U.S. Bishops Praise DREAM Act Progress in House

[mlund]

And of course you have facts and statistics to back up these self-comforting myths…

health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy_2.htm

• Marty Lund

 

[GraceSofia]

Originally Posted by GraceSofia
No, the child is being “punished,” ie suffering the consequences, because of his parents’ illegal actions.

So if we discover that your great great grandparents came here illegally we can deport you to their country of origin?

You have not addressed the issue here: that the illegal immigrant parents KNOW that they are putting their children at possible risk. It is the** parents **who are responsible, not the government.

For example, parents commit crimes which result in them going to prison and their children being put in fostercare. Is the government punishing the children?
No, the parents are the cause of their children’s plight, and they are morally responsible for their criminal actions and consequences. Or would you suggest that criminals not be sent to prison if they have children?

And to answer your question, well, no, “you” couldn’t deport “me” because of the birthright law applying to all the successive generations, and to “me” being born on US soil.

 

[GraceSofia]

Definitely dead for 2010. Senate filibuster. The new Congress will be more oppositional to any measures in 2011 which do not address several aspects of immigration, including borders, including biometric ID cards, including federal penalties against employers, including examining the bureuacracy of legal immigration, including looking at deportation (rather than American incarceration) of convicted illegally residing criminals, possibly also including violations of federal law in “sanctuary cities” – and in all that context, then reviewing, as part of comprehensive immigration reform, the assimilation of long-standing residents of illegal status into legal status.

Yes.
And the anchor baby/birthright abuse should be looked at. Immigration needs to be reformed, but the DREAM act was not going to help. It would have become part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[GraceSofia]

Regarding the side-topic of flags:

I have no problem with somebody who wants “to put up a little piece of cloth symbolising his place of origin,” as Petergee said.
I do have a problem with the Mexican flag being flown ABOVE the US flag the way La Raza and other reconquista groups do. There is a political message there of subverting the US government.

By the way, many countries place a higher value on their flags than some Americans seem to.
A Greek Cypriot was shot **dead **by Turks over a Turkish flag flying on Turkish-occupied-but-Greek-Cypriot land.
“We will break the hands of anyone who touches our flag… touching our flag is akin to touching one of our women.” ~
Former Turkish Foreign Minister Tansu Ciller regarding the murder of Solomos Solomou by Turkish security forces as he attempted to remove the Turkish flag of occupation in Cyprus, 1996.

 

[Mike5575]

Has the USCCB or Archbishop Gomez been as vocal with don’t ask don’t tell as they have been on the DREAM Act? It seems to me that they are more worried about adding more American Catholics to the fold then they are about sexual morality.

youtube.com/watch?v=BSP_l43xnHU

 

[Ender]

I’m merely pointing out that what the US bishops are saying is exactly what the Australian bishops are saying about immigrants, because they are both based on Catholic doctrine. I’m defending the US bishops against the false charge that they are doing this out of some sort of non-religious political agenda.

The key point in all of this is that there is no Catholic doctrine that provides any direction whatever about whether the DREAM act should be supported or opposed. This is the reason why the bishop’s public support of the act is inappropriate - it gives the false impression that Catholics have a moral obligation to support it as well and that simply isn’t true.

I don’t challenge the bishops on their reasons for supporting the act; I’m quite sure they think it’s the right thing to do, but there is no moral issue involved here because the concern is not whether or not we should do the right thing but determining what the right thing is. Catholic doctrine is no help in figuring out what will be the probable outcome of passing such a bill. The passage of numerous severely harmful welfare programs should be sufficient warning that simply believing that one is doing the right thing is no guarantee that one’s actions will necessarily be helpful.

Immigration is not a moral issue; it is prudential.

Ender

 

[Tigg]

There are no “legal kids” or “illegal kids”.

Here is a quick run-down of the current immigration laws in this country:

“Immigrant” - by a federal definition, an immigrant is a person who enters the United States lawfully with the intention of permanent residence, or an alien who has been granted lawful permanent residence…commonly known as a “Green Card.”

“Alien” - is legally defined as any non-citizen present in the U.S.

There is no such thing as a “legal citizen.” There is no such thing as an illegal citizen. One is either a citizen… or isn’t. An immigrant becomes a citizen through a process called “naturalization.” Naturalized citizens are every bit as much citizens, with the same rights and duties, as native born citizens. Most Americans welcome immigrants and want sustainable immigration.

It is a federal crime to enter the U.S. illegally. (8USC 1325) See also U.S. Supreme Court:

There does exist an accurate, official and legal term, “illegal alien” - which describes an alien present in the U.S. in violation of American immigration laws. Most people will recognize the clear insult to real immigrants - and the tradition of immigration into the U.S. - when anyone attempts to blur the line between real immigrants and illegal aliens who escape capture at our borders.

It is a federal crime to induce, bring in, harbor, shelter, conceal, knowingly employ or encourage an illegal alien to remain in the United States. (8USC1324 ).

topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/immigration

Parental obligation is a serious matter. One poster rightly addressed the fact that those bringing their children into this country illegally are putting them at risk.

WHERE is the personal responsibility in all of this?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You have not addressed the issue here: that the illegal immigrant parents KNOW that they are putting their children at possible risk. It is the** parents **who are responsible, not the government.

Ah, so the government can do whatever it wants to the children of criminals? As long as its legal, its moral?

For example, parents commit crimes which result in them going to prison and their children being put in fostercare. Is the government punishing the children?
No, the parents are the cause of their children’s plight, and they are morally responsible for their criminal actions and consequences. Or would you suggest that criminals not be sent to prison if they have children?

In such a case there is no other option. However, in the case of illegal immigration, the DREAM Act would create another option…

And to answer your question, well, no, “you” couldn’t deport “me” because of the birthright law applying to all the successive generations, and to “me” being born on US soil.

Sorry, that doesn’t work as an answer. Are you equating civil law with moral law? Does that mean abortion is morally ok because its legally allowed? Of course not. Laws come and go and change. If the DREAM Act passed then it would be the law but I’m sure you’d still argue that you think it is not a just law. Under the DREAM Act they’d have every right to citizenship as you. We’re not debating what the law currently is, we’re debating how laws interact with morality and justice.

So, I ask again, if your great grandparents came here illegally under what moral pretext would you argue that the US government shouldn’t repeal the 14th Amendment, revoke your citizenship and deport all decendents of the illegals to the illegals’ country of origin?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I blame Reagan and Clinton/NAFTA. Sounds totally unrelated eh? Let me give you a brief. Before Reagan the US government set a quota of how much corn it wanted the US to produce, it payed farmers to keep land fallow giving a level corn price allowing farmers stability. Reagan took office and when he found out about it he thought it was unAmerican so he gave farmer’s subsidies to produce more corn. This works so well that corn prices plummet driving many farmer’s into bankruptcy forcing them to sell their land resulting in massive land consolidation giving us our megafarms and forcing farmers into serfdom for Monsanto yaya freedom! Anyway along comes President Clinton who decides in the name of Capitalism we should lower trade barriers with Mexico and Canada, yaya freedom! Result is super cheap corn floods Mexico selling for below cost to produce. Millions of Mexicans are now out of work and naturally try to find jobs. Mexico can’t absorb them all so now we have millions of impoverished Mexicans who need jobs and there are none. They cross the border into the land of freedom and opportunity seeking jobs…
Make sense?

 

[Elizabeth502]

^ It does, and I’ve read similar analyses. Indeed, economic policy has an enormous amount to do with rate and location of immigration, and it is only comprehensive economic restructuring, cooperatively (hopefully) with other countries focused similarly on keeping productive workers in their native lands (to benefit those countries), that is needed as an aspect of immigration reform that actually has a chance of lasting workability.

True social justice supports the investment of human beings in their own countries, as this is where they identify as their primary culture.

 

[Faith3Faith]

I have mixed feelings on this one.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

^ It does, and I’ve read similar analyses. Indeed, economic policy has an enormous amount to do with rate and location of immigration, and it is only comprehensive economic restructuring, cooperatively (hopefully) with other countries focused similarly on keeping productive workers in their native lands (to benefit those countries), that is needed as an aspect of immigration reform that actually has a chance of lasting workability.

True social justice supports the investment of human beings in their own countries, as this is where they identify as their primary culture.

Read the Charity in Truth encyclical, it’s about reforming Capitalism

 

[Elizabeth502]

Read the Charity in Truth encyclical, it’s about reforming Capitalism

Oh I have, long ago. And boy, is capitalism in need of reform. Both Mexico and the U.S. engage in massive robber-baron style capitalism. Irmmoral and irresponsible. In fact, in a way, one could say that – following similar business practices in the U.S. relative to the Third World, the Mexican government-business alliance uses the U.S. as their cheap “off-shore” profit source. They have a nifty but sickening, i.m.o., arrangement, whereby they allow their citizens to be used by U.S. businesses, and in turn Mexican business uses those wages to build profit when their emigrated citizens send cash home by the millions every year.