Neal Boortz is no longer on the air. We will probably never know whether or not he retired of his own free will, or was booted off. He certainly was obnoxious.
He was also a coward. He was adamant that he would never take calls from pro-life people. That did not stop him from bad-mouthing them, and ranting on and on favoring abortion. As I said, that is cowardice.
It also shows that he may not have been convinced that his position was right, so did not want to be put into a place where he'd have to defend it.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Response to USCCB's Strangers no Longer on Illegal Immigration
In January 2003 the US and Mexican Catholic bishops issued the pastoral document, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope (SNL), and the bishops of both countries called for an overhaul of the US immigration system. They outlined several criteria for its reform. I comment on several of the paragraphs. I recommend reading each paragraph online, then my comment.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/strangers-no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope.cfm
Documents like this are usually written by a small group of people in a committee. It does not seem unreasonable for them to identify themselves, so that one can study their other activities and come to some conclusions. Toward that end I sent an email to the USCCB on June 29, 2013, but to date have received no answer.
INTRODUCTION
#7. It’s too simplistic to say, “We invite Catholics and persons of good will…to welcome the stranger…”. Mt 25:35. This article will explain why.
#8. The illegals become a drain on our “social services”. Why should they be given benefits for which they did not work? St. Paul says, “If you will not work, you should not eat.”
Why should we have “intercultural communion”? They’re in America now; they should assimilate. E pluribus unum has been our motto since our founding. The Mexican episcopacy should be working to eliminate the system of graft and corruption that keeps their society backward. It should be educating Mexicans in the Faith and its application to daily life. Pope John Paul II’s, Ecclesia in America, which SNL quotes, seems to imply that immigrants are coming to stay.
#9. The bishops call the Mexican immigrants, whether legal or not, “people of faith”. My experience is that they do not attend Mass once they get here.
CHAPTER 2
#28. “Catholic social teaching states that the root causes for migration: poverty, injustice, religious intolerance, armed conflicts, must be addressed so that migrants can remain in their homeland and support their families.” Mexican bishops: what are YOU doing about these things so that your flock can “remain in their homeland”? Your people are poor due to graft and corruption. Your upper class cheats the poor of their wages, or gets the men to gamble it away after they are paid, counting on “machismo” to force them to play. Your constitution was written by Masons who put into place a bloody persecution between 1926-29. What are you doing to change it? You hope to send your poor to us and have us solve the problem. We are under no obligation to do what you should be doing.
#30. Heretofore American immigration quotas have been kept low so that the newcomers may be blended into the body politic of American citizens. Hispanics, whether legal or illegal, have shown resistance to assimilating. There’s no reason why someone should say, “My name is José, or Antonio, or Felipe”. In America you are Joe, Tony or Phil, resp.
A UPI story published Feb. 4, 2013 said that 64% of legal Mexican immigrants have not sought naturalization; and the 36% who have is about half of all the other legal immigrants combined, quoting from the Pew Research Center. (1) What is the incentive? They get all the benefits that citizens get.
Like any individual human being, a state has a right to continue in existence. Flooding the existing body politic with unrestricted immigration is quite likely to lead to the state’s demise, or at least a permanent, undesirable change in its character. The Virgin Mary predicted in 1917 at Fatima that several small states would lose their identity. After the USSR took over Estonia in 1941 a flood of Russian immigrants entered the former country: 40% of the population is actually now Russian, and their voting pattern has permanently altered the future of “Estonia”.
In 1984 the magazine, Homiletic and Pastoral Review (HPR) ran an article, which gave the research indicating that an overwhelming percentage of the American bishops and priests was still voting Democrat. I’ve been unable to find a current one that gives statistics for the entire US. On December 1, 2003 HPR published an article stating that in Chicago, in 2002, 24.5% of priests voted Republican, and 75.5% voted Democrat. (2) These percentages applied to those who actually voted. Another source, CatholicCitizens.org on November 4, 2002, said that 7 out of 10 Chicago priests did not vote in the primary election. (3) An interesting side note is that 100% of recorded votes by Chicago’s auxiliary bishops were Democratic. (4)
There is no doubt that Hispanic immigrants will begin to vote Democratic. That party has turned socialistic, and leaves no lie unsaid, no dirty trick undone, to promote its march to making America a one-party country, like Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s USSR. Hence, it makes a play for these illegals, by promising them that the government will take care of all their needs. Many of them are already voting. There is now a $17 trillion debt. It is said that if every penny was taken away from every American, there would still not be enough money to pay this debt. And yet the bishops want us to take on supporting these illegals.
“…provided that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.” Our public wealth DOES forbid this.
#32. Strangers No Longer uses the politically-correct term, unauthorized migration, or the like, in more than one place. Paraphrasing Ecclesiastes, there is a time to use language poetically, and a time to use it legally or strictly. We’re talking law here. It amazes me that men who spent 4 years studying philosophy so that they could make fine distinctions so as to arrive at the truth should deliberately obfuscate. It reminds me of the word newspeak, which comes from George Orwell’s futuristic novel, 1984, published in 1949.
“…eliminating global underdevelopment is the antidote to eliminating illegal immigration…” This again leads me to ask, “Mexican bishops, what are you doing in Mexico to bring this about?” SNL quotes JPII’s encyclical, Ecclesia in America, that migrants from Latin America have a right to respect and dignity “even in cases of non-legal immigration”. No one disputes that. Pressure should be applied to make them go home, and they should be treated kindly but firmly as they leave. Once home, they apply at the American embassy, pay a large fine, and get at the back of the line to enter legally.
#34. What are Mexican bishops doing to eliminate the class system that prevails in Mexico? At the top there are still the rich hacienda-owners, priding themselves on the amount of pure Spanish blood they have flowing in their veins. When will you convince them to give up some of their 1000-square-mile+ ranches and give it to the descamisados? At the bottom of the caste structure there are still poor Indian villages where no Spanish is spoken. There are still bishops living in rococo palaces, anachronisms from the Baroque era when bishops were princes. What are the bishops doing about the drug trafficking, which grows worse and worse? (5)
#35. This paragraph brings up the topic of guest workers: people who come to harvest crops, but then return to their countries. It remains to be seen whether or not there are “jobs so demeaning that Americans will not do them”, such as stoop labor on farms. Let’s say that there are. I can see a guest worker program. We wouldn’t expect them to act like American citizens, but we would expect them to obey our laws. They needn’t learn English. We would treat physical emergencies, like getting hurt in an accident, but for long-term treatment, such as for cancer or leukemia, they would need to return to Mexico. They would not get welfare or food stamps. They would not get free education in our schools.
#38. Often the illegal found north of our border is a drug trafficker. They are even known to kill our border agents. (5)
CHAPTER 3
#40. The average Mexican crossing our border illegally does not go to Mass, or make any attempt to join the local parish. To say they have a “rich faith tradition” is poetry, not objective truth. In fact, Latin Americans remain a largely uncatechized population, little more Christian than when the Spanish and Portuguese left in the 18th century. This is why Protestant groups are having such massive success there. The violence, the lack of law and order, are vestiges of the pre-Columbian past.
There is an “either-or” in this paragraph. We are told not to accept migrants as “foreboding aliens, terrorists or economic threats, BUT rather as persons with dignity and rights…” Foreboding means “having a presentiment of something bad”. Many of these illegals are criminals. Forty % of the inmates of our American prisons are Hispanic. 27% of the inmates of our American prisons are illegal Hispanics. (6) Bishop Estevez of St. Augustine says that there are only 10,000,000 illegals in the US. If the entire population is 360,000,000 that means that they constitute 2.8% of the population. Compare that with the 27% of our prisons who are illegal Hispanics. The website for La Raza makes the organization sound pro-American, but stories that circulate tell a tale of La Raza as anti-American.
Americans are justly suspicious of statements put out by the Obama government. His labor department claims that unemployment is about 7.7%. UnionofUnemployed.com says that it is more like 14.6%. (7) Unbridled immigration IS an economic threat to our unemployed citizens. If we had lawmakers who believed in less government, less regulation, and a moratorium on spending, we’d have a booming economy, and hence, we could absorb a larger amount of immigrants. Still, we cannot take so many that we would be inundated with people who would change the culture, as in Estonia. No, we DO regard them as “foreboding aliens, terrorists or economic threats, AND as persons with dignity and rights…”
#42. Why should WE pay for legal services for illegal immigrants when they get caught? They are citizens of Mexico, and Mexico should come to the aid of its citizens.
#45. Mexican pastors should be counseling their parishioners not to cross into the United States illegally.
It makes no sense to permit the Tohono and O’odham Indians to move back and forth across the border as they see fit. In this day of terrorists there needs to be some control.
#46. “Special encouragement should be given to migrants to be faithful to their spouses and families and thereby to live out the sacrament of marriage.” They frequently abandon their wives and children and simply start over in the USA.
#49. If Mexicans are so very religious, where are the vocations?
CHAPTER 4
#57. “Both governments have recognized the integration of economic interests thru NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.” But read #60.
#60. “NAFTA has harmed small businesses in Mexico, especially in the rural sector.” It has its disadvantages for Americans, too. (8)
#65. The family member who is residing legally in the United States can return home to visit family members. He can make telephone calls. Let us say that the maximum quota of Mexicans has been allowed in. Let’s say it consists of husbands/fathers. If we then allow his wife and perhaps 8 children in (and I am not advocating smaller families), then multiply by the total number already here, we expand the max. quota by 9!
LEGALIZATION of the UNDOCUMENTED (sic: ILLEGAL)
#68. Estimates of the illegal population start at 11.5-12,000,000 (9) and go as high as 20-38,000,000. (10) There is a tendency for those who push for legalization to use small numbers, as the bishops do here. The truth is, we really don’t know how many there are.
#69. “A broad legalization program of the undocumented (sic: illegal) would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations.” It would not benefit the United States and would benefit Mexico only in the short run, by getting rid of people whom that country can’t – or won’t - feed or house. In the long run the societal structures that lead to their poverty would still not be addressed. Dumping the problem north of the border is not the solution.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would help to stabilize the labor market in the US...” This article shows how it would de-stabilize it.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from Mexico…who are in the United States would …preserve family unity...” It would be the green light for an unprecedented horde of newcomers –each person’s entire clan - and because of their sheer numbers, they would never assimilate, thus changing the character of the American psyche, probably for the worse.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would …improve the standard of living in immigrant communities.” The US is a unique nation: to achieve a unified people (e pluribus unum) we expect newcomers to give up their previous allegiances. Previous immigrant groups have taken a generation or two, but they have done it. Mexicans expect to come here and set up little permanent Mexican enclaves and bi-lingualism. We expect more of migrants other than that they want to make a lot of money: we expect allegiance to the USA. They indicate no such allegiance, as illustrated by the fact that, during soccer games between the US and Mexico, they root for Mexico. There is also the famous photo of their stamping on both the US and Arizona flags. (11)
#70. Actually, the flow of remittances back to Mexico is a drain on our economy, and should be stopped, not enhanced.
#72. It is not obvious that the United States needs Mexican laborers. We allow our children to begin work at age 16. At that age they are robust; their bodies are flexible, and they don’t expect much in the way of pay. Our own teen-agers can fill a lot of these jobs that “Americans won’t take”.
But let’s grant that we may need foreign labor. “Labor protection and appropriate benefits” ought to be saved for legal migrants, those who have at least applied for citizenship. There’s no point in being a citizen if any illegal gets the same benefits.
I agree with a temporary visa for laborers.
“Arrangements could be made with the organizations that process these remittances (money sent back to Mexico) to channel some of their earnings from the fees to support community development in Mexico, such as road construction, sewers, health clinics etc.” Mexico is thoroly corrupt, and the money would never get to these projects if given to officials. The church itself needs to engage in these activities, until you finally wean the people off the graft system.
#73. This paragraph advocates the US creating a class of legal permanent residents. In what way would it be in the interests of the USA to create such a class? If one is going to live here permanently, enjoying the products of citizenship, he ought to be a citizen. Someone who lives here but is not, is bad for the morale of those who are. For example, if there are enough of them, their lack of interest in elections can keep would-be voters from the polls.
#75. “The USA and Mexico should conclude a Social Security agreement that allows workers to accrue benefits for work performed in the (temporary worker) program.” I disagree. SS ought to be a privilege of citizenship. Social-Security-type support ought to be given to these workers by Mexico, the country of which the migrants are citizens. They can pay Mexico when they pay their taxes there for SS insurance, same as we Americans do.
#76. “A properly constructed worker program would reduce the number of undocumented (sic: illegal) persons migrating from Mexico to the US, lessening the calls for border enforcement, and the demands for the services of unscrupulous smugglers.” I agree. And if our American bishops and priests would do their homework, stop supporting the Democratic Party’s platform of enlarging government, and advocate smaller government and less laws and restrictions, we’d get our economy not only back to work, but booming. This would in turn create the need for more workers.
#80. “…migrants are often treated as criminals by civil enforcement authorities.” They ARE criminals. They are breaking our federal law.
#82. What are we supposed to do with unaccompanied minor illegals? They are too young to work. Why are their parents sending them here alone?
Why would illegals need a lawyer? They are caught in the act of entering illegally.
#83. This paragraph admits to some of the bribery that goes on in Mexico. Bribery permeates the entire society. You Mexicans who contributed to this document are telling me what I must do; I will tell you what YOU must do: get rid of the graft.
#84. “Corruption continues to weaken the Mexican migration system and to hurt the common good.” I’m glad that you admit it. The first step in solving a problem is to describe it accurately.
#85. The problem is that our border patrol agents have been instructed to let illegal immigrants alone. This is because Obama and the Democratic Party see them as potential Democratic voters. Oh, yes: illegals vote. There is an old Democratic saying: “Vote early and vote often”.
#86. Increasing the number of border patrol agents just becomes a bigger drain on the American economy. Tripling the amount of people who will do nothing amounts to the same old: nothing is being done. 3 X 0 = 0.
#87. If illegals die in the process of trying to enter the US at remote locations, that certainly is a risk that they are responsible for. Smuggling Mexicans into the US seems to be a Mexican problem. What are the Mexican bishops doing about that?
#89. Why should care “be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger”? How very liberal to put the blame on those trying to enforce the law, rather than on those who are breaking it. No one is pushing them. And why should US enforcement authorities “abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths”? Rather, shouldn’t Mexico crack down on the smugglers? Word circulating back in Mexico that no one is going to rescue you if you get in trouble, will be a big deterrent to making the try.
#94. “Once apprehended, migrants often are held in unsanitary and crowded prisons, jails and detention centers…sometimes alongside serious criminal offenders.” They ARE serious criminals: entering the country illegally is a federal crime. Forging documents, passing forged documents, stealing an ID, and using a stolen ID are felony crimes. Illegals caught in the act should not be held in luxurious environments, but rather in accommodations which are minimal. It is not unfair to place them in with other criminals. Both of these things should serve as deterrents. When the illegal gets back home, he can inform others not to try it.
#103. The document quotes JPII: “…the church is the place where illegal immigrants (Note that the Pope is not afraid to use the correct term) are also accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to insure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community.”
The paragraph goes on to say, “The church must, therefore, welcome all persons regardless of race, culture, language and nation with joy, charity, and hope.” It must do this for legal migrants; it owes nothing more than justice to illegals. Treat them decently while deporting them.
*
I have limited myself to illegal immigration coming across our southern border.
Often during the length of Strangers No Longer it is not kept clear whether it is speaking of legal or illegal migrants. I have no problem agreeing with what the document advocates when it comes to legal immigrants. There should have been three separate documents: one dealing with illegals crossing the border, another dealing with illegals who have been living here for some time, and another dealing with legal immigrants. There are times in the document when it is clear that illegal immigrants are the subject. Then there is a lapse into speaking of “migrants” and advocating certain things for them. I’d be in favor of those things for legal migrants, not in favor for illegal ones.
Before we say one word about Charity, we need to make very sure that all the demands of justice are fulfilled. I hope to have shown that going soft on illegal immigration is grosssy unjust to citizens who are already here.
______________________________________________________________________________________
(1) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/04/Mexicans-slow-to-become-US-citizens/UPI-78841360021893/
(2) http://www.hprweb.com/2003/12/party-politics-and-the-priesthood/
(3) http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=2927
(4) ibid.
(5) Follow the activities of the multi-state 18th Street Gang, to which many illegals belong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang
Follow the activities of the international Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang to which many illegals belong, and which aids in migrant-smuggling from Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha#Illegal_immigration_and_human_smuggling
It would be of benefit to read the many websites about these 2 groups, as this paper doesn’t have room to go into them.
(6) Book on CDs: What the (bleep) Happened? By Monica Crowley
(7) http://www.unionofunemployed.com/blog/homepage/real-unemployment-rate-february-2013/
(8) http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm
(9) On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals.
-Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet PewHispanic.com April 26, 2006
(10) Californians for Population Stabilization -CAPS – estimates the illegal alien population at 20 to 38 Million. Capsweb.org. 2007-08-31. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
(11) http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photo+stomping+on+Arzona+flag&qpvt=photo+stomping+on+Arzona+flag&FORM=IGRE
(12) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080614143232AAhD4bM
(13) ibid.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/immigration/strangers-no-longer-together-on-the-journey-of-hope.cfm
Documents like this are usually written by a small group of people in a committee. It does not seem unreasonable for them to identify themselves, so that one can study their other activities and come to some conclusions. Toward that end I sent an email to the USCCB on June 29, 2013, but to date have received no answer.
INTRODUCTION
#7. It’s too simplistic to say, “We invite Catholics and persons of good will…to welcome the stranger…”. Mt 25:35. This article will explain why.
#8. The illegals become a drain on our “social services”. Why should they be given benefits for which they did not work? St. Paul says, “If you will not work, you should not eat.”
Why should we have “intercultural communion”? They’re in America now; they should assimilate. E pluribus unum has been our motto since our founding. The Mexican episcopacy should be working to eliminate the system of graft and corruption that keeps their society backward. It should be educating Mexicans in the Faith and its application to daily life. Pope John Paul II’s, Ecclesia in America, which SNL quotes, seems to imply that immigrants are coming to stay.
#9. The bishops call the Mexican immigrants, whether legal or not, “people of faith”. My experience is that they do not attend Mass once they get here.
CHAPTER 2
#28. “Catholic social teaching states that the root causes for migration: poverty, injustice, religious intolerance, armed conflicts, must be addressed so that migrants can remain in their homeland and support their families.” Mexican bishops: what are YOU doing about these things so that your flock can “remain in their homeland”? Your people are poor due to graft and corruption. Your upper class cheats the poor of their wages, or gets the men to gamble it away after they are paid, counting on “machismo” to force them to play. Your constitution was written by Masons who put into place a bloody persecution between 1926-29. What are you doing to change it? You hope to send your poor to us and have us solve the problem. We are under no obligation to do what you should be doing.
#30. Heretofore American immigration quotas have been kept low so that the newcomers may be blended into the body politic of American citizens. Hispanics, whether legal or illegal, have shown resistance to assimilating. There’s no reason why someone should say, “My name is José, or Antonio, or Felipe”. In America you are Joe, Tony or Phil, resp.
A UPI story published Feb. 4, 2013 said that 64% of legal Mexican immigrants have not sought naturalization; and the 36% who have is about half of all the other legal immigrants combined, quoting from the Pew Research Center. (1) What is the incentive? They get all the benefits that citizens get.
Like any individual human being, a state has a right to continue in existence. Flooding the existing body politic with unrestricted immigration is quite likely to lead to the state’s demise, or at least a permanent, undesirable change in its character. The Virgin Mary predicted in 1917 at Fatima that several small states would lose their identity. After the USSR took over Estonia in 1941 a flood of Russian immigrants entered the former country: 40% of the population is actually now Russian, and their voting pattern has permanently altered the future of “Estonia”.
In 1984 the magazine, Homiletic and Pastoral Review (HPR) ran an article, which gave the research indicating that an overwhelming percentage of the American bishops and priests was still voting Democrat. I’ve been unable to find a current one that gives statistics for the entire US. On December 1, 2003 HPR published an article stating that in Chicago, in 2002, 24.5% of priests voted Republican, and 75.5% voted Democrat. (2) These percentages applied to those who actually voted. Another source, CatholicCitizens.org on November 4, 2002, said that 7 out of 10 Chicago priests did not vote in the primary election. (3) An interesting side note is that 100% of recorded votes by Chicago’s auxiliary bishops were Democratic. (4)
There is no doubt that Hispanic immigrants will begin to vote Democratic. That party has turned socialistic, and leaves no lie unsaid, no dirty trick undone, to promote its march to making America a one-party country, like Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s USSR. Hence, it makes a play for these illegals, by promising them that the government will take care of all their needs. Many of them are already voting. There is now a $17 trillion debt. It is said that if every penny was taken away from every American, there would still not be enough money to pay this debt. And yet the bishops want us to take on supporting these illegals.
“…provided that the public wealth, considered very carefully, does not forbid this.” Our public wealth DOES forbid this.
#32. Strangers No Longer uses the politically-correct term, unauthorized migration, or the like, in more than one place. Paraphrasing Ecclesiastes, there is a time to use language poetically, and a time to use it legally or strictly. We’re talking law here. It amazes me that men who spent 4 years studying philosophy so that they could make fine distinctions so as to arrive at the truth should deliberately obfuscate. It reminds me of the word newspeak, which comes from George Orwell’s futuristic novel, 1984, published in 1949.
“…eliminating global underdevelopment is the antidote to eliminating illegal immigration…” This again leads me to ask, “Mexican bishops, what are you doing in Mexico to bring this about?” SNL quotes JPII’s encyclical, Ecclesia in America, that migrants from Latin America have a right to respect and dignity “even in cases of non-legal immigration”. No one disputes that. Pressure should be applied to make them go home, and they should be treated kindly but firmly as they leave. Once home, they apply at the American embassy, pay a large fine, and get at the back of the line to enter legally.
#34. What are Mexican bishops doing to eliminate the class system that prevails in Mexico? At the top there are still the rich hacienda-owners, priding themselves on the amount of pure Spanish blood they have flowing in their veins. When will you convince them to give up some of their 1000-square-mile+ ranches and give it to the descamisados? At the bottom of the caste structure there are still poor Indian villages where no Spanish is spoken. There are still bishops living in rococo palaces, anachronisms from the Baroque era when bishops were princes. What are the bishops doing about the drug trafficking, which grows worse and worse? (5)
#35. This paragraph brings up the topic of guest workers: people who come to harvest crops, but then return to their countries. It remains to be seen whether or not there are “jobs so demeaning that Americans will not do them”, such as stoop labor on farms. Let’s say that there are. I can see a guest worker program. We wouldn’t expect them to act like American citizens, but we would expect them to obey our laws. They needn’t learn English. We would treat physical emergencies, like getting hurt in an accident, but for long-term treatment, such as for cancer or leukemia, they would need to return to Mexico. They would not get welfare or food stamps. They would not get free education in our schools.
#38. Often the illegal found north of our border is a drug trafficker. They are even known to kill our border agents. (5)
CHAPTER 3
#40. The average Mexican crossing our border illegally does not go to Mass, or make any attempt to join the local parish. To say they have a “rich faith tradition” is poetry, not objective truth. In fact, Latin Americans remain a largely uncatechized population, little more Christian than when the Spanish and Portuguese left in the 18th century. This is why Protestant groups are having such massive success there. The violence, the lack of law and order, are vestiges of the pre-Columbian past.
There is an “either-or” in this paragraph. We are told not to accept migrants as “foreboding aliens, terrorists or economic threats, BUT rather as persons with dignity and rights…” Foreboding means “having a presentiment of something bad”. Many of these illegals are criminals. Forty % of the inmates of our American prisons are Hispanic. 27% of the inmates of our American prisons are illegal Hispanics. (6) Bishop Estevez of St. Augustine says that there are only 10,000,000 illegals in the US. If the entire population is 360,000,000 that means that they constitute 2.8% of the population. Compare that with the 27% of our prisons who are illegal Hispanics. The website for La Raza makes the organization sound pro-American, but stories that circulate tell a tale of La Raza as anti-American.
Americans are justly suspicious of statements put out by the Obama government. His labor department claims that unemployment is about 7.7%. UnionofUnemployed.com says that it is more like 14.6%. (7) Unbridled immigration IS an economic threat to our unemployed citizens. If we had lawmakers who believed in less government, less regulation, and a moratorium on spending, we’d have a booming economy, and hence, we could absorb a larger amount of immigrants. Still, we cannot take so many that we would be inundated with people who would change the culture, as in Estonia. No, we DO regard them as “foreboding aliens, terrorists or economic threats, AND as persons with dignity and rights…”
#42. Why should WE pay for legal services for illegal immigrants when they get caught? They are citizens of Mexico, and Mexico should come to the aid of its citizens.
#45. Mexican pastors should be counseling their parishioners not to cross into the United States illegally.
It makes no sense to permit the Tohono and O’odham Indians to move back and forth across the border as they see fit. In this day of terrorists there needs to be some control.
#46. “Special encouragement should be given to migrants to be faithful to their spouses and families and thereby to live out the sacrament of marriage.” They frequently abandon their wives and children and simply start over in the USA.
#49. If Mexicans are so very religious, where are the vocations?
CHAPTER 4
#57. “Both governments have recognized the integration of economic interests thru NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement.” But read #60.
#60. “NAFTA has harmed small businesses in Mexico, especially in the rural sector.” It has its disadvantages for Americans, too. (8)
#65. The family member who is residing legally in the United States can return home to visit family members. He can make telephone calls. Let us say that the maximum quota of Mexicans has been allowed in. Let’s say it consists of husbands/fathers. If we then allow his wife and perhaps 8 children in (and I am not advocating smaller families), then multiply by the total number already here, we expand the max. quota by 9!
LEGALIZATION of the UNDOCUMENTED (sic: ILLEGAL)
#68. Estimates of the illegal population start at 11.5-12,000,000 (9) and go as high as 20-38,000,000. (10) There is a tendency for those who push for legalization to use small numbers, as the bishops do here. The truth is, we really don’t know how many there are.
#69. “A broad legalization program of the undocumented (sic: illegal) would benefit not only the migrants but also both nations.” It would not benefit the United States and would benefit Mexico only in the short run, by getting rid of people whom that country can’t – or won’t - feed or house. In the long run the societal structures that lead to their poverty would still not be addressed. Dumping the problem north of the border is not the solution.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would help to stabilize the labor market in the US...” This article shows how it would de-stabilize it.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from Mexico…who are in the United States would …preserve family unity...” It would be the green light for an unprecedented horde of newcomers –each person’s entire clan - and because of their sheer numbers, they would never assimilate, thus changing the character of the American psyche, probably for the worse.
“Making legal the large number of undocumented workers from many nations who are in the United States would …improve the standard of living in immigrant communities.” The US is a unique nation: to achieve a unified people (e pluribus unum) we expect newcomers to give up their previous allegiances. Previous immigrant groups have taken a generation or two, but they have done it. Mexicans expect to come here and set up little permanent Mexican enclaves and bi-lingualism. We expect more of migrants other than that they want to make a lot of money: we expect allegiance to the USA. They indicate no such allegiance, as illustrated by the fact that, during soccer games between the US and Mexico, they root for Mexico. There is also the famous photo of their stamping on both the US and Arizona flags. (11)
#70. Actually, the flow of remittances back to Mexico is a drain on our economy, and should be stopped, not enhanced.
#72. It is not obvious that the United States needs Mexican laborers. We allow our children to begin work at age 16. At that age they are robust; their bodies are flexible, and they don’t expect much in the way of pay. Our own teen-agers can fill a lot of these jobs that “Americans won’t take”.
But let’s grant that we may need foreign labor. “Labor protection and appropriate benefits” ought to be saved for legal migrants, those who have at least applied for citizenship. There’s no point in being a citizen if any illegal gets the same benefits.
I agree with a temporary visa for laborers.
“Arrangements could be made with the organizations that process these remittances (money sent back to Mexico) to channel some of their earnings from the fees to support community development in Mexico, such as road construction, sewers, health clinics etc.” Mexico is thoroly corrupt, and the money would never get to these projects if given to officials. The church itself needs to engage in these activities, until you finally wean the people off the graft system.
#73. This paragraph advocates the US creating a class of legal permanent residents. In what way would it be in the interests of the USA to create such a class? If one is going to live here permanently, enjoying the products of citizenship, he ought to be a citizen. Someone who lives here but is not, is bad for the morale of those who are. For example, if there are enough of them, their lack of interest in elections can keep would-be voters from the polls.
#75. “The USA and Mexico should conclude a Social Security agreement that allows workers to accrue benefits for work performed in the (temporary worker) program.” I disagree. SS ought to be a privilege of citizenship. Social-Security-type support ought to be given to these workers by Mexico, the country of which the migrants are citizens. They can pay Mexico when they pay their taxes there for SS insurance, same as we Americans do.
#76. “A properly constructed worker program would reduce the number of undocumented (sic: illegal) persons migrating from Mexico to the US, lessening the calls for border enforcement, and the demands for the services of unscrupulous smugglers.” I agree. And if our American bishops and priests would do their homework, stop supporting the Democratic Party’s platform of enlarging government, and advocate smaller government and less laws and restrictions, we’d get our economy not only back to work, but booming. This would in turn create the need for more workers.
#80. “…migrants are often treated as criminals by civil enforcement authorities.” They ARE criminals. They are breaking our federal law.
#82. What are we supposed to do with unaccompanied minor illegals? They are too young to work. Why are their parents sending them here alone?
Why would illegals need a lawyer? They are caught in the act of entering illegally.
#83. This paragraph admits to some of the bribery that goes on in Mexico. Bribery permeates the entire society. You Mexicans who contributed to this document are telling me what I must do; I will tell you what YOU must do: get rid of the graft.
#84. “Corruption continues to weaken the Mexican migration system and to hurt the common good.” I’m glad that you admit it. The first step in solving a problem is to describe it accurately.
#85. The problem is that our border patrol agents have been instructed to let illegal immigrants alone. This is because Obama and the Democratic Party see them as potential Democratic voters. Oh, yes: illegals vote. There is an old Democratic saying: “Vote early and vote often”.
#86. Increasing the number of border patrol agents just becomes a bigger drain on the American economy. Tripling the amount of people who will do nothing amounts to the same old: nothing is being done. 3 X 0 = 0.
#87. If illegals die in the process of trying to enter the US at remote locations, that certainly is a risk that they are responsible for. Smuggling Mexicans into the US seems to be a Mexican problem. What are the Mexican bishops doing about that?
#89. Why should care “be taken not to push migrants to routes in which their lives may be in danger”? How very liberal to put the blame on those trying to enforce the law, rather than on those who are breaking it. No one is pushing them. And why should US enforcement authorities “abandon the type of strategies that give rise to migrant smuggling operations and migrant deaths”? Rather, shouldn’t Mexico crack down on the smugglers? Word circulating back in Mexico that no one is going to rescue you if you get in trouble, will be a big deterrent to making the try.
#94. “Once apprehended, migrants often are held in unsanitary and crowded prisons, jails and detention centers…sometimes alongside serious criminal offenders.” They ARE serious criminals: entering the country illegally is a federal crime. Forging documents, passing forged documents, stealing an ID, and using a stolen ID are felony crimes. Illegals caught in the act should not be held in luxurious environments, but rather in accommodations which are minimal. It is not unfair to place them in with other criminals. Both of these things should serve as deterrents. When the illegal gets back home, he can inform others not to try it.
#103. The document quotes JPII: “…the church is the place where illegal immigrants (Note that the Pope is not afraid to use the correct term) are also accepted as brothers and sisters. It is the task of the various Dioceses actively to insure that these people, who are obliged to live outside the safety net of civil society, may find a sense of brotherhood in the Christian community.”
The paragraph goes on to say, “The church must, therefore, welcome all persons regardless of race, culture, language and nation with joy, charity, and hope.” It must do this for legal migrants; it owes nothing more than justice to illegals. Treat them decently while deporting them.
*
I have limited myself to illegal immigration coming across our southern border.
Often during the length of Strangers No Longer it is not kept clear whether it is speaking of legal or illegal migrants. I have no problem agreeing with what the document advocates when it comes to legal immigrants. There should have been three separate documents: one dealing with illegals crossing the border, another dealing with illegals who have been living here for some time, and another dealing with legal immigrants. There are times in the document when it is clear that illegal immigrants are the subject. Then there is a lapse into speaking of “migrants” and advocating certain things for them. I’d be in favor of those things for legal migrants, not in favor for illegal ones.
Before we say one word about Charity, we need to make very sure that all the demands of justice are fulfilled. I hope to have shown that going soft on illegal immigration is grosssy unjust to citizens who are already here.
______________________________________________________________________________________
(1) http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/02/04/Mexicans-slow-to-become-US-citizens/UPI-78841360021893/
(2) http://www.hprweb.com/2003/12/party-politics-and-the-priesthood/
(3) http://catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=2927
(4) ibid.
(5) Follow the activities of the multi-state 18th Street Gang, to which many illegals belong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang
Follow the activities of the international Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang to which many illegals belong, and which aids in migrant-smuggling from Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha#Illegal_immigration_and_human_smuggling
It would be of benefit to read the many websites about these 2 groups, as this paper doesn’t have room to go into them.
(6) Book on CDs: What the (bleep) Happened? By Monica Crowley
(7) http://www.unionofunemployed.com/blog/homepage/real-unemployment-rate-february-2013/
(8) http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Problems.htm
(9) On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals.
-Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet PewHispanic.com April 26, 2006
(10) Californians for Population Stabilization -CAPS – estimates the illegal alien population at 20 to 38 Million. Capsweb.org. 2007-08-31. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
(11) http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=photo+stomping+on+Arzona+flag&qpvt=photo+stomping+on+Arzona+flag&FORM=IGRE
(12) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080614143232AAhD4bM
(13) ibid.
Friday, July 5, 2013
Response to Bishop Estevez' Advocacy of Gang-of-Eight Immigration Bill
I am a practicing Catholic who love my faith. I am NOT disgruntled, seeking to get even for some imagined grievance. I earned a Master of Arts in Theology from Franciscan University in 1996, so do know what the Catholic faith teaches. I was born in 1937, so do the math.
Bishop Estévez was born February 5, 1946 in Havana, Cuba and arrived in the United States on a Pedro Pan flight as a teenager. He was ordained a priest in 1970 and has done extensive studies in Spiritual Theology, earning a doctorate from Gregorian University in Rome. He is fluent in Spanish, English, French and Italian. He was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on November 21, 2003. He became bishop of the St. Augustine diocese on June 1, 2011.
Before the Senate voted to pass S7444 bishop Estevez had our local Catholic radio station air a PSA calling on Catholics to contact their lawmakers to pass the Gang of Eight Bill, or a similar one which would legalize the illegals living in the USA.
Here is a transcript of his radio message:
“The Catholic community stands in support of immigration reform which is presently being considered by our Congress and I invite every member of this diocese of St. Augustine to support that immigration reform. There is such a need for a broad comprehensive immigration reform that provides for a legal guest worker program so that it offers an earned path of legalization for 10 millions or so workers already in the country as well as fixing an acceptable backlog of family reunification visas that keep families separated for intolerable lengths of time. Regretfully at times some people see immigration just from the perspective of enforcement and billions of dollars have been spent in that enforcement, which is necessary because each country must have control of its borders, but we need a comprehensive outlook in which the laws are made to serve the human being, to serve families and particularly when we are dealing with workers who want to work hard for the benefit of our economy. Please let your voice be known to the congress, the 2 US senators, so that this immigration law we may not miss the opportunity that is in front of us, that we may take advantage of this moment to solve a very important need for our country which is the legalization of so many workers and families that need to be legally in our country.” -Bishop Estevez
Bishop Estevez is a good man, a sincere man. He tries to get away from the old-style bishop who arrived in his limo to confirm kids, and when it was over, was whisked away without any contact with the people. When he is to say Mass in e.g., my parish, he comes early, sits off to the side inconspicuously and prays, getting himself ready spiritually for what he is about to do. Afterwards, if there is a reception, he mingles with the crowd. He’s humble. So I’m sure that he comes to his conclusions from a motive of Christian Charity. But we have to satisfy the demands of justice before we can begin to talk about Charity.
He also comes to his conclusion as a member of the American episcopate: the bishops of our 269 dioceses. That body is riddled with liberals. In January, 2003, a committee of American bishops collaborated with a similar committee of Mexican bishops in writing, Strangers no Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. In another post I will give my rebuttal of many of the ideas advocated in that 107-paragraph document. Our American committee was most probably composed of liberal bishops. So far the US Council of Catholic Bishops has not responded to my request for the identities of the authors.
Bishop Estevez is of Hispanic culture. Anglo-Saxon culture, of which the USA is part, is superior to Hispanic culture in one respect: we pass laws, and place ourselves under them. Hispanic countries pass laws, and immediately circumvent them by a process of graft and corruption. In my humble opinion, this is one of the big reasons why Latin America has made so little economic progress. No matter how much we may “love” the illegals living in the USA, the big fact remains that they broke our law getting into our country, and continue to break our laws for the 30 years that they may stay here. To the Hispanic mind this is no big deal; to the Anglo mind it is a very big deal.
The Catholic community does NOT stand in support of the legislation of the “gang of Eight”, as the bishop states. Only liberal Catholics support it. Let’s be clear. There can be no debate on principles; there can be debate on policies and methods of applying those principles. This is such a case. I don’t know any orthodox Catholics who support this bill, because it is very unjust to the Americans who are already citizens.
It is truly ironic: our bishops and priests almost never enunciate principles either before or between elections; and now, when one does, he is on the wrong side, despite his sincerity.
Our bishops and priests are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status. The prohibition on political speech from the pulpit did not become part of the Internal Revenue Code until 1954, when an amendment to section 501(c) (3) was introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson during a Senate floor debate on the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. The prohibition was added to the code without hearings, testimony or comment by any tax-exempt organizations. (1) To my knowledge this abridgement of the clergy's First Amendment rights has never been challenged.
Why did Johnson do this? Endnote 3 says,
“Hypotheses about the origins of the political activity prohibition abound. See Deirdre Halloran & Kevin Kearney, Federal Tax Code Restrictions on Church Political Activity, 38 Cath. Law. 105, 106-108 (1998), which suggests that the prohibition represented Johnson’s response to support provided by certain tax-exempt organizations to Dudley Dougherty, Johnson’s challenger in the 1954 primary election.” (2)
I agree with the bishop that we need a guest worker program, but let’s be careful to add that this does not entitle guest workers to Social Security benefits, or free medical care, free food stamps, and free education. Such things are the duty of the countries of which the guest workers are still citizens. Only those with American citizenship should be entitled to these.
They could get drivers’ licenses for which they would pay, and the license would state their status clearly. They would get insurance, like any American has to do.
Regarding his statement that there are a mere 10 million illegals already living in our country (3), I must counter that Californians for Population Stabilization says that there are between 20-38 million illegals here. (4)
As to the bishop’s claim that illegals want to work hard for the benefit of our economy, that needs to be proved, for the evidence seems to be otherwise. As it is, 40% of our American prison population is Hispanic, 13% legal, 27% illegal. (5) If the bishop’s figure of 10 million illegals residing in the USA is correct, and if the population is 360,000,000, then the illegal population is 2.8%. There is quite a discrepancy between 2.8% and 27%. (6) The problem is precisely that those who want to work do NOT want to work for our economy, but to earn money to be sent back in the form of “remittances” to Mexico, etc. This money drain is bad for our economy. Those who do not want to work have been told of the various government programs that they will get free. The Obama regime even advertises these programs in Mexico.
Bishop Estevez admits that countries have a right to control their borders. (7) Controlling the border is one issue; another is making sure that the amount of foreigners being admitted is no more than a certain number so that they can be assimilated into the existing citizenry. It’s too bad that we can’t control the % of Mexicans in large cities, for they set up foreign enclaves and resist assimilation. (This is hyperbole; I am not seriously advocating this.) Other immigrant groups huddled together when they came, but they grew out of it.
Granting amnesty to 20-38 million (or 10 million if you wish) illegals puts them in competition with citizen-workers. In fact, now that Obamacare is a fact, employers will prefer illegals, as they are less hassle. Is that treating citizens with justice? John Carney and Jeff Cox of CNBC say that the Congressional Budget Office’s view that S744 will be good for the economy is misleading. They say that enactment of this bill will increase unemployment and drive down wages for American workers. (8)
Passing this bill will be the signal for an increase in both illegal- and attempted-legal- immigration, and the country cannot absorb all that.
Contrary to what bishop Estevez says, these illegals don’t need to be in our country. We should impose a heavy burden on employers to investigate their employees who entered our country over the Rio Grande River and if they are found to be illegal, to dismiss them. They will then return to Mexico on their own dollar, where they will “be reunited with their families”. They can then apply at the American consulate, pay a heavy fine, and go to the back of the line. That is the just way of handling things.
It is a mistake to think that all those Mexicans or Hispanics who played by the rules and waited for years are unanimous in wanting amnesty for illegals, for they are not. There is no one comprehensive source of opinion on this; there are many websites such as, You Don’t Speak for Me! which bear me out.
He says that if the Senate bill becomes law, Black unemployment, legal Hispanic unemployment, union household unemployment, all will go up.
Glenn Beck and conservative talk show hosts say that if amnesty is granted and the border is not sealed, a permanent, irreversible change away from the vision of the Founding Fathers in the form of a one-party system is sure to follow. That is the way of Nazi Germany, the USSR and its satellites, and - yes, Cuba. I don’t believe bishop Estevez wants this.
The fight is not over. I ask listeners to support tough - not soft - immigration reform, as described in this email.
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1) http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/preaching-politics-from-the-pulpit-2012-answers.aspx
(2) ibid., endnote 3.
(3) The Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March, 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals.
(4) Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet PewHispanic.com April 26, 2006
(5) Californians for Population Stabilization -CAPS – estimates the illegal alien population at 20 to 38 million. Capsweb.org. 2007-08-31. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
Book on CDs: What the (bleep) Happened? By Monica Crowley
(6) Follow the activities of the multi-state 18th Street Gang, to which many illegals belong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang
Follow the activities of the international Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang to which many illegals belong, and which aids in migrant-smuggling from Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha#Illegal_immigration_and_human_smuggling
It would be of benefit to read the many websites about these 2 groups, as this paper doesn’t have room to go into them.
(7) 2241 of the Catholic Catechism says, “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 in regard to the immigrants’ duties toward the country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens”. This assumes legal immigration, but it applies just as well to illegals until they cross the border back into Mexico.
(8) http://www.cnbc.com/id/100839831
(9) http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/ted-cruz-exposes-amnesty-bill-5000-penalty-for-hiring-citizens-over-legalized-aliens/#ixzz2XTHDPlUL
Bishop Estévez was born February 5, 1946 in Havana, Cuba and arrived in the United States on a Pedro Pan flight as a teenager. He was ordained a priest in 1970 and has done extensive studies in Spiritual Theology, earning a doctorate from Gregorian University in Rome. He is fluent in Spanish, English, French and Italian. He was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Miami on November 21, 2003. He became bishop of the St. Augustine diocese on June 1, 2011.
Before the Senate voted to pass S7444 bishop Estevez had our local Catholic radio station air a PSA calling on Catholics to contact their lawmakers to pass the Gang of Eight Bill, or a similar one which would legalize the illegals living in the USA.
Here is a transcript of his radio message:
“The Catholic community stands in support of immigration reform which is presently being considered by our Congress and I invite every member of this diocese of St. Augustine to support that immigration reform. There is such a need for a broad comprehensive immigration reform that provides for a legal guest worker program so that it offers an earned path of legalization for 10 millions or so workers already in the country as well as fixing an acceptable backlog of family reunification visas that keep families separated for intolerable lengths of time. Regretfully at times some people see immigration just from the perspective of enforcement and billions of dollars have been spent in that enforcement, which is necessary because each country must have control of its borders, but we need a comprehensive outlook in which the laws are made to serve the human being, to serve families and particularly when we are dealing with workers who want to work hard for the benefit of our economy. Please let your voice be known to the congress, the 2 US senators, so that this immigration law we may not miss the opportunity that is in front of us, that we may take advantage of this moment to solve a very important need for our country which is the legalization of so many workers and families that need to be legally in our country.” -Bishop Estevez
Bishop Estevez is a good man, a sincere man. He tries to get away from the old-style bishop who arrived in his limo to confirm kids, and when it was over, was whisked away without any contact with the people. When he is to say Mass in e.g., my parish, he comes early, sits off to the side inconspicuously and prays, getting himself ready spiritually for what he is about to do. Afterwards, if there is a reception, he mingles with the crowd. He’s humble. So I’m sure that he comes to his conclusions from a motive of Christian Charity. But we have to satisfy the demands of justice before we can begin to talk about Charity.
He also comes to his conclusion as a member of the American episcopate: the bishops of our 269 dioceses. That body is riddled with liberals. In January, 2003, a committee of American bishops collaborated with a similar committee of Mexican bishops in writing, Strangers no Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. In another post I will give my rebuttal of many of the ideas advocated in that 107-paragraph document. Our American committee was most probably composed of liberal bishops. So far the US Council of Catholic Bishops has not responded to my request for the identities of the authors.
Bishop Estevez is of Hispanic culture. Anglo-Saxon culture, of which the USA is part, is superior to Hispanic culture in one respect: we pass laws, and place ourselves under them. Hispanic countries pass laws, and immediately circumvent them by a process of graft and corruption. In my humble opinion, this is one of the big reasons why Latin America has made so little economic progress. No matter how much we may “love” the illegals living in the USA, the big fact remains that they broke our law getting into our country, and continue to break our laws for the 30 years that they may stay here. To the Hispanic mind this is no big deal; to the Anglo mind it is a very big deal.
The Catholic community does NOT stand in support of the legislation of the “gang of Eight”, as the bishop states. Only liberal Catholics support it. Let’s be clear. There can be no debate on principles; there can be debate on policies and methods of applying those principles. This is such a case. I don’t know any orthodox Catholics who support this bill, because it is very unjust to the Americans who are already citizens.
It is truly ironic: our bishops and priests almost never enunciate principles either before or between elections; and now, when one does, he is on the wrong side, despite his sincerity.
Our bishops and priests are afraid of losing their tax-exempt status. The prohibition on political speech from the pulpit did not become part of the Internal Revenue Code until 1954, when an amendment to section 501(c) (3) was introduced by then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson during a Senate floor debate on the 1954 Internal Revenue Code. The prohibition was added to the code without hearings, testimony or comment by any tax-exempt organizations. (1) To my knowledge this abridgement of the clergy's First Amendment rights has never been challenged.
Why did Johnson do this? Endnote 3 says,
“Hypotheses about the origins of the political activity prohibition abound. See Deirdre Halloran & Kevin Kearney, Federal Tax Code Restrictions on Church Political Activity, 38 Cath. Law. 105, 106-108 (1998), which suggests that the prohibition represented Johnson’s response to support provided by certain tax-exempt organizations to Dudley Dougherty, Johnson’s challenger in the 1954 primary election.” (2)
I agree with the bishop that we need a guest worker program, but let’s be careful to add that this does not entitle guest workers to Social Security benefits, or free medical care, free food stamps, and free education. Such things are the duty of the countries of which the guest workers are still citizens. Only those with American citizenship should be entitled to these.
They could get drivers’ licenses for which they would pay, and the license would state their status clearly. They would get insurance, like any American has to do.
Regarding his statement that there are a mere 10 million illegals already living in our country (3), I must counter that Californians for Population Stabilization says that there are between 20-38 million illegals here. (4)
As to the bishop’s claim that illegals want to work hard for the benefit of our economy, that needs to be proved, for the evidence seems to be otherwise. As it is, 40% of our American prison population is Hispanic, 13% legal, 27% illegal. (5) If the bishop’s figure of 10 million illegals residing in the USA is correct, and if the population is 360,000,000, then the illegal population is 2.8%. There is quite a discrepancy between 2.8% and 27%. (6) The problem is precisely that those who want to work do NOT want to work for our economy, but to earn money to be sent back in the form of “remittances” to Mexico, etc. This money drain is bad for our economy. Those who do not want to work have been told of the various government programs that they will get free. The Obama regime even advertises these programs in Mexico.
Bishop Estevez admits that countries have a right to control their borders. (7) Controlling the border is one issue; another is making sure that the amount of foreigners being admitted is no more than a certain number so that they can be assimilated into the existing citizenry. It’s too bad that we can’t control the % of Mexicans in large cities, for they set up foreign enclaves and resist assimilation. (This is hyperbole; I am not seriously advocating this.) Other immigrant groups huddled together when they came, but they grew out of it.
Granting amnesty to 20-38 million (or 10 million if you wish) illegals puts them in competition with citizen-workers. In fact, now that Obamacare is a fact, employers will prefer illegals, as they are less hassle. Is that treating citizens with justice? John Carney and Jeff Cox of CNBC say that the Congressional Budget Office’s view that S744 will be good for the economy is misleading. They say that enactment of this bill will increase unemployment and drive down wages for American workers. (8)
Passing this bill will be the signal for an increase in both illegal- and attempted-legal- immigration, and the country cannot absorb all that.
Contrary to what bishop Estevez says, these illegals don’t need to be in our country. We should impose a heavy burden on employers to investigate their employees who entered our country over the Rio Grande River and if they are found to be illegal, to dismiss them. They will then return to Mexico on their own dollar, where they will “be reunited with their families”. They can then apply at the American consulate, pay a heavy fine, and go to the back of the line. That is the just way of handling things.
It is a mistake to think that all those Mexicans or Hispanics who played by the rules and waited for years are unanimous in wanting amnesty for illegals, for they are not. There is no one comprehensive source of opinion on this; there are many websites such as, You Don’t Speak for Me! which bear me out.
* * *
Now Senate bill S744 has been passed. Sen. Ted Cruz, who, like bishop Estevez, is of Cuban descent, filed an amendment that would have corrected one of the most egregious aspects of the gang of eight bill as it intersects with Obamacare legislation, namely a penalty imposed on U.S. employers for hiring U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents. S744 says if an employer hires a citizen or a legal immigrant, the IRS can impose a $5,000 penalty on that employer, but if the employer instead hires someone with RPI status, that penalty will go away. Cruz called it, “Utterly and completely indefensible”. He says that if the Senate bill becomes law, Black unemployment, legal Hispanic unemployment, union household unemployment, all will go up.
Glenn Beck and conservative talk show hosts say that if amnesty is granted and the border is not sealed, a permanent, irreversible change away from the vision of the Founding Fathers in the form of a one-party system is sure to follow. That is the way of Nazi Germany, the USSR and its satellites, and - yes, Cuba. I don’t believe bishop Estevez wants this.
The fight is not over. I ask listeners to support tough - not soft - immigration reform, as described in this email.
_________________________________________________________________________________
(1) http://www.pewforum.org/Church-State-Law/preaching-politics-from-the-pulpit-2012-answers.aspx
(2) ibid., endnote 3.
(3) The Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March, 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals.
(4) Pew Hispanic Center Factsheet PewHispanic.com April 26, 2006
(5) Californians for Population Stabilization -CAPS – estimates the illegal alien population at 20 to 38 million. Capsweb.org. 2007-08-31. Retrieved 2011-09-22.
Book on CDs: What the (bleep) Happened? By Monica Crowley
(6) Follow the activities of the multi-state 18th Street Gang, to which many illegals belong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang
Follow the activities of the international Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) gang to which many illegals belong, and which aids in migrant-smuggling from Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha#Illegal_immigration_and_human_smuggling
It would be of benefit to read the many websites about these 2 groups, as this paper doesn’t have room to go into them.
(7) 2241 of the Catholic Catechism says, “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 in regard to the immigrants’ duties toward the country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens”. This assumes legal immigration, but it applies just as well to illegals until they cross the border back into Mexico.
(8) http://www.cnbc.com/id/100839831
(9) http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/ted-cruz-exposes-amnesty-bill-5000-penalty-for-hiring-citizens-over-legalized-aliens/#ixzz2XTHDPlUL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)