Archbishop Dolan on Immigration Reform

[Elizabeth502]

We are a nation of immigrants.

We still are. They are allowed to come here legally. And by so doing, we are able to accommodate them and control somewhat for the selective disproportional impact any might have on particular regions of the country.

Closing the door now that we are in is not a new instinct.

No one on this or any other immigration thread on CAF has said that we should “close the door now that we are in,” nor have they so much as implied that. Stop misrepresenting the statements of other posters.

it is time to make changes that reflect our knowledge that all the huddled masses are created in the image of God - and we as individual Catholics should take the lead in speaking in their defense.

Yep. Our first duty is to those who were always our neighbors: the huddled masses of poor people, especiallly of color, who live next door, next county over, next state over, who have no mobility because they lack the funds to move, when thousands of non-English-speaking immigrants move into their school districts (which they do every year) and instantly transform instruction in English to instruction in Spanish (which they do every year, depriving existing residents of their right to a basic education). Jesus never said, ‘Abandon your neighbor; instead, welcome strangers, no matter what effect that has on your previous neighbor.’ Not in the Gospels, and it appears that maybe you and some of the Bishops need to refresh yourselves on what the Gospels actually say, and conversely what they do not say, on what is Catholic teaching and what is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Brendan]

. If he wants to be licensed by the state, than he needs to find away to respect her legal rights. .

Yes, but the Constitition also prohibts the State from interfering from a persons free practice of their religion.

So State licensing CANNOT preclude a person on religious grounds. In other words, a State has no Consititional authority to deny or pull a persons license simply because they were living according to the tenents of their religion.

 

[Darryl1958]

And as inconvenient as this thought may be for you, some conservative Catholics.

Not inconvenient at all actually. Libertarians are fully up front about their desire to let the market of supply and demand determine the size of the labor force. In good times, people will flood in;in bad times, or at least when times get worst than the country of departure, people will go back to their country of origin.

There is an honestly in such a policy. It is based on the cold hard reasoning of an economic policy and its merits and liablities can be debated as such. On the other hand, to the extent that the policy of the liberal bishops and liberals in general are based on feeling, they fall outside of the realm of what can be debated rationally.

The liberal argument, in a nutshell, is “Those poor, poor souls!! Don’t you care for their plight? how can you be so cold as to not feel for them?”

This is simply not debatable. It is not a discussion of policy, but a discussion of feelings.

If liberals want to open up the immigration flood gates to a point where staying in the world’s poorest nations is a more attractive option than to emigrate to America, then they ought to be honest about it, or at least honest as to where a policy based on feelings will lead.

 

[kimmielittle]

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.

And we already have a Federal Law stating you , I, anyone - has to produce citizenship evidence… when being questioned in regards to unlawful activity.

We have laws, already in place, making it illegal to enter this country illegally and if illegal …should be punished.

The State has the right / obligation of self governance - especially if a Federal law is being ignored.

 

[kimmielittle]

Yes, but the Constitition also prohibts the State from interfering from a persons free practice of their religion.

So State licensing CANNOT preclude a person on religious grounds. In other words, a State has no Consititional authority to deny or pull a persons license simply because they were living according to the tenents of their religion.

Also the Civil Rights Laws argument / analogy made by him, doesn’t hold weight. No one persons civil rights can trump another civil rights.

 

[sidbrown]

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.

Yes, you can punish a criminal. That is true. But it will not bring back from the dead a murdered loved one. Innocent people are being kidnapped and killed in gang crossfire.
Shouldn’t we have a little compassion for those who have been maimed for life or have been killed by these drug cartels?

 

[4elise]

Yes, you can punish a criminal. That is true. But it will not bring back from the dead a murdered loved one. Innocent people are being kidnapped and killed in gang crossfire.
Shouldn’t we have a little compassion for those who have been maimed for life or have been killed by these drug cartels?

How is this different than what I’ve said:

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.

 

[sidbrown]

How is this different than what I’ve said:

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.

Punishment alone will not bring back an innocent person who has been gunned down by criminal drug dealers. So punishment will not help these innocent victims at this point. We need to concentrate on laws that will prevent this element from operating against innocent people in the first place.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t know what the pro illegal immagration people want. Should we just do away with our borders, and let anybody in that shows up?

I am not pro illegal immigration, but I want all to come here that want to come here, with just enough documentation to know who they are. That is why I agree with AB Dolan that we need reform. These people should not have to sneak across to cross over.

 

[Aramis]

How is this different than what I’ve said:

We already have laws against drug dealing and violence - those who break these laws should be punished under existing laws.

The Arizona law will aid exactly that…

by giving local law enforcement the duty to ask. And, when they find individuals with forged or no documentation, to hold them over for the enacting of charges on the federal level, as well as a state crime so they can’t be let free until the feds have, in fact, also picked up the case.

Further, it marks them as state criminals, which further bars them from legal reentry, and makes further reentry far more harshly punishable.

But, hey, let’s not forget: Arizona also has the desert prisons… so when they do get deported, they might have spent time incarcerated in tents in the desert doing hard labor in the nasty sun… the one state where they might not be better off in prison than in some 3rd world slum.

 

[sidbrown]

I am not pro illegal immigration, but I want all to come here that want to come here, with just enough documentation to know who they are. .

There are billions of people poorer than those from Mexico. And many want to comer here. I don;t see how the US economy can take billions of poor people who might want to come here. Who will pay for the transportation, health, education, food and shelter of billions of poor people who want to come to the USA?

 

[pnewton]

There are billions of people poorer than those from Mexico. And many want to comer here. I don;t see how the US economy can take billions of poor people who might want to come here. Who will pay for the transportation, health, education, food and shelter of billions of poor people who want to come to the USA?

History has shown that immiigrantion is a boost to the economy. People are one of the factors in determining production. This is a lesson that communist China was slow to learn, but that they have now used to become the one who lends us money.

If illegal aliens are paying for these things now, there is no reason to think that legal immigrants would not pay for their own way.

 

[Phil_Stone]

Also the Civil Rights Laws argument / analogy made by him, doesn’t hold weight. No one persons civil rights can trump another civil rights.

So you are saying that the civil rights of the Pharmacist protect him when he denies the civil rights of a woman seeking a presciption, but dont protect him when he denies the civil rights of an African American?

If as you say no persons civil rights can trump those of another, then how can those of the pharmacist trump those of the woman?

You are both leaving out too many steps in your reasoning for me to follow. It may be you are taking rights too simplistically, as they do not always emanate in all directions without conflict with those of another. A traditional maxim on this conflict is that your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.

 

[kimmielittle]

So you are saying that the civil rights of the Pharmacist protect him when he denies the civil rights of a woman seeking a presciption, but dont protect him when he denies the civil rights of an African American?

No, you are saying that

A conscious clause does not infringe or deny her getting her prescription. It allows me protection from being forced to provide my services or goods equally to what I believe, an immoral act.

If I were an independent Pharmacy - I would not have to carry that prescription…and refer her to some other Pharmacy. If I worked for a chain Pharmacy - I would be obligated to refer her to someone who would. but protected from having to participate.

Either way, it is not a civil rights issue - Unless, you consider my rights being violated by telling me what goods I can stock in my own store - or what I must participate in.

 

[Phil_Stone]

No, you are saying that

A conscious clause does not infringe or deny her getting her prescription. It allows me protection from being forced to provide my services or goods equally to what I believe, an immoral act.

If I were an independent Pharmacy - I would not have to carry that prescription…and refer her to some other Pharmacy. If I worked for a chain Pharmacy - I would be obligated to refer her to someone who would. but protected from having to participate.

Either way, it is not a civil rights issue - Unless, you consider my rights being violated by telling me what goods I can stock in my own store - or what I must participate in.

So If your religion tells you not to serve African Americans (as many pastors preached) , you are not denying anyone’s civil rights when you refuse service?

Are you saying that as long as your action doesn’t actually prevent someone from subsquently getting service from someone else, you are in the clear?

 

[4elise]

Punishment alone will not bring back an innocent person who has been gunned down by criminal drug dealers. So punishment will not help these innocent victims at this point. We need to concentrate on laws that will prevent this element from operating against innocent people in the first place.

I certainly would not argue that their should be federal immigration laws that should be enforced. Could they be done better - of course.

I certainly agree that we should be working against drug cartels - criminals on both side of the boarder who have no regard for human life - and perhaps a bit more emphasis on the end users ???

I believe where there seems to be concern is lumping those who came here, albeit without visas, as a result of economic pressures in their own country, i.e. unable to provide for their families - lumping them together with the ones who as you say have gunned down innocent people together into one group ---- this is I believe the crux of the objections

I think that the economic strain so many are feeling in our own country is exacerbating this issue - and I think that those who try to control people with fear use these issues to create division and diversion.

If you or I lived in another country and did not have the ability to provide for our family due to the lack of opportunities, or government corruption, and we did not have the ability to apply for a visa, the funds necessary - and as an option we could risk our lives to get to a place where we could work for even a little money - knowing this was the only way our families, our own children, our aging parents could live - would we do it?

I remember reading an article - and I’m sorry the aging mind can’t remember the source - that drew a correlation between the angle of economic growth our country has enjoyed for 200 + years and the growth through immigration - as we have reduced and criminalized many immigrant populations - this growth has also slowed -

God Bless, praying for all mothers today - those here in the US, those who are here illegally because they are trying to provide for their children too.

 

[kimmielittle]

So If your religion tells you not to serve African Americans (as many pastors preached) , you are not denying anyone’s civil rights when you refuse service?

I have not refused service. I have refused to be of service.

Actually, my faith has little to do with what I intrinsically know to be moral and amoral. IMHO that’s where Atheists fail with trying to connect Religion and Morality, with / to me. Maybe., you should try something else to debate? I am religious because I know what is moral,

Are you saying that as long as your action doesn’t actually prevent someone from subsquently getting service from someone else, you are in the clear?

No, I said the Civil Rights analogy as used by you, does not equate to a Conscious Clause.

 

[WatchingMedia]

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS been against segregation.
I don’t know what is included in all non-Catholic Churches constitutions.
No one should be forced to perform abortions, etc.
There are plenty of other pharmacies in the US if a Pharmacist needs to use a “conscience clause”.

The “Hyde Amendment” was in place for many years with no one getting hurt.
You just never went to a Catholic Hospital or Catholic doctor for an abortion on demand.
Never went to a Catholic adoption agency if you were a gay couple looking to adopt.
You basically take your money elsewhere, and everyone is happy.

Conscience clauses protect freedom of Religion, freedom of Speech, etc.

 

[Redtown]

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)?

If you agree that some limits are reasonable, how many should we allow? 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 million annually? Shouldn’t all the world’s poor be equally entitled to the blessings of US residency and citizenship?

And if we limit legal immigration, say, to 2.5 million annually, that will lead to a total US population of 600 million by 2050 (many/ mostly uneducated and low-skilled). How will the US employ, feed, educate, and provide medical care for so many?

Christ laid out the basic principles of loving our neighbor, feeding the poor, and welcoming the stranger. But He left it for us to work out the details and answer the hard questions. General sentiments of “compassion” alone, or appeals to our immigrant-grandparents, do not answer the hard questions or provide the details of workable, sustainable public policy.

 

[Sherry_G]

From a slightly different perspective, I wanted to point out that Mexico is easily accessible to the USA by car, truck, or on foot, and as such presents its own peculiar issues. However, my main point is to say that the Mexican governement is entirely corrupt and as such, will not allow legal applications to be made for a Mexican citizen to obtain a visa or green card unless accompanied by huge sums of money. Of course, most Mexicans are nearly destitute by government design as they have no protections under the law such as we here in the states enjoy and take for granted. This is not a situation where their own government will assist in their legal entry into our country. This is the main reason that we have seen such an upsurge in “illegal” migration to the land of opportunity.

To say that most of our fore fathers came here legally is a joke. Most of us really have no idea exactly how our ancestors arrived here or under what circumstances. I personally know quite a few Mexicans who are here “illegally” but who work very hard, pay taxes under “some SS#” but could never hope to reap any repayment at retirment age. Most people who come here any way they can are only doing so to have the opportunity to work and feed their families.

This is not a political issue. It is a moral issue. Lets stop hiding behind “the law” on this issue and do what Jesus would have us do. Create a true path to citizenship now.