Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Ender]

Timothy Michael Dolan is a bishop. We are required to respect his opinion.

Given the very intemperate comments that were made, I am having trouble believing that this letter was actually written by the archbishop. It carries his signature and he is surely responsible for its contents, nonetheless what it says is simply inappropriate. It is easier to believe that he asked an assistant to draft a statement on this subject and then was remiss in reviewing it.

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

No, he does not; no one has the right to judge a person’s intentions unless he has revealed them. Even archbishops are subject to the prohibition against rash judgment.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

Even archbishops are subject to the prohibition against rash judgment.

Indeed. And even more subject, due to their station.

 

[hazmatdude]

Unfortunately the Archbishop seems incapable of differentiating between a legal immigrant and an illegal alien as do most of our clergy and religious. He also seems to fail to understand the rule of law, national sovereignty and the rights of the States to protect their citizens from criminal aliens. Then to make matters worse in a flurry of very masterfully crafted words he brands any Catholic or anyone else who disagrees with his brand of immigration reform ie illegal alien amnesty a xenophobe or at worse a racist. How sad.

God bless the Church. God bless America.

 

[mlund]

Thankfully, there we do have other examples to fall back on, like Archbishop Chaput

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=4104&page=1

“But until Latin American nations seriously reform their own legal and economic systems, they are co-responsible for the current crisis. Just pointing fingers at the United States isn’t going to work. One of the implications of a hemispheric economy is that both sides of the border need to cooperate. Both sides of the border have duties.”

“Sometimes common sense is more useful than “prophetic witness.” The security concerns most Americans feel are very legitimate. Citizens have a right to be worried about disrespect for the law and the solvency of their public institutions.”

“If Americans are angry about the immigration issue, it’s not because they’re instinctively bigoted.”

• Marty Lund

 

[gus]

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.

I wouln’t let you off so easy.
The was noch thing as a illegal imigrant prior to the 20th century.
(with the exeption of Asians)
It was the no-nothing and nativis types who finally got it done.
The 1921 and 1924 Acts were aimed at limiting people from southern and Eastern Europe
Mostly Catholic’s and Jews
This time also saw the rise of the KKK, and other racially motivated movements
It was pretty close to Germany passing its racial laws
So your bedfellows are not all that pure

 

[TheresaLS]

As I read some of these posts I can’t help but wonder how we gloss over the fact that there are laws being broken. We have lost all respect for this great nation and we wonder why people have no problem having no respect the greater law which are the Ten Commandments. If Archbishop Dolan and the Great Mahoney are speaking to social justice let them relocate to the other side of the border and clean up the mess so it can be all that it can be!!! This is craziness.

 

[pnewton]

If Archbishop Dolan and the Great Mahoney are speaking to social justice let them relocate to the other side of the border and clean up the mess so it can be all that it can be!!! .

One should not have to leave the country in order to speak against something they see as wrong. This statement is not in keeping with American principles.

 

[mlund]

I wouln’t let you off so easy.
The was noch thing as a illegal imigrant prior to the 20th century.

That’s quite false.

(with the exeption of Asians)

That’s not the only exception.

It was the no-nothing and nativis types who finally got it done.
The 1921 and 1924 Acts were aimed at limiting people from southern and Eastern Europe
Mostly Catholic’s and Jews

Not even close to accurate or truthful.

1921 marks the first quantitative restrictions on immigration: ie - only so many from this country or area, only so many from that one …

Laws requiring immigrants be documented and cleared through a lawful port of entry are much, much older. People were turned away and deported before then too.

• Marty Lund

 

[Loy]

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.

From what I have seen, SCOTUS is all over the map when it comes to the preemption doctrine.

Specifically, what cases have decided that only federal officers may arrest persons reasonably suspected to have violated federal law?

 

[Loy]

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.

You raise good points, but it’s more complicated than that. Perhaps it should be as simple as you say, but unfortunately existing case law is not as straightforward.

 

[Loy]

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?

By itself, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s more productive to discuss what the bishops have actually said rather than endlessly speculate on their silence.

 

[Loy]

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.

Please consider these:

1. The exact same argument could be made of federal officers. Doesn’t your line of reasoning – that some officers could use race and language, without any other reason, to round up suspects – militate against federal officers enforcing documentation laws as well?
2. Something else to consider: U.S. border agents are allowed to detain, identify and search and investigate without probable cause, in fact without any reason at all. The Arizona law requires probable cause. This gives border agents greater latitude for abuse than Arizona law enforcement acting under the new law. So please explain how the Arizona law is more xenophobic, racist and unjust than the law of the entire United States?
3. You are arguing that you have seen law enforcement officers arrest people without reason and then make up the reasons later on. I assume you witnessed all this before the enactment of the Arizona bill. Since the potential for abuse exists without the new law, should Arizona simply stop enforcing all laws?

pnewton:

“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.

Crime victims, undocumented or otherwise, deserve protection. Unfortunately, criminal activity – including illegal immigration – has all sorts of horrible consequences. An American citizen who has warrants for his arrest is far less likely to report a crime for fear of being arrested. Should we simply stop placing warrants on fugitives out of concern that these individuals might be victimized? Criminals are shrewd. They know how to exploit prostitutes, drug users, gamblers and hustlers less sophisticated than them. This ever-present fact presents major challenges in protecting against victimization, but not enforcing the law against potential victims merely exacerbates the problem.

 

[pnewton]

By itself, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s more productive to discuss what the bishops have actually said rather than endlessly speculate on their silence.

It has been stated that the bishops were going against the Magisterium. That could only happen if other bishops contradicted the ones making the statements. As Catholics, what bishops say should bear weight before we react emotionally. The points that they are monolithic, or nearly monolithic on, should cause us pause.

I take it you haven’t heard of any bishop supporting the law either.

 

[Loy]

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.

Just to keep this discussion clear, Arizona does not deport the individuals, but rather turns them over to the feds.

Whenever there is a federal criminal case, if the prosecutors want the alien to testify, deportation is delayed. You may recall the criminal trial of Tyrone Williams, the driver who abandoned a truck full of illegal immigrants in the sweltering Texas sun, resulting in 22 deaths. Many of the witnesses were given work visas while awaiting Mr. Williams’ trial. I could be mistaken, but I seem to recall that several of the victims eventually received permanent resident status.

You raise a good point, though. Would the feds delay deportation to allow an alien to testify in a state case? Misdemeanor assault? Misdemeanor theft? Offhand, I don’t know the answer to that.

 

[pnewton]

You raise a good point, though. Would the feds delay deportation to allow an alien to testify in a state case? Misdemeanor assault? Misdemeanor theft? Offhand, I don’t know the answer to that.

FYI - The Arizona legislature amended the law yesterday. It no longer applies to any lawful contact, but any lawful stop, arrest and detention. I think in this area, my concern and this one concern of the bishops has been addressed.

 

[willofgods]

I do believe that the Archbishop wants only that which aligns with the Church teachings. I wonder if he has thought of the issue from this perspective though. Also, what have lawyers that examined the Arizona bill/law said about the entire law?

(I didn’t extensively fact-check, but…) From Wikipedia

Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status immigrants who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now are at their highest level ever at over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. Illegal immigration may be as high as 1,500,000 per year with a net of at least 700,000 illegal immigrants arriving each year to join the 12,000,000 to 20,000,000 that are already there.[40]

I am pro-immigration. I think everyone that wants the better opportunities that the USA (founded by immigrants) has to offer should have that chance; however, it is vital to understand though that there are many who want a better life for themselves and their family. For the U.S. government to properly welcome them (i.e., put them in the system to assure that they will receive all the rights and benefits of citizenship that they deserve) a given amount of time is necessary. If it takes the government employees an hour to file all the necessary documents (I bet it takes longer) and there are 1 Million legally immigrating residents per year, that’s at least ONE MILLION MAN HOURS. There has to be a cap on how many people are allowed to immigrate here per year, just by virtue of the fact that there aren’t enough people or time!

So in light of the above, if we allowed too many immigrating families in, it would be bad for them; mistakes would be made (more than are made now). And certainly, those illegally immigrating are not doing themselves any favor. Like I’ve said before, they often find themselves in poor working conditions, and poorer pay! I understand that they’re (usually) grown and that they can make their own decisions, but really, it’s not fair that they have to live that way.

And to those that compare the new Arizona bill/law to fascism: unless those persons are refugees, it is quite different! The Nazis would ask for papers on the basis of preemption and for the purpose of fining, punishing, imprisoning, or even killing.

Compared to many other countries, the US is amazingly fair to their legally and even illegally immigrated peoples.

 

[Loy]

It has been stated that the bishops were going against the Magisterium.

I haven’t read, and I can’t comment on those statements.

That could only happen if other bishops contradicted the ones making the statements.

But I must comment on this. The Magisterium does not consist merely of the current episcopacy. If today’s bishops contradict magisterial teaching of the past, then we have a big problem. I’m just making a general observation, again, I can’t specifically address what has been discussed in this forum elsewhere without specifically knowing what it is.

As Catholics, what bishops say should bear weight before we react emotionally.

It is terribly unwise to be ruled by emotions. Cardinal Mahony’s and Bishop Dolan’s statements were extremely counterproductive in this regard. But more importantly, not only were they minimally magisterial, but their secular analyses (sociological, legal, economic and historical) were seriously flawed.

The points that they are monolithic, or nearly monolithic on, should cause us pause.

We haven’t even heard from the overwhelming majority of bishops. Regardless, not only would it be reckless to readily reject controversial pronouncements of the bishops, but after this episode (and the culmination of so many others), it would be folly to readily accept them as well.

I take it you haven’t heard of any bishop supporting the law either.

I would hope that any bishop who supports this law would have the good sense to keep his opinion private rather than try to parade it around as if were pastoral teaching. At best, this law is an administrative shuffle. It is like saying that from now on, county deputy sheriffs will enforce the laws that used to be enforced by the state police. It is not worthy of episcopal comment. Bishops have no business, as bishops, to declare whether the Arizona law will improve the economy or reduce crime.

 

[Aramis]

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.

You’re being far to kind here, Marty…

From this end of the country, it looks like an orchestrated campaign of outright lies for the purposes of fear-mongering.

 

[TheresaLS]

It would seem that soon we will become a nation of “cafeteria” Americans. The bishops should be encouraging good citizenship and the adherence to the laws that are part of this nation. It is no wonder why many Catholics have no problem with changing what Jesus put forth for His Church.

 

[rodomonte]

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."

If you look at the responses from readers at the end of this story, you will see that most disagree with the Bishop’s statement.

If you are really interested in the Constitution, you should read Article 4, Section 4, which states the Federal government shall protect the states from invasion. It isn’t. If it did, Arizona would not have passed this law.