RI bishop wants US to halt mass immigration raids

[estesbob]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island’s Roman Catholic bishop is calling on U.S. authorities to halt mass immigration raids and says agents who refuse to participate in such raids on moral grounds deserve to be treated as conscientious objectors

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin asked for a blanket moratorium on immigration raids in Rhode Island until the nation adopts comprehensive immigration reform. Tobin made the requests in a letter sent Tuesday to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Boston.

The letter was released Thursday to The Associated Press.
Tobin’s action comes during a heated debate over illegal immigration in heavily Catholic Rhode Island. Authorities recently raided six courthouses looking for illegal immigrant maintenance workers and Gov. Don Carcieri, himself a Catholic, signed an order requiring state police and prison officials to identify illegal immigrants for possible deportation.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_us/bishop_immigration_raids

 

[RWMorris]

So this bishop wants us to ignore our own laws (which, BTW, we already have massive immigration laws and offered basically amnesty about a decade or so ago) because it suits HIS PC ideas.
Don’t get me wrong: I think that all these immigration raids are pretty stupid. But if we can ignore one set of laws, then why shouldn’t we ignore the ban on marijuana? It’s just a law, after all. In fact, maybe we can ignore all kinds of laws, just to suit our own agendas.

 

[Ender]

Don’t get me wrong: I think that all these immigration raids are pretty stupid.

They will have been foolish if the authorities don’t follow up with more. If Rhode Island has decided to do something about its illegal immigrants then this is a good approach. If they’re not serious about it though then all they’ll get is bad publicity with no positive results.

Ender

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island’s Roman Catholic bishop is calling on U.S. authorities to halt mass immigration raids and says agents who refuse to participate in such raids on moral grounds deserve to be treated as conscientious objectors

Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin asked for a blanket moratorium on immigration raids in Rhode Island until the nation adopts comprehensive immigration reform. Tobin made the requests in a letter sent Tuesday to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Boston.

The letter was released Thursday to The Associated Press.
Tobin’s action comes during a heated debate over illegal immigration in heavily Catholic Rhode Island. Authorities recently raided six courthouses looking for illegal immigrant maintenance workers and Gov. Don Carcieri, himself a Catholic, signed an order requiring state police and prison officials to identify illegal immigrants for possible deportation.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080821/ap_on_re_us/bishop_immigration_raids

This is about mass profiling of people, which is counterproductive and works on strereotypes.

Roman Catholic and other religious leaders have repeatedly criticized immigration raids that target migrant workers, rather than illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

Many of the raids are done just so the agency can be seen as trying to do something but going about it the wrong way.

 

[Ender]

This is about mass profiling of people, which is counterproductive and works on strereotypes.

I’ve never understood the opposition to profiling. Our hyper-sensitivity to using it has led to the inanity we see daily in our airports where people with virtually zero probability of being terrorists (e.g. old women in wheelchairs) are singled out for intrusive searches while those who match the profile of essentially every 9/11 terrorist are not given a second glance. If you’re looking for a steer with mad cow disease it really doesn’t make much sense to search the chicken coops. Why would we not look for illegals in the locations where they are most likely to be found?

Ender

 

[rlg94086]

This is about mass profiling of people, which is counterproductive and works on strereotypes.

What evidence do you have for that charge? The article didn’t mention race. It mentioned “illegal immigrant maintenance workers.” Are you assuming that means a certain race? If so, then who is being prejudiced and “working on stereotypes?” The workers could just as easily be illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe.

NewUlm1976_2000:

Many of the raids are done just so the agency can be seen as trying to do something but going about it the wrong way.

Indeed. The attempts at reforming the system were thwarted, so we left the agencies no choice. I don’t fault them for doing what they are hired to do, though I don’t like it from a humanitarian perspective.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Why would we not look for illegals in the locations where they are most likely to be found?

Ender

Yes, but even then it needs to be targeted, it is a violation of the 6th Amendment. To throw a wide net means the 6th amendment is violated for many, many people in a fishing expedition, which this often is.

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

The right of the **people** to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice it says PEOPLE, not citizens. Everyone has a right to reasonable search and seizures (including their human body in this case).

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

What evidence do you have for that charge? The article didn’t mention race. It mentioned “illegal immigrant maintenance workers.” Are you assuming that means a certain race? If so, then who is being prejudiced and “working on stereotypes?” The workers could just as easily be illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Indeed. The attempts at reforming the system were thwarted, so we left the agencies no choice. I don’t fault them for doing what they are hired to do, though I don’t like it from a humanitarian perspective.

Look at my quote, it says they often catch legal migrant workers in the raids (and let them go later). This points towards racial profiling. In the Iowa and MN meat packing raids, they split up the workers by race (whites one room, hispanics another) and sortered out the mess they created that way, violating the 6th Amendment for many, many, people.

What the Church talks about is human respect and what we never hear are the economic conditions which cause migration (it is the same discussion across the globe, just replace the country and the country people are entering from).

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Yes, but even then it needs to be targeted, it is a violation of the 6th Amendment. To throw a wide net means the 6th amendment is violated for many, many people in a fishing expedition, which this often is.

You’re talking about the 4th amendment.

 

[rlg94086]

Look at my quote, it says they often catch legal migrant workers in the raids (and let them go later). This points towards racial profiling.

In what way does that “point towards racial profiling?” Unless it mentions race, I don’t see it. In the article this thread is based on, there is no mention of race. “Migrant,” “immigrant,” etc. are not racial terms. The fact that you automatically equate them to a racial group though, seems to mean that you equate “migrant” with a particular race.

NewUlm1976_2000:

In the Iowa and MN meat packing raids, they split up the workers by race (whites one room, hispanics another) and sortered out the mess they created that way, violating the 6th Amendment for many, many, people.

Okay. That is wrong. I don’t see where they are doing that in Rhode Island. Do you have any evidence? If a raid is to be done (and I’m against them personally), they should be done by reviewing all employee’s legal documents.

NewUlm1976_2000:

What the Church talks about is human respect and what we never hear are the economic conditions which cause migration (it is the same discussion across the globe, just replace the country and the country people are entering from).

Where have you been hiding? Under a rock? “We” hear that all the time.

 

[wapsi]

I’ve never understood the opposition to profiling.

Why would we not look for illegals in the locations where they are most likely to be found?

The problem with profiling it that it harasses innocent persons who “fit the profile”. Black men in the US face this daily. Arbitrarily harassing Hispanics is just as bad.

You probably wouldn’t be so in favor of profiling if you were the constant target of official attention.

 

[wapsi]

In the Iowa and MN meat packing raids, they split up the workers by race (whites one room, hispanics another) and sortered out the mess they created that way, violating the 6th Amendment for many, many, people.

At least this time they kept the detainees within two hours of home. A couple years ago (on the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, no less), they shipped people who “fit the profile” to another state - this made it difficult for innocent persons to get back home.

 

[Swamp_Yankee]

I am a Rhode Island resident. I just e-mailed Bishop Tobin about my disappointment in his position on this issue. I don’t know what good it will do. I also advised him that I will be " examining my church contributions". I don’t know what other influence I can have over his decision. We are required to be charitable, although our charity must be tempered with wisdom. My idea of charity for illegal aliens is to give them a sandwich, a blanket, the Sacraments, and a trip back to their country of origin. This is both charitable and wise. Christians are also obliged to follow the law. The Bishop is wrong .

 

[Ender]

The problem with profiling it that it harasses innocent persons who “fit the profile”. Black men in the US face this daily. Arbitrarily harassing Hispanics is just as bad.

Arbitrarily harassing anyone is wrong but trying to separate the sheep from the goats is neither arbitrary nor harassment and it is ludicrous to assert that black men are either profiled or harassed daily.

You probably wouldn’t be so in favor of profiling if you were the constant target of official attention.

I’m not so sure. If there were numerous criminals who looked and behaved like me, why wouldn’t I want them found and removed even at the cost of some personal inconvenience? How am I better off if they are left roaming my community with impunity?

Ender

 

[wapsi]

Arbitrarily harassing anyone is wrong but trying to separate the sheep from the goats is neither arbitrary nor harassment and it is ludicrous to assert that black men are either profiled or harassed daily.

You’ve never heard the phrase “driving while black”?

 

[Andruschak]

And did this same Bishop order, or maybe STRONGLY suggest, that one must vote Republican because they are anti-abortion? That not to vote Republican was a mortal sin?

Well then, too bad. You vote Republican, you vote for ALL their platform, and that includes their immigration policies.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[rlg94086]

And did this same Bishop order, or maybe STRONGLY suggest, that one must vote Republican because they are anti-abortion? That not to vote Republican was a mortal sin?

Well then, too bad. You vote Republican, you vote for ALL their platform, and that includes their immigration policies.

Do you have a problem with that?

First off, I’m not sure if the Bishop has said that - generally, they don’t endorse parties or candidates. They do rightly tell us that we should vote Pro-Life though. If one chooses between the two major parties, then, yes, that would mean Republican in most elections.

What is the “immigration policy” of the Republican Party? The presidential candidate sponsored immigration legislation this Bishop would probably be in favor of.

 

[Andruschak]

First off, I’m not sure if the Bishop has said that - generally, they don’t endorse parties or candidates. They do rightly tell us that we should vote Pro-Life though. If one chooses between the two major parties, then, yes, that would mean Republican in most elections.

And that is not endorsing a party or candidate? Really now.

 

[rlg94086]

And that is not endorsing a party or candidate? Really now.

That is correct. There are other parties/candidates than the two major parties. While I personally don’t agree with voting third party, the Bishops don’t take a stand on this, nor do priests. I heard a person call in to an EWTN show with Fr. Pavone, who asked about a third party candidate who was a pro-life Catholic, and Fr. Pavone said he sounded like a fine choice (not the only choice…Fr. Pavone wasn’t endorsing the candidate… but a fine choice)

Now, how is giving instruction to vote our faith “endorsing a party or candidate?”

And, again, since you didn’t answer, what is the “immigration policy” of the Republican Party?

 

[Ender]

You vote Republican, you vote for ALL their platform, and that includes their immigration policies.

Do you have a problem with that?

This is correct. Whether or not you support a particular policy, when you vote for a candidate, especially the president, you are voting to enable all of the policies he espouses, including the ones you oppose. This is as true of Republicans who oppose their party’s inclinations on immigration (I’m not aware that they have a party position yet) as of Democrats who oppose abortion: you have chosen to enable that policy by choosing that candidate. This is not a productive comparison for Democrats; immigration policy is a matter of prudential choices on which Catholics can disagree (even with their bishops), abortion is an intrinsically evil act and the great moral issue of our time.

Ender