Catholic Bishops against Arizona legislation

[DonM]

At some point, doesn’t everyone agree we are going to need tougher enforcement?

It seems that some say they want amnesty, then enforcement. Others want enforcement, and either no amnesty, or a worker program, etc. once enforcement is in place.

How are we going to enforce, except by these sorts of laws? They seem inevitable.

I understand the concerns of the bishops and others regarding civil rights and breaking up families. I don’t understand how anyone thinks we can ever solve this problem without some of these ill results.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Do we really want to be one of those countries where the authorities can stop you on the street and demand to see your papers? Do you think that this law only applies to them?

Reminds me of a line from Chief Justice Roberts in a recent case: “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it reasonably”

 

[mlund]

It saddens me that you feel this way, the people in this position are in their greatest moments of needing Charity. Sure you have people who we might classify as “bumbs”, but you know what? It’s not our job to evaluate the condition and status of someone’s heart. I would suggest mediating on (perhaps alectio divina) on Matthew 31 on through the end of the chapter. It’s quite applicable here.

I would request that you curb your assumptions.

As I’ve already noted and you’ve overlooked we have Day Labor Centers in Arizona already, as well as employment offices. We also have open policies of allowing people to post signage and enter places of business to apply for work.

The facilities are already in place. Roadside day-labor pick-ups exist largely to facilitate tax evasion and to violate state and federal standards on wages and employment conditions.

Like I said, I haven’t read the laws but there are all sorts of allutions in reports I’ve read such as

foxnews.com/world/2010/04/26/arizona-immigration-conflict-heats/

Yes, third-hand hearsay, speculation, and political grandstanding by heated partisans. That’s obviously going to help reasoned debate and keep people informed. Oh, and there’s no mention of check-points in that article.

I got an especially good laugh out of Kyrsten Sinema’s indignant claim about how a citizen was arrested this weekend under this law when he tried to renew his commercial driver’s license - even though this law isn’t in effect and she can’t provide any details like the man’s name and no police reports show any such arrest.

Seriously, some people are letting their partisanship excuse misrepresentation and outright deception and fabrication here. Just because someone feels strongly about an issue doesn’t mean they are being accurate or truthful.

If we start demanding peoples paper work on the streets, then yes that is quite draconian… And it’s not unreasoble to see this as the logical ends, as otherwise this law makes no changes to existing statutes in this regard and there for would be wasted ink in the law.

If they stop someone on the street for a separate infraction (public intoxication, soliciting prostitution, etc.) then asking for valid identification is perfectly reasonable.

The bill is not long - 16 pages - and the parts regarding whether or not you can run someone’s immigration status are at the very beginning of the bill. The parts to pay attention to:

“FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE”

“THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS.”

“Papers checkpoints” don’t meet the “lawful contact” criteria for invoking this law. Traffic violations and drunken disorderly calls, however, do.

Section 2.F of the statute is a long time coming as well. It prohibits State and Local officials from forbidding sending, receiving, or maintaining records on the immigration status of individuals seeking public benefits.

• Marty Lund

 

[tpw]

Which is exactly why the bishops are calling for immigration reform…!

Sure, the unscrupulous will be happy to pay $10 / hr. to an illegal alien instead. He can’t join a union (well, maybe the SEIU, but not an honest union) or complain about OSHA violations. He works and stays in the country as long as his employer turns a blind eye. Such people effectively have black-market hooks into illegal alien workers and can exploit them and subvert the market for legal labor to the detriment of law-abiding citizens and law-abiding immigrants.

• Marty Lund

 

[losh14]

As for your question: I do think that there should be a process for illigal immigrants to be able to get temporary residence/work permits or even permanent residence. However, I do not think that they should be forced to learn English and Assimilate.

Assimilation should be to the point that new Americans can get around - I dont’ mean to drop culture by any stretch, but learn and work in our economic and legal system. That means if you live here you take on the burdens that other legal residents have.

If new immigrants are not required to learn English, their employers should not be required to learn their employees’ language, either. It does make economic sense for some companies to have multingual managers, but it puts a burden on others to require it. Instead, it should be encouraged for new immigrants to learn English, and I think for the most part that is the case. If you don’t, your employment options are extremely limited.

Every employee of my company, for example, is required to speak English fluently and this includes our branches overseas. We have multilingual employees (myself included) who add an asset to the company but if we had someone who spoke only Thai (or even the more common Spanish) it would be a tremendous burden on the rest of us. At my first job I was often called to interpret between managers who spoke only English and employees who spoke only Spanish - this was very unpleasant when it came to administering discipline, ie telling someone they had just been fired for no-call/no-show, and that termination could probably have been prevented if there was a common language in the first place so that issues got resolved. We had employees from Mexico (mostly Jaliscantes) but also from Lithuania, Korea, Russia, Nigeria and a large contingent of refugees from Albania and Bosnia. Having a common language of English was the single best policy - employees had access to multiple resources, most of them free and with several ESL classes conducted on the company’s grounds, and were immersed in the language the entire day while at work unless they stayed in their cliques.

1. Spanish has been in use longer in parts of the US than English (i.e California). So Spanish is an adequate language to get around in.

I disagree. Go outside any major metropolitan area and look for the signs in Spanish. Chippewa, Iroquois and Cree all were spoken on this continent before Spanish but that’s not a reason to post signs in them.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Ah, you did respond belatedly.

Apples and oranges?
A Bishop who defied the Church?
Laity who defy the Church?

Apples and Oranges?
NOPE.

A few US Bishops do not constitute the Teaching authority of the Church. Not even the USCCB, which has a lot more US Bishops constitute the Teaching authority of the Church. If the Bishops along the US/Mexico Border want to patrol it and protect the legal citizens, then no one is stopping them.

 

[tpw]

Yup…a spiritual director I had several years ago said there were more illegal Irish immigrants in the country than any other group. Puts an interesting spin on the immigrant bashing on this thread…can you spell r_c_s_m?

Lots of focus here on illegal Hispanics. And obviously because it constitutes the greatest number of illegals. But you’d be surprised how many illegal Irish there are in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and LA. Somehow I doubt they’re going to be asked for their paperwork…

 

[mlund]

Yup…a spiritual director I had several years ago said there were more illegal Irish immigrants in the country than any other group. Puts an interesting spin on the immigrant bashing on this thread…can you spell r_c_s_m?

Yeah, and I find it interesting the lengths that people will go through fabricating and falsifying to support a position without logic or evidence to back them up. Please find me any statistics regarding the current population of Irish illegal aliens in the United States.

They aren’t likely to get picked up by law enforcement indeed, since all the cities listed are outside of Arizona and the bulk, if not all, of them are “Sanctuary Cities” that make it a policy to fire police officers for reporting suspected illegal aliens to ICE.

One very good part about this legislation is it makes Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon’s own sanctuary city policies completely illegal. Now our police can actually police and when they take in an illegal for a violation they can run him or her through ICE and, if his status as an illegal alien is confirmed, keep him or her jailed until deported or moved to a Federal facility.

Here’s cheering an end to the revolving door of Arkham Asylum that our city police departments had been reduced to when it came to illegal aliens.

• Marty Lund

 

[Bob_Aliano]

It’s a sin to disagree with the pope on matters of faith, not some bishops’ opinions on legitimate immigration legislation. To the best of my knowledge, no intrisic evils are committed by enacting these laws. The bishops would do best by concentrating a bit more on fighting abortion and modernism and a little less on “social justice” and kissing up to the Democratic party.

I agree with most of this but after the backstabbing they received on Obamacare I’m not too sure how much the Bishops are going to play footsie with the Dem’s in the future although the Bishops do sometimes appear to learn slowly.

On a practical note, countries have borders for reasons from National and Personal Security to Financial security and it is essential to guard and enforce those borders. The US is one of the most lax countries in the world in admitting foreigners for everything from tourism to employment so there is no need to tolerate what amounts to a virtual invasion by illegals much less coddle them once discovered in the US. The recent census didn’t even ask about citizenship! Unbelievable!

 

[Ender]

But the same Church that you say has the sole authority to interpret Scripture also tells us that this legislation is immoral. So which is it? Does the Church have the moral authority to speak on this issue or not?

Two points here: first, the Church has said nothing whatever about this legislation. You cannot seriously believe that the opinion of a handful of American bishops constitutes a doctrine of the Church. Second, while I acknowledge the appropriateness of bishops speaking out on some issues, they abuse their moral authority when they speak out on prudential solutions. Quite frankly I think the bishops have gotten themselves lost in a political wilderness and can’t see the forest for the trees. Their involvement is embarrassing.

Ender

 

[Malkin71]

Not everything that is a crime in the federal law is immoral.

As for your question: I do think that there should be a process for illigal immigrants to be able to get temporary residence/work permits or even permanent residence. However, I do not think that they should be forced to learn English and Assimilate. 1) what do you mean by assimilate? do you mean they should adopt American culture? but then should we not force the Amish to assimilate? 2) Spanish has been in use longer in parts of the US than English (i.e California). So Spanish is an adequate language to get around in.

Amish can speak english. They may have a different way of life. They were born and live here.

If immigrents can not learn English how can they communicate? I do not believe we should be forced to have signs in Spanish in stores? Why don’t they have signs in Polish, Slovak, Russian, Italian, etc…? If a crisis happens how can they communicate to get help?

 

[catharina]

Amish can speak english. They may have a different way of life. They were born and live here.

If immigrents can not learn English how can they communicate? **I do not believe we should be forced to have signs in Spanish in stores? **

Who’s forcing you?

**Why don’t they have signs in Polish, Slovak, Russian, Italian, etc…? ** If a crisis happens how can they communicate to get help?

**Go visit the shops in Chicago and San Francisco,
You’ll find such signs.
Even MORE languages can be seen on signs.

You mean NOT in Pittsburgh though???
How terribly odd. **

 

[mattyc4]

Of course the Bishops are against this law. Catholicism definitely does not allow racial profiling or laws that encourage racism. This law requires that police ask for proof of citizenship from anyone that they deem “reasonably suspicious”. First, this is a draconian measure straight from a) 1984 b) pre-civil war laws that requires free blacks to carry proof of their status in the north. Furthermore, lets be honest–reasonably suspicious in this context does NOT apply to Caucasians. This law applies only to Hispanics–which is why it is illegal and will eventually be overturned.

You can couch this law in any way you want, but the fact remains that this only targets one racial group–which is indefensible. It is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to judge someone based solely on their race–which is what this law does.

Disgusting.

 

[catharina]

Of course the Bishops are against this law. Catholicism definitely does not allow racial profiling or laws that encourage racism. This law requires that police ask for proof of citizenship from anyone that they deem “reasonably suspicious”. First, this is a draconian measure straight from a) 1984 b) pre-civil war laws that requires free blacks to carry proof of their status in the north. Furthermore, lets be honest–reasonably suspicious in this context does NOT apply to Caucasians. This law applies only to Hispanics–which is why it is illegal and will eventually be overturned.

You can couch this law in any way you want, but the fact remains that this only targets one racial group–which is indefensible. It is NEVER ACCEPTABLE to judge someone based solely on their race–which is what this law does.

Disgusting.

You said it all; so true.

 

[Jermosh]

Police on the job look for patters of behavior. They know the ones. Also, Business should be held responsible as well. They should do background checks on all employess.

Should people be profiled at airports because of 9-11?

If they are profiling based on actions, then sure. If they are profiled because they are Muslim then no.

BTW what exactly does a illegal alien act or have a behavior for? I think its naive to state that color will not be a factor in this facist law.

 

[Ender]

This law requires that police ask for proof of citizenship from anyone that they deem “reasonably suspicious”.

I’m not familiar with the law so perhaps you can cite the section you find so inappropriate. Or did you just make this up?

Ender

 

[Malkin71]

**Go visit the shops in Chicago and San Francisco,
You’ll find such signs.
Even MORE languages can be seen on signs.

You mean NOT in Pittsburgh though???
How terribly odd. **

Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart has signs in English and Spanish. Majority of people here think it is wrong. In the rural areas they do not like it at all.

It is catering and putting a bandaid on a problem!

Why should Spanish trump English.

Why should we cater to the Illegals.

If you choose to learn Spanish. That is fine. There are other languages.

How about all Masses in the OF MUST BE IN LATIN? How would the people feel?

 

[Malkin71]

If they are profiling based on actions, then sure. If they are profiled because they are Muslim then no.

BTW what exactly does a illegal alien act or have a behavior for? I think its naive to state that color will not be a factor in this facist law.

This is not a facist law! It is enforcing a Federal Law! Illegal Immigration is a Federal Crime!

Also States Rights, and Soverignty and the faberic of the Nation is at stake?

Would it offend you that there hispanics who are members of the Border Patrol and Police?

Does it offend you that there is a bounty on the Border Patrol by the Drug Lords?

Did you watch the video on how the Pro Illegals were throwing rocks, and water bottles at the Police?

Did you see when The Pro Illegals were making NAZI symbols with beans on the ground? Is that offensive?

 

[Malkin71]

Not everything that is a crime in the federal law is immoral.

As for your question: I do think that there should be a process for illigal immigrants to be able to get temporary residence/work permits or even permanent residence. However, I do not think that they should be forced to learn English and Assimilate. 1) what do you mean by assimilate? do you mean they should adopt American culture? but then should we not force the Amish to assimilate? 2) Spanish has been in use longer in parts of the US than English (i.e California). So Spanish is an adequate language to get around in.

I understand where you are comming from. By having no proceess for Illegals to go through and not to learn English. is the same type of attitude the 60’s and 70’s Peace, love, Share the Land, Kum Ba Ya hippies had.

Do you believe in Private Property?

Do lock your Home or Car?

Do you believe in No Trespassing?

You have to have Borders and State Lines.

 

[catharina]

Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart has signs in English and Spanish. Majority of people here think it is wrong. In the rural areas they do not like it at all.

It is catering and putting a bandaid on a problem!

Why should Spanish trump English.

Why should we cater to the Illegals.

If you choose to learn Spanish. That is fine. There are other languages.

How about all Masses in the OF MUST BE IN LATIN? How would the people feel?

As I said in response to your words:
Malkin71: *Why don’t they have signs in Polish, Slovak, Russian, Italian, etc…? *

catharina:  **Go visit the shops in Chicago and San Francisco, 
You'll find such signs. 
Even MORE languages can be seen on signs. 

You mean NOT in Pittsburgh though???
How terribly odd. **

So Pittsburgh has no signs with other “second” languages?
… and Pittsburgh is now in a “rural area?” That’s big news.