Immigration - Thank-You Cardinal O'Malley

[JanSobieskiIII]

If you’re fairly upscale, you might see the benefits immigrants might bring to the broader economy.

I’m kind of in between. My father was born dirt poor, with next to nothing. He’s made himself extremely wealthy by finding a niche market that he excelled in. When I was growing up, and up to now, I’ve never experienced any kind of financial hardship, but I grew up working on our farm that we had right next to Mexicans/Hispanics that we hired to help us bail hay. I have no idea as to their status.

I will say this, the Mexicans I worked with were great people, and out worked any of my spoiled white boy friends I brought down to help occasionally, and ran circles around me as well. I think they have a great work ethic, particularly the first generation ones.

That being said, the US still has a right to determine how and who gets admitted and government should set that up to the benefit of US citizens, not foreign aliens, first and foremost. With regards to DACA, if there is a deal to made it is absolutely imperative that it is negotiated in conjunction with a strong border enforcement, immigration process reform, and enforcement of whatever those laws are without fail, or not make the deal. To grant what is effectively another amnesty period without tying it to actually fixing the problem just kicks the can further down the road.

 

[Theo520]

If you’re fairly upscale, you might see the benefits immigrants might bring to the broader economy.

I completely understand why some employers hire illegals, they are often hard working and low maintenance, ideal employees if you have a spanish speaking shift manager.

I don’t resent the Illegals, I resent what it does to the job market. They crowd out entry level workers that are citizens. I’ll grant that some aren’t ideal employees and would need additional supervision and training. But we need to have a place for them in the job market instead of welfare.

Teens, especially in minorities need job opportunities where they can learn, and maybe even get motivated to go back to school.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Sorry - - wrong person.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Dude, again, the Potato famine was in 1847. Therefore those immigrants were not subject to laws put in place in 1882, nearly 40 years later.

Also, it has been shown that immigrants add more into their communities economically than they take, so the bolded part about “public charge” doesn’t really have anything to do with the current situation. The Mexicans and others coming here doing lawn work and other jobs are not any less skilled than the irish potato farmers were.

Dudette,
You are (were) the only one talking about the Irish potato famine and its effect on immigration to the US. The rest of us were talking about a longer period of immigration history.

 

[pnewton]

There is a strong conservative bias here. I think most of those who are more liberal know better than to quote opinion pieces and research from HuffPo, and even MSNBC. I am even hesitant to use more moderate sources like CNN and the major networks. But conservatives not only are quick to use FOX, a pretty good source, the post all sorts of conservative blogs, both opinions and research that was conducted to prove a point and thus is not real science.

 

[pnewton]

Why are American bishops always so left wing? It’s a joke.

The are not. They are Catholic. Nothing they say is not grounded in the teaching of Jesus. It is up to those who claim to follow Jesus to choose whom they will serve. Whether the God who became the poor, who became an immigrant, who died by execution, or the god of money, pride, and politics.

God is not a Republican nor a conservative.

It’s basic economics. If you increase the supply of labour, the wage rate goes down. Simple supply and demand.

When one goes past the first month of Eco 101, one finds that this is not the only economic principle in the world. More abundant labor, and cheaper labor, increases capital investment and thus the number of jobs at the same time. So the net impact may be higher or lower wages, but will almost always mean greater production. Our GNP has risen constantly since immigration has started to increase in the 1970’s, as has the standard of living.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

who became an immigrant

I keep seeing this trotted out. When did Jesus immigrate anywhere?

I’ll grant refugee status when the Holy Family fled to Egypt, but the key difference is they left a few years later when the danger had passed. They didn’t migrate to Egypt and set up a new life with no intention of ever returning to Judea.

On top of that, Egypt was a Roman province just like Judea. Now, I don’t know what if any rules there were regarding the movement of non Roman citizens within the various provinces in the empire were, if someone has that information I’d like to read it.

 

[pnewton]

I’ll grant refugee status when the Holy Family fled to Egypt, but the key difference is they left a few years later when the danger had passed. They didn’t migrate to Egypt and set up a new life with no intention of ever returning to Judea.

You are right. There is no exact correlation. That would be impossible. Also, as a little child, Jesus was not all that aware of what was happening, so he would not understand what it was like to be a stranger in a strange country, unless of course he is also God.

I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not [e]take care of You?’ Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’

Do you note what all of these have in common? There are not rich, famous or powerful positions here. Even if he did not possess and intimate understanding of the plight of the refugee, or migrant, in Egypt, he does possess intimacy with the migrant, along with the poor and the oppressed, today.

The point is, Jesus, as a man, sure hit a lot of liberal talking points with his life and his teaching. How could it not be that today, at least on some topics of social justice we would receive teaching from the bishops here that seem liberal?

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The point is, Jesus, as a man, sure hit a lot of liberal talking points with his life and his teaching. How could it not be that today, at least on some topics of social justice we would receive teaching from the bishops here that seem liberal?

I don’t dispute that, and I’ve never said the bishops positions were wrong from a theological or moral standing. I’ve only stressed that doesn’t include allowing people to flaunt our laws with impunity. I’m not even completely opposed to a DACA deal, as long as it’s coupled with tightened border security and a prohibition against future amnesty for people that willingly break the law.

I’d even be for granting an open door policy for women and children under the age 14 to come here at will and apply for immediate citizenship.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve only stressed that doesn’t include allowing people to flaunt our laws with impunity.

Render unto Caesar. Jesus was also a law and order Conservative, as is the Church in most moral issues. Paul brought this out especially in instructing the early Church in the way they should interact with their Roman rulers. Immigration will always be an area that the compassion of Christ will cast the Church in a liberal light.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

It’s basic economics. If you increase the supply of labour, the wage rate goes down. Simple supply and demand.
When one goes past the first month of Eco 101, one finds that this is not the only economic principle in the world. More abundant labor, and cheaper labor, increases capital investment and thus the number of jobs at the same time. So the net impact may be higher or lower wages, but will almost always mean greater production. Our GNP has risen constantly since immigration has started to increase in the 1970’s, as has the standard of living.

From CIS The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States
Testimony Prepared for the Senate Joint Economic Committee
By Steven A. Camarota
on May 17, 2013

“When considering the economics of immigration, there are
three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. First,
immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. **However, by itself a
larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the
immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating
that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of
natives.
Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus
the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that
less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and
more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.
Third, there is immigration’s effect on the wages and employment
opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts
that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it
redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to
workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also
predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size
of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least
educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition
with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.
Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an
extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since
the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the
working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly
two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a
disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even
though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age
population.”
This would be Obama-era, right?

https://cis.org/Testimony/Fiscal-and-Economic-Impact-Immigration-United-States

 

[joemel]

I agree I don’t think a large amount of seminary students were originating from the listed travel ban countries, there are some, but then again look at their situations. Wouldn’t it benefit the seminaries if immigration policies better assisted those seeking citizenship? I don’t know how you know Father Pineda’s case so well, but apparently, it’s not going so easily for him or his parishioners. Maybe it’s not so simple after all. Blanket legislation, in my opinion, is the not going to help. It needs to be broken down, reevaluated and re-negotiated. Mutual efforts between countries is going to have to be exercised. The DREAMER program isn’t a piece of cake and there are no other programs readily available to alleviate the situation. It is a plagued and bogged down system. Go figure – It’s the government! The answer,--------? Will have to be (re)discovered and pieced together.
CCC 2209: The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family’s prerogatives or interfere in its life.
CCC 2241: 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.
I’m advocating guidance through the church and not through our own selves.

 

[pnewton]

CIS.org

That is a great study. Notice how the data does not match the predictions that economics would suggest? This is the problem with simplistic view of economics. Even the experts are only expert in the theoretical. Obviously one economic principle, as presented above would have even less validity in the real world, especially with labor. Labor depends on not only economics, but also intangibles, like pride, skill, and work ethic.

The same study could also support the claim that immigrants do the jobs citizens feel are beneath them, though that too is overly simplistic.

I have always been a little baffled why economic conservatives are opposed to immigration. I have to think it an example of how intangible human motives drive the economy as much as math. I predict that if we deport half of those here illegally we will be in a recession, maybe the worst in a century within a decade. America is not longer the great producer of stuff we once were. I am more surprised this is happening even without ten plagues.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I have always been a little baffled why economic conservatives are opposed to immigration. I have to think it an example of how intangible human motives drive the economy as much as math. I predict that if we deport half of those here illegally we will be in a recession, maybe the worst in a century within a decade. America is not longer the great producer of stuff we once were. I am more surprised this is happening even without ten plagues.

When you “immigration”, do you mean “illegal immigration”?

 

[Theo520]

No, I don’t think we should use immigration to fill seminaries. In line with subsidiarity, the problem is localized, we need to focus on getting members of the local/national community to enter seminar. Importing priests is at best a stop gap measure but not a solution.

The article was written to present a bias, but the facts were clear. The Father has legal right to temporary residency through the DACA program. People in the program always had an uncertain future, no guarantees. DACA just allowed them to work ‘above the table’ for a defined period. I respect Trump’s approach, he supports DACA and asked Congress to make it a legal program rather than an illegal program (Obama didn’t have the authority).

Re CCC2209 - So how is it that Mexican families and their supporting organization (local parishes of Catholic Church), how is it that they can’t fulfill their responsibilities?

Mexico may be poorer than the US but they have a fully functional infrastructure and economy. They have education, hospitals, sufficient food. I’d even wager Catholics there express a stronger faith than most US parishes.

Mexico isn’t experiencing a drought or any other crisis. We did give them outside support during the recent earthquake, and frankly any past crisis. That is in line with Church expectations.

Re CCC 2241: This relates directly to our refugee programs. Our requirements along with the UN requirements for refugee status are in line with Catholic Doctrine. However, simply wanting to earn more money does not and should not qualify you for refugee status. I’ll repeat, the simple desire to earn a bigger salary is not sufficient justification to give one legal immigration, it’s completely unsupportable for the target country, and it is not supported in the CCC.

As noted, our refugee program is in line with Catholic doctrine. I think if we were better at controlling illegal economic migrants, we would do better/more at helping actual refugees.

My above question was both sincere and fundamental - how is it that Mexican families and their communities cannot fulfill their responsibilities? I need an answer to that before I can consider becoming the benefactor of their children.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

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.
I’m advocating guidance through the church and not through our own selves.

Why would the church determine the amount of immigrants that the US can handle? What about guidance through our own government? Our own government sets the amount of immigration that it thinks our country can handle.
“U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to
how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of
law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual
worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions
for close family members.”

How the United States Immigration System Works | American Immigration Council

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The claim is statistical in nature. You cannot counter it with a few individual personal experiences.

You made a claim that “studies show…”. I made a counter claim: “other studies show the opposite”.

But the studies you cited do not show the opposite of what I claimed. They show something about the opinion of employers. The connection between that and an actual effect on job prospects for US citizens is only a supposition not supported by any data.

 

[joemel]

No, we should’t use immigration as a tool to fill the seminaries, that would be wrong. Improved immigration policies would better enable people to enter the seminary. We need to focus on encouraging and enabling as many people as we can to enter the seminary, regardless of where they are from or where they live. As far as Father Pineda, earlier you stated that he could apply for another program just like all the other dreamers and remain in the US as a priest because it is so easy for the church, just look at the African priests for example. But here you say his rights were temporary and he knew that and now he must willingly depart. So, which is it; stay or go? Needless to say, I believe he should stay along with many others. However, the lack of clarity is just one problem with the immigration process, not to mention the lack of morality and numerous other flaws. If Trump supported the DACA program, then it wouldn’t be such an issue.(It all depends when you ask him or what he says he didn’t say).
How is it that Mexico can’t fulfill their responsibilities … turn on the 6:00 news. In reference to your comments regarding the CCC quotes, I would advise you to delve deeper into what the church teaches

 

[pnewton]

When you “immigration”, do you mean “illegal immigration”?

No, I meant all. I would prefer to have no illegal immigration by allowing those that are not illegally here to legalize their status. However, when I say opposed to immigration, I mean immigration as it exists now, both legal and illegal. I know that no one is opposed to limited immigration of desirable folks, like say, Norwegians.

Why would the church determine the amount of immigrants that the US can handle? What about guidance through our own government? Our own government sets the amount of immigration that it thinks our country can handle.

"U.S. immigration law is very complex, and there is much confusion as to

how it works. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of

law governing current immigration policy, provides for an annual

worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions

for close family members."

That’s the question, isn’t it. I would argue that if we can, as a society handle a certain number of illegal immigrants, we could better handle that same number of legal immigrants, with the ability to tax and track them.

 

[Theo520]

Please don’t turn my comments flippant. I said the Church was capable, they had a history of of getting immigration visas for Priests. I never said it was easy peasy.

I also said that since he was in the DACA program, this had likely not been pursued, no immediate need. If the DACA program isn’t renewed, the Church can sponsor him as an employee, just as with Priests brought from Africa. I expect many DACA dreamers are checking whether their employer might sponsor them, just in case.

You are not making sense with your below comment, the two are not mutually exclusive

As far as Father Pineda, earlier you stated that he could apply for another program just like all the other dreamers and remain in the US as a priest because it is so easy for the church, just look at the African priests for example. But here you say his rights were temporary and he knew that and now he must willingly depart. So, which is it; stay or go?

Both things I said can be true:

• the Church is experienced in obtaining visas for Priests
• Since he had a DACA visa, he knew of it’s temp nature with regular renewal, but not guaranteed renewal.