And because there is no obligation to agree makes this not a proportionate reason?
Well, at least we agree that border security isn’t very good. But I have seen some very good green cards. Now, one thing about green cards. There are two guys I know who look so much like me that people mistake us for one another upon superficial viewing. Neither is related to me at all. If I have a green card and the photo looks pretty much like me and if I have, say, a bogus drivers’ license to back it up, nobody is going to question it. They don’t all have to be totally forged.I’ve had hundreds of them seek my legal counsel, true, most were several years ago when I lived and practiced in LA, but yes, I’ve known ALOT of them in a professional setting. Then there’s the testimony of colleagues in immigration law…not as many try going back and forth as you claim. Also, they need proof of status to enter at a Port of Entry, not just an ID, and getting a passable fake green card is NOT easy.
And I dont have anything against border security. Indeed, my proposals would enhance and improve border security. Leaving things as they are now is anti-border security, after all, look around at where we’ve gotten ourselves!
Sorry, but I’m not following this at all.
I just see irony in the issues that some Catholics will state, ‘I’m under no obligation to agree with the bishops on this subject’, yet will state there absolutely are no proportionate reasons when deciding how to vote in an election. Either we fully believe in a quality of life for all, from conception to natural death, or we don’t. There is no lukewarm to these issues. We should be working as hard for a quality of life for all, as we do the unborn.
But that’s apples and oranges, isn’t it? Bishops teachings on truly non-negotiable moral issues are not the same thing as their expressed opinions about details of governance in the absence of non-negotiable issues. Whether one supports abortion, for example, cannot be proportionate to whether one believes in “delayed amber” stoplights for safety reasons.
It’s still fruit. Non-negotiable moral issues are defined differently, and seems to be a matter of convenience for some. We’re not discussing ‘delayed amber’ stoplights, we’re discussing human beings, our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Sorry to place such a burden on you ( re: generalizations , but why do you think you are a stranger to their use ) . . Unfortunately , the cost of healthcare is not the primary issue here . Nevertheless , US citizens not paying for their legitimate health care expenses does not obviate illegal aliens from their own obligation to pay for their own health care and/or insurance .
I was referencing fraud and/or theft of service and identity theft . These are both immoral and illegal . Oh , their race or ethnicity is immaterial to me , I’m an equal opportunity curmudgeon .
I only want to close our borders to illegal immigration , Not legal immigration .Don’t conflate my opposition to to illegal immigration to opposition to legal immigration .Why do you seem incapable of making this distinction ?
As you argue that you are not speaking about all immigrants, you continue to make innuendos about ‘stealing’.
We need an immigration reform that is fair, for the poor as well as the wealthy. We do have a right to control our borders, but for the right reasons according to what He taught us.
No innuendo , I am literally charging the illegal aliens who are guilty of it with stealing , fraud and/or identity theft .
Can you be more specific , what is your point ?
Well , they are not in fact paying their legal and just tax burden . I never said they pay zero taxes .
No innuendo , if you come here illegally and without proper vacinations ( or even with them ) you can spread disease . Don’t believe me , believe the CDC.
A platitude.I don’t believe you . You have not demonstrated any desire for robust immigration laws and enforcement of said laws . The immigration situation is out of control NOW .The right methods are even more important than the right reasons , currently . If I save a drowning man , will he require that my motive be altruistic ?
I assume you mean " illegal " immigrants . Absolutely , I would deport as many as I could as quickly as I could . There would be a " pecking order " , Felons first , then those guilty of numerous misdemeanors , then rank and file . Do I think this will happen ? Probably not . But I would also require employers to verify SS#'s and or immigration/ citizen status . If employers don’t comply , they get fined and fined and if that doesn’t work there is always a nice orange jumpsuit available .
I must say this is getting a little tiring. I am going to ask you to adopt a more respectful tone. Your posts are insulting, arrogant, and personal. They lack christian charity. And they lack any imparting of actual knowledge of immigration law, or evidence for any of the baseless assertions you are making. Please refrain from the hyperbole and converse in a civil, respectful manner.
Again, you are VERY insulting, personal, and arrogant, despite lacking any base of actual expertise in this area. The estimate of 11 billion in taxes paid in 2010 by undocumented immigrants does not mean that somehow ALL of them paid into the system at this total amount. As we all know, many undocumented persons in the U.S. are dependents who are not working, wives and children. Unless you are advocating child labor, it would be apparent that, for instance, if the 12 million estimate of total undocumented persons is taken as fairly accurate, among these some 500,000 to a million or more may be children brought along by the parents. Thus, these would obviously not be working, and surely you would not advocate that they should. Another couple million or more may be spouses who aren’t working, but instead taking care of their children. Then there are those who are working but not paying taxes. Estimating how much each undocumented worker individually pays in taxes is a useless endeavor really, and not possible to do accurately. This is a distraction though from the real issues. The fact is they are paying as a population, they are contributing. As another FACT, for instance, are you aware that undocumented workers pay an estimated $7 billion a year to Social Security? Or that as of 2007 the Social Security Administration estimates that $120 to $240 billion in the fund is from undocumented workers? See this for credible citation on that, though a simple Google Search will get you this information:
Again, very insulting and personal tone you take here. I have no trouble with reading comprehension when I’m reading something rational and coherent. It’s how I got a Doctorate degree in jurisprudence, thank you!
I have no idea what you mean about “from my keyboard to God’s monitor”…
Anyway, I don’t care what some people “demand”, the parent remains removable, and FREQUENTLY such parents are removed from the U.S. This may cause serious separation, as the child is NOT a citizen of Mexico or another Latin American country. The parent has to go through legal channels to obtain status for their child back home, which sometimes can result in, essentially, an orphaned child, at least for some time until the parents can get proper immigrant documentation for their child. As for when the child is an adult, I think by “family reunification” (which you are misusing here somewhat) you mean the ability of a child to petition for their parents for an immigrant visa to the U.S. Yes, a 21 year old citizen can file for a parent, HOWEVER, under current law this is of no avail to the parents. Persons who entered without inspection to the U.S. are permanently inadmissible. Thus, they could never actually obtain the visa and enter to reside in the U.S. based on their now adult child 21 years after the fact being a citizen. There is a waiver from this permanent bar to admissibility, but it requires a showing of extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen spouse or child if the person were to not be permitted to enter. This showing is EXTREMELY difficult, requiring evidence of circumstances such as the child being completely disabled and totally dependent on the parent to provide care and support, being unable to work or financially support themselves, etc. Basically, this waiver isn’t happening for around 99% of persons who are subject to the permanent bar to admissibility. So, in summary, the fact that an undocumented person had a baby in the U.S. does absolutely nothing for them, and, under current law, never will be of benefit to them. As for how I would handle this myself; I’ve already provided cogent, rational, well-thought out proposals for legal reforms based on my expertise and knowledge of the laws and the problems inherent in our current broken system that would make this a non-issue, but of course, it’s safe to assume you aren’t thrilled with my proposals, so I don’t know why you’re asking me how I would handle it, I’ve already said.
I don’t know what response you want. I don’t care what some particular voting precinct may chose to do with the languages on their ballots, it’s not relevant at all, and I don’t see why it’s really even an issue to cause such rage and ire among some people. As long as English is there so I can read them, I don’t care if a ballot also is available in Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, Swahili, or KLINGON! It’s completely irrelevant to the issue. It remains an absolute fact that when someone attends an interview for citizenship, it is conducted in English. The person is sworn under oath, their application is reviewed in detail by the adjudicating officer, they are asked 10 questions on American Civics from a list of 100 or so possible questions, and they are asked to write a couple of sentences on a piece of paper such as “I am very happy to be here and want to be a citizen of the United States”. All of this is in English, and if the person can’t do it they aren’t granted citizenship (with some rare exceptions for persons with severe disabilities or who are over the age of 55 and have been a green card holder for more than 10 years, that kind of thing).
But I hope this exposition has been helpful to you.You have no evidence as to the actual percentage of undocumented persons here who have stolen ID’s or engaged in identity theft. Certainly not nearly all of them have, so this is imputing bad behavior of an unknown some to the whole.
It seems a strange notion that a “preference” can be realized in the relegating of someone to exploitative labor for less than minimum wages often times, with zero recourse for ill treatment, fear of reporting to police if a victim of a crime, and generally being cut off from ANY of the normal methods of engaging in civilized society. If that’s your idea of a “preference”, then okay…
You sound like Lou Dobbs, this is ridiculous. I haven’t bothered looking into the Des Moines story, but the one about leprosy in Arkansas was involving LEGAL immigrants from the Marshall Islands. Please see below:
Apparently you haven’t heard of an I-9. Employers are ALREADY REQUIRED by law to verify employment authorization before hire. Look it up please on your own, it’s the law, but I’m tired of giving free legal education on here constantly. And, for the record, you can’t force employers to verify actual citizenship status. That’s discriminatory as a matter of law, being a violation of equal protection laws viewed as discriminatory on the basis of nationality, and would get an employer sued post haste.
A couple of things. Our border agents are not National Guard, they are Customs and Border Protection officers under the Dept. of Homeland Security. And having local police enforce immigration law is a HUGE problem for multiple reasons to lengthy to go into here, but one major problem is that immigration law is as complicated as the U.S. tax code. There are over 100 types of legal status in the U.S. currently, with dozens of different looking documentation, cards, notifications from USCIS, and other forms of status. Police officers would be completely incapable of differentiating one from another, and no, a week crash course of instruction is not going to make them able to do this. It would be a disaster, with citizens being wrongly jailed and then SUING the life out of the jurisdiction they were wrongfully jailed in, persons everywhere (except of course nice white people) feeling like they were in a police state, and with most actual undocumented persons STILL not being apprehended by police. The police are good at enforcing criminal law, immigration law is NOT criminal law. Not a good idea.
This is not a valid analogy for a very simple reason: you own your home, it is your property. You do NOT, however, own the United States. It is not “ours”, the public property, the open land and space of the U.S. is NOT owned by its people. When we say its “our country” we are claiming nationality or affiliation or allegiance; we are not claiming ownership in the same way as to say its “my house” or “my car”. You don’t get a say in who walks down the street, or in who moves in across the street. And again I say to that: Thank God!
Yes, they do, but they are called to minister to all, not just the middle class, nor do they promote a class warfare. They have never advocated Marxism or slave labor for all. As Christians, we should not engage in such demonization of a class of people, blaming them for evils for which they are not responsible. This is the very type of nationalistic rhetoric that made it possible for another nation to engage in genocide.
Obviously not directly. Of course they wouldn’t. But there are others, not only Bishops, not only even Catholics, who advocate things or discourage things because they are (or may be) unaware of the consequences to others. Their attitude is The Way Life Should Be, and Don’t Bother Me With Unpleasant Details. Again, in Catholic moral theology, one evil (usurpation of the rights of another to earn a living in the same location with limited skills, to be educated in the language of one’s native resident country, etc.) cannot be preferred so that a different evil (individual circumstances in a different country) can be addressed. Naturally I am referring, as I always have when posting about this subject, to the impoverished legal residents. However, it is perfectly legitimate that the daily needs of the middle class also should not have to be “traded” for the comfort of those who are not here legally.
Probably there’s no need for drama.
I don’t read “demonization of a class of people,” nor “nationalistic rhetoric.” And hardly pre-genocide. 
I would refer you to Evangelium Vitae and to Light of the World where Bl. John Paul addresses the issue of deportation and Pope Benedict addresses the issue of splitting the immirgrant family.
This is going to backfire on the American Catholic. When it does, many Americans are going to find themselves in hot spiritual waters. The Holy Father is already posting bishops in very key posiitions as Metropolitans. The men that he is posting do not tolerate back-talk. There are already letters being sent to individual Catholics that they are reduced to mass, confessions and other sacraments. They may not speak or engage in a public ministry in a diocesan facility or speak at any diocesan function. Copies of these letters are being sent around the parishes. If you allow these people to speak or participae in any function or organization other than sacraments in a ministry of the diocese, the local bishop can call you on the carpet.
I was not referring to you. I was speaking about people on the thread. I did not want to point fingers at anyone in particular. I’m sorry for that confusion.
This you are allowed to do. You may disagree with him, until he uses the word “moral” or “immoral”. Outside of that, you can disagree. This is what Cardinal Dulles was trying to sort out. We have the obligation to listen, respect, and then we can agree or disagree, as long as we don’t disagree on a moral point. Once the bishop says, “This is immoral.” We have to prove that it’s not. He does not have to prove to us that it is. The Apostles and their successors always get the benefit of the doubt. Outside of that, you can disagree and that’s OK.
I’m sorry. You’ve lost me there, Brother. Which “people” are you talking about? Do you mean priests who make up doctrine as they go (defying settled doctrine)? Lay people? Of whom – by type of example – are we speaking, or of what controversial activities are we speaking?
(Same question. Which people?)
Agreed! More important to me, it’s irrelevant. (And because parents have failings, that does not eviscerate their authority to instruct their children morally, either.)
I think you are totally correct with this, I just do not see this as an “us or them” issue. Unfortunately, I know that others sometimes do and in the name of justice to illegal immigrants that injustice is visited upon others. After you have explained some of the things you have dealt with, I understand this. Those unjust situations too need to be corrected. I think one can do that and still have legitimate immigration reform.