T
TedDC
Guest
A regulated temporary worker program, with entry and duration of stay tied directly to labor requirements, is very different from blanket legalization/amnesty of the entire illegal immigrant population.
Archbishop Gomez: Detentions and Deportations are a ‘Humanitarian Tragedy”
- Status
T
tafan
Guest
Would you mind defining what amnesty is? This is a word that is misused horribly by the anti-immigration crowd.
Here is my take on the issue of the undocumented workers who are here now: Do not grant amnesty, that would be a mistake, they broke the law and they should be penalized. I believe the current penalties of $250 (IIRC, it is arround that much for overstay of a visa or illegal entry into the US) are a little too light. But it is wrong (and I think unconstitutional) to change penalties and make them retroactively applied. So a good approach would be, if they want to take advantage of the temp worker program, they will have to go back to Mexico. If they are assured a legal entry back here, they will. They do not like living underground. An alternative could be to make them pay a extra fee (maybe a couple of thousand bucks) to apply for the program while they are here.
Now, of course, any of these options are defined as amnesty, but they are not. They are not being forgiven for any crime, it is assumed that they will be required to pay the penalties that are on the books, and then start living here legally through the new program.
If this is implemented, then more stringent penalties against employers are more likely to work, since you won’t be fighting the market.
But all of these approaches require a reasoned judgement, and admission that our current laws are completely messed up, and that it cannot be solved through simple enforcement mechanisms. Did you know that the number of border control agents has increased 10 fold in the last 10 years? How’s that working for you?
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
- Build a fence and take any other measures needed to prevent illegal aliens from crossing the border.
- Make English the national language.
- If we arrest anybody, we check to see whether that person is a legal resident.
- Make sure illegal aliens do not recieve welfare.
- If we find an illegal alien we do these 2 things
b. Use his assets to pay for any public services he has used and his trip out of the US. If he doesn’t have enough money, he can help build and mantain the border fence or work on other public projects.
- If a deported illegal alien tries to apply for citizenship, his application is rejected immediately.
- Anchor babies are sent back with their parents.
- Those who aid, harbor, or employ illegal aliens should face fines, flogging, or prison.
P
pnewton
Guest
The more I here of AB Gomez, the more I respect the man’s leadership. I think the criticism of him is unfounded. He said nothing, not one thing that was “off the reservation”. He spoke 100% in line with Catholic teaching on social justice, though I think the article did not do the speech justice. Here is a fuller reporting.
inthemedia.cua.edu/CNAImmigrationConference.cfm
inthemedia.cua.edu/CNAImmigrationConference.cfm
Note that the only real suggestions he gave were preceded by “I would like to see…” He did not promote his own idea as Church teaching, but did support them. I think it is important to note that he did not fix blame on the tragedy that deportation causes, on either the government or the immigrants, only on the tragedy of breaking up families.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I didn’t make the comment about “off the reservation.” However, in the Noticias article, this is what he actually said, which to me showed an unfortunate misunderstanding of a key aspect of immigration’s impact:
[bolding mine]
I can always tell when people’s professions or areas of residence do not include the undeniable compromise to standards of living for non-immigrant poor people that are related to survival. “Sefish concerns”? So unless the Abp. has been misquoted, what an offensive concept to all the underprivileged racial minorities and poor families I have worked with in education, families who have had to resort to homeschooling because none of their grade-school classes are being conducted in English. What it means, in fact, is an immediate reduction of income for such already-impoverished families whose only resort is public homeschool, requiring one parent to stay home to facilitate the learning, thus eliminating one wage-earner for each such family. Literally, my families have to decide which wage-earner will quit her/his job.
This is a frequent occurrence, not an occasional one.The rest of the Noticias article was broad enough that I don’t think it warrants refutation or objection. But that comment does. That is not based on “opinion.” It is based on direct experience with populations on a daily basis that some Catholic clergy have much less experience with than some of us.
I do not know how much particular occupatons (such as construction, hospitality industry, restaurant work) are negatively impacted for the same economic class of non-immgrants. However, if any are truly impacted (I have read that construction is), and that impact compromises livelihoods of existing residents, no one should be surprised that the subject of illegal immigration (not legal) remains contentious and not fully embraced, even by Catholics.
There is no such thing as justice in a vacuum. All justice looks at context. If you create an immediate or near-term injustice to another innocent group, in the cause of “justice,” then you (we) are guilty of the end-justifies-the-means morality, which the Church condemns (when evil is used to rationalize a good end).
That is just one example of the complexity of many social justice issues. Another would be (in the immigrants’ favor) the injustice of unchecked employer privileges due to lack of enforcement in hiring. So here again, even this (despite the good intended in refraining from detentions, raids, etc.) cannot be looked at as a one-sided justice issue. Anything that rewards (fails to punish) an employer may (often does) reward the capitalist for exploitation, as he can (1) pay lower-than-market wages as a subtle ‘blackmail’ (2) enjoy no incentive to follow the law, or offer competitive wages, when the only person punished will be the (illegal) immigrant.
So again, this is why many people who consider themselves sincerely on the social justice side of things (including non-believers) favor comprehensive reform, as opposed to the status quo of Looking the Other Way as an unofficial (but practical) policy. Our current practices are neither liberating nor just - not to the legal immigrant, not to the illegal immigrant, not to immigration as a whole, not to similarly poor people who don’t happen to be immigrants.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is no need to take offense where none was given. Do you consider your opinions motivated from selfishness? If not, then this is not something that applies to you. I tell you that I have heard many whose sole opinion on immigration is on how it affects their standard of living. Selfishness is a problem in America. I can’t believe that this is news to anyone. This does not mean all are selfish though.
Personally, I do not believe that their is a school district in America that does not offer classes in English, though. I would think that the conservative pundits would be all over that, it there was.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
You entirely divorced the word ‘sefishness’ from the context of his remark. He implied that concerns (plural) about living standards are ‘selfish,’ and I think his view is not uncommon, even though it’s a very faulty view. It is mythical that no one here in the United States could be as poor as an immigrant, especially one here illegally. I suggest such a view belies a lack of acquaintance with severe poverty right here in the States. While many immigrants come from desperate or certainly deprived conditions in their native lands. others have family currently here, who have become more well-off, and thus in a position to provide a financial or housing helping hand to such newcomers who are relatives. Those situations are actually less financially desperate than those of many of the impoverished black and (legal) southeast Asian immigrants whom I teach.
Your personal “beliefs” are in error. The facts are what they are. The conservative pundits, as well as conservative politicians, generally send their children to private schools, so they would not necessarily become aware of this unless someone brought it to their attention. And Archbishops do not have families (children) of their own, so they would not necessarily know this, either. What’s going on is that the classes are illicitly being conducted in English, but when brought to the attention of officials, there is no political or personal will to correct it. Officially, there is not the approval (at least in my State), but unofficially it is extremely widespread. Again, poor people don’t have a lot of political clout, so do not expect them to have advocates in the popular press or in the government. I am an advocate, and I do care about social justice.
P
pnewton
Guest
I do not think anyone doubts that there is poverty in America unassociated with immigration. AB Gomez did not say that concerns about living standards are selfish, or anything else contrary to Catholic teaching. He said what he said. There is no need to look for anything implied.
Okay, as you are “an advocate” would you mind showing any evidence to support what you are claiming are facts. When I hear outrageous and extreme statements, I tend to doubt them unless I can see evidence.
Perhaps if you disagree with what the Archbishop has said, you can show where he departed from Church teaching on the subject, not implied, but actual. If not, maybe the question is whether it is AB Gomez you find uncomfortable or Catholic social teaching. You might find this is just a misunderstanding of what he said.
R
RobbyS
Guest
We have hear a border dispute between two countries, and complicated by the fact that the leaders may have been conspiring to nullify the existing American laws.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
There have been very few suggestions on how to “fix” the problem once and for all.
Remember that amnesty - similar to the 1980’s without enforcement for the future has been proven not to work.
The border must be secured first, and then we must work to fix the rest of the problems.
Anyone who implies that there has been excellent border security over the past ten years is obviously wrong.
The Bishops of US border States and of Mexico must tell people not to cross the border illegally. I have not heard this in any public statements from them. All those coming across the border must have passports or proper working papers. (This is what is required of our Canadian neighbors.) The CCC clearly states that immigrants must obey the law.
T
tafan
Guest
ANNE 2:
Why are conservatives so confident in the governments ability to fix this problem if we just throw enough money at it? One of the many ironies of this peculiar debate. Only on this issue, do conservatives want an expanded (greatly) federal government power and intrusion into our lives.
The admission that there are problems in our laws, but the refusal to address them before securing the borders is laughable. Why would someone want to devote more and more resources into enforcing a set of laws they admit are failed?
Well, securing the border will be prohibitively expensive and may never work if we don’t fix the underlying issues that are causing the problems in the first place. No one is implying that there has been excellent border security over the past ten years, just a huge increase in effort in both money and manpower. And it has not seemed to satisfied you so far.
Why are conservatives so confident in the governments ability to fix this problem if we just throw enough money at it? One of the many ironies of this peculiar debate. Only on this issue, do conservatives want an expanded (greatly) federal government power and intrusion into our lives.
The admission that there are problems in our laws, but the refusal to address them before securing the borders is laughable. Why would someone want to devote more and more resources into enforcing a set of laws they admit are failed?
T
tafan
Guest
How’s this working out for everyone? Satisfied with the results so far, how many more times do we need to increast the budget 10 fold to make it work?
T
tafan
Guest
immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/throwing-good-money-after-bad-immigration-enforcement
See above reference for graphs on increase in budget and personel along southwestern border. How’s this working out for you guys? Want to just stay on this path? We can keep trying I suppose. We will be having this same debate 10 years from now, and people arguing “lets secure the border first” will still have not taken time to actually study the costs involved in doing so.
See above reference for graphs on increase in budget and personel along southwestern border. How’s this working out for you guys? Want to just stay on this path? We can keep trying I suppose. We will be having this same debate 10 years from now, and people arguing “lets secure the border first” will still have not taken time to actually study the costs involved in doing so.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The implication is there; I quoted those remarks of his previously. He did not differentiate, nor indicate any awareness that he “has no doubts that there is poverty in America unassociated with immigration.” He indicated that selfish concerns are behind the concern about standard of living. There is no evidence in his remarks that thoughts you attribute to him must be true. Unless he has given any remarks to the contrary elsewhere.
And this is the entire point. There is little to no communicated consciousness in the immigration debate overall (not pinning this on him, by any means), by most of those who support illegal immigration, of a clear understanding of the need to balance existing poverty in this country with poverty of those coming from other countries. Let alone is there a communicated or activated advocacy of protection for the most vulnerable. Usually, there is similarly not enough empathy by those against illegal immigration, showing an understanding of the other side of the issue: both the moral needs and the practical advantages. (There’s a lot of heated political rhetoric, and interest-group advocacy, but frankly the seriously poor are left out of it.)
My point being that the most important aspect about achieving consensus about immigration (and thus progress) is for there to become obvious a communicated empathy for all parties involved: immigrants, residents, employers, governments, service institutions such as schools & hospitals, etc. I’m not the first one to notice this: this has been observed by commentators for some time now. Until a genuine effort is made in that direction – until at least then – the issue will remain intractably divisive. I understand the advocacy rule the Church is playing in this regard, but – just as they eventually got wiser with the abortion issue (i.e., began to be much more supportive/assistive of pregnant women), something similar is necessary here as well. The moral and social imperative is not in one direction only, for one group only. The sooner and more regularly this is apparent in public remarks by all those offering remarks (church and non-church), the sooner real progress will be made. Being dismissive about the needs of any affected party (“so-and-so is a liar; it must not be happening”) is a certain way to intensify divisions and minimize the desirable social justice goal of comprehensive immigration reform.
Field evidence is most often not subject to written reports, any more than nurses who work in hospitals can give you “evidence” of their daily interactions with patients. Yet, not being a nurse, I would not doubt for a second that their experience is real, factual, and not a manufactured lie, “extreme,” or “outrageous.” It used to be considered “outrageous” and “extreme” (exaggerated) that so-called police brutality existed. Ditto for brutality from prison guards. One still won’t find nearly as much of that published, as exists. . If you’re not aware of unpublished realities in police, social work, hospital, prison, or educational settings, I can’t help that. Again, officials in education have no interest in making public that the law regarding instruction in English is being violated in heavily impacted school districts, and that poor English-speaking minorities are being denied an equal education.
It is, however, an outrageous reality and an extreme injustice. I am by no means alone in observing it. Families and teachers have reported it in newspaper articles, broadcast news, and in other venues, for those who do keep current with social realities of life in the greater U.S.
Wow. I deeply resent such an unfounded implication. I said nothing to indicate disapproval of any aspect of Catholic social teaching. In fact, here’s what I said, so I would appreciate it if you did not misrepresent that on this thread.
[bolding added]
Just FYI – and for all those who might also be interested in the subject. Catholic social teaching is by no means limited to the issue of immigration – legal, illegal, both. This broad moral category includes economic justice and other facts of life globally & locally. What is important for sincerely moral Catholics is to ensure that a victory in one area of social justice does not end up jeopardizing a different element of social justice. To have a balanced view in no way is an indictment of a Catholic, implying or stating, as was done above, that such a Catholic (in this case myself) must be hostile to social justice, ambivalent about it, or uncommitted to it.
N
neiadeacon
Guest
There has been a lot of Official Church Documents by Popes and Bishops on immigration:
Who do you think Jesus at with – those that society abandoned. Today that would be the immigrant.
I don’t know about you — but I certainly wish to be at that banquet table.
***Among man’s personal rights, we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents. It is therefore the duty of the state officials to accept immigrants and—so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood permits, to further the aims of those who may wish to become members of a new society.
***When workers come from another country or district and contribute to the economic advancement of a nation or region by their labor, all discrimination as regards wages and working conditions must be carefully avoided……public authorities must help them bring their families to live with them and to provide decent dwelling…and incorporated into the social life of the country or region
***Recommit as a church to work so that every person’s dignity is respected, the immigrant is welcomed as a brother or sister and all humanity forms a united family which knows how to appreciate with discernment the different cultures which comprise it. We call upon all people of good will, but Catholics especially to welcome the newcomers in their neighborhoods and schools, in their places of work and worship with heartfelt hospitality, openness and eagerness.
Who do you think Jesus at with – those that society abandoned. Today that would be the immigrant.
I don’t know about you — but I certainly wish to be at that banquet table.
***Among man’s personal rights, we must include his right to enter a country in which he hopes to be able to provide more fittingly for himself and his dependents. It is therefore the duty of the state officials to accept immigrants and—so far as the good of their own community, rightly understood permits, to further the aims of those who may wish to become members of a new society.
Code:
Pacem in Terris***
Code:
Gaudium et Spes***
Code:
Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity,
Statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops:2001***
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
There is absolutely nothing in my posts anywhere on the immigration issue on CAF, including on this thread, that contradicts the above restated sections of Catholic documents in post 54. Nothing. So I’m not sure why this poster restated this, or whether he felt these should be directed to me personally. My alignment with Catholic social teaching is clear. Merely restating needs of migrants, without awareness of the needs of the many other parties affected, will not move forward the social justice need for comprehensive immigration reform.
If this poster feels that he has someone else in mind, or if he is suffering from a guilty conscience himself, he should make that clear.
If this poster feels that he has someone else in mind, or if he is suffering from a guilty conscience himself, he should make that clear.
T
tafan
Guest
Elizabeth502, I think I have asked this before, but do not remember your answer. You mention how classes being conducted in Spanish are having such an adverse effect. Where is this the case. I know in this area, if a student exhibits a complete lack of knowledge of English, they can go to a Spanish language school, but by default they are pretty much immersed in English. The kids of immigrants learn English really fast. I know lots of kids who speak great English, yet their parents speek little or no English. Just curious.
On another topic, the issue of immigration’s adverse effect of our countries economy and the existing working poor. This is a valid concern, but too many people assumes a backwards approach towards what drives an economy, IMO. In the short term, economic fluctuations are demand driven (or consumer driven). This is true, but it leads many to focus only on the demand side of the economy. But it is not the case long term, any long term, successful economy is supply-driven (ever here the Reagan erra term “supply-side economics” and wonder what it meant?). A country does well when it produces a lot. More workers, especially hard workers who are entrepenurial, means more production, more jobs, and then more people consuming. The idea that our economy cannot absorb more workers is really absurd in my mind. Does it need regulated? Yes (OTH, there are economists who make a great case for open-borders, as that is really what built this country). If we were limited on our ability to produce enough of our basic needs (eg food), then it would be a different story. But as long as we have the capacity to produce more of our basic needs, immigration will not make us poorer, quite the opposite. It will make us richer, all of us. It has worked in the past, it will work again. And it is just.
None of us support illegal immigration, we just want it fixed and we want liberal immigration policies and a just solution applied to those who are already here (flogging seems a little unjust, IMO, but then again I am a fan of Naval history and I know how inhumane that form of punishment can be). There are ways of dealing with this. The approach that we just need to first “secure our borders, enforce our laws”, does not work. It is bring proven a failure. (this last bit is not directed at you, Elizabeth502, just the anti-immigration folks in general).
On another topic, the issue of immigration’s adverse effect of our countries economy and the existing working poor. This is a valid concern, but too many people assumes a backwards approach towards what drives an economy, IMO. In the short term, economic fluctuations are demand driven (or consumer driven). This is true, but it leads many to focus only on the demand side of the economy. But it is not the case long term, any long term, successful economy is supply-driven (ever here the Reagan erra term “supply-side economics” and wonder what it meant?). A country does well when it produces a lot. More workers, especially hard workers who are entrepenurial, means more production, more jobs, and then more people consuming. The idea that our economy cannot absorb more workers is really absurd in my mind. Does it need regulated? Yes (OTH, there are economists who make a great case for open-borders, as that is really what built this country). If we were limited on our ability to produce enough of our basic needs (eg food), then it would be a different story. But as long as we have the capacity to produce more of our basic needs, immigration will not make us poorer, quite the opposite. It will make us richer, all of us. It has worked in the past, it will work again. And it is just.
None of us support illegal immigration, we just want it fixed and we want liberal immigration policies and a just solution applied to those who are already here (flogging seems a little unjust, IMO, but then again I am a fan of Naval history and I know how inhumane that form of punishment can be). There are ways of dealing with this. The approach that we just need to first “secure our borders, enforce our laws”, does not work. It is bring proven a failure. (this last bit is not directed at you, Elizabeth502, just the anti-immigration folks in general).
S
Sherry_G
Guest
This is a really good discussion on CAF. This is the reason I keep coming back. Learning from each other and growing in our faith is a worthwhile way to spend my time and I appreciate the thoughts and efforts of each one of you. I understand that there are some very, very strong emotions attached to some of the comments but in any case, we can agree that every human being deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, by the very nature of their being one of God’s creations. As for the Archbishop Gomez remarks, I applaud his efforts to lead all of us in light of Catholic teachings. His comments are not meant to be inflammatory, and we should follow along with his actual statements, neither making assumptions nor inferences where they do not exist. As a holy member of the clergy, lets give him the benefit of the doubt at least.
A
ANNE_2
Guest
However, the Pope added, “States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity.”
Link to entire article dated Oct.,2010.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-unity-of-global-human-family-as-theme-of-upcoming-migrants-day/
Also see CCC 2241, paragraph 2
" Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
Link to entire article dated Oct.,2010.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-unity-of-global-human-family-as-theme-of-upcoming-migrants-day/
Also see CCC 2241, paragraph 2
" Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens."
E
Ender
Guest
The point that those who cite Church documents about immigration seem not to understand is that there are no specifics in those documents that argue either for or against any specific policy.
None of those documents state that we must give amnesty to illegals. None state that we cannot build a fence. None state that we must support or oppose the new Arizona law and there is nothing in Archbishop Gomez’s comments that commands us to take a specific position on anything. He has implied things; he has given us his personal view of aspects of current immigration laws that he opposes, but let’s not assume for a moment that any of this translates into moral obligation on our part.
We are free to debate this issue as we please and to act on our own perceptions of what is the best thing to do. I have no problem with the person who opposes all of my positions on immigration but I do have a problem with that person if he implies there is a moral difference between us because of the positions I take. To make such a claim is to misunderstand morality. So, enough with the citations of Catholic social teaching; there is nothing there that gets to the level of specific proposals. They give us guidelines about considerations we should include in our thinking but they provide nothing whatever that determines the outcomes we should reach.
Ender
- Status