Re S. 1348 Immigration Bill, from the USCCB

[meeshy]

Justice for Immigrants ACTION ALERT

On Thursday, June 7, the U.S. Senate failed to invoke cloture (close off debate) on S. 1348, the Senate compromise immigration reform bill, 45-50 (with 60 votes needed to achieve cloture). The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) asked Senators to vote NO on cloture. The Committee on Migration of the USCCB decided to take this position because on the night previous, Senators adopted an amendment to weaken the legalization program by removing confidentiality provisions and defeated an amendment which improved family reunification in the bill.

The removal of the confidentiality protection in the Z-visa legalization program means that applicants for the program are at risk of deportation if their application is denied, for whatever reason. The confidentiality protection ensures that an applicant to the program cannot be deported because of information given in their application regarding their immigration status. The Committee on Migration views this protection as essential to a workable program, because otherwise eligible participants will not come forward.

Another amendment, offered by Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), would have moved the backlog reduction date on family reunification up to January 1. 2007. This amendment was blocked by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) on a budget point of order and Senator Kyl offered another amendment which, in the view of the USCCB, harms certain families.

For those Senators who opposed cloture, consistent with the USCCB position, it is important to note that USCCB still supports the bill moving forward, provided that the confidentiality provisions and family reunification areas are improved.

It is our view that the bill will come back to the Senate floor before July 4th and that we will have the opportunity to fix these two amendments.

Please contact your Senators today and even everyday now with the following message: Dear Senator, I ask you to return to consideration of S. 1348, the Senate immigration reform bill, and restore confidentiality in the legalization program as well as family reunification.

You may call your Senators local or national office, or call the general number and ask for your senators office 202-224-3121.

Or you may send a message through our website at: www.justiceforimmigrants.org/action.html

Thank you,
The Justice for Immigrants Campaign

 

[Verisimilitude]

The removal of the confidentiality protection in the Z-visa legalization program means that applicants for the program are at risk of deportation if their application is denied, for whatever reason.

If someone is denied the proposed Z-visa, what do you suggest be done?

The confidentiality protection ensures that an applicant to the program cannot be deported because of information given in their application regarding their immigration status. The Committee on Migration views this protection as essential to a workable program, because otherwise eligible participants will not come forward.

What kind of information do you think could be used agaisnt someone they might put on the application to remain, or come into the US that shouldn’t be used to determine eligibility?

Can you think of any reason someone should be denied?

 

[meeshy]

If someone is denied the proposed Z-visa, what do you suggest be done?

What kind of information do you think could be used agaisnt someone they might put on the application to remain, or come into the US that shouldn’t be used to determine eligibility?

Can you think of any reason someone should be denied?

Veri, we do know that the INS can be overly aggresive (as I recently documented in my post about the visiting priest from India being investigated story here). I know this also from personal experience; a friend from Argentina who was denied a travel visa due to “profiling.”

I’m sure countless others applicants could give examples of being denied or harrassed, for no good reason.

It comes down, once again, to the powerful versus the powerless. It’s the powerful and out of control INS (properly known as USCIS) versus the little guy, the immigrant hopeful who in most cases probably does not have counsel.

Maybe what the law-makers are trying to acheive is a mass deportation, based on bogus denial of Z visa applications. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

Peace,

 

[Verisimilitude]

Veri, we do know that the INS can be overly aggresive (as I recently documented in my post about the visiting priest from India being investigated story here). I know this also from personal experience; a friend from Argentina who was denied a travel visa due to “profiling.”

Obviously what is agressive is debateable- but we need not get into that again do we?

I’m sure countless others applicants could give examples of being denied or harrassed, for no good reason.

What % do you think that is? There are arguably more illegal immigrants than legal immigrants in teh country today.

It comes down, once again, to the powerful versus the powerless. It’s the powerful and out of control INS (properly known as USCIS) versus the little guy, the immigrant hopeful who in most cases probably does not have counsel.

If you answered my questions above maybe we could have moved beyond this tiresome point.

Maybe what the law-makers are trying to acheive is a mass deportation, based on bogus denial of Z visa applications. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

Peace,

Conjecture is not proof.

Peace to you as well.

 

[meeshy]

I do not know what percentage of people applying for visas are rejected for no good reason. I’m not sure how you would go about getting the information, other than sources which are written by the immigrants (you might not like those sources.)

Yes, the deportation theory is conjecture on my part. But without counsel, applicants are subject to the USCIS and the USCIS only.

Even the IRS has advocacy groups to help the taxpayers. The USCIS will have to form such a group in order to be really fair. Rejected applicants should have rights. As it stands now, I don’t believe applicants’ rights are ever considered unless they have counsel.

Correct me if I am wrong, please. I know you will!

Peace,

 

[Amolibri]

Meeshy:
I’d like to post the last 2 paragraphs of Fr. Andrew Greeley’s piece on Immigration. It’s simple, and certainly I agree with his philosophy on this subject.
Thanks,
Lena

What do these people fear? What terrible threat to their well-being do these poor peons represent? Hordes of infidel invaders perhaps – just as my ancestors frightened the good citizens of Boston?

Are not the immigrants themselves guilty of sin for entering a country that does not want them? The moral theology I learned said that someone who was desperate for food could steal from the rich without sinning. Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne told his people in 1945 when they were starving that it was not wrong to steal from the British occupiers. With all the abundance north of the border and all the poverty south of the border, I doubt very much that a generous God would find anything more than bravery in the souls of those who strive to improve the lives of their families.

agreeley.com/articles/060107.html

 

[meeshy]

Thanks, Amolibri. I like what that priest says so much that I’m copying the entire essay here:

"Bigotry never goes away. When it becomes unfashionable, it goes underground and waits until a new hate group appears into which it can project its twisted sickness. Racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and anti-immigrant nativism are chronic infections in the American body politic. Rush Limbaugh singing the obscene tune ‘‘Barack the Magic Negro’’ is inviting prejudice and violence. However, for pure irrational rage, the current crop of nativists are some of the worst to come along since the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s or those God-fearing Protestants who burned convents in Boston in the 19th century.

     I wonder why the right-thinking people, the establishment columnists and editorial writers and commentators and religious leaders and anchor persons remain silent in the face of this bigotry.

  The poll reports last week, especially the one done by the New York Times and CBS, leave little doubt that large majorities of Americans approve of the immigrant reform bill pending in the Senate. These data send the nativists into paroxysms of rage. However, their rage is so violent that senators and members of Congress may well be frightened away from the legislation. How many American clergy, I wonder, are willing to denounce such rage from the altar as seriously sinful. If hating African Americans was a sin 40 years ago (and it was and still is), then hating ''illegals'' is a sin today.

        The hate mail I receive because of my opposition to the war is mild in comparison to the hate mail on immigration. One woman, a self-professed ''devout Catholic,'' says it's a shame that some of the immigrants die trying to enter America. But, she tells me, it's their own fault because they have broken the laws of the United States. So death is an appropriate punishment for what is legally only a misdemeanor? I judge no person's conscience; I leave that task to God. But in the objective order of right and wrong, that thought is surely a very grave sin.

        I am told by another correspondent that when the ''illegals'' march in protests, they wave the Mexican flag, which shows where their loyalty is. Yet, every other American ethnic group waves the flag of its origins -- Poland, Greece, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark. Why deny that custom only to one group?

         Another hate mail affirms the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong only to American citizens. To exclude some men and women from those basic rights is to deny their fundamental humanity, which is how Hitler started against Jews and Gypsies and the handicapped. Am I saying that hatred for immigrants is a Nazi attitude? You bet!

         What do these people fear? What terrible threat to their well-being do these poor peons represent? Hordes of infidel invaders perhaps -- just as my ancestors frightened the good citizens of Boston?

         Are not the immigrants themselves guilty of sin for entering a country that does not want them? The moral theology I learned said that someone who was desperate for food could steal from the rich without sinning. Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne told his people in 1945 when they were starving that it was not wrong to steal from the British occupiers. With all the abundance north of the border and all the poverty south of the border, I doubt very much that a generous God would find anything more than bravery in the souls of those who strive to improve the lives of their families. "

Peace,

 

[Amolibri]

Thank you, Meeshy! It is worth reading.
God bless you.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Thanks, Amolibri. I like what that priest says so much that I’m copying the entire essay here:

"Bigotry never goes away. When it becomes unfashionable, it goes underground and waits until a new hate group appears into which it can project its twisted sickness. Racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and anti-immigrant nativism are chronic infections in the American body politic. Rush Limbaugh singing the obscene tune ‘‘Barack the Magic Negro’’ is inviting prejudice and violence. However, for pure irrational rage, the current crop of nativists are some of the worst to come along since the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s or those God-fearing Protestants who burned convents in Boston in the 19th century.

     I wonder why the right-thinking people, the establishment columnists and editorial writers and commentators and religious leaders and anchor persons remain silent in the face of this bigotry.

  The poll reports last week, especially the one done by the New York Times and CBS, leave little doubt that large majorities of Americans approve of the immigrant reform bill pending in the Senate. These data send the nativists into paroxysms of rage. However, their rage is so violent that senators and members of Congress may well be frightened away from the legislation. How many American clergy, I wonder, are willing to denounce such rage from the altar as seriously sinful. If hating African Americans was a sin 40 years ago (and it was and still is), then hating ''illegals'' is a sin today.

        The hate mail I receive because of my opposition to the war is mild in comparison to the hate mail on immigration. One woman, a self-professed ''devout Catholic,'' says it's a shame that some of the immigrants die trying to enter America. But, she tells me, it's their own fault because they have broken the laws of the United States. So death is an appropriate punishment for what is legally only a misdemeanor? I judge no person's conscience; I leave that task to God. But in the objective order of right and wrong, that thought is surely a very grave sin.

        I am told by another correspondent that when the ''illegals'' march in protests, they wave the Mexican flag, which shows where their loyalty is. Yet, every other American ethnic group waves the flag of its origins -- Poland, Greece, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark. Why deny that custom only to one group?

         Another hate mail affirms the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong only to American citizens. To exclude some men and women from those basic rights is to deny their fundamental humanity, which is how Hitler started against Jews and Gypsies and the handicapped. Am I saying that hatred for immigrants is a Nazi attitude? You bet!

         What do these people fear? What terrible threat to their well-being do these poor peons represent? Hordes of infidel invaders perhaps -- just as my ancestors frightened the good citizens of Boston?

         Are not the immigrants themselves guilty of sin for entering a country that does not want them? The moral theology I learned said that someone who was desperate for food could steal from the rich without sinning. Cardinal Josef Frings of Cologne told his people in 1945 when they were starving that it was not wrong to steal from the British occupiers. With all the abundance north of the border and all the poverty south of the border, I doubt very much that a generous God would find anything more than bravery in the souls of those who strive to improve the lives of their families. "

Peace,

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Amen!

 

[Verisimilitude]

Thanks, Amolibri. I like what that priest says so much that I’m copying the entire essay here:

Are you all serious? You really equate poor Mexicans looking for work in the US, and the treatment of those illegal immigrants by the US with Nazism treatment of Jews in WW2, and the KKK treatment of blacks before 1960?

Nativist is now newspeak for racist bigot.

 

[meeshy]

Are you all serious? You really equate poor Mexicans looking for work in the US, and the treatment of those illegal immigrants by the US with Nazism treatment of Jews in WW2, and the KKK treatment of blacks before 1960?

No, Veri, you’re not reading correctly, once again. The priest said “for pure irrational rage, the current crop of nativists are some of the worst to come along since the Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s” and “If hating African Americans was a sin 40 years ago…then hating illegals is a sin today” and “Am I saying that hatred for immigrants is a Nazi attitude? You bet!”

These statements are not equal to what you said.

Please read properly.

Peace,

 

[Verisimilitude]

No, Veri, you’re not reading correctly, once again…These statements are not equal to what you said.

Please read properly.

Peace,

I read correctly. The priest suggests that anyone who objects to his liberal view of open borders, and legitimate migration control is full of pure irrational rage/hate and are equal to the KKK and Nazi mindset. He suggests US Senators and Congressmen are being bullied by a vocal, hatefull minority from “doing the right thing” and passing what many feel is a badly proposed law.

The priest is obviously judging peoples conscience though he denies it.

Why deny that custom only to one group?

Because the other groups are legal residents.

Another hate mail affirms the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness belong only to American citizens. To exclude some men and women from those basic rights is to deny their fundamental humanity, which is how Hitler started against Jews and Gypsies and the handicapped. Am I saying that hatred for immigrants is a Nazi attitude? You bet!

This is about as dumb a statement I have every heard. America spends a great deal of national treasure to bring those rights to billions around the world. To suggest the failure of foreign governments, like Mexico in providing those rights to it’s citizens becomes the responsibility of the US is idiotic. He equates common border control with the hate of Nazism. That is offensive.

Tell me. You clearly want this Bill to pass as is. If it does, and if it is enforced with the provisions laid out to stop the flow of immigrants (like the last one was not) won’t you then become the hate mongering KKK Nazi person the priest is talking about because that would exclude the new poor immigrant from the basic rights is to deny their fundamental humanity? Or will you ease your conscience by breaking that law too?

 

[Amolibri]

Veri,
It seems that you have all your conclusions nicely compartmentalized… as if the US had nothing to do with the state of any other (poor) country’s situation. Let’s stop this “black hat- white hat” stuff.
“To suggest the failure of foreign governments, like Mexico in providing those rights to it’s citizens becomes the responsibility of the US is idiotic.” Do you know any history of LatinAmer?
The US’s propping up of dictators’ repressive regimes has nothing to do with the condition of those who would be desperate to come across our borders??? Labeling this as “liberal” thinking (=satanic ) does not change it.

Let’s face facts about the exploitation of these workers…and the complicity of US corporations and gov’t …why else do you suppose that the gov’t is not rushing to solve this problem:shrug:

 

[Verisimilitude]

Veri,
It seems that you have all your conclusions nicely compartmentalized… as if the US had nothing to do with the state of any other (poor) country’s situation. Let’s stop this “black hat- white hat” stuff.

What do you really expect? Should the US install puppet governments everywhere or should we deal with the people in power however they got there? Should we suport Chavez or not?

“To suggest the failure of foreign governments, like Mexico in providing those rights to it’s citizens becomes the responsibility of the US is idiotic.” Do you know any history of LatinAmer?

Yes.

The US’s propping up of dictators’ repressive regimes has nothing to do with the condition of those who would be desperate to come across our borders??? Labeling this as “liberal” thinking (=satanic ) does not change it.

Make a list of those who the US should support and those who we should not.

Let’s face facts about the exploitation of these workers…and the complicity of US corporations and gov’t …why else do you suppose that the gov’t is not rushing to solve this problem:shrug:

You think it limited to US companies and government? Do you know any history? I have no desire to exploit the illegal worker. I would like to enforce the existing laws to prevent it. I’d like to give them their dignity back. Why don’t you support that?

Why don’t you answer this question as well?

Tell me. You clearly want this Bill to pass as is. If it does, and if it is enforced with the provisions laid out to stop the flow of immigrants (like the last one was not) won’t you then become the hate mongering KKK Nazi person the priest is talking about because that would exclude the new poor immigrant from the basic rights is to deny their fundamental humanity? Or will you ease your conscience by breaking that law too?

 

[meeshy]

Veri,

Unfortunately the bill is almost kaput, so you don’t need to worry much anymore about the invasion of the third world upon our pristine and idyllic country… the home of the powerful and the entitled.

The Bishops suggested changes to S. 1348, right from its inception, which I have posted in these forums each time I became aware of them.

An excellent summary of what the Bishops want from immigration reform can be found here: Strangers No Longer

Some key points of their position are:

• Global anti-poverty efforts
• Expanded opportunities to reunify families
• Temporary worker program
• Broad-based legalization
• Restoration of due process

Our Bishops have our best interests in mind, as well as the best interests of those wishing to work in the U.S. or emigrate to the U.S.

Please trust our shepherds.

Peace,

 

[tbel1ma57]

Hi Meeshi:
I do agree with your well documented, educated and compassionate points of view regarding Immigration. You make me feel great to be a catholic and I applaud our bishops for taking a stand in behalf of the oppressed.I believe in my heart that if our Lord was living in this world today he would have taken the same stand.
So, when I see a catholic that is prejudice or shows hate towards any group of immigrants I believe they should ex-communicated, there is no room in our holy catholic church for evil attitudes. The curch has always taken a stands for the dignity and rights of any “human being”. I believe that was this very attitude that killed our Lord and put on the cross.
It is also sad that after Martin Luther King and the civil right movement of the 60’s this sentiment of hate and prejudice still very prevalent in this country. Why people can’t learn from past mistake. It is true what the saying say:“History repeats itself”. I believe that God made this country to be strong for the “right” reasons not to push people around but to help and be an example for the “good”. and not for “evil”. I believe one hundread percent on what the creed of our holy catholic says and I am sure “all” catholics take this seriously as I do and I quote:“He rose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty:from thence He shall come to “judge” the living and the dead…”. I do not take this lightly but seriously.
We are called all of us are called to the right by our Lord said and not to what the “secular” world wants us to do. It is our actions that will determine where each one of us go when we come face to face with our Lord and believe me “hate” and prejudicism will get us into heaven. This country like any other country of the world do not have “special” entry into heaven and it is by our actions that we will be judge when our Lord comes back. It is this very principle as catholic we should live by. So, I do agree with “Meeshi” and all of the points you have mentioned and I second and congratulate you for taking the stand on behalf of the oppressed and abused. So, I believe it is important to support our brothers and sisters in Christ who migrate to this country for a better life and should not be so eager to condomme and persecute them. It is not what our Lord Jesus would like us to do. Please rememver the Sermon at the mount and I quote:"Blessed are they that hunger adn thrist after justice: for they shall have their fill…Matthew 5: 3:11.

 

[Verisimilitude]

So, I believe it is important to support our brothers and sisters in Christ who migrate to this country for a better life and should not be so eager to condomme and persecute them.

Your compassion is limited to brothers and sisters of Christ that are in the US illegally? What of the illegal Hindu who overstayed his visa that needs food for his family? How about the Muslim student from Egypt that is out of school, which his education visa was for? What if the Mexicans do not practice or are atheist? Is it ok to turn them away?

Do you think I am prejudiced against immigrants? Do you think I hate them becasue they are here illegally?

 

[tbel1ma57]

yes I believe you are. Are you God to know the resaons why they migrate to this country and why? and why do you think Catholic bishops support the Immigration bill?. Do you think everyone should be treated with dignity and respect regarless of where they come from no matter what they come from?

 

[Verisimilitude]

yes I believe you are.

Would it make a difference to you if my wife is an immigrant, who came to America legally on her own, and became a US citizen 10 years before I met her?

My sister married a man from Peu, my best friend a woman from the Philippines.

Are you God to know the resaons why they migrate to this country and why?

I do not need to be God to hear why they come here. I have asked them.

and why do you think Catholic bishops support the Immigration bill?.

You tell me, and while your’re at it, answer my questions above.

Do you think everyone should be treated with dignity and respect regarless of where they come from no matter what they come from?

Clarify your last word. Did you mean from or for?

 

[tbel1ma57]

Would it make a difference to you if my wife is an immigrant, who came to America legally on her own, and became a US citizen 10 years before I met her?
What is that supposed to make you? so your wife is an immigrant what is that suppose to mean?

Are you God to know the reasons why they migrate to this country and why?
Yes, you are not God and should not try to play him he does not need your help.
why do you think Catholic bishops support the Immigration bill?.
Why are you opposed to what the bishops are supporting you as catholic should stand in the same side and opposite to them. Are you catholic? or protestant who is against to what the church stand for?
You need a lot of prayers and I’ll pray for you.
Do you think everyone should be treated with dignity and respect regardless where they come from?
Do you believe in human rights and dignity for everyone? Do you believe in God’s words to love one another as I love you or do you think the “undocumented” are from another planet that this doctrine does not apply to them?.