Illegal immigrants are first 'mothers and fathers, sons and daughters,' says Archbishop Gomez

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not sure if most illegal immigrants are seasonal workers,

They plainly are not. A small minority are seasonal workers. (The fact that most agricultural workers are immigrants does not translate to most immigrants are agricultural workers. Someone didn’t learn their math well, or their logic – one or the other.)

Most immigrants now work in construction, hospitality, restaurants, retail, household help, and landscaping. While in the midwest and the east coast, a couple of these occupations are seasonal due to weather, in many states those same occupations (construction, landscaping) are year-round, and it is particularly the latter states which contain the largest percentages of illegal immigrants. Further, increasingly they are seeking entry-level white-collar jobs (clerical, low-level administrative jobs), for those with enough of a command of English to perform, especially when those jobs are in pockets of heavily ELL customers.

 

[Blacksword]

An immigration attorney! That means you must have some experience, and I am glad you joined the conversation. (I can see how someone make take this as sarcasm, but I am completely serious).
I think your post makes a lot of sense, but I’m not sure if most illegal immigrants are seasonal workers, and I’m not sure what what you mean by “kind typically here without lawful status.” The estimated amounts of illegal immigrants in the US ranges from 7-20 million, so if these are mostly seasonal workers and are typically here to help with the harvest, then we should already be all set, with no more workers in demand! But they keep coming!

I’m not that familiar with the specific process it takes to become a citizen, or a lawful alien worker, but it seems you are, and I believe you. The system you describe does sound a little broken. Why would there be a cap of 66,000, yet millions are needed? We’d have to figure out the pros and cons of this policy. The cons you have listed…there are not enough workers. There must have been a reason the policy was put in place though, because no policy is put in place for no reason, right? (well some are…but I don’t think this one.) It is possible the policy was made in like 1848 when 66,000 people was a lot, but I’m not so sure. I don’t know the pros to such a limiting policy, but I’d like to hear what the proponents claim they are in order to make a balanced judgement.

Also, what is the alternative? Do you know of any countries with more lax immigration policies that have had a large influx of immigrants and have benefitted from such? These cases would be very useful to take a look at and emulate! I can’t think of any off hand, but perhaps you can because you work in the field?

Briefly, I meant unauthorized immigrants by “kind” of immigrants. Many immigrants do come legally, the educated professionals and so forth. We only have 66,000 in H-2B program because our laws have changed little since the enactment of the 1952 INA. The ones in seasonal work tend to travel ALOT going where the work is depending on the season. They don’t go back anymore because the journey is far too dangerous to try more than once unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Blacksword]

It’s an opportunity when they come in legally; it’s a problem when they don’t. By definition illegal aliens are lawbreakers who have cheated their fellow countrymen who have the integrity to do things the correct way. For an archbishop to defend them is a scandal.

Sigh…there is no line for them to wait in. There is no legal avenue for them.

 

[garysibio]

Sigh…there is no line for them to wait in. There is no legal avenue for them.

Sure there is. Many immigrants enter the country legally. Even if there wasn’t, it doesn’t excuse their breaking the law.

 

[Blacksword]

They plainly are not. A small minority are seasonal workers. (The fact that most agricultural workers are immigrants does not translate to most immigrants are agricultural workers. Someone didn’t learn their math well, or their logic – one or the other.)

Most immigrants now work in construction, hospitality, restaurants, retail, household help, and landscaping. While in the midwest and the east coast, a couple of these occupations are seasonal due to weather, in many states those same occupations (construction, landscaping) are year-round, and it is particularly the latter states which contain the largest percentages of illegal immigrants. Further, increasingly they are seeking entry-level white-collar jobs (clerical, low-level administrative jobs), for those with enough of a command of English to perform, especially when those jobs are in pockets of heavily ELL customers.

I never said they were mostly seasonal workers, was referring to broad areas of unskilled and low skilled labor. Labor that not enough Americans are doing.

 

[Blacksword]

Sure there is. Many immigrants enter the country legally. Even if there wasn’t, it doesn’t excuse their breaking the law.

Not unskilled uneducated ones, read above, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[garysibio]

Not unskilled uneducated ones, read above, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Since you can’t seem to discuss without getting insulting, I’ll just add you to my ignore list.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Sigh…there is no line for them to wait in. There is no legal avenue for them.

That is not true, because you mentioned yourself a 66,000 a year limit for immigrant workers, and also family/employer sponsorship with a multi-year waiting period. These are the legal avenues.

Also, my wife and most of her family are legal immigrants. So there are definitely avenues. Definitely. I don’t know much about immigration policy, like I said, but I definitely 100% for sure cross-my-heart know for a fact there are legal avenues.

The issue is that there are not enough allowances for all the people that want to get in. The question is, would it be more beneficial to let more people in more easily, and increase the tax base and help people get a better life? Or would it be better to keep it hard to get in and enforce the current laws, and keep the “riff-raff” out and reduce unemployment by hiring only US citizens? What are the other pro/cons? What have other nations done that have large immigration influxes, and how successful were they?

 

[exoflare]

Let me know how many people you convince with this.

 

[Blacksword]

Sure there is. Many immigrants enter the country legally. Even if there wasn’t, it doesn’t excuse their breaking the law.

That is not true, because you mentioned yourself a 66,000 a year limit for immigrant workers, and also family/employer sponsorship with a multi-year waiting period. These are the legal avenues.

Also, my wife and most of her family are legal immigrants. So there are definitely avenues. Definitely. I don’t know much about immigration policy, like I said, but I definitely 100% for sure cross-my-heart know for a fact there are legal avenues.

The issue is that there are not enough allowances for all the people that want to get in. The question is, would it be more beneficial to let more people in more easily, and increase the tax base and help people get a better life? Or would it be better to keep it hard to get in and enforce the current laws, and keep the “riff-raff” out and reduce unemployment by hiring only US citizens? What are the other pro/cons? What have other nations done that have large immigration influxes, and how successful were they?

I can get technical if you want, but my wife is Japanese, and I’ve been practicing immigration law for ten years, representing universities, some of the largest multi-national corporations in the world, professional athletes, and individuals in immigration matters, so I am very familiar with the legal avenues.

The family based program requires a green card holder or citizen close relative and can take for many more than twenty years, not viable for many who don’t have this. The employment route is not available for unskilled workers, it’s essentially geared towards educated professionals, so not an option for unskilled workers, and can also take more than ten years. The nonimmigrant H-2B program has only a fraction of the visas needed, and is terribly flawed, requiring a labor market test, certification from DOL, and logistically requires an alien being matched and petitioned for by an employer before it can be even filed, let alone approved and a visa interview set up, so it doesn’t function properly for even the few workers who can obtain such status. If you want a legal discourse in the H-2B category and it’s problems, I can provide, but it’s boring reading for most and will take a long time. Suffice to say, it doesn’t work either for reality of millions of open jobs in unskilled labor. So no, there is no real legal way for these people to enter.

 

[Blacksword]

Since you can’t seem to discuss without getting insulting, I’ll just add you to my ignore list.

I’m very sorry if you were insulted, but if you don’t know anything about the immigration laws, policy, or practice and procedure, then what I said is perfectly appropriate. I didn’t intend a nasty tone. I don’t know much of anything about veterinary medicine, so a vet telling me so would be understandable. My apologies for any offense given.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I can get technical if you want, but my wife is Japanese, and I’ve been practicing immigration law for ten years, representing universities, some of the largest multi-national corporations in the world, professional athletes, and individuals in immigration matters, so I am very familiar with the legal avenues.

The family based program requires a green card holder or citizen close relative and can take for many more than twenty years, not viable for many who don’t have this. The employment route is not available for unskilled workers, it’s essentially geared towards educated professionals, so not an option for unskilled workers, and can also take more than ten years. The nonimmigrant H-2B program has only a fraction of the visas needed, and is terribly flawed, requiring a labor market test, certification from DOL, and logistically requires an alien being matched and petitioned for by an employer before it can be even filed, let alone approved and a visa interview set up, so it doesn’t function properly for even the few workers who can obtain such status. If you want a legal discourse in the H-2B category and it’s problems, I can provide, but it’s boring reading for most and will take a long time. Suffice to say, it doesn’t work either for reality of millions of open jobs in unskilled labor. So no, there is no real legal way for these people to enter.

I definitely respect your experience in this area, and you are probably right not to get too technical because it will over most people’s heads. At the same time, your professional field may bias your perspective as much as it adds to your knowledge. That’s why I’m challenging some of the statements. I really am in the middle of this debate, and I think both sides mean well, and want what is best for the greatest amount of people.

Saying “there is no real legal way” is much different than saying “there is a terribly inefficient legal way that can take 10-20+ years.” Well, they are different in my mind anyways. Personally, I think we should enforce the laws we have on the books (as they are designed to protect our country, even if they do that poorly) and at the same time look into a reformed policy that can perhaps do a better job.

From what I am learning form you (and yes, I am learning a lot!) the “H-2B program has only a fraction of the visas needed”. My question is…needed for what? Needed for the immigrants, or for the employers? Are they really needed, or is it just a satisfy a desire? To clarify, is our economy or quality of life being substantially hindered because this need is not fulfilled? The anti-immigration reform people seem to think that our quality of life and/or economy will be hindered if we DO allow more immigration…so it’s a bit confusing.

It may not seem like I’m in the middle on this, because I am challenging you thus, but I am only doing so because you seem to know what you are talking about and can answer some probing questions.

 

[pnewton]

For an archbishop to defend them is a scandal.

Did you even read the article? Name one thing the archbishop said that is not in keeping with Christianity. How we treat these people will be something we are judged on, if we believe what Jesus taught.

 

[pnewton]

If they are illegal they are NOT immigrants. Why deny them the proper channels? Why slap the face of all immigrants who got here the right way? Why flout the laws of our country?

If all had the ability to go through proper channels, I think you would have a point. However, our quota system makes it impossible for some to go through legal immigration.

 

[pnewton]

Sure there is. Many immigrants enter the country legally.

This is a logical disconnection. The fact that there is a legal channel to immigration for some does not mean that there is a legal channel for immigration for all.

 

[pnewton]

That is not true, because you mentioned yourself a 66,000 a year limit for immigrant workers, and also family/employer sponsorship with a multi-year waiting period. These are the legal avenues.The issue is that there are not enough allowances for all the people that want to get in. …and keep the “riff-raff” out and reduce unemployment by hiring only US citizens?

So, how would the unemployed citizen accept being told that there is no problem getting them a job. There is just a 5-10 year waiting period.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hey everyone,

On a 36 hour shift right now and first time I’ve had to check in. I was surprised to see 3 pages.

I read someone spoke about illegals. We know the laws, but are they just laws, in the eyes of Jesus?

It seems too many times people will rely on ‘Caesar’s’ law to oppose something the Church speaks in favor of, at least in this particular case. If we say they’re illegal, then we cannot say something like abortion is wrong, according to the law. That’s just an example, and hopefully food for thought.

I’ll try to check back in later, or tomorrow, as time permits.

 

[Blacksword]

I definitely respect your experience in this area, and you are probably right not to get too technical because it will over most people’s heads. At the same time, your professional field may bias your perspective as much as it adds to your knowledge. That’s why I’m challenging some of the statements. I really am in the middle of this debate, and I think both sides mean well, and want what is best for the greatest amount of people.

Saying “there is no real legal way” is much different than saying “there is a terribly inefficient legal way that can take 10-20+ years.” Well, they are different in my mind anyways. Personally, I think we should enforce the laws we have on the books (as they are designed to protect our country, even if they do that poorly) and at the same time look into a reformed policy that can perhaps do a better job.

From what I am learning form you (and yes, I am learning a lot!) the “H-2B program has only a fraction of the visas needed”. My question is…needed for what? Needed for the immigrants, or for the employers? Are they really needed, or is it just a satisfy a desire? To clarify, is our economy or quality of life being substantially hindered because this need is not fulfilled? The anti-immigration reform people seem to think that our quality of life and/or economy will be hindered if we DO allow more immigration…so it’s a bit confusing.

It may not seem like I’m in the middle on this, because I am challenging you thus, but I am only doing so because you seem to know what you are talking about and can answer some probing questions.

Sure, not a problem.. The employment-based immigrant visa system can take 10 years for educated people, as said before, unskilled workers, due to the labor certification system requirements, are basically shut out altogether. When I talk of “need” I’m referring to the American economy itself, and the number of jobs it needs in these areas. For instance, most people like to think of America as the bread-basket of the world, but did you know we have been a net IMPORTER of agricultural produce for several years now? And even at that disturbing fact, we still have crops lost for lack of sufficient farm labor every year, and this despite the current unemployment rate! Farmers cannot find enough workers to harvest at full capacity, produce is lost to wither in the sun. How much worse would that get without the undocumented laborers now working the fields? In my own city of Detroit, a coulee years ago they were going on about illegal immigrants needing to leave on a local radio program and them taking American jobs, forgetting that on that SAME show a week before they were talking about a news story about how despite all the out of work auto workers, landscaping companies in the area could NOT find and keep American workers, how they’d quit after a couple days with the work being too hard, how they figured out they made just as much money on unemployment, etc.!

The reason plenty of immigration restrictionists want to lower immigration is racism, frankly. One group, for instance, FAIR, wants to eliminate several family based categories altogether, like elderly parents of US citizens.

 

[JReducation]

I grew up in the State Department. My father was a diplomat. Most Americans don’t know how cruel and how incompetent are our embassies and consulates abroad. They don’t represent us well. They don’t provide the necessary services for Americans living abroad or protect their rights. And they don’t treat the poor fairly.

When a person approaches a US consulate general for a visa, he is asked for a financial statement. If he’s wealthy, he gets a visa, no questions asked. Just look at the terrorists from 9/11. Those who are talking about diseases, etc are kidding themselves. The USA does not require health records to enter this country. We require a bank account. There are no criminal checks either. If you have family in the USA, and they can vouch that they will finance you while you’re here, you get a visa. If you don’t have family, but you have a job in your home country and money in the bank, you get a visa. If you’re coming to the USA for business, you get a visa. If you’re coming to go to school and you can prove that you have tuition money, you get a visa. If you’re coming as a tourist to Disney, you get a visa.

If you approach the Consulate General and you say that you want to leave your country, because you need to find a job, your children need healthcare that you cannot get in your homeland, that you’re government is not protecting or guaranteeing your human rights, but you don’t have the required dollar amount in the bank and obviously you don’t have a job or have a low paying job, you are treated with derision and you are denied a visa.

There are times when organizations such as the Church have tried to vouch for people by offering to pay for their living expenses until they can fly on their own and they are denied. Seminarians who want to study theology here are denied visas unless they can prove that they have money or unless they belong to a religious community that is incorporated in the USA. In other words, they are allowed to enter the USA if there is money backing them up.

No one asks for health records, police reports, references of any kind. You fill an application, show your financial and employment status and you’re in. The system is not setup to help the poor immigrate legally. When a family has only $2,000.00, they are denied. What do they do? They give their 2k to a human smuggler to get them across the border.

In the meantime, drug smugglers, terrorists and other criminals enter and leave at will, because they have the money to back them up. The problem is that the consulates, which are entrusted with the responsibility of granting visas, don’t verify how these people acquired so much money. Little do they know that many of them actually made their money selling drugs in the USA and now they’re coming back.

I was a missionary in Ecuador in 2000. The president of the country was found guilty of stealing over $30 million from taxes collected. He had paid off people and did God knows what with the rest of the money. In a poor country like Ecuador, that’s a lot of money. He was going to be arrested. He went to the Panamanian embassy and stayed there until he could get safe passage to the USA. He entered the USA legally and was picked up as a professor of government by Harvard University. The argument given by the American ambassador to Ecuador was that the man had not committed any crimes on US territory.

This is just a summary of how our consulates operate when it comes to the treatment of other people, particularly poor people. I have to say one thing. They treat all poor people equally. When I was growing up and when I was in the missions, I saw Americans living abroad, who were part of the working class. They approached our consulates for assistance and rarely got any.

They have a safety system in place. Every American living in a country must be registered at the US consulate nearest to his home. In case of an emergency evacuation, it is the duty of the consulate to notify Americans and to offer assistance in order to leave the country. I was in one such country when civil war broke out. The only Americans who were notified and offered assistance were business people, military and government officials. Clergy, religious and working class Americans never received their telephone call. When we called the consulate for information, we were told that they could not help us.

We want to call these people criminals. The Church’s law trumps the laws of any nation. Moral law says that it is the duty of government to protect its people and work for their welfare. Moral law also says that the healthier nations of the world have a duty to offer support to the weaker nations. Moral law also says that you may never support crime or criminals. The US government gives millions of dollars in aid to corrupt leaders in other countries. This is money that hard working Americans pay in taxes. It is supposed to go to help the poor so that they can live and won’t have to sneak across borders. The average American does not know that the money is given to pay for abortions, contraceptives and to pay for weapons that are often used against the people who live in that nation.

When Catholic Charities, Human Life International, Salvation Army, Caritas International and other Christian organizations that have a record of accomplishment of helping the poor ask for some of that money, they are denied, because they don’t support abortion and contraception. That’s always the biggest barrier to getting financial help for the poor in other countries. If our tax dollars don’t make it to where we’re told they go, then it is not a crime for those people to find a way to enter the USA. The law is only valid when it is a just law. Any law that protects crime, evil and sin, is not legitimate and there is no moral obligation to obey it.

 

[JReducation]

We do need immigration reform. All of the points that I have mentioned need to be addressed and there is much more that the American people are not being told by our government. Most of it is because our own government does not know. The INS answers to two agencies: Dept of Justice and the State Dept. These two answer to the President, not to the Congress or to the people of the USA. We can’t be sure what our legislators are told. They cannot enact good immigration laws, when they don’t have the entire picture. The bishop is right. Until the law is fixed, we have to treat the hard working poor for what they are, our brothers and sisters. To be a criminal, one must violate a legitimate law. We need to begin to think like Catholics first and Americans second. Otherwise, we are no different than the Church of England and German Lutheranism.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF