Illegal Immigration and Morality

[Elizabeth502]

I’d like to see some documentation of this, because what I’ve observed is precisely the opposite.

Listen to MSNBC more. Other than that, I can’t help you with your unbelief. That station, along with certain other prominent media outlets which dominate (say, NYT ) feature the most active, persistent, and well-funded voices for immigration cough] “reform,” by which they merely mean further enabling of randomness when it comes to illegal access, and favoritism of economic refuge one of one class of people, above every other need or priority. I see zero evidence that the dominant immigration “reform” groups advocate any serious change from the current dysfunctional “system.”

I don’t care what so-called “conservatives” advocate. Their voices, whatever they are, are buried in any case, given the dominance of extremely liberal, one-note media outlets. As Catholics, we shouldn’t be blindly allying ourselves with particular political groups. Rather, we should stand for an overarching morality which is not represented by enablers or oppressors on either side.

You really do need to get out more.

 

[Ender]

Let’s discuss the fact that your own bishops have said that current immigration law is unjust.

This statement goes too far. Our system of immigration is surely flawed, and the bishops are justified in calling for solutions, but I am not aware of any statements from “our bishops” claiming that any particular law is immoral. There are surely individual bishops who oppose any number of specific laws - you should read what Archbishop Dolan of NY said about the Arizona law - but even he never said it was immoral.

Let’s see whether you actually have any reason to disagree with your bishops beyond your political prejudices.

I have any number of reasons to disagree with them since the question of what legislation will best resolve the problems is prudential and not moral. Their opinions on specific proposals are theirs alone and we have no moral obligation to assent to them.

Ender

 

[Contarini]

Listen to MSNBC more. Other than that, I can’t help you with your unbelief. That station, along with certain other prominent media outlets which dominate (say, NYT ) feature the most active, persistent, and well-funded voices for immigration cough] “reform,” by which they merely mean further enabling of randomness when it comes to illegal access, and favoritism of economic refuge one of one class of people, above every other need or priority. I see zero evidence that the dominant immigration “reform” groups advocate any serious change from the current dysfunctional “system.”

I don’t care what so-called “conservatives” advocate. Their voices, whatever they are, are buried in any case, given the dominance of extremely liberal, one-note media outlets. As Catholics, we shouldn’t be blindly allying ourselves with particular political groups. Rather, we should stand for an overarching morality which is not represented by enablers or oppressors on either side.

You really do need to get out more.

Maybe I need to get out of small-town Indiana! I find it unbelievable that you can live in the contemporary United States and think that the voices of self-proclaimed “conservatives” are buried. Have you never heard of Fox News?

I don’t think I’ve ever once been in a public place and seen MSNBC on the screen. Except for a few other academics and folks like you who want to claim liberal dominance, I rarely hear it mentioned. But over and over I’ve seen Fox News blaring its propaganda in public places, and over and over I run into people who take its version of things as Gospel.

Either you live in an extremely liberal part of the country and work in academia or something of that sort, or you have an extremely distorted picture of the present political reality.

I also don’t know how you can claim with a straight face that “conservative” opinion on immigration is buried or drowned out, given the fate of Bush’s 2006 immigration plan.

Maybe in the 80s it was true that liberal media dominated. It certainly isn’t true today. Fox is one of the most successful news organizations in the country.

I do, by the way, listen to MSNBC from time to time, and I find them less stomach-churningly smarmy than Fox. I like the bluntness of their propaganda and find them refreshing on occasion. But most of the time I prefer news organizations that are less propagandistic than either.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

This statement goes too far. Our system of immigration is surely flawed, and the bishops are justified in calling for solutions, but I am not aware of any statements from “our bishops” claiming that any particular law is immoral. There are surely individual bishops who oppose any number of specific laws - you should read what Archbishop Dolan of NY said about the Arizona law - but even he never said it was immoral.
I have any number of reasons to disagree with them since the question of what legislation will best resolve the problems is prudential and not moral. Their opinions on specific proposals are theirs alone and we have no moral obligation to assent to them.

Ender

I don’t hear prudential objections from them–I hear moral ones. Their arguments are all about justice, and it seems to me that you are evading this point.

Edwin

 

[Ender]

I don’t hear prudential objections from them–I hear moral ones. Their arguments are all about justice, and it seems to me that you are evading this point.

Name one specific proposal they have said we are morally obligated to support or oppose. If you can’t do that then you need to recognize that while ends may be moral the means to achieve those ends are not. They are prudential guesses about what will or will not work … and the disputes are over the means, not the ends.

Ender

 

[KSU]

Per Contarini:
There’s nothing at all in Leo XIII’s letter about social welfare… you invented something which has absolutely no existence in Pope Leo’s letter whatsoever–a condemnation of “social welfare”…In short, no matter how many times you call me a “leftist” and claim that I “misunderstand,” you will not convince reasonable readers until you can actually provide evidence of my supposed misunderstanding…

Contarini, on this thread you are a gift that keeps on giving. Read this:

QUOTE
AMERICANISM
The movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Emphasizing the “active” virtues of social welfare and democratic equality, it underrated the “passive” virtues of humility and obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Americanism was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in an apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae (January 22, 1899), addressed to Cardinal Gibbons.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

END QUOTE

I reiterate, the more you say the more you expose your misunderstanding of Catholicism and America.

 

[pnewton]

Where is the evidence that they are being specifically defrauded of their wages in any way defined above?
The issue of immigrant employment status is not “One of the Sins Crying Out to Heaven for Justice.”

No one as said either of these things. I think you have misunderstood both me, the bishops and John Paul II. No one has ever said all illegal immigrants are being cheated and defrauded on their wages. No one has said that not paying them enough, or paying them at all if they have not earned pay, is sinful. All that has been said is that being undocumented lends one to exploitation, for example, by those who would use them for labor then not pay them. Everything else is just a misunderstanding or a strawman. No one is saying those other things, so there is no need to defend it.

 

[pnewton]

I think what concerns many moral people who advocate for reform, is that most often, the groups pressing for “reform” really don’t want it. They want a pseudo-version of that. What they mean by reform is fivefold:

I think your statement here should call for reflection on the motives behind some of the reform movements. I think I am somewhat in the middle here. Who else here as actually called INS to have someone deported, obviously I am a believer in reform and agree with the more moderate and conservative bishops on this. I see where some advocacy groups do in fact have selfish motives in fighting one aspect or another ot the current immigration law, but would not want changes that balance those liberties with responsibility.

I personally find most of the bishops’ statements to be balanced in this regard, though some individual remarks only reflect one aspect of immigration. Only through balanced change can we help those in need without, as you pointed out, aggrevating injustice elsewhere.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Maybe I need to get out of small-town Indiana! I find it unbelievable that you can live in the contemporary United States and think that the voices of self-proclaimed “conservatives” are buried. Have you never heard of Fox News?

Just um…FYI, Fox News is NOT the dominant media outlet. The prominent media voices are the voices on the Left, and if you don’t understand that yet, you seriously do need to get out more and are very, very sheltered in terms of your grasp of just who dominates the airwaves. The Liberal Left virtually own the political spin on policy issues in this country, so much so that conservative, moderate, and liberal politicians (very much including presidents as far back as JFK) have felt that they needed to defend themselves against them. (Liberal pols being often not quite liberal enough for MSNBC, whose fave template pol is probably Bernie Sanders.) Fox News is drowned out by the end-to-end CNN + MSNBC politically correct shows, which include the confrontational Sunday interviews. Fox News is not considered mainstream by most politicians or journalists. They’re considered fringe, and laughable to boot. Ditto for the political-content comedy shows.

I don’t think I’ve ever once been in a public place and seen MSNBC on the screen.

Apparently you’ve never been to an airport, or to a hospital waiting room. What’s on air is either CNN or MSNBC. At least if one is in any major city.

Either you live in an extremely liberal part of the country and work in academia or something of that sort, or you have an extremely distorted picture of the present political reality.

Not even close. I merely turn on the TV, and visit a number of websites for news sources. Virtually all of them have the liberal spin on every issue: immigration, SSM, you name it. The sheer number of national shows parroting a left social agenda far outnumbers anything Fox News can dish up for the day. And I’m not even including the pop-pschology talk shows such as Oprah, The View, etc. (I hear about them later; I’m too busy to watch them, nor would I be interested, but they are often featured later in news stories, radio, tv summaries, etc.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

pnewton,
thans for your clarification in post 191, and I agree with you in post 192.

 

[cmforte]

I do not think that the Catholic Church should change its doctrines. It is cmforte, not I, who disparages premodern political systems and traditional Catholicism and identifies modern democracy as an absolute good.

There’s nothing at all in Leo XIII’s letter about social welfare. And when he grants the legitimacy of American distinctiveness, he’s careful to say that the same applies to all other countries at all.

I haven’t had internet connection for a while and it is now late and I need to get to bed, but: when did I ever disparage traditional Catholocism? You mean traditional Catholicism in*** your ***view? When did I say the Church should change its doctrines? Since when is being for “comprehensive immigration reform” (amnesty) a doctrine?

Pope Leo XIII, like most popes, was a European, I don’t expect him to truely understand what real “Americanism,” was, much less do I believe that he, as a European, would ever adopt the view. Besides that, the idea of Americanism has evolved since then: back at the time many so-called “native” Americans were put off by the large numbers of non-Anglo, (mainly Italian) Catholics who were arriving in the US at a time when many still believed that the US was a model Protestant nation, and I suspect that the Pope was suspicious that by adopting “Americanism” one was also adopting protestantism.

Though not a protestant, I stand with the likes of Fox News host Sean Hannity as a Catholic who also believes that America is “Exceptional,” I do believe that God has a special role for it on this earth, but I also believe it is a **political entity, and thus only temporal and inferior to a spiritual entity, that being the Roman Catholic Church. They are two separate and distinct entities with two separate and distinct roles: the country sets human secular policy, and the Church provides spiritual guidnace for and with it. **That’s all. What is so against Catholic theology about that?

And I am saying that all legitimate nations (and to me the only legitimate ones are democratic, direct or republican-type), have the right to have and secure thier own borders and enforce thier sovereignty within them…Mexico shouldn’t tell us what to do about our laws, like immigration ones, no more than we should try to interfere with and meddle in the internal affairs of Mexico… …but the USA is still better.

-Chris

 

[Contarini]

Per Contarini:
There’s nothing at all in Leo XIII’s letter about social welfare… you invented something which has absolutely no existence in Pope Leo’s letter whatsoever–a condemnation of “social welfare”…In short, no matter how many times you call me a “leftist” and claim that I “misunderstand,” you will not convince reasonable readers until you can actually provide evidence of my supposed misunderstanding…

Contarini, on this thread you are a gift that keeps on giving. Read this:

QUOTE
AMERICANISM
The movement propagated in the United States in the late nineteenth century which claimed that the Catholic Church should adjust its doctrines, especially in morality, to the culture of the people. Emphasizing the “active” virtues of social welfare and democratic equality, it underrated the “passive” virtues of humility and obedience to ecclesiastical authority. Americanism was condemned by Pope Leo XIII in an apostolic letter, Testem Benevolentiae (January 22, 1899), addressed to Cardinal Gibbons.

All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.

END QUOTE

I reiterate, the more you say the more you expose your misunderstanding of Catholicism and America.

No, I expose the fact that I go directly to the primary sources rather than misinterpreting a reference source’s paraphrase of the primary source.

Here is the document. Find me a reference to “social welfare” anywhere in it.

What Fr. Hardon is (rightly) saying is that Leo accuses “Americanists” of exalting the “active” virtues above the “passive” ones. He seems to be concerned primarily with what he perceives as a denigration of the religious life (in that passage). It appears that, at least in his perspective, the “Americanists” were claiming that American enterprise and emphasis on social betterment represented a new move of the Spirit in the Church and an improvement on more traditional models of holiness. That’s where Fr. Hardon gets the “social welfare” reference which misled you.

In fact, the “social welfare” initiatives of the 19th century were not government initiatives but almost always the work of “voluntary societies”–precisely the sort of thing praised by contemporary American “conservatives.” So you are the one radically misrepresenting the document. Furthermore, as you should have been able to tell from Fr. Hardon even if you didn’t actually read the document, Pope Leo is not criticizing American initiatives to improve society–he’s saying that this kind of “active” virtue shouldn’t be praised at the expense of traditional “passive” virtues like asceticism, martyrdom, and contemplation.

Where this relates to the present discussion is that cmforte’s frequent praise of democracy and his (and your) belief that the Constitution was in some way divinely inspired amount to an exaltation of modern liberal democracy (particularly as exemplified in America) above the many other ways in which God has worked in human society in the past. And I think this is the sort of thing Pope Leo was condemning when he condemned “Americanism.”

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Just um…FYI, Fox News is NOT the dominant media outlet. The prominent media voices are the voices on the Left, and if you don’t understand that yet, you seriously do need to get out more and are very, very sheltered in terms of your grasp of just who dominates the airwaves. The Liberal Left virtually own the political spin on policy issues in this country, so much so that conservative, moderate, and liberal politicians (very much including presidents as far back as JFK) have felt that they needed to defend themselves against them. (Liberal pols being often not quite liberal enough for MSNBC, whose fave template pol is probably Bernie Sanders.) Fox News is drowned out by the end-to-end CNN + MSNBC politically correct shows, which include the confrontational Sunday interviews. Fox News is not considered mainstream by most politicians or journalists. They’re considered fringe, and laughable to boot. Ditto for the political-content comedy shows.

Look, we can argue this point all day long and won’t get anywhere. I have lived in several different parts of the country (though admittedly I now live in a very conservative area) and I know what I’ve seen. Of course there’s a lot of criticism (most of it justified, in my opinion) of Fox News, but that’s because they are such a serious thread to the “oldline” media establishment.

I don’t know what airports or waiting rooms you’ve been in in which MSNBC was on. I found out about it flipping through the channels and found Rachel Maddow’s intelligent abrasiveness somewhat interesting. I hear my left-wing academic friends from grad school talk about the channel on Facebook, and I see you and others on this forum hold it up as an example of the “liberal media” all the time. Otherwise I rarely hear it mentioned.

MSNBC is far more “fringe” than Fox News. CNN I’ll grant you is a serious rival.

But this conversation is not going anywhere.

Admittedly, I don’t turn on the TV that often either, so neither of us may be well qualified to discuss the TV newscasting scene!

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Just um…FYI, Fox News is NOT the dominant media outlet. The prominent media voices are the voices on the Left, and if you don’t understand that yet, you seriously do need to get out more and are very, very sheltered in terms of your grasp of just who dominates the airwaves. The Liberal Left virtually own the political spin on policy issues in this country, so much so that conservative, moderate, and liberal politicians (very much including presidents as far back as JFK) have felt that they needed to defend themselves against them. (Liberal pols being often not quite liberal enough for MSNBC, whose fave template pol is probably Bernie Sanders.) Fox News is drowned out by the end-to-end CNN + MSNBC politically correct shows, which include the confrontational Sunday interviews. Fox News is not considered mainstream by most politicians or journalists. They’re considered fringe, and laughable to boot. Ditto for the political-content comedy shows.

Look, we can argue this point all day long and won’t get anywhere. I have lived in several different parts of the country (though admittedly I now live in a very conservative area) and I know what I’ve seen. Of course there’s a lot of criticism (most of it justified, in my opinion) of Fox News, but that’s because they are such a serious thread to the “oldline” media establishment.

I don’t know what airports or waiting rooms you’ve been in in which MSNBC was on. I found out about it flipping through the channels and found Rachel Maddow’s intelligent abrasiveness somewhat interesting. I hear my left-wing academic friends from grad school talk about the channel on Facebook, and I see you and others on this forum hold it up as an example of the “liberal media” all the time. Otherwise I rarely hear it mentioned.

MSNBC is far more “fringe” than Fox News. CNN I’ll grant you is a serious rival.

But this conversation is not going anywhere.

Admittedly, I don’t spend a lot of time watching TV news. . . .

Edwin

 

[KSU]

Contarini, regarding your post in #196, it is once again obvious that you lack the information required to critique traditional Catholicism and American values, and therefor to debate their intersection.

Specifically, you brush aside the plain English words in Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary because those words embarrass and completely destroy your invincibly ignorant contentions that “There’s nothing at all in Leo XIII’s letter about social welfare”…; and that I “invented something which has absolutely no existence in Pope Leo’s letter whatsoever”–a condemnation of the Americanist application of social welfare and democratic equality whenever those things undermine humility and obedience to ecclesiastical authority.

Contarini, my friend, if you sincerely are seeking the truth you should research what good Pope Leo meant when he said, “It is known to you, beloved son, that the biography of Isaac Thomas Hecker, especially through the action of those who under took to translate or interpret it in a foreign language, has excited not a little controversy, on account of certain opinions brought forward concerning the way of leading Christian life…The underlying principle of these new opinions * is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind.”

I don’t see much practical difference between the Americanism condemned by Pope Leo and the Leftist/ Progressivism “religious” movement today. And as you know, that “Americanism” is opposed to what I and cmforte and probably Elizabeth502 mean by American exceptionalism, which BTW Pope Leo had no problem with in his condemnation letter: “From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some “Americanism.” But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name.”*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Chris,

I joined late and have been trying to catch up … I would appreciate a clarification on the statements you made in your first paragraph …

Well, the Bishops at least seem to think that by arresting and deporting them, by verifying a persons’s identity before they are hired to do a job (E-Verify), that by trying to secure the pourous parts of our border by putting up a wall, and by impounding an illegal’s car when they drive without a license and insurance (even my car was impounded once for that very reason, but I guess illegals should get special treatment), we are treating them “poorly”.

Is the document you are referring to: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm ?

As I understand the document:

Arresting and deporting illegal immigants is not a problem - but, the Bishops want a comprehensive policy that just does not enforcement as its only feature.

Verifying someone identity and nationality is not a problem - but, what else is going to be done?

Securing the border is also not a problem, in fact CCC 2241 is referenced as stating this is one of the responsibility of civil government.

But this is not where I have a problem … as I understand it the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 did what the USCCB wanted and while one can argue it was not comprehensive ENOUGH - it did grant amnesty to those illegal immigrants lliving in the US who entered before 1/1/82. (Yes, years before the drug cartels made Mexico a killing zone - but no one could see that comming in 1986.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986 As far as I can tell, the 1986 law is working - and this is not an enforcement law in isolation - but, among other things did grant amnesty. Yet there are those and apparently the USCCB is part of this group that is ignoring what has been done.

Anyone concerned about illegal immigration needs to find out about the 1986 law and acknowledge that the US has not ignored these illegals.

God bless

 

[KSU]

tqualey, the problem with the 1986 act was that President Reagan was snookered. The Democrats promised Reagan that if he allowed the act to become law (i.e., allow illegal aliens to become new Democrat voters, which he did) the Democrats would, in return, lock down the boarder.
How do you think that worked out?

 

[cmforte]

Hi, Chris,

I joined late and have been trying to catch up … I would appreciate a clarification on the statements you made in your first paragraph …

Is the document you are referring to: usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/churchteachingonimmigrationreform.cfm ?

As I understand the document:

Arresting and deporting illegal immigants is not a problem - but, the Bishops want a comprehensive policy that just does not enforcement as its only feature.

Verifying someone identity and nationality is not a problem - but, what else is going to be done?

]God bless

IWhy not verify someone’s identity now? Why wait? And what else needs to be done other than we get serious about enforcing our immigration laws and securing our borders?? Action Center

• “Enforcement-only immigration policies are not working.” -Since when have we actually tried to seriously enforce those policies and secure our borders?

“The problem is that unless E-Verify’s expansion is undertaken in the context of comprehensive immigration reform,…”-* In other words the Bisops will not support it unless amnesty is included.- *

“…it will hurt U.S. workers and our already weakened economy. Unless Congress legalizes unauthorized immigrants, mandatory E-Verify will begin with a handicap of 8 million unauthorized workers who will be driven further into the underground economy, hurting both the U.S. economy and workers by decreasing federal tax revenue by more than $17.3 billion over ten years, creating an unequal workplace, and lowering labor standards for all workers.”

If we actually enforced our laws and secured our borders, including forcing employers to use E-verify and penalize them when they knowingly hire illegals, this wouldn’t happen.

“…And, because of well-documented flaws in the Government databases upon which it relies, E-Verify does not detect over half of the undocumented workers entered in the system, yet results in false positives for hundreds of thousands of American workers.”

I want to see those documents that support this. And I am sure there is a way to positively identify yourself to an employer and fix the discrepencies about you in the system. If not, just add that to the law and system, but don’t throw out or “block” E-verify completely.

-Chris*

 

[cmforte]

Is the document you are referring to: usccb.org/issues-and-acti…tionreform.cfm ?

tqualey, thank you for your question and the link. Here is my point-by-point response to that document (put into two posts):

Catholic Social Teaching

**Persons have the right to immigrate… **

I don’t agree with this. No one has the “right” to go to another country. That country allows you to enter it, and on its terms.

…and thus government must accommodate this right to the greatest extent possible, especially financially blessed nations: "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.

The key words here are “to the extent they are able.” If some of you haven’t noticed, like most of the rest of the world, the USA is facing a financial crisis and is discussing cutting some spending, even spending on social welfare and so-called “entitlement” programs that help disadvantaged Americans, like Social Security, Medicare, and welfare programs. Not to mention cut-backs in other government services, like education. Americans, many of whom are now unemployed and many of them now newly homeless and poor, are going through such a hard time right now that I think we are not all that able to "welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin."

In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic Bishops released a pastoral letter on migration entitled, “Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope.” In their letter, the Bishops stressed that, “[w]hen persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.”

Where do Americans go when they can’t support their families and find employment? That statement doesn’t take into account changing economic circumstances, like the high unemployment rate in the US at the current time.

USCCB Position

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) opposes “enforcement only” immigration policies and supports comprehensive immigration reform. In Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope, the U.S. Catholic Bishops outlined the elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. These include:

Earned Legalization:

An earned legalization program would allow foreign nationals of good moral character who are living in the United States to apply to adjust their status to obtain lawful permanent residence. Such a program would create an eventual path to citizenship, requiring applicants to complete and pass background checks, pay a fine, and establish eligibility for resident status to participate in the program. Such a program would help stabilize the workforce, promote family unity, and bring a large population “out of the shadows,” as members of their communities.

This I may agree with, if nothing else because I know some illegals who are good people with “moral character”, despite the fact that they disrespected my country by violating its laws and borders, and because deporting tens of millions of people might be logistically impossible.

---

(continued in next post)

And God bless you too!

-Chris

 

[cmforte]

(continued):

---

B]Future Worker Program:

A worker program to permit foreign‐born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.

Another way to reduce the loss of life in the American desert is to have a border secure enough to stop people from entering the desert. As for the workplace protections and such, legal immigrants and citizens already have those. And I am still not convinced that we need more competition for jobs, even for-low-wage ones, from foreigners when so many Americans are out of work, and if those Americans won’t take those jobs, shame them into doing so!! Beggars can’t be choosers!!

Family‐based Immigration Reform:

It currently takes years for family members to be reunited through the family‐based legal immigration system. This leads to family breakdown and, in some cases, illegal immigration. Changes in family‐based immigration should be made to increase the number of family visas available and reduce family reunification waiting times.

With possibly tens of milllions of illegals in this country already, put together with thier typical large familes, I wonder how this would affect population growth in respect to available resources, both natural (like water) and man-made (like money-as in, how de we pay for the government services they will use?). Can American communities, especially smaller ones, absorb such a possibly over-night surge in population? Especially when most of that population is poor, uneducated, and illiterate and wll need social services like welfare (even if only temporarily) and crowd already over-extended public schools?

Restoration of Due Process Rights:

Due process rights taken away by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) should be restored. For example, the three and ten year bars to reentry should be eliminated.

Here I agree.

Addressing Root Causes:

Congress should examine the root causes of migration, such as under‐development and poverty in sending countries, and seek long‐term solutions. The antidote to the problem of illegal immigration is sustainable economic development in sending countries. In an ideal world, migration should be driven by choice, not necessity.

A noble idea, but really not our obligation and not our governmnet’s job. One of my big complaints of our government’s current policies is that we are “nation-building” other countries, while neglecting, on a large part, our own. For example: we just had a report about how out-dated and dangerous much of our own infrastructure now is:infrastructurereportcard.org/

Instead of government, let private individuals, charity groups, religious groups, philanthropers, large businesses/corporations who have hearts or just like good publicity, and NGOs help “develop” “under-developed” countries.

Enforcement:

The U.S. Catholic Bishops accept the legitimate role of the U.S. government in intercepting unauthorized migrants who attempt to travel to the United States. The Bishops also believe that by increasing lawful means for migrants to enter, live, and work in the United States, law enforcement will be better able to focus upon those who truly threaten public safety: drug and human traffickers, smugglers, and would‐be terrorists. Any enforcement measures must be targeted, proportional, and humane.

No disagreement here!!

-Chris