T
TMC
Guest
Yes, I do.
- Status
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
The following obviously does not respond to the Arizona legislation, but is pertinent because the subject of illegal immigration (and controlling it) is pertinent. The bishops are quite naive if they imagine that their version of “social justice” will not result in massive social injustice for the regions of the country (like Arizona) disproportionately affected by what amounts to an invasion. I cite below just the first several results of the '09 Zogby poll, due to posting rules:
www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014496.html
As described, the Arizona law i.m.o. weakly addresses this because it is really not about going to places of employment and checking out employer compliance with legitimacy. It’s about including such checks as an aspect of justifiable traffic stops, so people complying with traffic laws, and people taking public transportation, are unlikely to be affected. But what it is, is a response to a State which shares a porous border with a country where the pressure to move north exceeds the will of the U.S. gov’t, and the resources of the State, to control that movement.
Legislation like that in Arizona is happening because of the neglect of the U.S. government to do anything meaningful about measures to control this phenomenon. They have had decades to do so. “Reform” is just a code name for amnesty. The last amnesty (Simpson-Mazzoli) failed because the enforcement provisions were never carried out. That bill, exactly like the above poll predicts, merely encouraged additional floods of illegal immigration, not legal. The gov’t has engaged in cooperation with evil by looking the other way at employers, thus supporting corporate greed (motivation to undercut legal labor costs by hiring cheap illegal labor). The gov’t-business complex is corrupt in this country, corrupt in Mexico. If the bishops think that such alliances constitute “justice,” I have to question whether they have any understanding of that term or any actual knowledge of the way the world works and what fuels the economies of this or any other country.
www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014496.html
As described, the Arizona law i.m.o. weakly addresses this because it is really not about going to places of employment and checking out employer compliance with legitimacy. It’s about including such checks as an aspect of justifiable traffic stops, so people complying with traffic laws, and people taking public transportation, are unlikely to be affected. But what it is, is a response to a State which shares a porous border with a country where the pressure to move north exceeds the will of the U.S. gov’t, and the resources of the State, to control that movement.
P
pnewton
Guest
Because it is a hypocritical double-standard. Having money does not make one a decent human being and being poor does not make one less in value, at least in the eye of God. But then Man (including many Catholics) do not see as God sees.
E
Ender
Guest
This is also disingenuous. Why did you start your citation in the middle of the sentence instead of quoting it in its entirety? Here is the part you cut out:
B. 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 makes it perfectly clear that it is only after the individual has already been stopped by the police for some other reason - and *if *they have reasonable suspicion that the person is illegally in the US - that only then shall they attempt to determine his legal status. This is not at all how you attempted to portray the law … which is understandable as what the law actually says doesn’t comport with the misperception being created about it.
Ender
J
JReducation
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
The bishops may have some place in this discussion … just not the one they have chosen to take.
First, there is nothing whatever in the law that singles out any “ethnic or language group”, the law applies to everyone. Second, your claim of it being a “grave injustice” to be told to carry your passport or visa with you seems a bit exaggerated:
Welcome to the United States - A Guide for New Immigrants - ISBN 978-0-16-078733-1
"As a permanent resident, you are expected to respect and be loyal to the United States and to obey our country’s laws. Being a permanent resident also means that you have new rights and responsibilities…**Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all times. **"uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf
It is hard to characterize an argument that goes: “racial profiling might result from a bill that [in fact doesn’t] ‘singularize’ a group that therefore might give a false impression, which sounds like falsehood, which is an immoral act … therefore the Church has a right to speak out.” And stop saying “the Church” when what you mean is “a bishop.”
The sector of society that will be most affected by this bill are illegals; the bishops don’t want them sent home and are concerned that this law will actually work.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with this. I will add, however, that something doesn’t become a moral teaching simply because a bishop speaks out on it. I once had a bishop who claimed we had a moral obligation to support an increase in the minimum wage. Most bishop’s comments on immigration are just as spurious.
Ender
B
Beircheart
Guest
“I know the fruit growers say they have problems finding enough people to fill their job openings.”
You need to amend your statement to “I know the fruit growers say they have problems finding enough people to fill their job openings .”
There is a much larger issue that, at its heart, is simply we are currently living in an artificial economy. We overproduce, plain and simple. Overproduction of any product leads to waste and unsustainable economic practices such as not being able to sell the product for what it actually costs to produce it. Due to that, workers can not receive appropriate compensation for their labor. This does not simply apply to field hands. Lawyers fresh out of law school are struggling to find work because there is a glut of lawyers out there right now. Same can be said for many white-collar professional positions.
The application to the topic is that the illegal worker will settle for the substandard pay, thereby facilitating the overproduction levels, out of necessity where as the legal worker has broader opportunities to market themselves. It is plain and simple exploitation of people to maintain the vicious cycle of status quo.
You need to amend your statement to “I know the fruit growers say they have problems finding enough people to fill their job openings .”
There is a much larger issue that, at its heart, is simply we are currently living in an artificial economy. We overproduce, plain and simple. Overproduction of any product leads to waste and unsustainable economic practices such as not being able to sell the product for what it actually costs to produce it. Due to that, workers can not receive appropriate compensation for their labor. This does not simply apply to field hands. Lawyers fresh out of law school are struggling to find work because there is a glut of lawyers out there right now. Same can be said for many white-collar professional positions.
The application to the topic is that the illegal worker will settle for the substandard pay, thereby facilitating the overproduction levels, out of necessity where as the legal worker has broader opportunities to market themselves. It is plain and simple exploitation of people to maintain the vicious cycle of status quo.
T
THX
Guest
I am appalled at a liberal bishop chair of the USCCB’s immigration committee claiming to speak for the entire USCCB in this statement. In nonlegalese as a retired lawyer I tell you this AZ law just empowers AZ police to enforce immigration laws in the same way the Fed Gov is refusing to do under federal immigration law. Our bishops need to admit the objective facts that half a million illegal immigrants are creating an AZ crime wave and destroying social services (read stealing from AZ’s taxpayers). Our bishops need to teach what the Church teaches here: immigrants must obey the laws of receiving countries. Such liberal statements flying in the face of objective justice needs in AZ literally cost lives and destroy the Church’s moral voice.
Also consider that impact these illegal immigrants have on AZ elections. Don’t forget ACORN’s record of voter fraud in the last persidential election and the fact that Congress’ bailout laws have enriched ACORN today…even under its new legal names…
Also consider that impact these illegal immigrants have on AZ elections. Don’t forget ACORN’s record of voter fraud in the last persidential election and the fact that Congress’ bailout laws have enriched ACORN today…even under its new legal names…
T
THX
Guest
Beircheart, please come back to reality. AZ police are trying to defend law abiding citizens from being killed by illegal immigrant criminals. Also AZ citizens are scrapping to feed their families instaed of paying even more taxes for social services stolen by illegal immigrants. Your theories reek of the kind of social justice propaganda used in Spain in about 1935…just befor the Reds unleased one of the most murderous persecutions in history against the Catholic Church.
T
TMC
Guest
Like all things, the proof of this pudding will be in the eating. The problem lies in how the law will be enforced. Clearly some people fear (and some probably hope) that the police will be stopping all the Latinos and asking for papers. You are correct that the law doesn’t really allow that. But I don’t agree that the law applies only after the police have detained you for some other reason. There are three levels of lawful contact between police and citizens: consentual, detention (aka Terry stops), and arrest. At the first level the police can walk up to anyone and ask them anything they want (just like anybody else can). The individual does not have to respond, stop, answer questions, etc, but most do. The second level (Terry stop) requires reasonable suspicion, and allows the police to detain the person briefly, pat them down and ask for identification. The third (arrest) requires probable cause. In practice you often get all three. The police ask someone some questions. The responses create reasonable suspicion to pat down and ID. That results in probable cause to arrest.
The fear is that police will go up to Latino-looking people and ask them questions (which is perfectly lawful). The question is whether refusing to answer those questions , or answering in bad English, is reasonable suspicion to demand ID. I think the answer is probably “no,” but I predict we will all learn the answer soon during the rash of litigation this law spawns.
L
LisaA
Guest
I appreciate your very thoughtful and well informed responses. OTOH I don’t think that nationality is the same as race. To say you do not want people from a particular country to come freely to the USA because of past experiences is not “racial” profiling but frankly makes a lot of sense given the lawlessness of some countries.This statement alone screams racial profileling. I’m sorry.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Let’s look at reality here. While the Canadian border may not require a fence or the kind of border guards needed on the Mexican border, it’s not because of skin color. It’s because the illegals crossing from Mexico (in the large sense not every individual) have created havoc with drugs, litter, social services and law enforcement. I don’t see the same results from Canadian or British citizens who come to America, legally or not.
Living in the NW quite honestly I have encountered numerous Canadians who have come to the US for work. Some legal, some not. OTOH they are not accompanied by drug cartels, guns, and pot.
I think it’s too easy to pull the race card out of the deck and not look at the hand we’ve been dealt
Lisa A
Z
zarifa
Guest
I am glad to read that the Catholic bishops oppose the legislation.
The emphasis is placed far too much on the undocumented worker and not on the companies who hire them (and sometimes turn them in to keep the workers afraid and conrtrollable).
It is an open license to harass anyone. No person who is simply walking down the street and doing nothing illegal should EVER have to prove who he is, where he lives, and whether he is a citizen.
The emphasis is placed far too much on the undocumented worker and not on the companies who hire them (and sometimes turn them in to keep the workers afraid and conrtrollable).
It is an open license to harass anyone. No person who is simply walking down the street and doing nothing illegal should EVER have to prove who he is, where he lives, and whether he is a citizen.
L
LisaA
Guest
Really? On what evidence? Mexicans have been coming over the border for many decades. We’ve had THREE presidents and more than that many congresses who’ve basically looked the other way for what…forty years?
OTOH the violence, the massive influx of drugs, the strain on law enforcement in recent months has brought Arizona to this point. Hopefully it’s a wake up call for the sleepers in Washington DC.
At any rate please provide one SPECK of evidence that this is about discriminating against poor people rather than a response to violence and drugs.
Lisa A
M
mlund
Guest
Some of our bishops, sadly, are way out of their depth when it comes to addressing the issue of this law. They aren’t lawyers, economists, or civil administrators. They are already subject to disagreements when they step outside of the realm of Intrinsic Evils, Doctrine, and Dogma and venture into the thorny territory of Prudential Judgments. They aren’t here addressing doctrine, dogma, or the faith. They are talking about material impact based on conclusions drawn on worldly matters of which they are ignorant.
If a bishop argues with me about a budgeting issue and bases his position on a conclusion of financial figures that completely ignores compound interest or inflation then he’s wrong. Apostolic succession doesn’t make you good at math, law, or science.
diocesephoenix.org/acc/documents/BishopsStmtonLegisREvulnerablepopulationsMarch2010.pdf
The linked message from my bishop and two of his peers raise a pair of moral concerns:
1.) That this law will prevent witnesses and victims from reporting crime if they are illegal aliens.
2.) That the law does not have restrictions against racial profiling and random stops.
Issue #2 exists only in ignorance of the actual text of SB1070. This may be forgiven by the fact that the letter was published in March, which means it language was likely drafted February or earlier, while the bill was still in the amendment process. Revisions were specifically made to address concerns like these.
The details of the law’s own text and the explanations by law-makers and lawyers make it very clear that such things are explicitly forbidden in the bill. The “lawful contact” requirement means that reasonable suspicion of immigration status violations may only be established during contact made due to a preexisting legal violation or consenting contact with a law enforcement officer.
This issue has been repeatedly lied about and misrepresented by lobbyists and a lot of people have been suckered by the narrative due to a failure to read the actual law, political partisanship, dishonest advocacy, or loathsome prejudices such as are exhibited by La Raza.
Issue #1 is valid, if the law existed in a vacuum. It does not. Arizona already has victim and witness protection laws on the books. If they are not sufficient to the task of addressing the situation in the context of this new law then they need to be revised or added to. That is the proper and civil process, and it maintains the common good created by SB1070.
Of course, that idea is completely swept under the rug by advocates for illegal alien privilege. They demand that this law be struck down or eliminated so that the unjust and immoral status quo they support can continue.
Personally, I’d like to avoid the appearance of my Diocese (Phoenix) being eager to fill its pews with illegal aliens and line its coffers with donations from such illicit sources. We need to spend some more effort in cultivating an appearance of propriety and a support for lawful conduct. I can’t recall a time the Diocese of Phoenix sent around a memo reminding all our our illegal aliens that they should return home and immigrate legally, or implored them not to violate our employment laws or stiff our emergency rooms with massive hospital bills.
If a bishop argues with me about a budgeting issue and bases his position on a conclusion of financial figures that completely ignores compound interest or inflation then he’s wrong. Apostolic succession doesn’t make you good at math, law, or science.
diocesephoenix.org/acc/documents/BishopsStmtonLegisREvulnerablepopulationsMarch2010.pdf
The linked message from my bishop and two of his peers raise a pair of moral concerns:
1.) That this law will prevent witnesses and victims from reporting crime if they are illegal aliens.
2.) That the law does not have restrictions against racial profiling and random stops.
Issue #2 exists only in ignorance of the actual text of SB1070. This may be forgiven by the fact that the letter was published in March, which means it language was likely drafted February or earlier, while the bill was still in the amendment process. Revisions were specifically made to address concerns like these.
The details of the law’s own text and the explanations by law-makers and lawyers make it very clear that such things are explicitly forbidden in the bill. The “lawful contact” requirement means that reasonable suspicion of immigration status violations may only be established during contact made due to a preexisting legal violation or consenting contact with a law enforcement officer.
This issue has been repeatedly lied about and misrepresented by lobbyists and a lot of people have been suckered by the narrative due to a failure to read the actual law, political partisanship, dishonest advocacy, or loathsome prejudices such as are exhibited by La Raza.
Issue #1 is valid, if the law existed in a vacuum. It does not. Arizona already has victim and witness protection laws on the books. If they are not sufficient to the task of addressing the situation in the context of this new law then they need to be revised or added to. That is the proper and civil process, and it maintains the common good created by SB1070.
Of course, that idea is completely swept under the rug by advocates for illegal alien privilege. They demand that this law be struck down or eliminated so that the unjust and immoral status quo they support can continue.
Personally, I’d like to avoid the appearance of my Diocese (Phoenix) being eager to fill its pews with illegal aliens and line its coffers with donations from such illicit sources. We need to spend some more effort in cultivating an appearance of propriety and a support for lawful conduct. I can’t recall a time the Diocese of Phoenix sent around a memo reminding all our our illegal aliens that they should return home and immigrate legally, or implored them not to violate our employment laws or stiff our emergency rooms with massive hospital bills.
- Marty Lund
R
RobbyS
Guest
I “misspoke”. I meant, of course, proof of legal residence. The problem is that much of the business community has always been opposed to any regulation of immigration that deprives them of the cheap labor they prefer. Traditionally labor unions also support a tight regulation of those entering the country. As far as the charges of “racism,” by Latin Americans, well, much of this is explained by the contrast between the material success of the North American Republic with the fecklessness of most Latin American countries, even a places like Argentina and Chile which a hundred years ago seemed on the vergeYou do not need to be a US citizen to work in the USA. You need a work permit. Even foreign students can work while they are here, as long as they have a permit. Right now about 20% of our clergy are not American citizens. They are here on a missionary visa and they are alllowed to be paid a salary, like any other independent contractor from a foreign country. If they pay into SS, they are allowed to collect it too. They pay taxes like everyone else, unless they are consecrated religious. Consecrated religious do not pay taxes, but secular priests do. Both can be in the USA without being citizens or permanent residents. This also applies to military personell from other countries, employees of the UN and its agencies, diplomats and their family members. For example, the son of an ambassador can hold a job in the USA without being a resident. He has diplomatic immunity; therefore, he can hold a job and does not pay taxes. The same happens when our diplomats take their families abroad. There are many circumstances under which a person can work in the USA without citizenship. People who live within a certain distance of the Mexican-American border can live in Mexico and work within the USA with a work permit. What is interesting is that this is not the case for Canadians. They do not need a visa to enter the USA, just a valid passport. Neither do the British. They can enter with a valid passport. Once they are hear they can establish domicile and get a work permit and apply for permanent residence. There is a time limit, I believe it may be six months. That may have changed. The reason I mention this is because my family is Brit. In the past it was very easy for Brits and Canadians to enter and leave the USA without visas or permits. Anyone who had a British or Canadian passport could enter, regardless of where they were born. This raised eyebrows among many people. You can probably see why.
That’s why I don’t know if they have changed this. Because it did make the USA look very racist toward Latin Americans. In the meantime, terrorists were entering via another legal means.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
of a similar success. Not many Americans attributed the failure of these states to race, since both countries are European. This American attributes it to the Hispanic heritage. Of course, there may be some racial thinking in the back of my mind since once upon a time the British imperial influence was strong there. Once that went away, the caesarism that Latins --I mean the upper class Latins–find natural came to the fore.
D
distracted
Guest
from the article
They warned it could classify as felons not only dangerous criminals, but also undocumented immigrants who came to the United States at “a very young age” and have “no familiarity” with any other country
i dont understand this. What undocumented immigrants come to the US at a very young age & have no familiarity w/ any other contry? makes no sense…
but i agree w/ u that we should not tolerate illegal immigrants…
key word Ilegal
If they want to be in this country and live by our laws… why dont they attempt to become legal b4 the cross the border?
if someone is willing to viiolate the laws of the country they are entering… makes u wonder exactly WHY thye are entering?
seems that many in this country dont care about protecting their own citizens…
T
THX
Guest
REALITY CHECK: Some of the above comments prove people don’t understand the basics of objective illegal immigration facts so read on.
Yes, “just walking down the street” can be a crime. Illegal immigration means your body is in the wrong geographical place according to the law. (Next time you are in Jerusalem you’ll understand exactly where your body can legally be geographically regardless of what your body is actually doing.)
“Racial profiling”: Police deal in objective facts so people of unusual race in a geographic location are part of the objective facts in doing their job. (When you are personally criminally attacked by an illegal immigrant gang, you’ll appreciate police quickly processing ALL the objective facts in your crime scene.)
Babies of illegal immigrants born in the USA are American citizens: Is this a lottery game to see how many illegal immigrant pregnant women can sneak into the USA to deliver their babies so American taxpayers are stuck with these people? How many sins of theft and lies do you count in this lottery? This lottery is not the justice the Church teaches.
You miss relatives you left in the home country: Go home to them! It’s not the USA’s fault you left them! By the way, do you ever notice the $$$ you send home to them is $$$ not available to the USA’s economy? So what is your “transfer of $$” in justice to American Taxpayers?
Yes, “just walking down the street” can be a crime. Illegal immigration means your body is in the wrong geographical place according to the law. (Next time you are in Jerusalem you’ll understand exactly where your body can legally be geographically regardless of what your body is actually doing.)
“Racial profiling”: Police deal in objective facts so people of unusual race in a geographic location are part of the objective facts in doing their job. (When you are personally criminally attacked by an illegal immigrant gang, you’ll appreciate police quickly processing ALL the objective facts in your crime scene.)
Babies of illegal immigrants born in the USA are American citizens: Is this a lottery game to see how many illegal immigrant pregnant women can sneak into the USA to deliver their babies so American taxpayers are stuck with these people? How many sins of theft and lies do you count in this lottery? This lottery is not the justice the Church teaches.
You miss relatives you left in the home country: Go home to them! It’s not the USA’s fault you left them! By the way, do you ever notice the $$$ you send home to them is $$$ not available to the USA’s economy? So what is your “transfer of $$” in justice to American Taxpayers?
S
soflochristmas
Guest
If this is their “best”, then Arizona needs better legislators. I’m about as conservative as they come but I think this bill goes too far. I’d rather see our laws liberalize what it takes to be a “legal” immigrant (if that’s our concern) so that people who want to better themselves can do so; and I’d rather see lazy “citizens” deported (give me their social security number to give to someone who is WILLING to work).
If there are immigrants that are taking advantage of a liberal welfare system, then the legislation should have focused on fixing the welfare system and treating abusers, both citizens and immigrants, the same.
If immigrants are committing crimes, does the law not treat them the same as it does citizen criminals? Is law enforcement not a legitimate cost of government?
Focus on the problems and FIX them, but don’t cast a shadow on an entire race.
I just can’t see Jesus doing what the Arizona legislature has done. Just can’t see it.
D
distracted
Guest
hope your using hyperbole here… Who is it that you think is too lazy to work? I’v rarely met anyone who is just downright lazy… sometimes people appear to be so for reasons unknown to anyone but… God anda few others… and even if they are lazy as long as they are not vilating any laws… they should be left alone… The gov already is too intrusive into people’s lives…
the same??? why do you think that US citizens shouldbe put on the same level as non-citizens???
i cant see where any poster has done that…
can u see Jesus calling people hypocrites?
can u see Jesus calling people vipers?
can u see Jesus calling people liars?
can u see Jesus using a whip to run people out of the temple for wrong-doing?
We must accept Jesus as He is
personally i adore Him the way He is… wish i was with Him now in the Real Presence in the Church
- Status