O’Malley leads bishops on border visit

[chero23]

Bush was no great hero with regard to illegal immigration, but the Obama administration is telling an outright lie with their deportation numbers. They are counting people who are turned back at the border as people they have deported.

Here is an article that explains how Obama cooks the books on the deportation issue:

nationalreview.com/article/346043/cooking-books-deportation-stats

An excerpt:

… contrary to the (Obama) administration’s claims, the number of illegal-immigrant removals has dropped 40 percent since June 2011, when ICE director John Morton issued the first of several directives outlining significant changes to the agency’s enforcement policies. “There has been a significant decline in enforcement activity as measured by the number of removals,” Vaughan says.

Deportations specifically of illegal immigrants convicted of a crime — individuals the administration says it has prioritized for removal — are similarly down, almost 40 percent since June 2011, Vaughan found. And that decline has occurred despite a significant increase in the number of illegal immigrants referred to ICE after being arrested for crimes. “There are certainly enough illegal aliens out there, especially enough criminal illegal aliens, that their numbers should be going up, not down,” Vaughan says. “So they appear to be giving a lot of free passes to people who are a public-safety problem, beyond the fact that they are here illegally.’

If you could read Spanish I could you send you information that contradicts this, and with more accurate information.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

If you could read Spanish I could you send you information that contradicts this, and with more accurate information.

I don’t read Spanish and I trust the accuracy and truth of this article. Obama’s fudging of his deportation numbers is well-documented by many sources.

One just has to address all the lies Obama has told regarding Benghazi, the IRS scandal, Obamacare, etc., to realize that he has a problem with the truth. He has applied that problem to his record on deportation.

Our current president is a very dishonest person. This fact is also well-documented.

 

[J_Peterson]

Actually, they are illegal aliens. They are alien to this country and they have come here, and stay here, illegally, meaning that the very second they step foot on our ground without permission, they have broken our laws.

It’s not even a criminal offense. Sure they are here illegally but it doesn’t make the person illegal, only their status. I’ve broken laws before but nobody referred to me as an illegal person. It’s equating the person with the offense/legal status.

With regards to Obama, it’s my understanding that he gave local police the power to act as immigration officers. He’s not soft on immigration in my opinion.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

It’s not even a criminal offense. Sure they are here illegally but it doesn’t make the person illegal, only their status. I’ve broken laws before but nobody referred to me as an illegal person. It’s equating the person with the offense/legal status.

With regards to Obama, it’s my understanding that he gave local police the power to act as immigration officers. He’s not soft on immigration in my opinion.

More accurately, illegal aliens could be referred to as criminals, seeing as though they broke our laws when they stepped foot on our ground. When discussing the status of these people, with regard to their legal status or not, it is quite appropriate to refer to them as illegal aliens.

Terms like “undocumented workers” and just plain old “immigrants” do not accurately describe their status and presume a right to break our laws to come here.

Not only are local police not allowed to enforce immigration laws, Obama prevents states from enforcing immigration laws. Immigration is a federal issue.

In the cases where local authorities actually do identify illegal aliens, the Obama’s Federal Government does not enforce the law:

blog.heritage.org/2014/03/04/federal-government-refuses-enforce-immigration-law-southwest-border/

An excerpt:

The Arizona Daily Star reports that less than half the people picked up by an Arizona Department of Public Safety officer and suspected to be in the country illegally are taken into custody by federal immigration officials or jailed. Despite the best efforts of state and local law enforcement officials to enforce U.S. immigration laws, the federal government is ultimately in charge, and it has little interest in enforcing the law.

 

[carpenter383]

There is also the problem of illegals coming over here and voting. Many states have no requirements for voter ID which means we get NON citizens making choices in OUR politics.
Since most illegals are poor they have a very hard time weighing morality with free food, housing, healthcare, education, cell phones etc. I heard recently that NY is thinking about giving illegals a drivers license!
As we know the majority of them cave in to selfishness and give their support to the santa clause party, even though they know deep down that all this free stuff does not come free to the hardworking citizens who are paying large percentages of their income in taxes.
They don’t have to worry about taxes (besides sales tax) and they have no SSN or ID so if they commit a crime they just relocate and make up a new name (many of them get caught though since they are almost 30% of our prison population)

 

[Ender]

So all the media wants immigration reform? Sorry to burst your bubble but theirs a lot of tv stations and newspapers that are oppose to this.

The nature of a generalization is that it is generally correct, not that it is correct in every instance. To say that men are taller than women means only that the average man is taller than the average woman and the existence of 6’9" women basketball players does not change that. It is equally accurate to claim that “the media supports X” even if it is unlikely that it is supported by Fox or the Washington Times.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Thank you good answer, we cannot be hypocrites, and only be fans of our bishops when they support “Our” point of View.

As we should not be hypocrites neither should we be uncharitable. You had no justification for suggesting that I support the bishops only when their positions line up with my own. In fact had you read more carefully you would have seen that I provided very clear criteria with which to judge whether a bishop’s action was appropriate (in my view). You might disagree with the criteria but there is nothing in my comment to support your insinuation.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

The Boston prelate said he regards the defense of immigrants as a priority for the Catholic church tantamount to its fight against abortion.

If this quote is accurate it makes me want to ask if we are back to the seamless garment again in which non-negotiable moral arguments are conflated with public policy.

 

[chero23]

As we should not be hypocrites neither should we be uncharitable. You had no justification for suggesting that I support the bishops only when their positions line up with my own. In fact had you read more carefully you would have seen that I provided very clear criteria with which to judge whether a bishop’s action was appropriate (in my view). You might disagree with the criteria but there is nothing in my comment to support your insinuation.

Ender

Use your own logic against yourself. You said that you gave your opinion based on your taught. Can’t these men, (the Bishops) do the same?)

 

[Ender]

If this quote is accurate it makes me want to ask if we are back to the seamless garment again in which non-negotiable moral arguments are conflated with public policy.

I would agree with you except I would have said it is public policies which are being conflated with non-negotiable moral principles.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Use your own logic against yourself. You said that you gave your opinion based on your taught. Can’t these men, (the Bishops) do the same?)

I did not suggest the bishops were being hypocritical; I’m suggesting they have made an error of judgment. When I take a position on a political issue no one mistakes it for church teaching, but when the bishops support specific policies a great many people assume they speak for the church, which is assuredly not the case.

Ender

 

[pianistclare]

In an earlier response to you, I wrote this:

"I once read that the second largest revenue source for Mexico, at the sum of 30-billion dollars a year, is money sent back to Mexico from Mexicans, probably both legal and illegal aliens, living and working in America.

I would have to confirm if that is still the case, but I imagine that it is still accurate."

Just to make clear that I never said that all illegals or only illegals send money home.

I truly pray that your husband can find work soon. I am also searching for employment, and for a long time, now. I quit my job of 15±years a few years ago and went back to college. I earned a BA in English and I cannot find an appropriate job anywhere.

I truly know how it feels to feel somewhat hopeless about finding work these days.

Thanks for your kind words. I will include you in the Novena I’m praying at present :Our Lady Undoer of Knots…I pray that you find a job where you may thrive and be able to secure a comfortable income very soon. God bless you,
Clare

 

[pianistclare]

I’m puzzled. Why do you want illegal immigrants to have a better chance than your husband has?

I expect compassion, that’s all. My husband would be in the same position had he not spent all of his substantial savings support our family while trying to do the right thing.
Many do not have the resources and others, exploit these people. I feel like he was exploited by a law firm as well. It’s the difficulty of paperwork, sponsorships, and the fees that need attention. If these things were equitable…I think most immigrants would MUCH rather fall under the category if LEGAL.

Also, it bears mentioning, that I am a DRE in a parish. I deal will families with immigration problems all the time. I am preparing a girl for her First Holy Communion at present, who was deported separately from her entire family to Honduras. It took them several years to get her back with them. She came as a newborn in arms. No one told the family what was required for her. They all have papers. One day, when 8 years old, she is put on a plane.
Now, at 14, she’s back. We are having her First Communion. I feel for these people.
I can’t simply write them off because it’s hard for the American public to justify, understand, or approve of the immigrant’s plight. I still have to minister to her as a child of God. Immigrants have souls too.
I believe that is what the Cardinal is trying to do as well. Jesus looked beyond the label of the people he encountered. On the last day, I don’t want the Lord to say I was unkind or unfeeling. It’s just me. I understand that many people have a huge problem with immigration and immigrants. I mean no disrespect to others who have a very different approach.
Peace.
Clare

 

[pnewton]

The very way you describe the situation highlights the problem: the Catholic Church has no position whatever on building a fence or removing it, on amnesty versus deportation, etc. and the positions taken by the bishops are their own, not those of the church. This is precisely what I object to.

I do not understand. You object to a bishop having his own opinion?

If you read the article, there is no mention of amnesty or removing the border fence. What you will find is praying for the 6000 who died there crossing the border and care for the suffering, you know, Jesus stuff.

 

[pnewton]

I beg to differ that its this president. George W. had a big fight with his party remember when he was president over immigration reform.

The last two pro-immigration reform presidents were both Republican and defied their own party. I never understand why this is seen as a partisan issue. Republicans are very split on this.

 

[pnewton]

More accurately, illegal aliens could be referred to as criminals, seeing as though they broke our laws when they stepped foot on our ground. When discussing the status of these people, with regard to their legal status or not, it is quite appropriate to refer to them as illegal aliens.

Terms like “undocumented workers” and just plain old “immigrants” do not accurately describe their status and presume a right to break our laws to come here…

Would you object to the equally accurate description of the unemployed being called unproductive Americans?

Yes, they broke the law. Have you never, even speeding or rolling through a stop sign? Then you are an illegal citizen, by the same logic. Yes illegal alien or immigrant is accurate. The better question is whether it is charitable and, in the above circumstances, if you would accept reciprocity, as per the Golden Rule.

 

[Jersey_Jeepster]

Would you object to the equally accurate description of the unemployed being called unproductive Americans?

Yes, they broke the law. Have you never, even speeding or rolling through a stop sign? Then you are an illegal citizen, by the same logic. Yes illegal alien or immigrant is accurate. The better question is whether it is charitable and, in the above circumstances, if you would accept reciprocity, as per the Golden Rule.

You misunderstand my point. “Illegal alien” is a reference to their status in terms of how they got here. You’re example of an “illegal citizen” is poor wording, quite frankly. An “illegal citizen” would apply to illegal aliens, you know, someone posing as a citizen who is not one. A better example would be if I robbed a bank I would be called a robber, or thief.

As far as charity is concerned, I confess to struggling with charity on this issue because of a lack of fairness in giving these people amnesty, disingenuous politicians who accuse anyone who wants the sovereignty of America protected as lacking compassion, and the detriment to our economy and employment/wage prospects that will be driven down.

I recently had a very difficult time renewing my license because my documentation was inconsistent. In NJ we have a 6-point ID system where things like credit card statements and social security cards and utility bills can be used as ID. Some of the documentation I brought includes my middle initial and some do not. They refused to renew my license of 35-years because of this, even though one 4-point document was the picture license that was being renewed and had passed the 6-point process previously.

I almost could not renew my license. I literally had to contact companies and ask them to issue me a bill with my middle initial included. Then I had to bring my diploma in its frame as an ID piece.

But NJ wants to give illegal aliens licenses and let them stay here and work here, illegally, without any documentation whatsoever.

Yes, sometimes I lack charity with the illegal alien problem.

 

[pnewton]

You misunderstand my point. “Illegal alien” is a reference to their status in terms of how they got here. You’re example of an “illegal citizen” is poor wording, quite frankly. An “illegal citizen” would apply to illegal aliens, you know, someone posing as a citizen who is not one. A better example would be if I robbed a bank I would be called a robber, or thief…

Those words are surely in more common use, to be sure. I used traffic violations because that is legally on par with illegally entering this country. We too often make it seem like a criminal act, when it is only an illegal act.

 

[GraceSofia]

Lets be careful of the terms we use. The person is not illegal, their status in this country is. Calling them “illegals” or “illegal immigrants” reduces the person to their legal status.

No, it doesn’t do that at all. It’s silly to have to resort to “people who immigrated illegally” when there is nothing wrong with the term “illegal immigrants.” We use the term “ticket-holder” instead of saying “people who hold tickets” and we use the term “sex offender” rather than some other convoluted phrase.

It’s not even a criminal offense. Sure they are here illegally but it doesn’t make the person illegal, only their status. I’ve broken laws before but nobody referred to me as an illegal person. It’s equating the person with the offense/legal status.

That’s right, but they may have called you a speeder, or a reckless driver, or a tax avoider, or who knows what.

And nobody is calling them “illegal persons.” They are called “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens.” Hmmm… maybe we should not use the term “drunk driver” because it reduces the person to a drunk… er, maybe it does not.

Euphemisms serve only to obfuscate, and that is the main reason for shaming people into not using the term “illegal immigrant,” so far as I can see. It is is to enable people to support illegal immigration without being seen to support law-breaking.

 

[Tigg]

Those words are surely in more common use, to be sure. I used traffic violations because that is legally on par with illegally entering this country. We too often make it seem like a criminal act, when it is only an illegal act.

or…an immoral one depending upon ones formation of conscience.