Church teaching on illegal immigration

[d97c]

---

Catachism
2241 says: The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

Three important qualifiers that are often dropped out in this discussion.

The first recognizes that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a nation can absorb. Common sense tells you this: No nation can absorb an unlimited number of immigrants.

Precisely how many a particular country can reasonably absorb is a determination that must ultimately be made by the laity, who are charged with ordering the temporal affairs of society and suffusing them with the Christian spirit.

The laity are not served in this task by individuals who speak as if Catholic teaching requires an open border policy that does not recognize that there is a limit to the number of immigrants that a country can reasonably absorb or the responsibility of the laity in making the practical determination of what this number is.

The second qualifier that I have highlighted recognizes the state’s right to set legal requirements that must be met for immigration.
Again, this is something that common sense would tell you needs to be there. A state cannot reasonably be expected to absorb immigrants of any and all types. For example, a state may reasonably refuse immigration to murderers or terrorists–to name two very obvious examples.

Ultimately, it is the laity via their role in ordering the temporal affairs of society to determine, in the case of a particular country, what the reasonable conditions are to which immigration to their nation should be subject.

As before, the laity are not served in this task by those who would advocate an open borders policy that fails to recognize the state’s right to set conditions on immigration and the laity’s responsibility to determine in practice what those requirements are to be.

The third qualifier that I have highlighted reflects the duty of immigrants to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating.

This includes respecting the laws of the nation regarding whether or not the person is able legally to be in the country.

Immigrants are morally bound to respect the laws of the nation to which they are immigrating, including its laws regarding whether they may legally be there

 

[tafan]

d97c and markomalley,

your points about the teaching in the CCC are valid. The problem is that the claims that the Bishops in the united states ignore these points are falsehoods. Read the statements by the USCCB and you will see all of them addressed.

No one is saying there should not be controls on immigration. But the anti-immigration crowd wants those controls to be effectively a shutdown. Immigration is very beneficial to a society. The answer seems to be “to the extend they are able” is zero. An example of a philipino taking 15 years before they could enter this country is a case in point.
Do you see the equivilent of any modern day “elis island” facility set up on our southern border to process immigrants legally? No, thats because, under current law, there is no need for one, since there is practically no way for a typical mexican to immigrate to this country legally (unless they have a spouse or parent already here).
The idea that immigration reform is simply “controlling the border” is absurd. When Bush, early on in his presidency, advocated a just temporary worker program, the anti-immigration crowd was rabid in their attacks on the policy (eg. Phil Graham was quoted as saying “over my dead body”).

Broad brush? I could go on and on about lies repeatedly made about mexican immigrants to this country. I will highlight one, “they should be made to learn english and assimilate to our culture like our ancestors did in the 19th century”. Well, adults, especially uneducated adults, do not pick up languages easily. The kids of these immigrants all speak english in a very short amount of time. The hispanic immigratns are learning the language by the 2nd generation, which is far better than our European ancestors did in the 19th century. My german ancestors came to this county in 1842. My grandfather did no speak English until he started school at the age of 6th in 1906! We still have his baptism and first communion certificat and it is written in German, which tells you the german farming town he lived in didn’t exactly assimilate quickly. I have done geneology research and have learned that many counties in the midwest published forms bilinqually in German and English for years to deal wih the problem. Historically, ethnic immigrants did not assimilate quickly at all, but lived in ethnic communities (either urban or rural) for a generation or two. Yet the Mexican’s of today are expected to learn the language overnight and to assimilate immediately. Even though, they are doing better than any immigrant group in our countries history in this regard!

OTH, what it is it about our culture that really needs protected from their influence. Do we really want a group of immigrants who are catholic, family-oriented, socially conservative, and hard workers to adopt to our modern day culture of death? A cynical answer to the issue of their assimilation would be, if they are destroying our culture, I wish they would do it faster.

Thats all I have time for today, Good day all.

 

[d97c]

This is an excellent article from a priest who discusses the issue of illegal immigration.

cis.org/catholics-and-immigration

 

[markomalley]

d97c and markomalley,

your points about the teaching in the CCC are valid. The problem is that the claims that the Bishops in the united states ignore these points are falsehoods. Read the statements by the USCCB and you will see all of them addressed.

I have. And the problem is that the issues are addressed “just enough” to say that they have been addressed. No more. Far more prominent are statements by Social Justice heroes like Card. McCarrick who seem to somehow not be able to separate the issues between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.

No one is saying there should not be controls on immigration.

Actually, there are plenty who say that there should be no controls on immigration. But I will grant that the majority acknowledge the need for controls, just as the majority of the anti-immigrant crowd are actually anti-illegal immigrant people.

But the anti-immigration crowd wants those controls to be effectively a shutdown.

Not true. I am not an anti-immigrant person but I know plenty of them. I am an anti-**illegal **immigrant person. Most anti-illegal immigrant persons want brakes on the process, true. But not a total shutdown. The biggest concern is that the government social assistance infrastructure can be and is overwhelmed in many areas. Now if the government was not so generous with the taxpayer’s dollars, an official “Robin Hood,” then this might not be so much of an issue.

Immigration is very beneficial to a society.

That doesn’t seem to be the Church’s position on the influx of immigrants in Europe. They are concerned with the death of European civilization. Just something to consider there.

The answer seems to be “to the extend they are able” is zero. An example of a philipino taking 15 years before they could enter this country is a case in point.

In some cases, it might need to be closer to zero. In others, not so much. How much is our society able to absorb?

And, frankly, when I see a situation with a U-6 of 18%, not seasonally adjusted, but still see illegal aliens being hired in preference to Americans, I have serious, serious questions. Not to the fault of the illegal aliens, either…but that our society has become too lax and too “entitled.”

As for the the Filipino wait to be allowed to immigrate, yes 15 years appears to be too long…but is the answer to open up the borders to whoever is willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get here…or to re-examine the immigration process itself? I’m all for that.

Do you see the equivilent of any modern day “elis island” facility set up on our southern border to process immigrants legally?

The world is a whole lot different now than it was at the turn of the 20th Century. Mainly that we have a far more extensive government-provided social assistance infrastructure that did not exist at the beginning of the last century.

The idea that immigration reform is simply “controlling the border” is absurd. When Bush, early on in his presidency, advocated a just temporary worker program, the anti-immigration crowd was rabid in their attacks on the policy (eg. Phil Graham was quoted as saying “over my dead body”).

Back in 1986, Ronald Reagan signed a immigration reform bill into law that granted amnesty to illegal aliens who had been in the country for a while…it also supposedly made it illegal to hire illegal aliens…and, part of the deal on that bill was that they would go ahead and give amnesty for those who were here already but THEN shut the borders down.

Well, in case it’s not obvious, the borders were not shut down after 1986.

The objections to the Bush amnesty bill were basically that it was a replay of the Reagan amnesty bill. The attitude was “fool me once, shame on you…fool me twice, shame on me.” Gramm’s perspective was that let’s shut the border down FIRST…then lets talk reform after we have control on our own borders.

(cont’d)

 

[markomalley]

(cont’d)

Broad brush? I could go on and on about lies repeatedly made about mexican immigrants to this country. I will highlight one, “they should be made to learn english and assimilate to our culture like our ancestors did in the 19th century”.

What is this pre-occupation with Race and Nationality?

Well, adults, especially uneducated adults, do not pick up languages easily. The kids of these immigrants all speak english in a very short amount of time.

Do they? Where do they learn the English language? From Spanish-language high schools? (Yes, folks, we have high schools in this country that teach primarily in Spanish and only cover English as a foreign language)

The hispanic immigratns are learning the language by the 2nd generation, which is far better than our European ancestors did in the 19th century. My german ancestors came to this county in 1842. My grandfather did no speak English until he started school at the age of 6th in 1906! We still have his baptism and first communion certificat and it is written in German, which tells you the german farming town he lived in didn’t exactly assimilate quickly.

Exactly. He had to learn English then. In today’s world, he would be in a ESOL program where he would do the majority of learning in German.

Historically, ethnic immigrants did not assimilate quickly at all, but lived in ethnic communities (either urban or rural) for a generation or two.

Yes, and that was not good for either the immigrants or the rest of society. Ghettos are not a good thing.

Yet the Mexican’s of today are expected to learn the language overnight and to assimilate immediately.

What is this pre-occupation with Mexicans? What about the Salvadorans, Guatamalans, Peruvians, Bolivians, Venuzuelans or Columbians? And that’s to say nothing about the Egyptians, Saudis, Somalians, Ugandans, Vietnamese, Thais, Chinese, Koreans, Hmong, Indians, Pakistanis, and other nationalities and cultures…

Even though, they are doing better than any immigrant group in our countries history in this regard!

Well…

I think the Indians are doing pretty darned good. So are the Chinese. So are the Vietnamese. So are the majority of the Egyptians and Lebanese. And that’s without documents being printed in Hindi, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, or Arabic.

Maybe that should be considered when dealing with those people that you seem to wish to focus upon. Maybe if they had all of the accomodation commonly given to those other folks, they might assimilate as well.

OTH, what it is it about our culture that really needs protected from their influence. Do we really want a group of immigrants who are catholic, family-oriented, socially conservative, and hard workers to adopt to our modern day culture of death? A cynical answer to the issue of their assimilation would be, if they are destroying our culture, I wish they would do it faster.

Haven’t watched Univision or Telemundo recently, have you?

Shall I talk about the praises of MS-13 or the cult of “St Death”?

 

[d97c]

There are so many things the pro-illegals say that are false…Here’s one–“These illegals are taking jobs Americans wont do.” NOT TRUE.

Jobs Americans Won’t Do? A Detailed Look at Immigrant Employment by Occupation
By Steven A. Camarota, Karen Jensenius
August 2009

Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research and Karen Jensenius is a demographer at the Center for Immigration Studies.

This analysis tests the often-made argument that immigrants only do jobs Americans don’t want. If the argument is correct, there should be occupations comprised entirely or almost entirely of immigrants. But Census Bureau data collected from 2005 to 2007, which allow for very detailed analysis, show that even before the recession there were only a tiny number of majority-immigrant occupations. (Click here to see detailed table.)

Among the findings:

Of the 465 civilian occupations, only four are majority immigrant. These four occupations account for less than 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Moreover, native-born Americans comprise 47 percent of workers in these occupations.

Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly immigrant are in fact majority native-born:
Maids and housekeepers: 55 percent native-born
Taxi drivers and chauffeurs: 58 percent native-born
Butchers and meat processors: 63 percent native-born
Grounds maintenance workers: 65 percent native-born
Construction laborers: 65 percent native-born
Porters, bellhops, and concierges: 71 percent native-born
Janitors: 75 percent native-born

There are 93 occupations in which 20 percent or more of workers are immigrants. These high-immigrant occupations are primarily, but not exclusively, lower-wage jobs that require relatively little formal education.

There are 23.6 million natives in these high-immigrant occupations (20 percent or more immigrant). These occupations include 19 percent of all native workers.

Most natives do not face significant job competition from immigrants; however, those who do tend to be less-educated and poorer than those who face relatively little competition from immigrants.

In high-immigrant occupations, 57 percent of natives have no more than a high school education. In occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant, 35 percent of natives have no more than a high school education. And in occupations that are less than 10 percent immigrant, only 26 percent of natives have no more than a high school education.

In high-immigrant occupations the average wages and salary for natives is one-fourth lower than in occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant.

Some may believe that natives in high-immigrant occupations are older and that few young natives are willing to do that kind of work. But 33 percent of natives in these occupations are age 30 or younger. In occupations that are less than 20 percent immigrant, 28 percent of natives are 30 or younger.

It is worth remembering that not all high-immigrant occupations are lower-skilled and lower-wage. For example, 44 percent of medical scientists are immigrants, as are 34 percent of software engineers, 27 percent of physicians, and 25 percent of chemists.

It is also worth noting that a number of politically important groups tend to face very little job competition from immigrants. For example, just 10 percent of reporters are immigrants, as are only 6 percent of lawyers and judges and 3 percent of farmers and ranchers.
(CONTINUED)

 

[d97c]

continued from previous post…Methodology

The data for this analysis are from the public-use file of the combined three-year sample of the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2005 through 2007. This is the first public-use three-year file to be released by the Census Bureau. The public-use file of the ACS is enormous, allowing for detailed analysis by occupation. The sample includes 4.4 million individuals in the civilian non-institutionalized labor force, about 560,000 of whom are immigrants. Persons in the labor force are either working or looking for work. Like almost all the labor force statistics reported by the government, we confine our analysis to civilians 16 years of age and older not in institutions.1 The immigrant population, which can also be referred to as the foreign-born, is defined as persons living in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. In the ACS this includes people who responded to the survey who are naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as students or guest workers. It does not include those born abroad of American parents or those born in outlying territories of the United States, such as Puerto Rico. Prior research indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants respond to the ACS.2

Discussion

The American economy is dynamic, and it would be a mistake to think that every job taken by an immigrant is a job lost by a native. Many factors impact employment and wages. But it would also be a mistake to assume that dramatically increasing the number of workers in these occupations as a result of immigration policy has no impact on the employment prospects or wages of natives. The data presented here make clear that the often-made argument that immigrants only take jobs Americans don’t want is simply wrong. To talk about the labor market as if there were jobs done entirely or almost entirely by immigrants is not helpful to understanding the potential impact of immigration on American workers. It gives the false impression that the job market is segmented between jobs that are done almost exclusively by immigrants and jobs that are exclusively native. This is clearly not the case.

This analysis focuses on the nation as a whole; the immigrant shares of occupations will vary significantly at the state and local level. But Americans move around the country a great deal. The 2007 ACS showed that about 38 percent of adult natives live outside the state in which they were born. We live in a national economy in which workers can and do move to higher-wage (relative to cost of living) and lower-unemployment areas over time. If immigration levels were lower and a shortage of workers did develop in one part of the country, higher wages and lower unemployment would, over time, tend to induce Americans to move to these areas. Thus in the long term it makes sense to think of the economy as national in scope.3

---

End Notes

1 Those who are institutionalized live under formally authorized supervision or care such as those in correctional institutions and nursing homes. Since our focus is occupations we also exclude from our analysis the relatively small number of people who did not provide an occupation.

2 The Department of Homeland Security estimates a 10 percent undercount of illegal aliens in Census Bureau data. See Table 2 in Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2007 at dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_20… DHS estimates of the illegal population are based on the ACS with the assumption that 10 percent of illegal immigrants are missed by the survey.

3 In its 1997 study of immigration’s impact on the labor market, the National Research Council concluded that the effects of immigration are likely to be national in scope and not simply confined to high-immigrant areas of the country. See James P. Smith and Barry Edmonston, eds., The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration

 

[d97c]

If you are really interested in learning the truth about illegal immigration…These sites are really educational…

cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll

cis.org/Transcripts/ReligousPerspectivesonImmigration

cis.org/Transcripts/ImmigrationAndCrimePanel

cis.org/node/1071

cis.org/Video/HealthCare-Immigration-Panel

 

[Ender]

The bishops have a moral responsibility, as our primary teachers, to provide guidance on moral issues, even when they are politically charged.

The bishops have a moral responsibility to provide guidance on moral issues and we have a moral obligation to assent to their teachings on faith and morals. We do not, however, have any obligation whatever to endorse their political solutions to practical problems. When the clergy (including bishops and even popes) speak prudentially, we are not bound by their opinions. If the moral issue has political implications it is the political considerations that are irrelevant, but if the issue is purely a political one it is their opinions that are irrelevant. “Immigration” broadly speaking may be a moral issue and there are surely particular solutions that may or may not be moral, but “what is the best solution to the problem of illegal immigration in the US” asks a prudential question about which the Church is entirely silent. Should we or should we not build a fence? Should we or should we not grant amnesty? Should we or should we not grant illegals access to public services? Some of them? All of them? On all of these prudential questions the Church is silent. That some bishops have spoken out on these questions is no more relevant to us than comments overheard in the barbershop.

The idea that the Bishops should be silent on the critical social issues of our times is simply a means to appease our consciences when we don’t agree with them.

Show me where the Church states that we have an obligation to assent to the prudential opinions of individual bishops and I will change my position. Also, don’t conflate comments about the ends toward which we should strive with which specific means would best achieve those ends. The bishops may properly remind us of our obligation to feed the hungry and heal the sick but to imply that we have an obligation to accept their opinions that to do this we should raise the minimum wage and pass Obamacare constitute an abuse of their authority.

the anti-immigration folks … continue to spew garbage … they support … actions that are plainly immoral, they totally abuse the term amnesty. I can only assume that at root, their true feelings are rooted in bigotry.

The final flailing charge of those without rational arguments is sanctimonious insult. This is always the last arrow in the quiver.

Ender

 

[Joe_5859]

If you are really interested in learning the truth about illegal immigration…These sites are really educational…

cis.org/ReligionAndImmigrationPoll

cis.org/Transcripts/ReligousPerspectivesonImmigration

cis.org/Transcripts/ImmigrationAndCrimePanel

cis.org/node/1071

cis.org/Video/HealthCare-Immigration-Panel

You posted some interesting statistics on immigration and jobs, but what does that have to do with Church teaching on immigration?

 

[tafan]

Interesting comments and posts. I will have to try to address them this evening or tomorrow morning. Out of time…

 

[Joe_5859]

“Immigration” broadly speaking may be a moral issue and there are surely particular solutions that may or may not be moral, but “what is the best solution to the problem of illegal immigration in the US” asks a prudential question about which the Church is entirely silent. Should we or should we not build a fence? Should we or should we not grant amnesty? Should we or should we not grant illegals access to public services? Some of them? All of them? On all of these prudential questions the Church is silent.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make between general moral principles and concrete public policy. It is a necessary distinction to make. But I would respectfully disagree with where you have drawn the line.

It is true that the Magisterium generally sticks to the principles, but it is with the expectation that we Catholics who are “in the world” take those principles and apply them in concrete situations. Thus, there can be better and worse practical solutions from a Catholic perspective.

As the primary catechists of their diocese, it falls to our bishops to show us how Church teaching applies in our individual locales in ways that the Holy See can’t. To equate their explication of Church teaching on a particular subject as equivalent to “barbershop chatter” strikes me as somewhat disrespectful and not at all accurate. I think you could make a case for disagreeing with their conclusions on certain practical matters, but I don’t think it’s tenable to dismiss their opinion as no more worthy of consideration than any other person’s. It’s not as though the bishops are commenting on something utterly unrelated to the faith (such as whether or not Coke is better than Pepsi). They are commenting on how to apply the Church’s teachings on a given area (in this case, social justice) in a concrete scenario. That’s what they do.

I struggle to understand how the “build a fence” concept can be reconciled with the Church’s teaching that we ought to “welcome the foreigner”. Perhaps I just don’t know enough about that particular proposal. I am also unsure of how one would argue that the Church is “silent” when it comes to whether or not to give illegal immigrants access to services like basic health care. There are certain proposed solutions that just don’t jive with the Catholic worldview.

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at?

 

[d97c]

What do the articles have to do with what the church teaches???
The Catechism states that the host countries should be cooperative to the emigrant

1. as much as the host country is ABLE. Whether it is ABLE is a matter of opinion and prudential judgment by leaders of the country and its citizens…not Bishop Joe or Father Bob.The articles show that we are not ABLE to take or keep them
2. The articles show that we cant accept anymore illegals and over all, illegal immigration is not supportive of the “common good,” the sine qua non of this whole effort to take these illegals into this nation.This article tells it like it is !!!

A Working Man’s Views on Illegal Immigration, Tricks of The Trade
by Karl Kiefer

Just about anyone in the construction trades can attest to the fact that - if illegal aliens were not hired in the first place, then the availability of work for all of us documented Americans would increase. I’m one of those tradesmen whose livelihood has been disrupted by the influx of illegal aliens into this country. I have been fortunate to work in surroundings where contact with illegal aliens is common and where it is not. I say fortunate because, through first hand experience, I have observed the opposing viewpoints of this issue, as well as, the opinions of those who are not as acutely aware of it.

My opinions are supported by both personal experiences and facts. Some of the information (personal experience) given here is factual, but extremely hard to verify. The parties involved would have to incriminate themselves in order to confirm it. Those parties, obviously, would be hesitant to kill the cash cow, so to speak, in the name of legality.

I’ve personally heard contractors and builders state that the reason they hire illegal immigrants is because they can’t find Americans that will do the work. This smoke screen is a ruse used by dishonest employers trying to divert our attention away from their illegal activities. The fact is, there are plenty of Americans who want to, and will, work. The obvious question is - why are illegal aliens being hired to do these jobs if there are already U.S. citizens ready, willing, and able to do them? The short answer is greed.

Many employers in the construction industry are notorious for this. Undocumented workers are used in order to reduce labor costs in the areas of workers’ compensation and liability insurance, unemployment insurance, and “lower than prevailing rate” wages. They are not interested in hiring American citizens because they know they would have to pay them a fair wage, as well as covering the other associated costs of using documented workers.

Illegal workers will work for less money because, being undocumented, they rarely pay employment taxes or any related insurance costs. Contractors exploit the illegals’ fear of immigration officials (La Migra), and the resultant silence stemming from that fear, for the purpose of fattening their own wallets. Too bad the prices these builders charge for the goods they provide don’t reflect their reduced production costs. Although reduced quality, is often the result.

In the residential home building sector, these “undocumented workers” do not have business licenses, liability insurance, and tax documentation. Why? Because of the obvious fact that they are illegal aliens. Yet they still find plenty of work because the contractors who hire them have various ways to get around those pesky legalities. Those loopholes, while almost always illegal, are always unethical and always in the contractor’s favor, financially.

One trick commonly used by employers who pay variable rates based on the number of employees, is to insure only one person. Basically, the crooked builder/contractor gambles on the chance that nobody will get hurt on the job, thereby saving premium costs. If no one gets hurt then there will be no bothersome attention paid to the project. In the unlikely event someone does get hurt, the gamble is protected by the “happy coincidence” that the injured party’s name always seems to be the same as the one listed in the insurance paperwork. The ploy is further enhanced by the fact that, attempting to reliably identify undocumented workers is - well . . . unreliable. This tactic is a blatant case of insurance fraud. Fines and/or temporary loss of business licenses will not sufficiently end this behavior. Jail time for first offenders, is the message that needs to be sent!

Of course, the whole concept is additionally flawed by the incorrect assumption that there will be few, if any, job related accidents. In an environment where quantity is the only production goal, neither quality nor safety, even enter into the equation. This skewed set of priorities increases the chance of injury. It’s a perfect example of “penny-wise, pound-foolish”. The problem is, this seemingly perfect script for an edition of “Dumb Crook News” has been working out nicely for underhanded contractors and illegal aliens alike. These crooks often go unnoticed (and unpunished) by exploiting vague, ineffectual, or nonexistent laws. The offenders are further emboldened by rare, often pre-announced, job site inspections by insurance company representatives.

Legislation that would close these loopholes, along with more frequent unannounced inspections would bring this practice to an end. In any case, insurance companies need to know about this scam.

Another strategy dishonest builders employ is to make sure they are not directly connected (through employer/employee relationships) to the illegal immigrant workers. They use a middleman of sorts. It goes something like this.

(continued)

 

[d97c]

continuing

The building contractor hires a documented subcontractor (often an American) who will be the party receiving payment for the work being done. This “sub” already has a crew of undocumented, illegal workers on the payroll. The illegal workers get paid in cash, leaving no paper trail. The “sub” then hides the cash outlay in their tax return as a cost of doing business. This scheme effectively insulates the builder from any documented contact with illegal aliens and lets them fall back on the excuse . . . “I didn’t hire them. They don’t work for me. They work for . . . (insert name here).” I have been present when statements like this have been made. These greedy individuals are cutting the legs out from under their own countrymen. Why? For a bigger bank account. To me, they’re no better than war profiteers or drug dealers!

Illegal workers are brought in, presumably, as a cure to offset high business costs. But their presence, whether proven or otherwise, has already created an unknown, high risk liability issue which increases insurance costs. The hiring of undocumented workers by dishonest, money hungry business owners and contractors, is not the cure for high insurance costs. Instead, it is one of the direct causes.

In the building industry, this illegal behavior causes a “snowball effect,” felt in virtually every area of the industry. This includes higher business costs for those that don’t hire illegal aliens, the loss of jobs for skilled U.S. citizens, and the resulting fallout from this unemployment. In some states, insurance premiums for the small subcontractors are so high that they are effectively forced out of business. Their absence creates a void, which the more amply funded contractors fill with crews staffed by illegal immigrants. The operators who suffer the most are the ones who refuse to sacrifice their law abiding and patriotic ethics for the sake of larger profits.

Quality is the next victim on the snowball’s downhill journey. It gets hit from two sides. First, the boss wants as much work as possible, done for the least amount of money. That’s understandable . . . except that the cost savings isn’t passed on to the customer. It’s pocketed, leaving us with products which are built with an emphasis on quantity over quality. If you’ve ever tried to lay brick on a wall above a front porch that wobbles and sways under your weight alone (not to mention the weight of the materials you are working with) you know what I’m talking about.

Equally important, is the fact that many illegal aliens here in the U.S. are transient in nature. That is, they plan to stay here only long enough to earn the amount of money they think they need to go back home and live well. Because they‘re not here for the long haul, they don’t care about the virtue of having a good reputation, built through years of quality workmanship. Their objective is to get in and out as fast as possible, with as much cash as possible and don’t look back. That is one of the reasons why they are such a good fit for the unscrupulous builders out there!

Construction crews comprised wholly of illegal aliens often acquire jobs by undercutting the competition. Competition is a healthy attribute of a free market economy when accomplished with honesty. But, because they operate in the shadows of our legal system, illegals don’t adhere to the concept of honesty to achieve their goals. This particular group of illegal aliens doesn’t trouble with the usual administrative business costs which legal tradespeople must comply with. As a result, they can afford to charge less for work performed.

One suggestion I’ve heard to return fairness to the area of job bidding is to convince illegal aliens to join construction trade unions. Presumably, their membership would require them to charge the same rates that legal tradespeople do, effectively removing the unfairness. I believe this short sighted solution is the brainchild of a knee jerk reaction that has not been developed to its logical conclusion.

Granted, the above solution builds its foundation on a point of fact. It is true that these illegal immigrants undercut their competition via the use of unlawful means. However, their illegal status not withstanding, rewarding illegal immigrants with higher wages will not reduce competition. In fact, the higher earning potential in any region where this absurd idea is implemented would undoubtedly draw more illegals into the picture.

Supporters of this ill-conceived idea fail to recognize another significant factor. Construction jobs are “. . . a prime draw . . .” for illegal immigrants seeking work in the U.S., according to D.H.S. head, Janet Napolitano. Based on Sec. Napolitano’s statement, it is reasonable to assume that illegal immigrant workers would naturally be drawn to a region offering higher earning potential. This assumption is supported by historical evidence which clearly establishes an invariable tendency, by illegal immigrants, to migrate towards regions where greater economic opportunities exist.

This begs a question. Will the new found earnings of these - still illegal aliens - be used to help pay taxes on the roads they use every day, the schools their children go to, their own medical insurance (as opposed to government funded “free” programs)? Will they incur any and every cost necessary to their business that their competition is paying? Will the same be true of the new illegals that will be drawn in by this higher earning potential?

A scheme to include illegal aliens in such organizations would, presumably, require some sort of adjustment to their status as illegal aliens. In my opinion, the above solution is no more than another example of “back door policies” which will lead us steadily to the inevitable conclusion of a blanket amnesty. At which point, such an amnesty could be used to, “just tidy up a couple of loose ends”.

 

[d97c]

continuing

Just as there is no single “magic bullet” solution for America’s current economic dilemma, there is no simple cure for our dysfunctional immigration system. Ineffectual, ill-defined laws created by policy makers with suspect intentions have achieved their goal. They have resulted in unrestrained illegal immigration and flagrant abuse of the legal immigration system.

Any list of solutions to keep the long term viability of American citizens secure, has to include the following: 1. Nationwide implementation of E-Verify 2. Harsh “first offense” penalties for dishonest employers of illegal aliens 3. Legislation aimed at ending chain migration. 4. An honest revamping of current legal immigration standards, with an eye towards lowering overall numbers. 5. Clearly worded laws to punish those who exploit the legal immigration system. 6. Resounding defeat of any mass amnesty legislation.

These are measures that are vital. They will help America keep our citizens and legal immigrants employed and safe from foreign terrorists, save our tax dollars, maintain production quality and safety on a national scale, and prevent rising insurance and health care costs.

CHARLES BREITERMAN is an attorney and writer/researcher for NumbersUSA

 

[Joe_5859]

What do the articles have to do with what the church teaches???
The Catechism states that the host countries should be cooperative to the emigrant

1. as much as the host country is ABLE. Whether it is ABLE is a matter of opinion and prudential judgment by leaders of the country and its citizens…not Bishop Joe or Father Bob.The articles show that we are not ABLE to take or keep them
2. The articles show that we cant accept anymore illegals and over all, illegal immigration is not supportive of the “common good,” the sine qua non of this whole effort to take these illegals into this nation.This article tells it like it is !!!

Respectfully, I think you are drawing conclusions from this data that do not follow necessarily.

That article presents a good case for coming up with better regulations in terms of construction companies, but I don’t see how that can be blamed on illegal immigration. Illegal immigration might bring those deficiencies to the fore, but it doesn’t cause those deficiencies. Businessmen are always looking for shortcuts to save money, even at the expense of ethics. Nothing new there.

I think such claims that the “illegals” are taking all the jobs of regular hard-working Americans is a bit simplistic and short-sighted. First, I am skeptical of any argument that rests largely on creating an “us vs. them” dichotomy. Second, I wonder where the data is on the benefits of having all those extra people, illegal or not. Surely there is some economic benefit to having millions more people in our country to shop at our malls and buy our groceries. Right?

 

[tafan]

So many opportunites. Where to start???

Show me where the Church states that we have an obligation to assent to the prudential opinions of individual bishops and I will change my position

2 problems: First of all, that is NOT what I said. What I said was “We have a moral obligation to give our Bishop’s opinions their due consideration”. Our bishop is our primary teacher. When the bishops write a documnent such as “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope”, we should not dismiss it lightly. You may think that some of their positions are wrong and just prudention opinions, but you should give them due consideration. For example, perhaps you are correct and you are correct and the church does not “recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories” or perhaps you are correct and our current immigration system does not “encourages undocumented migration” or perhaps you are correct and we should not have a “certain number of work visas should be created to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents” or perhaps your are corrct and we should not “call upon both nations to undertake joint efforts to halt the scourge of trafficking in human persons”, but if you take these positions in opposition to the bishops, you should do so only after very careful consideration. Have you read the document. Here is the link:
usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml#20
It is the primary source for the positions on the immigration policy, althrough the main UCCB website has a lot of updated information.
Secondly, as the examples given illustrate, to call all of these simply “prudential judgement” options is wrong. If you read the document, you will find much of it deals directly with the moral implications of our immigration policies and it is difficult to see how a catholic can take opinions at odds with the document, and simply say they are making a prudential judgement.

Ok, lets move on.

markomalley:

Actually, there are plenty who say that there should be no controls on immigration. But I will grant that the majority acknowledge the need for controls, just as the majority of the anti-immigrant crowd are actually anti-illegal immigrant people

This is simple hogwash. I have been well versed and followed the immigration debate in this country for close to 15 years. Rarely, if ever, have I ever seen anyone who favors comprehensive immigration reform take the position that there should be no controls on immigration or take positions that when logically combined lead one to the conclusion that there should be no controls. On the other hand, almost without fail, those who say, “we simply need to shut down the border and enforce our laws” also, when pressed, take the position that we should not extend legal immigration or make arguments that will only lead to the conclusion that legal immigration should be curtailed. Lets have some examples:
From d976c’s copy and paste (which I will return to later)

"Any list of solutions to keep the long term viability of American citizens secure, has to include the following: 1. Nationwide implementation of E-Verify 2. Harsh “first offense” penalties for dishonest employers of illegal aliens 3. Legislation aimed at ending chain migration. 4. An honest revamping of current legal immigration standards, with an eye towards lowering overall numbers. 5. Clearly worded laws to punish those who exploit the legal immigration system. 6. Resounding defeat of any mass amnesty legislation.
"
or we have the positinos taken by markomalley and by Fr Dominique Peridans that a) an immigration policy should be equal-opportunity with respect from the source country (an absurd position to which I will return) combined with b) that bad cultural mixes, eg the Muslims immigrating into Europe, causes does not work (an obviously correct position espoused by markomalley on this thread). Now these two positions cannot be reconciled unless you take the position that you are not just anit-illegal immigration, but actually anti-immigration. At least d976c is honest in this regard. The questino must be asked of anyone opposing a sound comprehensive immigration policy (such as that proposed by the bishops), what level of immigration do you think is appropriate for the general laborer class from Mexico? Or at the very least, should the existing levels allowed be expanded or restricted by what percentage?

 

[tafan]

Back to the issue that an immigration policy needs to be equal-opportunity. Why should the just controls place on a nation’s borders not include preferences for people from certain areas, particularly neighboring countries where we have a greater national interests and lesser cultural conflicts. Placing this arbitrary rule on any immigration reform in the current context of solving an illegal-immigration problem from Mexico is simply another way of saying “we don’t want those people”.

Moving on, I came acrosee this ind97c’s c&p: “Illegal workers will work for less money because, being undocumented, they rarely pay employment taxes or any related insurance costs”. This lie has been totally discredited. To give most anti-immigration folks a little credit, it is not spouted that often anymore in the media, that died away in the previous couple of election cycles. But, to explain, undocumented immigrants typically come to this country and work as day type laborers for a certain period of time. These jobs are normally part of the cash economy and taxes are not paid. But these workers are not dumb. They want a good steady job and they get either a fales SSN or a legal Tax ID number and they go get a job for a construction outfit, industrial farm, slaughterhouse, hotel, etc. These are the predominant jobs held by them and they get paid like anyone else, they have federal taxes withheld, SS taxes withheld, etc. The vast majority of undocumented workers pay a higher tax rate than a legal worker doing the same job for the same pay. Why? Because a) they don’t get a refund at the end of the year if they used a false ssn to get the job and b) the money they put into SSN does not build up in their account.

Moving on once more, I would like to address this statement with regards to assimilation:

markomalley:

I think the Indians are doing pretty darned good. So are the Chinese. So are the Vietnamese. So are the majority of the Egyptians and Lebanese. And that’s without documents being printed in Hindi, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, or Arabic.

You are comparing apples and oranges. With the exception of Vietnamese, the other asian groups and the Lebanese (I can’t say about Egyptions, but that is a whole other problem), these immigrants come to this country predominantly on either F1 student visas for advanced degrees or directly on company sponsored basis. Those coming on student visas find some way to stay, typically by finding a company that will sponsor them on a H1-B basis. These options are not availble for Mexican labor class. The Vietnamese did come here as poor immigrants, often uneducated, as refugees from the disastrous end of the Vietnam war. And they often lived in ethnic communities, had ethnic parishes and businesses and took one generation to assimilate. Of course even this is not completly apples to apples, they often had the advantage of knowing english already due to being predominantly from the south where they had long term exposure to American contractors and GIs.

And then we have

markomalley:

Shall I talk about the praises of MS-13 or the cult of “St Death”?

Serveral thoughts come to mind. Violent gangs are a problem in many under-priviledged ethnic communities in this country. In my area, they are a bigger problem in the asian parts of town than the hispanic parts of town. But with hispanics, especially with undocumented workers, it is VERY small percentage of the people. First of all, the new immigrants are not typically complete families until the father gets established in this country, so the percentage of illegals who are youth is surprisingly small. Secondly, undocumented workers are not dumb. They have a VERY stron incentive to not get in trouble with the law. Finally, picking out Hispanics when identifying this problem immediately after praising other groups who have the same problem seems does not seem just.

I could go on and on about issues I have with yall’s posts, they are laced with the same anti-immigrant propaganda that is continually on the airwaves around here and are full of half-truths and falsehoods. I hope I have pointed out enough examples such that a complete rebuttal is not necessary. But I will end with one thought that I should be able to get away with on a Catholic forum, but one that I get really slammed for making in more secular settings:

Even a cursory review of Mexican history from a Catholic perspective highlights a very important issue that is very relavant to these discussions. The Mexican people have a special place in Jesus’s heart. A country that was beset with the worse culture-of-death in the history of mankind was converted to the Christian faith through the direct intervention of Our Lady. Through a subsequent 500 years of suffering and 200 years of (often extreme) anti-christian government persecution, these people have kept the faith. This can only be attributed to the Mexican people continuing to be very special to Our Lady and her intercessions with Our Lord. This point was beautifully made by JP II in his very first international trip as Pope. And as anyone who has visited the Bascillica of Our Lade of Guadelupe during the annual feast day can attest, the Mexican people return this love of our lady in a very special way.
I would hate to meet Jesus on my judgement day and say that I have slandered or mistreated the Mexican people. May the Lady of Guadelupe’s example of love for these people, guide us in this important matter.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

“as much as the host country is ABLE”…

Is borrowing from our grandkids making us able? And then provide health insurance? Heck we are in hock to every reasonably productive country on earth.

Look, I love my extended Mexican American Family. All 100 of them. I’m from the Penn-Dutch 200 years ago…my family is from Mexico 50 years ago. I welcome anyone into our country who is interested in working their butt off to support themselves and gain benefit for themselves and family. But they must obey this country’s laws, and respect our language and culture just as if were to emigrate to another country.

I have know many many hard working Mexicans, legal or not. They do have a route to citizenship. Some are very skilled laborers. Others would give you the shirt off their back. Some however are dirt.

Our laws are perfectly sufficient to manage this issue, if enforced. Once the laws are ignored and we have millions of “illegals” the issue is more complex. At that point granting amnesty is counterproducive. Amnesty is never going to solve anything until we enforce our laws. Otherwise we just keep doing a Reagan on Mexican’s every 10 years and the Democratic Party has a bunch of willing voters to raid the coffers.

 

[d97c]

tafan said:

“Moving on, I came acrosee this in d97c’s “Illegal workers will work for less money because, being undocumented, they rarely pay employment taxes or any related insurance costs”. This lie has been totally discredited.”

You play fast and loose with your facts…
Why do you say it’s a “lie.”
and
Who discredits it other than …you?