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

[RobbyS]

I firmly disagree with both Rudolfo and RobbyS. First of all, immigration to the US-legal and illegal, is a moral as well as a political issue.
The history of the anti-immigration feelings and laws in the United States is one of racial and religious predjudice. Starting with the anti-Catholic “Know Nothing” party in the early 19th century in reaction to Irish immigration, Then, the first immigration laws that restricted the immigration of Chinese…the so-called Yellow Peril, in the late 19th century. Then came the laws of the 20th century that forbid immigration from Southern (Italy) and Eastern (Poland and Russia), largely because the immigrants were Jewish and Roman Catholic. These laws remained in effect until after WWII,when we had to let European displaced persons in, and East Indian and Chinese immigration was not opened up until after the Viet Nam War.
What most Americans don’t realize is that if an individual in most African, Asian and Latin American countries has the ability to scrape up the price of the fare to the US, and has the guts to leave his/her home and family to get here, they are most often smarter than other people from where originated.
As for our current illegals…the crime rate of illegals percentage wise,zing is well below that of people born here, and almost all of these people work at jobs that native born Americans will not touch…and for wages that Americans will not consider. Go into any restaurant kitchen…how many American kitchenmen and dishwashers do you think you will find? Go to any truck farm…especially on the West Coast. How many American vegetable and fruit pickers will you find.
Our current mish-mash of uninforceable immigration laws are the result of rampant anti-Mexican predjudice in California and the South Western States.
One hears so much anti-Latino garbage, especially in Florida. Well, I grew up in Miami during the 1940’s and even back then, the city of Miami was a Cuban town. After Fidel, most of the Cubans arrived literally with the shirts on their backs. I remember a former Justice of the Cuban Supreme Court working as a dining room waiter in a Miami Beach resort hotel, and a professor from the medical school of the University of Havana working as an orderly in Jackson Memorial Hospital. None of these people had papers when they arrived, and it was several years, and only after serious public agitation that they were allowed to stay and work legally.
If you ever have driven across the USA by car and seen the enormous empty spaces, you would realize that we have room for many more people. Remember, the secret of the strength of the USA is that up until recently, every few years we had a new wave of immigrants that revitalized our society. It is only in the last 50 years or so that we have become lazy and moribund. By legitimizing those so-called illegals who are already here, the US can only profit.

Again, I point to the responsibility of Mexico, or rather its elites for the present situation. The history of Mexico is a history of bad government, like that of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies–or the Papal States for that matter, which certainly can be linked back to the Spanish influence, especially the Hidalgo culture. As for the silence of American bishops, to heck with the pride of the Mexican bishops if they have been unwilling to stand up. However, that is not entirely true, and never has been. The persecution of the Church has been caused as much by the arrogance of the leading families, their lack of compassion for their own people, as for their possession of office in the Church. They don’t give a hang about the “common good.” They take care of their own and let the devil take the hindmost.

 

[Blacksword]

Okay, so here are several legal measures and steps that would be in conformity with the Church’s teachings, and that are aimed at solving the current problem, addressing future immigration flow rationally and appropriately, and better serving the American public, our economic and labor needs, our technological advancement and future, our national security needs, and the needs and goals of the worthy persons from around the world who wish to come here to contribute:

First, fix the current H-2B visa. It should have no annual cap, and should not require a labor market test before approval, nor should be primarily employer-driven, which at present makes it nearly impossible for employers to match up with would-be workers. Instead, it should be a registry of employers in seasonal work such as agriculture, with an allotment of open jobs each employer needs. Foreign nationals wishing for such jobs could apply for the visa at their Consulate nearest their residence, and be given the lists and matched up at their visa interviews with a suitable job site/employer.

For other high demand and underserved unskilled jobs not seasonal in nature, there should be a new nonimmigrant work visa, with a labor market tested and variable by year annual cap, allowing for nonimmigrant entry of workers for unskilled labor such as poultry processing, landscaping, elderly nursing home care, and construction, etc. The Dept. Of Labor would have monitoring over these various industries to determine market need for such jobs, and in consultation with applicable private sector organizations, assess visa availability each year. Various US worker protections can be included, such as required recruitment attempts for employers having over, say, 20% of their workforce comprised of said nonimmigrant workers, and various attestations. Similar to the requirements for H-1B specialty occupation workers already in place for degreed professional occupations.

Next, eliminate the 212(a)(9)(B) bars to admissibility. It is a terrible law from IRAIRA that has been a disaster from the get go.

Thirdly, recapture the tens of thousands of unused immigrant visa numbers for waiting immigrants that have been lost from delayed government processing for years. Eliminate the counting of dependent family members (children and spouses) from counting towards the annual immigrant visa caps, thus only counting the principle immigrant.

 

[Blacksword]

Continued:

Fourth, bring back 245(i) for those here now to legalize, paying hefty civil fines for their civil offenses in the process. Revamp the labor certification process for unskilled positions such that certification and approval of an immigrant visa avenue is actually available for unskilled employment. An employer can conduct a simple labor market test, and upon having inadequate American workers respond to fill open positions in, for instance, farm labor, obtain a blanket certification for a given number of positions. This could then be matched with employees already working there now without status, or, in the future, matched with the H-2B workers who now, thanks to our fixing the H-2B visa, would be legally working there already.

Fifth, provide adequate funding to ICE and a mandate to ICE to use that funding to go after and PROSECUTE employers who continue to hire undocumented workers (though with the other fixes this population would pretty much be eliminated!), instead of targeting the immigrants.

Do these things, and pretty much voilà, problem solved. The undocumented population here now is pretty much normalized and done away with, and new ones don’t enter without inspection because they now have the proper avenues to get a visa and enter the easy way instead of making a dangerous journey across hundreds of miles of desert on foot.

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.

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.

These measures promote national welfare, benefit our economy, and serve the interests of justice and the family values we claim to hold as a nation. They further promote national security through allowing an estimated 12 million people to come out of the shadows, obtain documentation, and be checked accordingly for criminal backgrounds, ill intent, etc. These measures benefit lower wage earning Americans, as any such persons truly wishing to accept work harvesting crops, landscaping, caring for elderly patients in nursing homes, and other such high undocumented worker sectors of the economy, no longer would have to compete with undocumented workers who are being exploited for less than minimum wage. The interests of justice and equality would be served in this manner also, as no longer would the exploitation of such workers continue, they would have equal access to demand fair wages, worker’s compensation coverage, and redress of illegal labor practices by any bad acting employers. The legalization of the undocumented would further facilitate faster assimilation and acculturation to life in the U.S., and increase tax revenue through the new taxes paid by those who had been working but not paying taxes, and more taxes paid by those who had been working and paying taxes but not receiving at least minimum wage and therefore paying less taxes than they otherwise might.

 

[Blacksword]

Again, I point to the responsibility of Mexico, or rather its elites for the present situation. The history of Mexico is a history of bad government, like that of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies–or the Papal States for that matter, which certainly can be linked back to the Spanish influence, especially the Hidalgo culture. As for the silence of American bishops, to heck with the pride of the Mexican bishops if they have been unwilling to stand up. However, that is not entirely true, and never has been. The persecution of the Church has been caused as much by the arrogance of the leading families, their lack of compassion for their own people, as for their possession of office in the Church. They don’t give a hang about the “common good.” They take care of their own and let the devil take the hindmost.

Some of this is true, but we also are partly to blame for the collapse of the Mexican economy. NAFTA was a disaster for Mexico. Ross Perot was right to some extent about it causing loss of jobs and manufacturing here, and we can see since it’s passage in particular the way blue collar industrial jobs have moved to Mexico on a large scale. But the Mexican side of that tale is one of large multi-national companies based in the U.S. moving operations there, then sucking up all the resources and economic base, becoming the only game in town for employment, and then proceeding to pay exploitatively low wages to workers, on which those employed can’t earn a living, and those left without jobs having nowhere else to turn at all. NAFTA has been harmful to manufacturing jobs and blue collar workers both here and in Mexico. It has greatly increased the wealth of said large multi-national companies and their executives…so I guess at least somebody wins!

 

[JReducation]

I find there are several problems here.

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

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.

While the lay faithful may claim that the bishops are not fully knowledgeable in this arena, they must also admit that they are not fully competent in what constitutes a moral, theological, pastoral and ecclesiological concern.

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.

On the other hand, we know for a fact that bishops are competent professionals in these sacred sciences. Bishop X may be a fool, because it’s in his personality to be one, be he is not lacking in knowledge in these areas. Therefore, when he says that there is something of concern to the Church, it is very dangerous for those who don’t have his level of knowledge in sacred sciences to claim that there is nothing here that concerns the faith and the Church.

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.

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. He can only say whatever they say as bishops, not what they say as Jack, Mike and Pete. That’s not his job.

The other point that posters must pay close attention before being washed away by some of the so-called experts on this thread is the fact, that no one on this thread has managed to prove why the bishops may not speak. What has been said is, “I wish, I want, I don’t like, They should, They should not, They must and They may not.” That’s not theology or Church Law. It does not work that way.

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 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. 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.

Otherwise, our argument is as wise as that of the milkman who goes in for a triple bypass, but argues with the surgeon. If he felt that the surgeon was incompetent, he should not have gone to him. 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.

We, the faithful, laity, clergy and religious cannot have it both ways. We cannot want bishops so that we can keep the Church going and then say that we know more than they do about what should and should not concern the Successors of the Apostles. How many people on this forum have a doctorate in theology or ministry? On the flip side, 95% of the bishops in the world have doctorates in one or more sacred sciences. It’s a canonical requirement in order to be ordained a bishop. You must have a doctorate or the equivalent in seminary training. The Church does not ordain ignorant men to the Order of Bishop. Fools, quite often, but not ignorant. Even Jesus ordained a few fools. One of them was the first pope, but he was very knowledgeable by the time he became pope. He too had a few things to say about the state of the Roman State.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Thank you J.R. I will mention again that in this article it was no bishop who was speaking. However, I heard AB Dolan state that he and AB Gomez were working on a new document on immigration. I look forward to it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you J.R. I will mention again that in this article it was no bishop who was speaking. However, I heard AB Dolan state that he and AB Gomez were working on a new document on immigration. I look forward to it.

I understand that it was not a bishop doing the speaking. However, the PR people at the USCCB do not make statements unless they know what the bishops are saying. It’s like any other organization. People in these positions have to limit what they say to what the bishops will back up. He’s not speaking as an independent Catholic or employee. He knows what they think about this matter. At the very least, the President.

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.

Archbishop Dolan is a Doctor of Church History in America, he is an STL, he was a diplomat, the Rector of the North American Pontifical College in Rome, and he does not make a move or a statement without first asking himself what the pope would want him to say. He is with the pope in Rome and at home.

Archbishop Gomez is an engineer, has a business degree, a philosophy dregree, a doctorate in theology, is Holy Cross Priest (Opus Dei) and trained under Archbishop Chaput. He comes to the table with a great deal of knowledge about the Church, the secular world and what the Church can and cannot do in the secular world.

It would be very hard to find a lay Catholic in the USA who could top these guys in ecclessiology and pastoral theology. They know what they Church can say, when she should say it and how she should say it and neither of them gives a hoot what the rest of us think. That’s what makes them very good at what they do.

The one thing that we Catholics have to understand is that we cannot have a Church without bishops, but bishops can be a church without laity. Where there is the bishop, there is the Church. We like to think that we are their equal and that’s not the case at all.

If we’re going to say, “The bishop should do . . . .” or "The bishop should not do . . . " then we need to be able to put forward the philosophy, theology and appropriate interpretations of Church law to debate with them. Those kinds of statements are dangerous, because they sound like a peer review. Obviously, most of us are not their peers in knowledge and only a bishop is peer to a bishop.

Bishops can make mistakes, but one has to be able to demonstrate that. What wish or don’t wish is not a proof that the person in authority is wrong or that the person does not have authority. This is where I’m coming from. Many people who are not very knowledgeable about Catholicism read these threads and will follow something because it sounds logical, not knowing that the bisops may know something that the poster does not know. You end up following a poster instead of a bishop, you’re on a slippery slope. Again, we need them more than they need us. At the end of the day, a Catholic has to submit to his or her local bishop. You can’t have one foot inside and one on the curb. It’s not healthy.

I will position. Those who believe that the bishops should not speak on this matter, must prove that the matter does not require the Church’s attention. The bishops do not have to prove themselves to anyone. We don’t own them and we did not elect them, nor do we employ them. Disagreeing is one thing, telling someone to shut up is quite another. I don’t mean you. But there are people on these threads who would like to say this to the bishops. You can’t go there. That’s not a good place. :nope:

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hboggs]

So there is no misunderstanding, I am referring specifically to the influx, mostly ILLEGAL (1. forbidden by law or statute. 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc), of Hispanics beginning during the Bush years and being promoted during the Obama administration. For about 200 years, we had a quota system by country in place for immigration. In the most part, it worked. To now simply throw open the boarders is asinine. We are one of the few countries in this world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens simply by being born within the country. Most countries in the world have many strenuous requirements in order to become citizens specifically including learning the language. I am not opposed to immigration as long as it is LEGAL and it seems that we have a generation of educated people that can’t comprehend the difference between legal and illegal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t say we don’t know anything about them. I provided some answers to those questions. We KNOW they commit crimes at far lower rates than U.S. citizens based on criminal profiles, crime reporting data, criminal prosecution data, etc. (deletion to obtain space) If you’re going to argue against what is accepted as objective reality on these sorts of issues, then there is little point in continuing discussion as you have left the bounds of rationality at that point.

**And yet, no actual statistics or studies provided. Therefore, the anecdotal evidence still stands alone, and the readers are left to choose among them. Oh my goodness, you took back “liar”, but you didn’t take “uninformed” back. Now you are calling me irrational. Where’s that courtroom demeanor, counselor? **

Sigh, again here, you are saying that the agency charged with actual apprehension and removal of such persons has NO IDEA what its talking about. This isn’t rational. And you don’t seem to understand the costs associated with the employment of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”, the agency who’s made the estimates I’m referring to) officers to do the catching and detainment, or the costs of, often times, months of detainment of apprehended aliens awaiting removal in federal prison facilities. This requires feeding, providing medical care for those who get sick, etc. This costs money, lots of it. And undocumented aliens don’t enter by BUS, they have to cross over hundreds of miles of desert on foot, circumventing ports of entry, or be stowed away in trunks of cars, etc. They don’t just ride on a bus, the CBP checks every passenger on buses. I know, I’m at the Port of Entry in Detroit ALL THE TIME. That’s how it works.

**You shot the straw man right between the eyes with this one. (Dies Irae, Dies ila) Never, ever, ever, did I say ICE can’t figure out what it would take to round up and deport every illegal in the U.S. What I DID say is that ICE doesn’t NEED to deport every illegal in the U.S. because most of them go home voluntarily and frequently. They can come back because the border is not well enforced. And I never said illegals come here by bus, though some might well. I said it’s easy to GO HOME by bus from, the U.S. to Mexico. (The straw man casualty rate is rising alarmingly.) **

Persons intending ill from Yemen or Iran don’t sneak in across the border. They need ID to have access to the places they need to go, they need to be able to open bank accounts, move money, and generally have access to facilities and to aspects of U.S. commerce that are closed to persons without documentation. And the crossing of the border without inspection is too risky for such persons since the last thing they want is to be flagged and identified in such a manner, and they don’t want to risk death in the desert either. This is also a KNOWN fact; it’s been detailed in national security reports as a potential terrorism concern and been concluded by every national security and counter-terrorism expert to be exceedingly unlikely. Again, it feels here like you’re almost saying “experts are morons and don’t know anything”, which, if that’s the case, there’s little of substance on ANYTHING that can be explained to you if you personally don’t happen to just already accept it. And again, you mention the number of undocumented aliens in prisons, but seem to be unaware that the VAST majority of these persons are not there for conviction of any criminal offenses. Rather, they are there for the reason I mentioned above: they are being held without bail awaiting removal proceedings to be completed. Thus, they are being held in federal prisons, along side serious violent criminal offenders, for mere civil immigration offenses of being unlawfully present. Not a very humane treatment of persons if you ask me, but suffice to say, again, that we KNOW the percentages of these persons, since we know why they are there, and the vast majority have NOT been convicted of any actual criminal offenses, nor are they there serving any kind of criminal sentence. ** Never did I say “experts are morons”. Let’s see what they say. usgovinfo.about.com/od/defenseandsecurity/a/otmaliens.htm**. Omigosh! Some of the illegals coming across the southern border are from Iran, Yemen and other Islamic countries! Lots of them, in fact. And as soon as you provide the statistics on what percentage of illegals are in prison “merely” because they are here illegally, versus having committed crimes, we can take a good look at them. Until then, the (what do you lawyers call it?) the “burden of proof” for your proposition is not met.

Employers, for the record, DO have the prerogative to question and refuse to accept identification that readily appears to be fake. This is not discriminatory, and will not get one in trouble, so long as the employer’s HR or other representative is not SAYING something stupid in telling the applicant “Hey, I’m sorry, but this drivers’ license does not look legitimate.” If they SAY something overtly racist, they’re inviting trouble. Now, I’m not a fake ID detective, but I’m just pointing this out: patently false identification can absolutely be questioned by the employer. **“Patently false identification”. Sure, if an illegal presents a bogus birth certificate saying he’s a 70 year old woman when he appears to be a 25 year old male, yes. But how many do that? You have already admitted you have not seen forged ID. Well, I have, and it’s well-done, almost without exception. No illegal comes to an employer with “patently false” ID anymore. **

The rest of your post here again was essentially conjecture and anecdotal in nature, so there’s really nothing that I, or anyone, can readily say in reply, and so I will refrain from further comment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So there is no misunderstanding, I am referring specifically to the influx, mostly ILLEGAL (1. forbidden by law or statute. 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc), of Hispanics beginning during the Bush years and being promoted during the Obama administration. For about 200 years, we had a quota system by country in place for immigration. In the most part, it worked. To now simply throw open the boarders is asinine. We are one of the few countries in this world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens simply by being born within the country. Most countries in the world have many strenuous requirements in order to become citizens specifically including learning the language. I am not opposed to immigration as long as it is LEGAL and it seems that we have a generation of educated people that can’t comprehend the difference between legal and illegal.

What countries refuse citizenship to those born in that country?

I have a friend who was born in France, of a French woman and an American military man. When my friend grew up, he joined the army. While serving in Europe he decided to visit the grandparents in France that he had never met. As he tried to enter France, he was detained, for evasion of the French military. It seems his records showed a dual citizenship, to the US and France. Of course the US military got him released and he was able to visit his grandparents.

 

[Ender]

Personally, I can’t think about standing before the Lord one day and trying to explain that I was waiting until I found a good plan to proceed with what He taught and that according to ‘men’ there were too many problems to do as He asked. It’s that simple, for me anyways.

I never said we either needed to wait for anything nor that there were too many problems. What I said was that the determination of what to do was not a moral problem. You are making assumptions about me, about what I want to accomplish, rather than about any specific proposals I might support. That is, supporting deportation is not intrinsically evil so we may differ on its application, so if you consider my choice immoral it can only be because you consider my intentions immoral. As I said, that is a judgment of me, not of the position itself … which is why most positions on this subject are not moral concerns.

It seems universal healthcare is something else people seek to avoid. I’m sorry Ender, it seems people are making excuses to avoid the processes.

We have politically different views about what will and will not work. You don’t seem to understand that our differences are based on different beliefs about how the application of specific actions will turn out. We have a similar destination but have chosen very different paths to get there. You think we should go left, I think we should go right; it’s really that simple.

Ender

 

[Blacksword]

So there is no misunderstanding, I am referring specifically to the influx, mostly ILLEGAL (1. forbidden by law or statute. 2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc), of Hispanics beginning during the Bush years and being promoted during the Obama administration. For about 200 years, we had a quota system by country in place for immigration. In the most part, it worked. To now simply throw open the boarders is asinine. We are one of the few countries in this world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens simply by being born within the country. Most countries in the world have many strenuous requirements in order to become citizens specifically including learning the language. I am not opposed to immigration as long as it is LEGAL and it seems that we have a generation of educated people that can’t comprehend the difference between legal and illegal.

None of this is at all factually accurate, wow…first, people have been entering without inspection long before Bush. Second, Obama in no way has “promoted” this. Thirdly, in the previous 200 years before the 1952 INA we had various minor schemes in place, but for the most part it was effectively an open immigration policy, except for immigrants from countries we didn’t like such as China. The country quotas did not “work” at all unless you are someone who hates Chinese, eastern Europeans, Jews, and pretty much anyone else who isn’t a western European protestant. The quotas were horribly racist and purposely designed to keep out “undesirables”. Have you ever heard of the Chinese Exclusion Act? Was that “good policy” in your view?

And it is not true that most countries have such exclusionary hurdles to citizenship for people born there. Many other countries recognize birthright citizenship. As for English language requirement, we DO require English language proficiency for naturalization to become a citizen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Okay, so here are several legal measures and steps that would be in conformity with the Church’s teachings, and that are aimed at solving the current problem, addressing future immigration flow rationally and appropriately, and better serving the American public, our economic and labor needs, our technological advancement and future, our national security needs, and the needs and goals of the worthy persons from around the world who wish to come here to contribute:

First, fix the current H-2B visa. It should have no annual cap, AGREEand should not require a labor market test before approval,DISAGREE nor should be primarily employer-driven, which at present makes it nearly impossible for employers to match up with would-be workers. I think something is missing here. Why is an “employer-driven” system such that it makes it nearly impossible for employers to match up with workers? Instead, it should be a registry of employers in seasonal work such as agriculture, with an allotment of open jobs each employer needs. Foreign nationals wishing for such jobs could apply for the visa at their Consulate nearest their residence, and be given the lists and matched up at their visa interviews with a suitable job site/employer. Works for me, as long as there are no local citizens willing to do the work, and as long as the government allows “no strike” provisions in the contract, along with “no return” provisions if they breach it. I have seen crops ruined because foreign agricultural workers “went on strike” for more money than they agreed to take in order to get the visa.

For other high demand and underserved unskilled jobs not seasonal in nature, there should be a new nonimmigrant work visa, with a labor market tested and variable by year annual cap, allowing for nonimmigrant entry of workers for unskilled labor such as poultry processing, landscaping, elderly nursing home care, and construction, etc. The Dept. Of Labor would have monitoring over these various industries to determine market need for such jobs, and in consultation with applicable private sector organizations, assess visa availability each year. Various US worker protections can be included, such as required recruitment attempts for employers having over, say, 20% of their workforce comprised of said nonimmigrant workers, and various attestations. Similar to the requirements for H-1B specialty occupation workers already in place for degreed professional occupations. I don’t hate this, but I am not persuaded that employers won’t simply replace local workers by this method. Let’s face it, poultry and nursing home workers are all potential “welfare recipients” if they didn’t have ready access to those jobs, and are often on the ragged edge of public dependency. Who would hire a local 45 year old man with a bad back and one missing finger when he could hire a 25 year old, strapping Guatemalan instead? And the 5’5" 200 lb nursing home worker with a dragon tatooed on her arm if a svelte, muscular Salvadoran could be hired instead? And employer associations have a lot more political power than do nursing home workers. In construction, though, I oppose foreign workers entirely. Those are not low-skill jobs and large numbers of Americans had them before illegals just basically took the industry over. There is no reason why American workers can’t be found to do roofing, drywalling and framing. They did before.

Next, eliminate the 212(a)(9)(B) bars to admissibility. It is a terrible law from IRAIRA that has been a disaster from the get go. Whatever this is. Perhaps you could explain.

Thirdly, recapture the tens of thousands of unused immigrant visa numbers for waiting immigrants that have been lost from delayed government processing for years. Eliminate the counting of dependent family members (children and spouses) from counting towards the annual immigrant visa caps, thus only counting the principle immigrant. Housekeeping, one assumes. No objection.

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.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never said we either needed to wait for anything nor that there were too many problems. What I said was that the determination of what to do was not a moral problem. You are making assumptions about me, about what I want to accomplish, rather than about any specific proposals I might support. That is, supporting deportation is not intrinsically evil so we may differ on its application, so if you consider my choice immoral it can only be because you consider my intentions immoral. As I said, that is a judgment of me, not of the position itself … which is why most positions on this subject are not moral concerns.
We have politically different views about what will and will not work. You don’t seem to understand that our differences are based on different beliefs about how the application of specific actions will turn out. We have a similar destination but have chosen very different paths to get there. You think we should go left, I think we should go right; it’s really that simple.

Ender

It still puts me to think of standing before the Lord and explaining, deportation of the hungry, naked, homeless, is not intrinsically evil, so we spent a lot of time on how to apply a correct measure.

Is that better? I can’t see it. We are offering to closely look at each case and make a decision of ‘work permits’, not citizenship. Would it be better to deport them all and then start over? I still can’t see that application, myself.

It’s not left, or right, it’s His way that I want to go.

 

[ANNE_2]

By your definition every Administration has violated the Constitution. Law Enforcement never enforces every law at all times, they make prudential decisions based on limited time and resources. Presidential Administraions also set priorities for federal enforcement.
The Church is more than just the Catechism. The Church has something to say on the moral implications of human endeavors.
This thread is not about Obama per se. This is a thread about the Church and immigration issues. If you want to argue about that there is the World News forum.
The Vatican would disagree.
On this issue the USCCB is actually following the lead of BJP2 and Pope Benedict.

The Obama Administration is actually breaking the law, by changing it through Administrative policy. Only Congress has the authority to write laws, or change them.
The USCCB should not support the breaking of immigration laws which is part of this thread.
CCC - " 2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."

All Catholics including Bishops are required to adhere to the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
" The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I have approved…and the publication of which I order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic Doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the Faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion." - Pope John Paul II (CCC pg 5)

The USCCB exists to support US Bishops. It is not the Magisterium, nor does it have authority over any US Bishop. Nor is it related to, or an arm of the Vatican. No Bishop’s Conferance speaks for the Vatican. Only the Vatican speaks for the Vatican.
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-bishops-conferences-should-serve-bishops-not-replace-them/

Regarding Migration: " However, the Pope added, “**States have the right to regulate migration flows **and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host country, respecting its laws and its national identity.”
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-stresses-unity-of-global-human-family-as-theme-of-upcoming-migrants-day/

The USCCB would be more credible if they encouraged closing the border (except for legal immigration and legal trade) to slow - illegal drug running, human slavery, related murders, and splitting of families.
And continue financially supporting those in need through the Catholic Church.

We must continue to help the poor of the world according to the best of our ability and “Subsidiarity”.
CCC - " 1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good. "
Also see CCC - 1885, 1994, 2209.

 

[Ender]

Okay, so here are several legal measures and steps that would be in conformity with the Church’s teachings, and that are aimed at solving the current problem, addressing future immigration flow rationally and appropriately, and better serving the American public, our economic and labor needs, our technological advancement and future, our national security needs, and the needs and goals of the worthy persons from around the world who wish to come here to contribute:

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

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

If you ever have driven across the USA by car and seen the enormous empty spaces, you would realize that we have room for many more people. Remember, the secret of the strength of the USA is that up until recently, every few years we had a new wave of immigrants that revitalized our society. It is only in the last 50 years or so that we have become lazy and moribund. By legitimizing those so-called illegals who are already here, the US can only profit.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.**Revamp the labor certification process for unskilled positions such that certification and approval of an immigrant visa avenue is actually available for unskilled employment. An employer can conduct a simple labor market test, and upon having inadequate American workers respond to fill open positions in, for instance, farm labor, obtain a blanket certification for a given number of positions. This could then be matched with employees already working there now without status, or, in the future, matched with the H-2B workers who now, thanks to our fixing the H-2B visa, would be legally working there already. Makes sense.

Fifth, provide adequate funding to ICE and a mandate to ICE to use that funding to go after and PROSECUTE employers who continue to hire undocumented workers (though with the other fixes this population would pretty much be eliminated!), instead of targeting the immigrants. I could agree with this if employers were allowed to do a real check on potential employees instead of being dependent on E-verify alone. I’ll admit, some employers are in cahoots with ICE and get further “verification” in the form of a pre-arranged raid. (Not the information, though) But what kind of system is that? It’s kind of nifty in a way, and can be entertaining, but it’s dishonest from everyone’s point of view.

Do these things, and pretty much voilà, problem solved. The undocumented population here now is pretty much normalized and done away with, and new ones don’t enter without inspection because they now have the proper avenues to get a visa and enter the easy way instead of making a dangerous journey across hundreds of miles of desert on foot. **It makes sense theoretically, but without good border control, I can’t see it really eliminating illegal entry and job-taking, though it would surely reduce it. Illegals don’t just pick lettuce and pull the pin feathers off chickens. Some are in well-paying industrial jobs that Americans would definitely take. **

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)

 

[Ridgerunner]

These measures promote national welfare, benefit our economy, and serve the interests of justice and the family values we claim to hold as a nation. They further promote national security through allowing an estimated 12 million people to come out of the shadows, obtain documentation, and be checked accordingly for criminal backgrounds, ill intent, etc. These measures benefit lower wage earning Americans, as any such persons truly wishing to accept work harvesting crops, landscaping, caring for elderly patients in nursing homes, and other such high undocumented worker sectors of the economy, no longer would have to compete with undocumented workers who are being exploited for less than minimum wage. The interests of justice and equality would be served in this manner also, as no longer would the exploitation of such workers continue, they would have equal access to demand fair wages, worker’s compensation coverage, and redress of illegal labor practices by any bad acting employers. The legalization of the undocumented would further facilitate faster assimilation and acculturation to life in the U.S., and increase tax revenue through the new taxes paid by those who had been working but not paying taxes, and more taxes paid by those who had been working and paying taxes but not receiving at least minimum wage and therefore paying less taxes than they otherwise might. Some of the benefits you mention, such as workers’ compensation coverage, is already enjoyed by illegals. Illegality is no defense to a workers’ compensation claim.

One last thought, but it concerns me a great deal and could wreck the whole thing. To some degree, George W. Bush’s “Hispanice preference” (by ignoring illegal entry of Hispanics) in immigration made sense. As little as many of them seem to have regard for the U.S. or its culture, they are still largely Christian and Western in their own peculiar ways. Mexicans and Guatemalans have no ideological foundation to be destructive by their presence. But can we say the same of Iranians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Chinese or North Koreans? In a country like ours, where the very word “discrimination” automatically causes the judicial system to bend over backwards to eliminate every imaginable or even imagined trace of it even when good reason may exist to allow it, the “Hispanic preference” is sure to dissolve. Americans, notwithstanding some grumbling here and there, have largely accepted that preference. But is this country really prepared to see equal footing given to Chinese, North Korean or Yemeni applicants? I doubt it, and personally, I have reservations about it myself. But the courts will surely enforce that very thing.

In the old days when I worked on visas, I gained considerable regard for Filipinos and Filipinas. Good workers. Regard the U.S. highly. Christian, western in orientation. It is a terrible thing that we can’t give them preferences in immigration. But they can’t walk across the border, so they were in the same pot with the Yemenis and the Chinese.

We might well be in a situation where we simply have to make the best of the situation we have, which is to educate (hopefully, and it won’t be easy) millions of Mexicans, Guatemalans and Salvadorans of uncertain status, while cracking down on the criminal individuals and organizations that came with them, and improving border control, spending a lot of money doing it. OTMs really are coming in in large numbers, and we know almost nothing about them.

Meanwhile, perhaps the “Queen Mary can be turned around” and our high schools improved to prepare students for the “nerdy” professions. If they can’t add when they graduate from high school (okay, a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the point) they can’t survive college trig either. If they can’t do trig, they can’t grasp anything about most engineering.

And, of course, legal abortion has been largely responsible for the shortage of workers and the imbalance in age groups (and transfer payments) in the U.S. Another “Queen Mary” to turn around at the pier.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

And it is not true that most countries have such exclusionary hurdles to citizenship for people born there. Many other countries recognize birthright citizenship. As for English language requirement, we DO require English language proficiency for naturalization to become a citizen.