Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Badaliyyah]

Immigration Reform

"And, here we go again! Arizona is so scared, apparently, and so convinced that the #1 threat to society today is the immigrant that it has passed a mean-spirited bill of doubtful constitutionality that has as its intention the expulsion of the immigrant.

What history teaches us, of course, is that not only are such narrow-minded moves unfair and usually unconstitutional, but they are counterproductive and harmful."

 

[willofgods]

I definitely like Archbishop Dolan’s stance on immigration and the inappropriate reaction by some to what they see as “a threat”. I look forward to Cardinal Roger Mahony’s presentation on May 3. (Hopefully it’ll be on youtube.)
I believe that immigrants who have gone through all the legal procedures to get here should have 100% of the rights those born here have (and maybe even a little more, like programs on how to adjust to life in the USA ).
On the other hand, those immigrants who skipped these legal procedures have certainly made it unfair to those who went through the process legally. The argument that those who illegally crossed only wanted to make life better for their family is flawed in that many who waited for the legal system to let them in had the same needs and wants for their families (e.g., wanting to better support them financially). Furthermore, those here illegally often become subjected to unfair practices by employers who are looking for the cheapest labor.
Another point to consider is that some here illegally are drug smugglers and they wreak havoc on the innocent on both sides of the border. So some means of protecting US citizens/residents/guests is important. It’s important to note, however, that hiding behind legality to get rid of people you dislike because of their culture is morally reprehensible!

 

[bnbkaine]

I suppose I have big problems with his thesis that this bill is of questionable Constitutionality. I think people have a very skewed idea what exactly the Constitution has to say especially in regards to states’ rights.

 

[didymus]

I suppose I have big problems with his thesis that this bill is of questionable Constitutionality. I think people have a very skewed idea what exactly the Constitution has to say especially in regards to states’ rights.

It is very likely unconstitutional on the grounds of “preemption”, i.e., a state is poking its nose into an area reserved to the federal government. AZ argues that is is just trying to help the Feds – we’ll have to wait & see what the courts say.

 

[mdzialo]

Let me help A. Dolan: Illegal means not legal.

I guess Arizona should buy illegals one way tickets to St. Patricks.

 

[mlund]

The constant message that the legal immigrant and the illegal alien criminal are interchangeable is an exercise in deception and falsehoods. I find it shameful to see so many people taint moral teachings and positions by participating in this sham.

The trespassing law-breaker is punished.
The law-abiding immigrant is welcomed.

When the trespassing law-breaker is rewarded while the law-abiding immigrant is burdened you have a serious injustice. When you cultivate lawlessness to further enable to unlawful person and their illicit conduct you harm society. When you create enclaves of lawlessness you support escalating levels of criminality and violence, as we have witnessed in our border states.

I’m disappointed to see the good Archbishop is stepping out of his element - talking about laws he lacks the expertise to interpret and economic theories (ie - illegal immigrants are good for the economy) that he has no qualification to assert. Apostolic succession does not make you skilled at math, economics, or law.

I wish the good Archbishop could take a moment to address facts instead of platitudes and straw men. I want him to show and teach by addressing the specific language of the law rather than casting vague aspersions on the residents of numerous Sees beyond his own. This kind of article doesn’t communicate effectively. It makes it seem like the Archbishop is judging the hearts and minds of men and women who are unknown to him - ascribing them motives from afar. That would model a very poor example for the faithful.

• Marty Lund

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

It is very likely unconstitutional on the grounds of “preemption”, i.e., a state is poking its nose into an area reserved to the federal government. AZ argues that is is just trying to help the Feds – we’ll have to wait & see what the courts say.

I disagree. The federal government is to secure the borders.

The AZ law deals with what happens when they get past the border and into the State. It is very much a State issue in my view.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The constant message that the legal immigrant and the illegal alien criminal are interchangeable is an exercise in deception and falsehoods. I find it shameful to see so many people taint moral teachings and positions by participating in this sham.

The trespassing law-breaker is punished.
The law-abiding immigrant is welcomed.

When the trespassing law-breaker is rewarded while the law-abiding immigrant is burdened you have a serious injustice. When you cultivate lawlessness to further enable to unlawful person and their illicit conduct you harm society. When you create enclaves of lawlessness you support escalating levels of criminality and violence, as we have witnessed in our border states.

I’m disappointed to see the good Archbishop is stepping out of his element - talking about laws he lacks the expertise to interpret and economic theories (ie - illegal immigrants are good for the economy) that he has no qualification to assert. Apostolic succession does not make you skilled at math, economics, or law.

I wish the good Archbishop could take a moment to address facts instead of platitudes and straw men. I want him to show and teach by addressing the specific language of the law rather than casting vague aspersions on the residents of numerous Sees beyond his own. This kind of article doesn’t communicate effectively. It makes it seem like the Archbishop is judging the hearts and minds of men and women who are unknown to him - ascribing them motives from afar. That would model a very poor example for the faithful.

• Marty Lund

Amen!

This is something that the bishops are ignoring, equating all immigrants (both those here legally and those here illegally) as the same. They are not.

 

[Teelynn]

The Constitution actually says that immigrants new to the country need to carry identification stating that they are legal residents…but who abides by the Constitution anymore??? Arizona is being mulled over by illegal drug runners, and human trafficers. I saw an interview last night by a County Sherif that stated this law might give the police a little more to work with, but until the borders are secured by the Federal Government they will be on a constant merry go round. It is also against the law for the Police to stop people on the street just because they look to be Latino. The only time they will be able to ask for identification is if they stop someone for something they are doing illegally.

So legal immigrants ok…illegal immigrants nope. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[pnewton]

The only time they will be able to ask for identification is if they stop someone for something they are doing illegally.

That is not what the law said. The law says they must detain for identification anyone that comes in lawful contact that they suspect is illegal.

I asked this earlier. Does anyone know of any bishops who have come out in support of the law? If not, what does that say?

 

[mlund]

That is not what the law said. The law says they must detain for identification anyone that comes in lawful contact that they suspect is illegal.

No. It says that they must detain for further investigation anyone who, in the course of a lawful contact, arouses reasonable suspicion of having invalid legal status, while operating in full compliance with state and federal laws. “Reasonable suspicion” has a particular legal definition, while state and federal regulations prohibit racially profiling.

“Lawful contact,” requires that contact either be consensual or that the law enforcement officer have the legal right to detain or arrest the subject. If you are not subject to detention or arrest for something unrelated to this immigration enforcement law then you do not have to consent to any contact with the police. Then any contact they initiate without your consent is not “lawful contact,” thus can not activate the investigation provisions of this law.

So all this talk about random stops, racial profiling, and harassing Latinos for doing nothing but walking down the street is nothing but the product of ignorance and deceit.

• Marty Lund

 

[pnewton]

No. It says that they must detain for further investigation anyone who, in the course of a lawful contact, arouses reasonable suspicion of having invalid legal status, while operating in full compliance with state and federal laws. “Reasonable suspicion” has a particular legal definition, while state and federal regulations prohibit racially profiling.

Yes, how well I know. Like another poster said, I know how that term is used and race and language could well constitute a reason in the minds of some officers intent on a round up. In fact, “reason” is sometimes determined after the fact. This I have seen all too often.

“Lawful contact,” requires that contact either be consensual or that the law enforcement officer have the legal right to detain or arrest the subject.This would include the reporting of a crime by crime victims. I guess those in Arizona who hate illegals and like to roust them form fun and profit will not longer have to worry about being reported. It has been rightly pointed out that many horrors exist in human trafficking. The victims have always been fearful of reporting crimes. Next month, this fear will be justified and institutionalized.

 

[johnnykins]

What I find both sad and ironic is that those Catholics on these fora who are so quick to promote fascistic laws like these seem to have no clue that for decades Catholics of all sorts were subject to the most vile bigotry and attacks by law enforcement agents and their minions who held themselves out as “Americans” against the Catholic “foreigners.”

I have no doubt that there isn’t a small part of that same prejudice at work in these laws. What exactly does an “American” look like or act like?

These laws are the antithesis of the ideals of America and represent a disturbing and reprehensible response to issues of illegal immigration.

I’m no fan of HE Roger Card. Mahoney, but he is on the side of God, Justice and America on this one. His Eminence, Archbishop Dolan and the rest of the Bishops are, thank God, getting this one right.

 

[mlund]

Yes, how well I know. Like another poster said, I know how that term is used and race and language could well constitute a reason in the minds of some officers intent on a round up.

Except that racial profiling is prohibited under the applicable State and Federal laws and policies. Language skills, however, may be relevant on a case-by-case basis. Criminal profiling is allowed and is distinct from racial profiling. In the end, any officer of the law is accountable to a court of law to explain the basis of his “reasonable suspicion” or “probably cause.”

These features are not unique to SB1070, but have been applied and tested in practice with numerous other laws.

This would include the reporting of a crime by crime victims.

Other State statutes and policies apply to protect the rights of victims and witnesses reporting and testifying to crimes. Those county offices of victims and witness services exist for a reason. We have a Silent Witness program here for a reason as well.

I guess those in Arizona who hate illegals and like to roust them form fun and profit will not longer have to worry about being reported.

I might be inclined to guess that too, if I were completely ignorant of Arizona’s existing laws and services. If these prove inadequate to the task then more can be created to address those inadequacies. That’s the beauty of our system of laws.

• Marty Lund

 

[markomalley]

Apparently, since I want the country’s immigration laws enforced, I am a know-nothing and a nativist.

Oh, well.

 

[johnnykins]

Apparently, since I want the country’s immigration laws enforced, I am a know-nothing and a nativist.

Oh, well.

Naaahhh Good Point! They were groups from the early and mid 19th century - you don’t have the excuse of pre-dating the Civil War, the anti-Chinese legislation, the Italian, Jewish and Eastern European immigrations of the early 20th century, Russian Pogroms, KKK, Nazis, Jim Crow, Civil Rights Movement, etc., etc., all manner of foreign and domestic horrors in the name of the “law” since that time.

No, if you support this law you are right, you should not be compared with them.

 

[mlund]

No, if you support this law you are right, you should not be compared with them.

Yeah, seriously, the Know Nothings opposed legal immigrants, usually because those legal immigrants were predominantly Catholics.

Trying to associate a person who supports legal immigration to a Know Nothing would be a farce.

• Marty Lund

 

[markomalley]

Naaahhh Good Point! They were groups from the early and mid 19th century - you don’t have the excuse of pre-dating the Civil War, the anti-Chinese legislation, the Italian, Jewish and Eastern European immigrations of the early 20th century, Russian Pogroms, KKK, Nazis, Jim Crow, Civil Rights Movement, etc., etc., all manner of foreign and domestic horrors in the name of the “law” since that time.

No, if you support this law you are right, you should not be compared with them.

Yeah, seriously, the Know Nothings opposed legal immigrants, usually because those legal immigrants were predominantly Catholics.

Trying to associate a person who supports legal immigration to a Know Nothing would be a farce.

• Marty Lund

Gentlemen:

Here are Archbishop Dolan’s words:

So we can chart periodic spasms of “anti-immigrant” fever in our nation’s history: the Nativists of the 1840’s, who led mobs to torch Irish homes and Catholic churches; the Know-Nothings of the 1850’s who wanted to deny the vote to everyone except white, Protestant, native-born, “pure” Americans; the American Protective Association of the 1880’s and 1890’s who were scared of the arrival of immigrants from Italy, Poland, and Germany; the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920’s who spewed hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics, and “forn-ers”; the “eugenics movement” of the 1920’s and 1930’s who worried that racial purity was being compromised by the immigrant and non-Anglo Saxon blood lines; and the Protestants and Other Americans United of the 1950’s who were apprehensive about Catholic immigrants and their grandkids upsetting the religious and cultural concord of America.

And, here we go again!
​

Timothy Michael Dolan is a bishop. We are required to respect his opinion. And if he says that those, like me, who welcome legal immigrants while, at the same time, support the duty of the State to secure our borders and control the numbers of people who come into this country (and, by extension, to remove those who have entered in violation of those laws), are nativists, know-nothings, APAers, and KKKluckers, so be it.

I am only a lay person. I do not have the right to judge the archbishop, he has the right to judge me.

 

[pnewton]

Other State statutes and policies apply to protect the rights of victims and witnesses reporting and testifying to crimes. Those county offices of victims and witness services exist for a reason. We have a Silent Witness program here for a reason as well.

This law, the one currently under discussion, the law that will take effect this summer, did not make that exception. We all know and have quoted the section from this law that mandates police action. Perhaps if you know of a section or can provide a quote that exempts crime victims from deportation, you could post it. That would be a valuable thing to know.

I guess we will know in a year or two who was right.

 

[Religion_Ninja]

Was the anti-immigration sentiment a century ago directed to immigrants who were here illegally or legally? Was negativity directed towards them *because *they were here illegally?