly surrounded by huge influxes of immigrants affecting their states adversely, particularly poor people in those states, the more I see the lack of wisdom in such statements. That’s fine, you contact your bishops, while I continue to contact congress. I know where the morality lies: it does not lie in exploiting the lower-middle-class and the under-class who are already here, so that we can turn a blind eye to them and support millions of others who require extreme services from bankrupt states, and so that the evil exploitation by their own countries of origin can be directly and indirectly supported. No, I know my conscience will not support such rationalization, and therefore I activate my conscience in support of those whose educational and employment lives have been made quite uncomfortable. I speak for those who are uncomfortable; my own relative comfort is immaterial. In fact, it is those who are most comfortable – least personally touched or professionally touched by illiterate immigrants consuming scarce resources in the same cluster of regions, repeatedly – who can afford to make ivory-tower pronouncements based on theory, not reality.

 

[Redtown]

Originally posted by pnewton

:
I am of the opinion that there should be no numerical limits (on immigration)…
AND
Five billion? Are you familiar with a strawman argument, or do you think five billion is a realistic figure?

Regardless of whether it’s five billion or five million, you don’t address the *tangible consequences *of the open borders policy you support.

The US currently admits one million legal immigrants annually, on top of the 1.5 million illegal immigrants per year, plus another half-million anchor babies per year. If these current rates of immigration continue, the U.S. population will double to 600 million within 40 years and 1.2 Billion in another 50 years.

So if the open borders you propose leads to just five million new immigrants annually (a conservative estimate), we’d be looking at a total US population of 600 million in just 20 years, and 1.2 Billion by 2055 – the current population of China!!!

So again, just how do you propose to employ, feed, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide heath care to such masses of people? Please don’t give general platitudes, be specific. (And remember that China had 4,000 years to build up to 1.2 Billion people; we’d be facing a quadrupling of our population in just 45 years).

Christ wants us to be compassionate, but undoubtedly He also wants us to be prudent, realistic, and not suicidal.

 

[kimmielittle]

The economic, educational, demographic situations are vastly different than what was historically true, so your analogy cannot be directly applied.

The more statements I see from CAF members who are not directly surrounded by huge influxes of immigrants affecting their states adversely, particularly poor people in those states, the more I see the lack of wisdom in such statements. That’s fine, you contact your bishops, while I continue to contact congress. I know where the morality lies: it does not lie in exploiting the lower-middle-class and the under-class who are already here, so that we can turn a blind eye to them and support millions of others who require extreme services from bankrupt states, and so that the evil exploitation by their own countries of origin can be directly and indirectly supported. No, I know my conscience will not support such rationalization, and therefore I activate my conscience in support of those whose educational and employment lives have been made quite uncomfortable. I speak for those who are uncomfortable; my own relative comfort is immaterial. In fact, it is those who are most comfortable – least personally touched or professionally touched by illiterate immigrants consuming scarce resources in the same cluster of regions, repeatedly – who can afford to make ivory-tower pronouncements ** based on theory, not reality.**

And the bolded is the reality…nice theories without substance