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
No comments:
Post a Comment