Bishops' immigration expert calls new policy a step in the right direction

[Elizabeth502]

The country responsible for this is Mexico. I know that Mexico has always been badly governed, I know that the social and economic turmoil serves to cause millions to flee, but I also know that a few hundred families hold onto the wealth of that country selfishly.

And I will add that our government also “says nothing about Mexico.” What an unholy alliance. I wish we had poured money into the campaign of Calderon’s opponent in the last election, but who knows if even the election results would have been manipulated? Failing that, I wish we would arm the peasants. Seriously. The situation down there is so unjust, it’s like Old Testament bad. The corruption by the elite is morally obscene.

 

[Contarini]

I am so sick of our bishops getting involved in politics.

No doubt you are. But that doesn’t make it any less the Church’s task to confront the powers of this world.

Since when is the holy vocation of the bishops determined by what you are or are not “sick” of?

This is a complex issue and not strictly “humanitarian.”

All issues are complex. That doesn’t mean the Church should stay out of them.

We have real issues that these bishops should be addressing.

I think it’s hilarious that an apparently conservative Catholic is so willing to set up his fallible judgment as the standard of what is a “real” issue.

A “real” issue is not just an issue that happens to coincide with your political prejudices.

The Catholic bishops, for all their faults, do an amazing job of holding the line against the idolatries of both right and left. Some “conservative” Catholics seem to want them to become puppets of the Republican party, and make the absurd accusation that the bishops are actually puppets of the Democrats (in spite of the frequent and unpopular stands bishops have taken on issues like abortion and gay marriage) to cover their own agenda.

Edwin

 

[Blacksword]

Repy to Ridgerunner:

Your post formatting is confusing, it makes it look like I am quoted as arguing with myself. However, I again note that I never called you a “liar” so did not “take anything back”, there being no such insult to take back. I also note that stating that your posts clearly show some degree of misinformation is not insulting, or inappropriate really when dealing with such a nuanced issue. Also, I must say the tone of your post seems somewhat condescending. I don’t think I have shown any lack of “courtroom demeanor”, whatever it is you mean by that. Indeed, I submit my posts have been altogether fairly restrained and polite.

As for your comments here, first, it did appear you were saying that ICE doesn’t know its own business. The fact that some undocumented persons hazard the journey back and forth more than once does NOT mean that suddenly all 12 million are going to pick up and leave. They aren’t going to self-deport. Removing them all WOULD mean having to apprehend and legally process them all through removal proceedings. They’ve been here, many of them, for 10-15 years or more now; they’re not going to “just leave”. This is reality, as unhappy as it may be for some. So I don’t think I was attacking a straw man. Rather, I was responding to the apparent meaning of your statements. If your actual point wasn’t that you assert it would be cheap to actually remove all of them by government action, but rather that somehow they will all leave on their own initiative, well, then sadly I must say again that this is not a notion with any basis in reality. There is, perhaps, one way we COULD get them to all self-deport: by causing total economic collapse in the U.S. The statistics show some have left, and fewer are coming, since the economic recession began in 2008. How great a price to pay would it be to purposefully cause a total depression? I imagine far more expensive even still than the already known too costly course of total government commitment to rooting out, arresting, and deporting ALL of them through the legal channels.

Regarding your link to the story on Middle Easterners entering the U.S. through the Mexican border, again, I said it has been determined to be a very low priority risk by counter-terrorism experts. This story you provided is a hack-job, as can be seen by actually READING it. Note, the story first states that there’s been an increase of OTM’s (Other than Mexicans) entering, to the tune of estimated 108,025 in 2006. However, this statistic, of course, includes ANYONE not from Mexico, which means people from Guatemala, Equador, Costa Rica, really anywhere, so is not a helpful statistic. Then the story goes on to state that “hundreds” of OTM aliens from the actual worrisome countries have been apprehended since September 11, 2001 in Texas! That’s a miniscule statistic. Again, not saying it isn’t a worry, but it’s considered really low. Counter-terrorism officials have known for years now that Al-Quaeda and other groups have moved away from trying this means of entry because of the logistical problems associated with it. Again, they need identification in the U.S., they need access to money, bank accounts, the ability to enter federal buildings, things undocumented persons can’t do. The article you posted is thus largely a sensationalistic piece written by some guy on About.com. Not worth much thought really.

For information about the numbers of illegal immigrants in prisons, their crime rates, and so forth, see these:

nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html

ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedhwp/wp-05-19.html

 

[Blacksword]

thank you for your courtesy in stating your positions. I realize you weren’t getting $250/hour or whatever you guys make to do it.

You are welcome. The 212(a)(9)(B) bars are what actively prevent someone from ever getting a green card who has entered illegally or overstayed past 180 days. They are punitive but don’t fix the problem, rather they make it worse by never allowing for any payment of punishment or “righting” the wrong. I agree some jobs like construction may not need immigrant workers, that’s why I said these should be reviewed in caps assigned by the DOL, with market tests and protections in place. I’m a little confused by your description of “svelte, muscular” latin American immigrants. Most are highly skinny and appear frequently malnourished from lack of ready access to nutritious food, but that’s neither here nor there I suppose.

 

[Blacksword]

Your proposals are a reasonable place to start the discussion. I will merely point out that the rejection of all of them would also be in conformity with the Church’s teaching so long as they were rejected based on the belief that they would not solve the current problem, not adequately address future immigration flow, or would negatively impact our economy or our national security needs.

Your proposals stand or fall entirely on whether they will bring about the results you intend. If I oppose them based on a belief that they will have different results then, while my opinion may be mistaken, my opposition is not immoral. The determination of whether any of your proposals will have the results you intend is completely prudential. There are no moral choices involved.

Ender

That’s fine, I still wait with anticipation to see what alternative measures you have pondered through.

 

[Blacksword]

George Stegmeir;8273534:

Just because there was resistance to immigration in the past based on racial/ethnic/faith reasons does NOT mean that resistance to ILLEGAL Immigration today is based on the same reasons . Throughout most of our history , immigrants to the US did not have access to Medicaid , WIC , Food Stamps , guaranteed emergency room health care and other govt. run social welfare programs . The Affordable Health Care Act has had some of it’s regulations written already , do you know that if an illegal alien presents himself at a govt. run clinic or any hospital( and not just for emergency care ) , he/she CANNOT be asked their immigration/citizenship status ? In practice , do you know what this means ?
ANY behavior the government endorses you get MORE of . What you accept you teach !

Opposition to Illegal Immigration today is overwhelmingly an economic based opposition .

Before our govt. social welfare programs existed , immigrants had no choice bit to support themselves or rely on fraternal , national or church based social welfare programs , not tax dollars . How does your position conform to the principle of subsidiarity ?

The policies you endorse encourage illegal immigration , how is that just ?

And I had 12-15 Legal Immigrants live in my home as a teenager ( and another 12-15 lived in my grandmother’s home ) after the 1968 uprising in the former Czechoslovakia ( no , they weren’t all there at the same time ) . BUT , these were Legal Immigrants who at the very least came here with a High School diploma or a college degree or technical skills . They were legal and employable .

Finally , tell me what laws I can break with your endorsement ?

Again with the anti-immigrant saw “they come for the welfare!”. They come to work, not to get health care, most are fairly healthy, and most work and don’t use health care, many are terrified of going to a hospital because they think they might be deported!

 

[Ender]

It is true that many of us who are religious, clergy or both are not experts in economics, political science, civil law, etc.

I agree that expertise is lacking but that’s not the point. Expertise in prudential matters is irrelevant in determining moral content …

However, it is equally true that most of the lay faithful are not experts in moral theology, ecclesiology, Christian anthropology, Christian philosophy, Canon Law or the Church’s social teachings.

… just as expertise in moral matters is generally irrelevant in resolving prudential problems.

What is coming across in this thread is a group of lay people who have decided that they are experts in matters of the faith, morals, Church law, ecclesiology, Christian anthropology, Sacred Scripture and the Church’s social teachings. However, they have failed to prove their expertise in these sacred sciences.

It is not necessary to have any expertise in these areas; it is only necessary that one be right. My claim that immigration is not a moral issue is either correct or incorrect and so far, while some have disputed the point, no one has even attempted to refute it. If you’d like to try I would welcome the debate.

The best example of the ignorance of some people is the fact there are individuals here who are arguing that the speaker cannot speak for the Church. Let’s look at this for a minute. Such a statement shows a lack of knowledge about ecclesiology and Holy Orders. The rule of thumb and Catholic theology is that where there is the bishop, there is the Church. Therefore, when the bishop speaks as bishop, it is the Church speaking.

Well, if the bishop is speaking on faith or morals and presenting Church doctrine, this would be true, but when the bishop gives us his political views, it is not true.

In this case, it is the spokes person for the bishops. He is not speaking on his own authority. He is speaking for the bishops.

Even another bishop doesn’t speak for “the bishops”; a USCCB functionary certainly does not. Nothing said by the USCCB carries any weight beyond what a specific bishop gives it in his own diocese.

no one on this thread has managed to prove why the bishops may not speak.

This is way too broad. Bishops may of course speak; that’s one of their obligations. It is what they speak about that is the issue and I consider it imprudent at best when they broadcast their political opinions.

If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is, before you call him on the carpet alleging that “this issue has nothing to do with the faith.”

The question is not whether I am as well educated as a bishop but whether I am right.

The bishop does not have to prove himself to the faithful. He enjoys the trust of the Holy Father who called him to be a bishop and who appointed him to his see.

So, how well did this approach work with during the sex abuse scandals?

On the other hand, the rest of us, if we wish to say that the bishop is theologically, pastorally, or canonically wrong, must prove that we have the competence to make such a statement and then show how he is wrong with very specific theological, canonical and pastoral facts.

How much expertise in theoretical physics is required to say that E = MC2? A statement is either right or wrong and the expertise of the person making the statement is irrelevant.

If we feel so strongly that we know more about the faith, theology, Church law, ecclesiology, pastoral care, morals and scripture than a bishop, then we should not submit to them and we should found our own dioceses.

This is nothing more than a defense of clericalism.

On the flip side, 95% of the bishops in the world have doctorates in one or more sacred sciences.

A degree in the social sciences would be more useful if they’re going to pontificate on how to solve social problems. Your arguments are completely generic and amount to little more than claiming a bishop is right because … he’s a bishop.

Ender

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword;8287967:

Continued:

Fourth, bring back 245(i) for those here now to legalize, paying hefty civil fines for their civil offenses in the process. Not cited. Please explain.

Further immigration fixes not involving illegal immigration would also be as follows:

The H-1B cap is unnecessary, rigid in not following actual economic demands from year to year, and useless in light of the fact that employer attestations which can be audited and reviewed by the Dept. of Labor are already in place designed to prevent employers from hiring out U.S. workers for immigrant workers, and in light of the fact that legal fees, filing fees, and other costs associated with H-1B workers, as well as the rigid system for placement of workers, movement of workers, termination or instances of strikes, and other provisions overall make H-1B workers generally LESS attractive than American workers in the same job, all things considered. So eliminate this cap, or at the least make it floating from year to year depending on economic drivers. I am aware of one instance in which the agricultural growers DID find that (what I assume were) H-2B workers were less desirable than others. A problem with all of this that I see is the fact that it’s surely to be politically controlled. Now, understanding the critiques people have of the Federal Reserve, at least it CAN act independently of political pressures. It has always seemed to me that immigration should be controlled by an independent entity that can expand and contract visa numbers in accordance with the needs of the economy. But also, one has to wonder about the “citizenship because born here” issue. Increased numbers of legal immigrants will result in increased numbers of “native born” who, like their parents, are likely to have no particular loyalty to the U.S. or identification with it. How is this to be solved?

Lastly, encourage technological development by providing a blanket provision for foreign nationals who graduate from U.S. universities in a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics field. Universities now graduate a miniscule number of American students in Master’s and Doctorate programs in these critical fields; Americans by and large avoid the “nerdy” fields in college. Any foreign national who gets a Ph.D. from a U.S. university in one of the STEM fields should be able to apply immediately for permanent residency and receive it. I’m afraid I have a problem with this. It’s the flip side of the “Hispanic preference” issue. I can think of no good reason why Americans should find themselves competing with Egyptian graduates for engineering jobs and, frankly, am concerned about the likelihood of great numbers of Middle Easterners flooding the fields in question. In my opinion, such an eventuality would ultimately lead to a “no immigration at all” reaction on the part of the public. I have never seen anything that persuades me that Americans cannot be enticed into the “nerdy” fields, EXCEPT that standards in high schools are so abysmal in many public schools that few can survive college-level math/science courses. I’m not at all persuaded that scarcity of, say, engineers, is due to distaste for “nerdy” professions. Nor am I persuaded that, say, a Jordanian engineering degree is equivalent to an American one, no matter what the “equivalency” companies say. Do i really want to travel over a bridge 70 feet in the air that was designed by somebody who graduated from the University of Amman? The prospect is not terribly encouraging.

(continued)

245(i) is the provision that allowed for persons to apply for permanent residence despite their unlawful presence, paying hefty civil fines in the process. It expired April 30, 2001. Regarding the worries about citizen children having no loyalty to the U.S., this is a non-issue. Every study on the assimilation of immigrants shows a similar pattern in place now that has always occurred: the children of immigrants born here are highly integrated, often speaking both English and their native language, and are very “American” in their overall outlook. Their children, in turn, are typically only American, and are linguistically and culturally dead to their prior country of origin. There is no reason to think this pattern of over 250 years of history will not continue. As for the highly skilled STEM graduates, this also is, unfortunately, a non-issue. The American educational system is terrible, sure, and it needs fixing, but that is a separate issue. When fixed and we start actually HAVING doctorate graduates in STEM fields born in the U.S., we can change this. As for now, every university in the country readily affirms that the overwhelming majority of their graduates in Master’s and Doctorate programs in these fields are foreign students. Americans, for various reasons, are most absolutely NOT getting these degrees in nearly sufficient numbers. So for now, we either keep these foreign graduates who go on to do important scientific and technological research, or we lose them and lose that research in the process. This is actually my area of specialty, and I can tell you that EVERY major government research organization, laboratory, university research division, and private industrial companies doing scientific research in automotive engineering, nuclear research, energy research, medical and biological research, and every other area of importance, relies to a critical degree on foreign born researchers. They just don’t have nearly enough American researchers anymore.

 

[Blacksword]

Blacksword;8288983:

Why has Canada rescinded it’s birthright citizenship policy for ILLega Aliens ? No more anchor babies for Canada , and they are generally more liberal than the US .

If our English language proficiency requirement for naturalization is so successful and efficacious, then why can’t we simply print ALL of OUR BALLOTS in ENGLISH ?

I don’t particlarly care about what Canada does. Why should I? Since when did the U.S. decide it would follow the model of other countries’ behavior? Aren’t we supposed to be a nation having higher ideals? By the way, in this case we’re not: Canada has done no such thing to my knowledge. I’m not an expert in Canadian immigration law, but their birthright citizenship remains intact and unaltered. Where did you hear otherwise?

And, again, it is a fact that English language is a requirement for citizenship. I’ve attended tons of interviews for citizenship, including my wife’s! I can assure you they test for speaking and writing proficiency every time.

 

[Ender]

However, the PR people at the USCCB do not make statements unless they know what the bishops are saying.

This is false, but then it wouldn’t matter even if it was true.

*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)

Archbshps Dolan and Gomez will produce a good piece. Many people are not going to like it for the reasons that I stated in my post. They don’t understand the Church the way these guys do.

Here is a prediction: there will be nothing in the document declaring that Catholics have a moral obligation to support or oppose any particular action on immigration. And the reason there won’t be anything specific in it is that the Church has no position on what means will be effective. The Church specifies the ends but the (prudential) determination of the means is properly the function of the laity to determine.

Given that Dolan has already compared some of us who have chosen a different approach than his to the KKK, nativist mobs torching Irish homes, and eugenicists, one would reasonably expect some specificity in any document he prepares. We will find, however, a repackaging of the generic ends the Church has already proclaimed: welcome the foreigner, help the poor… We will likely also find implications that some approaches are to be preferred over others but what we will not find is any claim that we must support action X or oppose action Y. Even in his harangue against the new Arizona law he never claimed that Catholics were obliged to oppose it.

This is my point. Catholics may take whatever position on specific solutions to immigration they believe will provide the best results obtainable, and they may do so because determining how things work is not a moral question.

Those who believe that the bishops should not speak on this matter, must prove that the matter does not require the Church’s attention.

Again you misstate the situation. Bishops may surely speak - as the Church does - on the proper goals of immigration reform. Where they go wrong - and the point you avoid - is when they give their personal opinion on whether action A will work better than action B. When they talk of ends they are on firm ground but when they give their personal preferences as to the means then they have gone too far.

Ender

 

[Ender]

That’s fine, I still wait with anticipation to see what alternative measures you have pondered through.

Which you can have as soon as you admit that immigration is not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What countries refuse citizenship to those born in that country?

Most of them, I suspect.

I have a friend who was born in France, of a French woman and an American military man.

One of the parents was French; that’s what determines his nationality, not the mere fact that he was born in France. I’m quite sure that France does not consider a child born in Paris of two Uruguayan parents to be French.

Ender

 

[JReducation]

I agree that expertise is lacking but that’s not the point. Expertise in prudential matters is irrelevant in determining moral content …
… just as expertise in moral matters is generally irrelevant in resolving prudential problems.
It is not necessary to have any expertise in these areas; it is only necessary that one be right. My claim that immigration is not a moral issue is either correct or incorrect and so far, while some have disputed the point, no one has even attempted to refute it. If you’d like to try I would welcome the debate.
Well, if the bishop is speaking on faith or morals and presenting Church doctrine, this would be true, but when the bishop gives us his political views, it is not true.
Even another bishop doesn’t speak for “the bishops”; a USCCB functionary certainly does not. Nothing said by the USCCB carries any weight beyond what a specific bishop gives it in his own diocese.
This is way too broad. Bishops may of course speak; that’s one of their obligations. It is what they speak about that is the issue and I consider it imprudent at best when they broadcast their political opinions.
The question is not whether I am as well educated as a bishop but whether I am right.
So, how well did this approach work with during the sex abuse scandals?
How much expertise in theoretical physics is required to say that E = MC2? A statement is either right or wrong and the expertise of the person making the statement is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than a defense of clericalism.
A degree in the social sciences would be more useful if they’re going to pontificate on how to solve social problems. Your arguments are completely generic and amount to little more than claiming a bishop is right because … he’s a bishop.

Ender

This is false, but then it wouldn’t matter even if it was true.

"No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops." (Cardinal Ratzinger)
Here is a prediction: there will be nothing in the document declaring that Catholics have a moral obligation to support or oppose any particular action on immigration. And the reason there won’t be anything specific in it is that the Church has no position on what means will be effective. The Church specifies the ends but the (prudential) determination of the means is properly the function of the laity to determine.

Given that Dolan has already compared some of us who have chosen a different approach than his to the KKK, nativist mobs torching Irish homes, and eugenicists, one would reasonably expect some specificity in any document he prepares. We will find, however, a repackaging of the generic ends the Church has already proclaimed: welcome the foreigner, help the poor… We will likely also find implications that some approaches are to be preferred over others but what we will not find is any claim that we must support action X or oppose action Y. Even in his harangue against the new Arizona law he never claimed that Catholics were obliged to oppose it.

This is my point. Catholics may take whatever position on specific solutions to immigration they believe will provide the best results obtainable, and they may do so because determining how things work is not a moral question.
Again you misstate the situation. Bishops may surely speak - as the Church does - on the proper goals of immigration reform. Where they go wrong - and the point you avoid - is when they give their personal opinion on whether action A will work better than action B. When they talk of ends they are on firm ground but when they give their personal preferences as to the means then they have gone too far.

Ender

There are two points that you should consider.

a. Your argument is that you’re right and the bishops are wrong. But you have failed to prove to yourself or those reading why the bishop’s have no authoritative opinion. In other words, you must prove that this is not a moral issue. They have already presented several moral points: the family must be protected; you can’t treat a poor person as a criminal; just because the law calls something a crime does not make it so; every nation has a right to protect it’s borders, but no nation has the right to hurt families, either foreign or citizens; if you allow the government to do harm to this family because it’s illegally present in the country, why object when the government does other things that do harm to families?

b. Your other opinon that "this is clericalism . . . " is a cheap shot. The fact that some bishops made serioius mistakes in dealing with the sexul abuse problem, does not make it true that they have to prove themselves to those faithful. Regardless of what we think about the sex abuse issue, the rule of thumb in the Church has not changed and will not change. Bishops do not have to prove themselves to the people beneath them. They have to prove themselves to the Holy Father. In the Catholic Church authority is not horizontal. Call it clericalism or something else, the Church is not going to change this, because at the end of the day, a bishop does not need you and me. You and I need him. Whenever he speaks as bishop, there is the Church and no the rule does not say that it’s only in matters of faith and morals. That’s a invention of the French revolution. The faith and morals rule applies to infallibility. The faithful must give religious assent even in matters that are not doctrinal or infallible, because the pope and the bishops have the authority to govern the faithful in temporal matters. The Church has never abdicated that right.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ender]

a. Your argument is that you’re right and the bishops are wrong.

What I said is that solving immigration problems does not face us with moral choices and that bishops are unjustified in implying that one solution is morally superior to another. When they do that they are overstepping their bounds and no longer speaking for the Church but for themselves, and I think they realize this as I have yet to read any claim from any bishop that Catholics have a moral obligation to support or oppose any specific proposal. Even Archbishop Dolan, who used the most intemperate terms I have ever seen used by a bishop, in defaming those who supported the Arizona immigration law did not claim that Catholics were obliged to oppose it. Neither did Archbishop Rodi, who joined a lawsuit against the Alabama immigration law, ever claim that Catholics were morally obliged to oppose it.

But you have failed to prove to yourself or those reading why the bishop’s have no authoritative opinion. In other words, you must prove that this is not a moral issue.

How would I do that? I’m not sure I could prove to your satisfaction that trying to start a car with a dead battery was not a moral issue. And why is the burden of proof on me? Surely if this was a moral issue someone could make an argument to support that claim.

They have already presented several moral points: the family must be protected; …

These are ends, guidelines. I’ve already made the distinction between means and ends. I’ve already recognized the validity of their speaking on this. I have said that it is the determination of the best means to attain those ends that is not a moral issue.

b. Your other opinon that "this is clericalism . . . " is a cheap shot. The fact that some bishops made serioius mistakes in dealing with the sexul abuse problem, does not make it true that they have to prove themselves to those faithful.

You stated: “If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is…” Since there are very few who are as well educated in their fields as bishops this would preclude almost all of us from ever challenging a bishop about anything at all. That may not be the definition of clericalism but it amounts to the same thing in its practical results.

Whenever he speaks as bishop…

What do you mean by the phrase “speaks as bishop?” Surely this is an acknowledgement that there are times when he doesn’t “speak as bishop.” How do we distinguish one case from the other?

The faithful must give religious assent even in matters that are not doctrinal or infallible, because the pope and the bishops have the authority to govern the faithful in temporal matters. The Church has never abdicated that right.

I don’t believe the Church has ever claimed that right:

*“Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” *(Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

I consider this citation proof that your assertion is wrong.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ridgerunner;8289135:

245(i) is the provision that allowed for persons to apply for permanent residence despite their unlawful presence, paying hefty civil fines in the process. It expired April 30, 2001. Regarding the worries about citizen children having no loyalty to the U.S., this is a non-issue. Every study on the assimilation of immigrants shows a similar pattern in place now that has always occurred: the children of immigrants born here are highly integrated, often speaking both English and their native language, and are very “American” in their overall outlook. Their children, in turn, are typically only American, and are linguistically and culturally dead to their prior country of origin. There is no reason to think this pattern of over 250 years of history will not continue. As for the highly skilled STEM graduates, this also is, unfortunately, a non-issue. The American educational system is terrible, sure, and it needs fixing, but that is a separate issue. When fixed and we start actually HAVING doctorate graduates in STEM fields born in the U.S., we can change this. As for now, every university in the country readily affirms that the overwhelming majority of their graduates in Master’s and Doctorate programs in these fields are foreign students. Americans, for various reasons, are most absolutely NOT getting these degrees in nearly sufficient numbers. .

That could all be, though I have seen tech people on here complain that they can’t get jobs in their field because the employers are importing foreigners. Who’s right? Maybe both to some degree.

Regardless, in my opinion, the very first duty of the government at all levels is to its citizens. If the public schools do not provide sufficient education for kids to make it in college in technical subjects, then the first duty of the governments is to fix that, not to import foreigners to take their place on a more or less permanent basis. In my opinion, the government remaining tough for guys like you is probably justified, at least until expansion of the economy simply outruns any imaginable supply. I used to say, earlier in this decade that we, in this area, had a “negative unemployment rate” because there were absolutely, positively, not enough locals to fill the job demand, and so foreigners, both legal and illegal wer pulled into the market as with a vacuum cleaner, and made no difference in the employment rate whatever. We do, presently, have some very high-tech industries, and as yet, I have not seen a foreigner among them, with two exceptions. I’ll admit, there is always a Brit or two in the British owned plants and at least one Scandinavian in the local plant they own. The demand for foreign workers (or the attractiveness of a locale) may vary from place to place.

But undoubtedly, the birth rate has at least something to do with it; something else the government is addressing in exactly the wrong way.

I am not inclined to agree, across the board, with the likelihood of all foreigners adopting the culture, or even the language sufficiently. I think it depends on where they’re from, and how they view themselves. Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but I have relationships with employers who hire foreigners, and have had numerous occasions to meet with them and talk to them. It’s interesting that Eastern Europeans’ children become Americans all the way from birth. A lot of them don’t even bother to learn the parents’ language with any facility. That’s a not uncommon complaint among them, though they’re also proud of the acculturation of their children.

It has seemed to me Caribbean Islanders are similar. People from the “Anglosphere” are largely acculturated when they step foot on the airport tarmac. I’ll have to hand it to recent Somali refugees. They do try. Most Africans I have ever met (admittedly not very many) are practically endearing to Americans in almost every way. Same with Filipinos and Filipinas.

Interestingly, Mayan Mexicans seem to want to Americanize. The least accommodating (other than Middle Eastern Muslims, and i don’t know enough of them, though I know a few who are so Americanized as to paying zero heed to Islam itself) are Mexicans who consider themselves part of “the race”. Some, like Mayans, aren’t part of “the race”. Neither are true “Indios”. Among “the race”, I see a lot of resistance to “Americanization” even among the young. Part of that possibly has to do with Mexico’s strenuous identification programs and encouragement of even Mexican-American citizens to cast Mexican ballots. I realize the whole notion of “the race” was initially defensive, almost pitifully so. But it’s a different thing now, and really kind of oppressive to people like Mayans and “Indios”. The eagerness to become Americans on the part of, say, Yucatan Mayans (and I have heard a number of them speak of it) may be due to the fact that they (like Indios) are somewhat oppressed in their own homeland.

But I will admit that people of Mexican origin who have been here a long time, (several generations) are more American than they are members of “the race”, and don’t even associate with more recent immigrants. But I think they arrived before “the race” was as big a deal as it is now.

But you, it appears, are dealing with a different sort of folks. The ones you work with would be on top of their societies at home as well, given that some well-educated people (like Palestinians) are produced in greater numbers than their own area can absorb.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Repy to Ridgerunner:

Your post formatting is confusing, it makes it look like I am quoted as arguing with myself. However, I again note that I never called you a “liar” so did not “take anything back”, there being no such insult to take back. I also note that stating that your posts clearly show some degree of misinformation is not insulting, or inappropriate really when dealing with such a nuanced issue. Also, I must say the tone of your post seems somewhat condescending. I don’t think I have shown any lack of “courtroom demeanor”, whatever it is you mean by that. Indeed, I submit my posts have been altogether fairly restrained and polite. Condescention invites condescention.

As for your comments here, first, it did appear you were saying that ICE doesn’t know its own business. So I don’t think I was attacking a straw man. ** But you were, because NEVER did I say ICE doesn’t know it’s own business. Never did I say that. You just claimed I did and argued with it. **

Rather, I was responding to the apparent meaning of your statements. If your actual point wasn’t that you assert it would be cheap to actually remove all of them by government action, but rather that somehow they will all leave on their own initiative, well, then sadly I must say again that this is not a notion with any basis in reality. There is, perhaps, one way we COULD get them to all self-deport: by causing total economic collapse in the U.S. The statistics show some have left, and fewer are coming, since the economic recession began in 2008. How great a price to pay would it be to purposefully cause a total depression? I imagine far more expensive even still than the already known too costly course of total government commitment to rooting out, arresting, and deporting ALL of them through the legal channels.

Regarding your link to the story on Middle Easterners entering the U.S. through the Mexican border, again, I said it has been determined to be a very low priority risk by counter-terrorism experts. This story you provided is a hack-job, as can be seen by actually READING it. Note, the story first states that there’s been an increase of OTM’s (Other than Mexicans) entering, to the tune of estimated 108,025 in 2006. However, this statistic, of course, includes ANYONE not from Mexico, which means people from Guatemala, Equador, Costa Rica, really anywhere, so is not a helpful statistic. Then the story goes on to state that “hundreds” of OTM aliens from the actual worrisome countries have been apprehended since September 11, 2001 in Texas! That’s a miniscule statistic. Again, not saying it isn’t a worry, but it’s considered really low. Counter-terrorism officials have known for years now that Al-Quaeda and other groups have moved away from trying this means of entry because of the logistical problems associated with it. Again, they need identification in the U.S., they need access to money, bank accounts, the ability to enter federal buildings, things undocumented persons can’t do. The article you posted is thus largely a sensationalistic piece written by some guy on About.com. Not worth much thought really.

For information about the numbers of illegal immigrants in prisons, their crime rates, and so forth, see these:

nytimes.com/2007/05/30/business/30leonside.html

ideas.repec.org/p/fip/fedhwp/wp-05-19.html

I mean no offense in asking this, but how many illegals do you actually know? I’m inclined to think not many. They DO go home all the time, return, go home, return, and so on. At least those south of the border do. It’s not hard for them to do that because there is really not a sufficient border protection. Once you have facially valid ID, your chances of being picked up on return are virtually nil.

And there are all kinds of articles stating that there are people from Iran, Yemen and other questionable sources coming in across the southern border. Here’s another. texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=9398. You can call them all “hack jobs” if you want, or point out that the percentage is low, but no matter what, “hundreds” is a lot, and it could be thousands. You have yet to cite a reliable source with real numbers. And if only a minority of illegal entrants are ever caught, the number multiplies a great deal. And one has to wonder how and why they got to Mexico in the first place. Because it’s so easy to cross into the U.S. perhaps? Because with enough money, you can hire first class “coyotes”?

What do you have against border security? I would think I would want legal entrants to have less competition if I did what you do for a living.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Most of them, I suspect.
One of the parents was French; that’s what determines his nationality, not the mere fact that he was born in France. I’m quite sure that France does not consider a child born in Paris of two Uruguayan parents to be French.

Ender

According to Wiki, 20% of the world’s countries allow birthright citizenship; the majority being in the Western hemisphere.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” A literal reading makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth (those not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes). However, the stated purpose (or legislative intent) of the Fourteenth Amendment was to establish the civil rights, privileges and immunities of the freed slaves.[13]

At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, its wording was interpreted to exclude Aboriginal Americans because they were not considered “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. Congress declared it policy to extend citizenship to all Aboriginal peoples in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.[14]

This scope of the Amendment was formally considered in 1898 by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In a 6-2 decision, the Court rejected arguments that petitioner was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States because that phrase applied to exclude children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory. The petitioner did not fall within either category. The Court also rejected the government’s attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens. The Court held the petitioner, a child of subjects of the Emperor of China whose parents were lawfully living in the United States where he was born, was a US citizen by birth. Notwithstanding the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, his citizenship status could not be revoked even if his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth and all three made several trips to China afterwards.[15]

Some lawmakers and activists have proposed abolishing jus soli in the United States.[5][16]

 

[JReducation]

I think I can see the problems here. Let’s take them one step at a time.

What I said is that solving immigration problems does not face us with moral choices and that bishops are unjustified in implying that one solution is morally superior to another.

What happens here is that some solutions do transgress the moral order. For example, when a government, any country, tells a parent that he or she is being deported and has to choose either to take their children who are citizens or leave them behind, this constitutes a moral disorder. Children many nver be separated from their parents unless they are in danger. On the other hand, it is unjust to deport a citizen. This solution is not morally viable.

Another moral issue is the difference between people. A person who crosses a border to escape hardship and one who enters a country to do harm are not the same. To threat them the same is unjust. The Church clearly says that immigrants, legal or not, have a duty to embrace the host country and to contribute to the host country. They have no right to deliberately do harm. The key word here is “deliberate” or “intentional” harm. The presence of immigrants may be a financial burden. But it is a collateral effect, not an intended effect of illegal immigration. The intention is to get away from harship or even injustice and to seek a better life for one’s family. This cannot be treated with the same degree of severity and castigation as the drug dealer or the terrorist. There are other details in the proposals on the table that have moral deficiencies.

When they do that they are overstepping their bounds and no longer speaking for the Church but for themselves, and I think they realize this as I have yet to read any claim from any bishop that Catholics have a moral obligation to support or oppose any specific proposal. Even Archbishop Dolan, who used the most intemperate terms I have ever seen used by a bishop, in defaming those who supported the Arizona immigration law did not claim that Catholics were obliged to oppose it. Neither did Archbishop Rodi, who joined a lawsuit against the Alabama immigration law, ever claim that Catholics were morally obliged to oppose it.

The problem is not that Catholics have to support this. The problem is that Catholics are making such statements as “The bishops have no right to say anything on this.” or “The bishops should stay out of politics.”

This is wrong. Bishops have the right and the authority to engage in the political arena of the country where they serve. It is their job to call the country to a greater degree of charity and a greater degree of morality. It is also their right to speak as citizens. They do not cease to be citizens. The only difference between a bishop and the res to the citizens is that his allegience is never to the nation, but to the Church. No bishop can ever pick one nation over another. He does have rights and duties. He pays taxes, doesn’t he?

How would I do that? I’m not sure I could prove to your satisfaction that trying to start a car with a dead battery was not a moral issue.

Here is a good example. You’re speaking to a religious and you’re being being flippant. What I see is a person who feels that he and the clergy are peers. This is on true anymore than you and a police officer are peers. We may be peers on the golf course, but we’re not peers in the Church. This is the way that people (not just you) are speaking to and about bishops on this thread. The question is, “How do I prove that this not a moral issue?” The answer is, "You must show that the issue is morally neutral because none of the possible solutions have the potential to do moral harm.

And why is the burden of proof on me?

In matters of Church government, morals, doctrine, discipline and policy the burden of proof is always on the lower man in the pecking order, not on the higher one. This has been tradition since the founding of the Church. You prove yourself to the man above you. A bishop must prove himself to the Holy Father, not to the faithful. If the Holy Father questions his policy or his statement, he has to offer a satisfactory response to the pope and he has to keep going until he can satisfy the pope or he has to back down. A great example was the Williamson case. The bishop said something about the Holocaust. The pope told him to back down and expressed regret that he did not know this before lifting the excommunication or he would have separated him from the other SSPX bishops and not lifted his excommunication. In the pope’s own words, “I would not introduce an anti-Semite into polite society.”

Were Bishop Williamson’s words a sin? Maybe not. However, the pope found them offensive enough to regret having brought him back into the Church. It made no difference to the pope that other people found them offensive. They were offensive to him. Bishop Williamson was sent home by his superiors. He has to prove to them and to the pope that he no longer holds his positon on the Holocaust, not to the laity. Proofs in the Church go upward, not downward.

When those of us who are under the authority of the bishop challenge a bishop’s right to speak on an issue or challenge his position or policy, we have to prove to the Church that the bishop is wrong or we have to back down and allow the bishop to speak.

 

[JReducation]

You stated: “If you’re going to challenge a bishop, you had better be as well educated as he is…” Since there are very few who are as well educated in their fields as bishops this would preclude almost all of us from ever challenging a bishop about anything at all. That may not be the definition of clericalism but it amounts to the same thing in its practical results.

Clericalism is one thing. The fact that we are a clerical Church cannot be denied. We’re never going to get away from that. Clericalism where the clergy abuses the rest of the Church is never allowed. Clerical authority is still very much in force and coming back with more force. In recent history, Pope Benedict has authorized bishops to govern their dioceses without the intervention of the Conference. This has been misunderstood by the laity. He did not say that the Conference of Bishops is to be flown off. He empowered the bishops to go against the Conference without consequences. In other words, he emphasized the autonomy of the local Church. We’re going back to the day when the bishop is the final voice in the local Church and after that you go to Rome.

What do you mean by the phrase “speaks as bishop?” Surely this is an acknowledgement that there are times when he doesn’t “speak as bishop.” How do we distinguish one case from the other?

This is a legitimate question and it can be confusing to know when he does and does not speak as a bishop. The safe way to go is this. When a bishop speaks about what affects his people and when he invokes the name of the Church, then heads up. If the bishop is talking about something that has no implications for his people, most likely, he’s not speaking a bishop, but as a scholar or some other capacity.

I don’t believe the Church has ever claimed that right:

"Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching." (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

I consider this citation proof that your assertion is wrong.

Ender

Cardinal Dulles is stating this very clearly, “Their prudential judgment is to be respected.” He’s not saying “Blow it off” or “You don’t have to comply.” If that were the case, we would not have to comply when the bishop says that we have to open this parish, close that one, or that we cannot use the name Catholic without his permission and mamy other things that bishops command or prohibit that have nothing to do with doctrine.

What he is saying is that these pronouncements are not doctrinal and do not require the assent of faith. This is what was always called the assent of obedience and lately it’s been called religious assent, which means that you acknowledge the right of those in authority to govern the faithful and to teach the faithful. It’s up to the Church to place a limit on their authority. This has been proven through history. Bishops and popes have always told governments what they can and cannot do in many matters. The continue to do so. The part that has changed is that they no longer hold public office, but they are political figures. They’re simply not politicians. A political figure is one who speaks with authority in the Polis.

I’m not saying that people have to agree. Cardinal Dulles makes this very clear. I knew the man personally, He was one of my professors. He would be the last person in the world to say that a bishop has not right to speak on a political matter and that Catholics are not bound to listen. This is what I’m saying. Catholics may not say that a bishop cannot and should not speak on these matters, because they can and the Vatican demands that they do so. When they don’t do so, they get raked over the coals by the pope, especially if it’s an issue that is important to him. Go ahead and disagree. But don’t say that they can’t speak or should not speak or should not get involved, because you run the risk of placing the authority of the civil government over that of the bishop. That’s not allowed. We are Catholics first and Americans second. We’re not going to get to heaven for being American. And don’t attempt to speak to or about a bishop as if he were a peer unless he is. Asking questions is good. That’s how we learn. Telling someone in authority to shut up, be he a bishop or a president, is not good. That’s offensive.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think I can see the problems here. Let’s take them one step at a time.

What happens here is that some solutions do transgress the moral order. For example, when a government, any country, tells a parent that he or she is being deported and has to choose either to take their children who are citizens or leave them behind, this constitutes a moral disorder. Children many nver be separated from their parents unless they are in danger. On the other hand, it is unjust to deport a citizen. This solution is not morally viable.

Another moral issue is the difference between people. A person who crosses a border to escape hardship and one who enters a country to do harm are not the same.

If I go to England, and if I decide to leave England, and if I have my child with me, is it a moral disorder if England insists that I take my child with me back to the U.S. or wherever I’m going? I doubt people would say so.

And, if England tells me I have to leave because I don’t have permission to be there in the first place, is England morally disordered if it tells me to take my child with me? I don’t think most would say so.

Seems to me England would be justified, from the standpoint of human decency, to insist that I do so, and I think most would agree with that.

But is sending people out of the country immoral per se?

Next, is sending citizens out of the country immoral per se?

Jan Demanjuk was deported, notwithstanding that he was an American citizen. Would most people think that immoral? Is there a Church doctrine saying that it is?

The potential separation of parent and child in these cases of illegal parents who have a child here is entirely the fault of the parent, and is based totally on the situs of birth and nothing else. The parents knew it when they came here, and somehow felt they and their child would be better off (i.e. gain an advantage over their own countrymen) if they did. And it isn’t as if the children and parents are being sent to Devil’s Island. They are being sent to the place where they came from, where the parents grew up, in all likelihood, where their extended families and cultures are. In the case of Mexico, the unemployment rate is even lower there than it is here. But for the fact that the parent crossed the border before having the child instead of after it does not somehow change the morality of it. It’s either immoral to deport a person who has a child or it’s not. It’s either inherently immoral to deport a citizen who is a citizen by reason of birth situs alone (not culture, language, relationships or anything else) or it isn’t.

It seems to me the reason people consider it immoral is just circumstantial, based on their belief about the conditions in the home country and nothing more. If I traveled to the odious Mullahdom of Iran and had a child there, and if Iran didn’t want me or my child there because I broke its laws in being there at all, would Iran be doing me a disservice amounting to immorality by sending me and my child home to the U.S.? Not too many would think so, because Iran is an awful place. People would think Iran was doing me and my child a favor.

Would people think it immoral to deport a Norweigian back to Norway with his child, understanding that the standard of living in Norway is higher than it is here? What about Monaco? Not many would think either thing immoral, because the deportation would be an improvement over what they had here. More than that, we would likely consider it immoral if we did NOT insist that the parent take the child with him to Norway or Monaco.

So, isn’t the real issue whether it’s immoral to send a person back to his home country with his child because we expect their economic circumstances there to be inferior to what they are here?