Bishops' Call for Immigration Reform Not a Call for Amnesty, Utah Bishop Clarifies

[Catholic_Press]

Huntington, Ind., May 9, 2010 / 07:32 am (CNA).- Saying that immigration reform is not amnesty, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake City has claimed the “broken” immigration system helps exploit migrant workers and causes some to die in the desert. He urged that lawfulness be restored to the U.S. immigration system while also accommodating the great need for unskilled labor.

More…

 

[DianeGee]

It’s sad to hear him give disinformation and ignore the millions of unemployed citizens of this country.

 

[JReducation]

It’s sad to hear him give disinformation and ignore the millions of unemployed citizens of this country.

The millions of unemployed citizens cannot afford to live on the salaries of the immigrants. In fact, you probably get more money from unemployment benefits than you do from working at a faast food place. In many states unemployment compensation is as high as 60% of your salary. Florida has the lowest unemployment compensation in the country and it’s $600.00 every two weeks, while some people in these fast food industries do not make this much. For many unemployed Americans it is a better deal to collect unemployment benefits until they can get a job that pays them close to what they earned before becoming unemployed. Once you take one of these low paying jobs, you may get as much as $900.00 a month after the deductions and you are not longer eligible for any other form of assistance.

Whereas if you have minor children who may be eligible for medicaid and food stamps along with unemployment benefits until you get a job that will pay you the $5,000.00 a month that you were earning prior to being layed off. Let’s face it, the unemployment benefits that you’re getting is your money. You paid iinto the system. Whatever other benefits you get, food stamps and medicaid are also your money. You paid the taxes for those programs.

People who were on a $5,000.00 a month budget do not want a $12K a year job. They can’t afford it. They are better off taking a percentage of their highest salary rather than take a job that pays $12K a year. You see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

It’s sad to hear him give disinformation and ignore the millions of unemployed citizens of this country.

That is quite a claim without specifics. What was said that is “disinformation.”

 

[pnewton]

The bishop has some good ideas. There is a need for serious thinking and ideas that will satisfy the needs of the country. I particularly like this one.

The reform would require those who have broken the law to pay a fine, pay owed back taxes and learn English. He said these requirements rebut claims that immigration reform is a kind of amnesty, since amnesty is a benefit granted “without anything in return.

 

[St_Francis]

The millions of unemployed citizens cannot afford to live on the salaries of the immigrants. In fact, you probably get more money from unemployment benefits than you do from working at a faast food place. In many states unemployment compensation is as high as 60% of your salary. Florida has the lowest unemployment compensation in the country and it’s $600.00 every two weeks, while some people in these fast food industries do not make this much. For many unemployed Americans it is a better deal to collect unemployment benefits until they can get a job that pays them close to what they earned before becoming unemployed. Once you take one of these low paying jobs, you may get as much as $900.00 a month after the deductions and you are not longer eligible for any other form of assistance.

Whereas if you have minor children who may be eligible for medicaid and food stamps along with unemployment benefits until you get a job that will pay you the $5,000.00 a month that you were earning prior to being layed off. Let’s face it, the unemployment benefits that you’re getting is your money. You paid iinto the system. Whatever other benefits you get, food stamps and medicaid are also your money. You paid the taxes for those programs.

People who were on a $5,000.00 a month budget do not want a $12K a year job. They can’t afford it. They are better off taking a percentage of their highest salary rather than take a job that pays $12K a year. You see what I mean?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I totally agree with you that we need to fix our immigration system, esp some of the things you mentioned elsewhere, but I don’t really understand what you are saying here.

People who have been laid off from $5K/month jobs want more than $12K/year. But their children don’t. High school and college students generally get minimum-wage jobs. And sometimes those jobs help them help their families–not every dad makes $5K/month.

You are saying the people should collect unemployment of 60% *or less *of their salary, but if those people are putting children through school, paying mortgages, and the like, they may not be able to afford that cut without others in the family pitching in and getting minimum-wage jobs, even *with *the unemployment. And even for those who have not lost their jobs, they may need other family members to get minimum-wage jobs, if for no other reason than to pay for their auto insurance and the like.

 

[St_Francis]

From the article: The reform would require those who have broken the law to pay a fine, pay owed back taxes and learn English. He said these requirements rebut claims that immigration reform is a kind of amnesty, since amnesty is a benefit granted “without anything in return.”

First of all, this is still *totally unfair *to those who have applied legally and waited patiently to come here. They have been paying their taxes all along, in their own country. They will have to learn English too. I don’t know what the amount of the fine is, but from what I have heard, it is not all that much higher than what people pay in application fees (altho I have heard different amounts on that).

Secondly, who is going to keep track of this? We already can’t keep track of what’s going on in our own country, and they are proposing that we will keep track of people’s back taxes who were working under the table? How will the IRS figure that out? And who will be keeping track of who is learning English and how much?

Maybe technically this is not amnesty, because amnesty would have *no *requirements, but it’s awfully close!

The “broken” U.S. immigration system adds to the exploitation of migrant workers and increases both their abuse by “ruthless” smugglers and their deaths in the desert, the bishop charged. **“They come illegally because there are *insufficient visas ***under the current system to come legally,” he said.
What? That’s like saying that people are forced to rob banks because the government doesn’t give them enough money!

According to the Salt Lake City bishop, the immigration system provides 5,000 permanent visas for unskilled laborers to come to the U.S., but the demand is much higher. As many as 300,000 new unskilled laborers are needed each year.
And 3.2 million students are projected to graduate from high school this year. So presumably we have well over 10 times the number of people needed to fill these jobs.

Not to mention the fact that Time Magazine reported that in 2004 almost 56,000 non-Mexicans were apprehended at the Mexican border, which would indicate that many, many more than the “needed” 300,000 are entering the US.

Discussing the strain of illegal immigration on social services, the bishop criticized several “myths.”

He said that over an immigrant’s lifetime he or she is a net contributor to the economy through the taxes they pay, and through their labor and consumption.
My understanding is that these are based on studies of legal immigrants, and do these figures take into account the financial difficulties of hospitals who treat illegal immigrants who are unable to pay? And other issues along these lines?

Moreover, the fact that an immigrant is overall a net contributor does not mean that the net contribution is very much.

Legal immigrants do not qualify for welfare or health care during the first five years they reside in the country and undocumented immigrants never qualify, he stated.
But we still have hospitals going broke because they cannot recoup their ER bills, and those illegally here who get false documents do end up on welfare, not to mention the children who are born here…

According to Bishop Wester, undocumented immigrants pay “billions” in income taxes each year and at least $7 billion in Social Security taxes at a time when it will soon need to support the baby boomer generation.
We pay out $500 billion/year in Social Security, so that’s only slightly more than 1%.

Giving legal status to the undocumented would generate even more government revenue.
So would deporting them and allowing those who have been applying to enter *legally *to come in!

 

[JReducation]

I totally agree with you that we need to fix our immigration system, esp some of the things you mentioned elsewhere, but I don’t really understand what you are saying here.

People who have been laid off from $5K/month jobs want more than $12K/year. But their children don’t. High school and college students generally get minimum-wage jobs. And sometimes those jobs help them help their families–not every dad makes $5K/month.

You are saying the people should collect unemployment of 60% *or less *of their salary, but if those people are putting children through school, paying mortgages, and the like, they may not be able to afford that cut without others in the family pitching in and getting minimum-wage jobs, even *with *the unemployment. And even for those who have not lost their jobs, they may need other family members to get minimum-wage jobs, if for no other reason than to pay for their auto insurance and the like.

I was a college professor and later a dean for many years, ergo JReducation. You’d be surprised at how few students apply for these jobs. FAFSA makes many grants and loans available to students. At the last university where I worked the cost for a four-year education was $120,000.00. About 15% of the sudents held jobs. Most of them had enough money left over from grants and loans to live.

As for the unemployed adults, it is not in his favor to give up unemployment benefits to take a minimum wage job. Unemployment benefits pay you proportionately to your highest salary during that last quarter and you can get up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits. If you have minor children you qualify for medicaid and food stamps. You’re better off taking your time to find a job that will pay you as much as you were making or as close as possible. Now there is an added benefit, you no longer have to pay 100% of your COBRA. The Federal Government pays 70% of your medical insurance and you pay 30%. In many cases this is less than what you paid when you were employed. Many employers only pay 50% of your insurance. Now there is a new healthlaw that is coming in June in which you cannot be denied insurance by a less expensive carrier. You can switch and the COBRA benefits carry over.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Sorry, had to clip for space.

Moreover, the fact that an immigrant is overall a net contributor does not mean that the net contribution is very much.

Legal immigrants do not qualify for welfare or health care during the first five years they reside in the country and undocumented immigrants never qualify, he stated.
But we still have hospitals going broke because they cannot recoup their ER bills, and those illegally here who get false documents do end up on welfare, not to mention the children who are born here…

According to Bishop Wester, undocumented immigrants pay “billions” in income taxes each year and at least $7 billion in Social Security taxes at a time when it will soon need to support the baby boomer generation.
We pay out $500 billion/year in Social Security, so that’s only slightly more than 1%.

Giving legal status to the undocumented would generate even more government revenue.
So would deporting them and allowing those who have been applying to enter *legally *to come in!

I understand what the bishop is saying here, because I grew up in the State Dept. My father was a Consul and later an ambassador. We lived in five different countries. When he says that the US makes the visas impossible he’s right.

Consuls and Ambassadors are actually told by the State Dept not to grant visas to poor people. They grant visas if you have money in the bank, property and a job. You must present proof of this to get a visa. There are Consuls and Ambassadors who ignore these directions and grant visas to poor people, thank God. But it’s not easy to find one who will do this.

When you approach an American Consulate you have no idea which Consul is going to take your application. It’s up to him or her to approve your application for the visa. THERE ARE NO CRITERIA for granting visas. That’s one problem that has to be fixed.

The other problem that has to be fixed is the way that our embassies and consulates do business in other countries. Americans would be embarrassed if they saw this. Our diplomats are rude and condescending to the local people. They are imposing to the local governments. I was in one country where there was a lot of traffic in front of the US Consulate General. The Consulate General was on the main street of a major city. Like being on Fifth Ave in NYC. The Consul complained to the US ambassador who wrote a memo to someone on the local government demanding that they block off two blocks on either side of the US consulate. People had to take a detour to get across their own city. The only countries that I know that will not allow the American diplomats to intimidate them are Germans, French, Rusians and Arab nations.

Unfortunately, Consuls and Ambassadors are Presidential appointments. They can be changed if they do not follow the party line. All that needs to happen is for the Secretary of State to write a memo to the White House. It’s a very broken system that is not fait to either the foreigner or the American. This is what the bishop is alluding to. This system has to be fixed. We must first be children of the Church and then be patriots. The Church tells us that our immigration system is not being fair to either the citizens or the foreigner. It does not help those who are poor and need to migrate, nor does it protect the safety of the citizens who live in our country. We must remember that terrorists get into the USA legally, because they have money. That’s all they have to present when they go for a visa, a bank account. Criminals who have money can get a visa to enter the USA. I’m talking about known criminals. We have a known criminal teaching law at Harvard University. He is here legally.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tigg]

He urged that lawfulness be restored to the U.S. immigration system while also accommodating the great need for unskilled labor.

Lawfulness? Great need for unskilled labor? Wow, I guess I’m just really confused. I could point to a dozen different links that dispute this, but it’s already been done many times over.

Ya know, a couple of months ago there was a headline that started a thread and I can’t seem to find it now but the bishops were quoted as saying they advocated amnesty. I remember this because many of us were commenting that at least the code name for “immigration reform” was finally out in the open.

Again, without question, we are being asked to support the political agenda of a leftist government whose master behind the puppets is none other than George Soros, Mr. Amnesty himself.

 

[pnewton]

Lawfulness? Great need for unskilled labor? Wow, I guess I’m just really confused. I could point to a dozen different links that dispute this, but it’s already been done many times over.

Yes. Statistics have been quoted back and forth many times by both sides of the debate.

Again, without question, we are being asked to support the political agenda of a leftist government whose master behind the puppets is none other than George Soros, Mr. Amnesty himself.

No, we are not. The issue here is only imigration. It is easy to describe others in monolithic terms, but immigration is a separate issue. There are may conservatives that break ranks with the radio pundits on this issue. It is insulting and demeaning to call bishops “puppets”. They deserve more respect than this.

 

[St_Francis]

… It is insulting and demeaning to call bishops “puppets”. They deserve more respect than this.

I don’t think that he was calling the bishops puppets but the politicians in DC.

 

[St_Francis]

I was a college professor and later a dean for many years, ergo JReducation. You’d be surprised at how few students apply for these jobs. FAFSA makes many grants and loans available to students. At the last university where I worked the cost for a four-year education was $120,000.00. About 15% of the sudents held jobs. Most of them had enough money left over from grants and loans to live.

Wow, that is a huge change from when I was in college.

I mean… wow. $120K for college, and that means the same amount of debt as for a house

Now that I think about this, maybe the situation would be different in a college where the tuition is not so high? I went to a state school and many of the people I went to school with were not from a class that their parents paid for everything.

As for the unemployed adults, it is not in his favor to give up unemployment benefits to take a minimum wage job. Unemployment benefits pay you proportionately to your highest salary during that last quarter and you can get up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits.

My point was that you said the highest amount of unemployment was 60% of salary. If someone is living pretty close to the edge, then that won’t cover his expenses, mortgage, etc. So it might be that the others in his household would be “incentivized” to get jobs to help out or to cover their own expenses. When I was in high school (lo, these many decades ago!), kids got jobs so they could buy a car and pay for the insurance (and the repairs ), pay for dates, and the like.

They still do that, don’t they? Even if their fathers are not unemployed and trying to live on 60% or less of income?

If you have minor children you qualify for medicaid and food stamps. You’re better off taking your time to find a job that will pay you as much as you were making or as close as possible. Now there is an added benefit, you no longer have to pay 100% of your COBRA. The Federal Government pays 70% of your medical insurance and you pay 30%. In many cases this is less than what you paid when you were employed. Many employers only pay 50% of your insurance. Now there is a new healthlaw that is coming in June in which you cannot be denied insurance by a less expensive carrier. You can switch and the COBRA benefits carry over.

Insanity…

Not that you can maintain coverage, not that your coverage is paid for, but just— everything.

 

[pnewton]

I don’t think that he was calling the bishops puppets but the politicians in DC.

I might have missed this, in light of the fact that this thread is on the bishops. Maybe he jumped topics for a political slam and I missed it. Talk about agendas!

 

[St_Francis]

I understand what the bishop is saying here, because I grew up in the State Dept. My father was a Consul and later an ambassador. We lived in five different countries. When he says that the US makes the visas impossible he’s right…

…Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I remember your talking about this in another thread, and that was why I said that I agree with you about the need for changes in the immigration system. As I said, figure out what we want to accomplish and sort it out. If we need unskilled labor, let them in!

If they changed the law to let 100 million people from anywhere come in, that would be fine with me. I have no problem with immigrants from anywhere. And I certainly don’t think that our State Department should be acting like a bunch of snobs about the whole thing–Sheesh! What nerve!

My only problem is that I really really really don’t like the idea of doing again what has already worsened the problem, of disregarding our own laws even further, of maintaining a system which is *not good *for anyone involved. We have given out amnesty–and this almost-amnesty idea is not any better–and all that happened was that *more *people came in. And while the majority of people who are here illegally probably don’t pose a further problem, they are a smokescreen for others who do pose problems.

Moreover, it is simply not fair to those who are working on immigrating legally and who have not popped over the border.

And if part of our motivation for allowing people in is so they can “find a better life,” there are people in this world who really *are *starving, who don’t have what those who form the vast majority of illegal immigrants have in their own countries. And one of those things is proximity to the US. So, if we are also talking about helping people avoid starvation and the like, then maybe we should take that into consideration as well. Unless we don’t really care about that aspect and only want the cheap labor.

So, those are my points against illegal immigration and amnesty or close to amnesty.

 

[JReducation]

Wow, that is a huge change from when I was in college.

I mean… wow. $120K for college, and that means the same amount of debt as for a house

Now that I think about this, maybe the situation would be different in a college where the tuition is not so high? I went to a state school and many of the people I went to school with were not from a class that their parents paid for everything.

My point was that you said the highest amount of unemployment was 60% of salary. If someone is living pretty close to the edge, then that won’t cover his expenses, mortgage, etc. So it might be that the others in his household would be “incentivized” to get jobs to help out or to cover their own expenses. When I was in high school (lo, these many decades ago!), kids got jobs so they could buy a car and pay for the insurance (and the repairs ), pay for dates, and the like.

They still do that, don’t they? Even if their fathers are not unemployed and trying to live on 60% or less of income?

Insanity…

Not that you can maintain coverage, not that your coverage is paid for, but just— everything.

Bold is mine. Part of the healthcare reform includes a reform of healthcare benefits for people on COBRA. Let’s say that after the Federal Govt pays its 70% for your insurance you’re left with $140.00 a month. You find another carrier that offers what you need but it will cost you only $100.00 a month, you will be able to transfer your COBRA benefits to the new carrier. Under current law, you must remain with the carrier that you had at your last job in order to be eligible for COBRA. This is going to change. President Obama already extended COBRA benefits. I believe they are good for 18 months. Don’t quote me on that. I’ll have to look it up again. It doesn’t cost the former employer anything. The Federal subsidy comes from taxes that we have paid. There is a condition to be eligible for the 70% subsidy. You may not have other financial resources such as a second home or another source of income.

If you’re unemployed and you’re getting more than minimum wage, you’re better off looking for the job you need than taking a minimum wage job. If somoeone in your family goes out and gets a job you lose your Federal health insurance subsity, because that’s additional income, you may also lose medicaid and food stamps. Persons over 18 who work 20 hours a week and go to school are eligible for medicaid as long as they apply independently. This means that they must not receive any financial support from their parents.

The FAFSA benefits apply to private and state college students. The average cost of a private university is $120,000.00 for four years. The average in-state tuition is about $60,000.00 for four years. These numbers go up and down from school to school. If you attend a state school you will have more spending money in your pocket. Federal grants and federally subsidized loans are not based on the cost of tuition. They are based on need. You submit your parents 1040 and the the names of the schools that you wan to attend. They calculate how much it will cost you to study, buy books and live. At a less expensive university, students get refunds from the Federal monies. These monies are not sent to the students. They are sent to the university. The university takes out its share and gives the student a check. If the student takes on a minimum wage job, he must file an income tax return. This lowers his Federal grants and loans, because FAFSA adds the parent’s adjusted gross income and ALL of the student’s income, because full-time students do not pay taxes if they earn below $25,000.00. In those states that have a state income tax, they may or may not tax full-time students.

That’s why less than half of the nation’s college students have jobs. You have to weigh how much you’ll make against how much fedral help you’ll lose. You can make so much money and not lose any federal help. But if your income and your parents crosses a certain line, the student aid begins to decrease.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I remember your talking about this in another thread, and that was why I said that I agree with you about the need for changes in the immigration system. As I said, figure out what we want to accomplish and sort it out. If we need unskilled labor, let them in!

If they changed the law to let 100 million people from anywhere come in, that would be fine with me. I have no problem with immigrants from anywhere. And I certainly don’t think that our State Department should be acting like a bunch of snobs about the whole thing–Sheesh! What nerve!

My only problem is that I really really really don’t like the idea of doing again what has already worsened the problem, of disregarding our own laws even further, of maintaining a system which is *not good *for anyone involved. We have given out amnesty–and this almost-amnesty idea is not any better–and all that happened was that *more *people came in. And while the majority of people who are here illegally probably don’t pose a further problem, they are a smokescreen for others who do pose problems.

Moreover, it is simply not fair to those who are working on immigrating legally and who have not popped over the border.

And if part of our motivation for allowing people in is so they can “find a better life,” there are people in this world who really *are *starving, who don’t have what those who form the vast majority of illegal immigrants have in their own countries. And one of those things is proximity to the US. So, if we are also talking about helping people avoid starvation and the like, then maybe we should take that into consideration as well. Unless we don’t really care about that aspect and only want the cheap labor.

So, those are my points against illegal immigration and amnesty or close to amnesty.

The amnesty plan was a disaster for two strong moral reasons. Neither the bishops nor the religious orders support it again.

In MY opinion the first moral disaster of the amnesty plan was justice. It was a good idea, but it was badly managed. The idea was to give the poor an opportunity to become contributing members of American society. That is just. The bad part about it was that there appeared to be no filtering mechanism in place. In the end, it did a disservice to the poor, because not only did the poor get amnesty, but so did the criminal. What happened was that the poor became guilty by association. In the mind of the average American, they all got lumped into on group of problematic people.

The second moral disaster with the amnesty program was that it was free of charge. The program costs millions of dollars to implement. But that money came from taxpayers. The beneficiaries did not have to contribute. The Church has a preferential option for the poor and it’s her moral duty to have it. But the Church also promotes human dignity as the most noble of virtues. It is MY opinion that human dignity suffers when someone who can pay something, gets it for free. Even if you charge a minimum fee or on a sliding scale, there is a sense of ownership. I believe this is what the bishop is saying when he talks about a fine.

I would not fine people, because they may not be able to pay the fine. But charging a fee for the administrative costs is not unreasonable. You pay for almost everything that you get from the government, from driver’s licenses to brith certificates and those are already paid for by taxes. It’s just additional income for the state. This would be another government service that people should pay for.

Yes, our diplomatic body has to be revamped and they must have a written criteria for granting visas. The business of leaving it to the consular official to decide who gets it and who does not, does not benefit the poor, nor does it always benefit the American people. A person can have a lot of money that was acquired dishonestly. Dishonesty travels with the person. Dishonest people do not become honest when they cross borders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[St_Francis]

Bold is mine. Part of the healthcare reform includes a reform of healthcare benefits for people on COBRA. …
…Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I am looking at all this and thinking, this seems so wrong, but I can’t really say why. I just feel like there is a lot of manipulating going on.

(I’m not saying that I have a problem with help with the COBRA per se, but the whole issue of forcing people in this direction or that, that really bothers me.)

 

[St_Francis]

The amnesty plan was a disaster for two strong moral reasons. Neither the bishops nor the religious orders support it again.

In MY opinion the first moral disaster of the amnesty plan was justice. It was a good idea, but it was badly managed. The idea was to give the poor an opportunity to become contributing members of American society. That is just.

See this is where I get a little lost. How can you say it is *just *to let people slide who have broken the law? But more importantly, how can you say it is just to allow those who “went to the front of the line,” in front of those who are waiting to come here legally? This seems totally *unjust. *it is like a slap in the face of those who are doing the right thing to their own apparent detriment.

I know lots of people who came here legally who were not rich in their country of origin, mostly from Latin America, so I am not comparing rich people who apply and wait for immigration to poor people who don’t.

The bad part about it was that there appeared to be no filtering mechanism in place. In the end, it did a disservice to the poor, because not only did the poor get amnesty, but so did the criminal. What happened was that the poor became guilty by association. In the mind of the average American, they all got lumped into on group of problematic people.

I know that some of the people I know are here illegally, and I try to differentiate between those who are here illegally who are not criminals and those who are here illegally who are also criminals. I kind of think that probably most people, not all, think as I do, at least in areas with high numbers of immigrants.

The second moral disaster with the amnesty program was that it was free of charge. The program costs millions of dollars to implement. But that money came from taxpayers. The beneficiaries did not have to contribute. The Church has a preferential option for the poor and it’s her moral duty to have it. But the Church also promotes human dignity as the most noble of virtues. It is MY opinion that human dignity suffers when someone who can pay something, gets it for free. Even if you charge a minimum fee or on a sliding scale, there is a sense of ownership. I believe this is what the bishop is saying when he talks about a fine.

I would not fine people, because they may not be able to pay the fine. But charging a fee for the administrative costs is not unreasonable. You pay for almost everything that you get from the government, from driver’s licenses to brith certificates and those are already paid for by taxes. It’s just additional income for the state. This would be another government service that people should pay for.

I guess I can’t really see the difference since I think that amnesty is such a terrible idea.

Yes, our diplomatic body has to be revamped and they must have a written criteria for granting visas. The business of leaving it to the consular official to decide who gets it and who does not, does not benefit the poor, nor does it always benefit the American people. A person can have a lot of money that was acquired dishonestly. Dishonesty travels with the person. Dishonest people do not become honest when they cross borders.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

And this last point I can definitely agree with. Unfortunately, it seems like most of our laws are written in general terms which are then defined by the department in charge of implementing the law, so this may be difficult to accomplish.

 

[Tigg]

I don’t think that he was calling the bishops puppets but the politicians in DC.

Thank you, St. Francis…you are correct. (that would be a she, BTW!)