Thursday, April 20, 2006

Shame of the Catholic Church: Illegal Immigration


When the church takes a stance like this it really makes me wonder what kind of church my son will grow up in to. I refer to the April 13, 2006 issue of The Catholic Spirit for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
Dignity for all
40,000 people participate in state’s largest immigration rally
The article takes a little time to set up the story... and it's a story, not news. A couple came to America from Mexico, started working in some low-wage jobs, now they can feed, educate, and support their children and parents back in Mexico.

The author takes four 'graphs to even mention an important detail. (Say it with me, you know the euphamism of the month.)
But, like countless other undocumented immigrants in Minnesota and around the country...
(Emphasis mine... big surprise.)

It gets better.
Francisco and Edith don’t see themselves as criminals. Rather, they said through an interpreter, they wish U.S. laws would recognize their hard work and contributions to society.
If it makes you feel any better Francisco and Edith, I don't consider you criminals either... but you have commit a crime. You've also done something rude and insulting to every other immigrant who comes to this country legally. Obviously, your motives are fine... helping out your family by going where the you find work. However, we want far fewer illegal immigrants here and more legal immigrants.

We don't expect illegal immigrants to assimilate. Hell, we have a hard enough time trying to get certain legal immigrants to assimilate. That isn't good for our country or our future.
...Handmade signs proclaimed: “We are here to work,” “Love your neighbor,” and “Whatever happened to the American dream?” Two children held up a sign saying, “We are not criminals.”
Please tell me these folks are either kidding or don't understand exactly what the sandal-wearing, class-skipping, patchouli-oil-drenching, DNC activist, aging hippies wrote down on the signs.

The American dream is for those who want to come and be part of America.

Love your neighbor? Do you mean Mexico? How does a concern for our borders even begin to suggest we either hate or merely dislike the country of Mexico or the Mexican people? How?
“We are at a crossroads right now that will define the character of our country,” Archbishop Harry Flynn declared over a loudspeaker.
Yes, archbishop... at the crossroads of the safety of the American public, the security of our country, and the future for which many more immigrants hope for. This sort of activity puts the cart before the horse, and it exposes a grave problem that evil folks may capitalize on. Terrorists can easily use methods similar to those used by illegal immigrants coming through Mexico. Need I remind you that we don't want that? It's a larger issue, your eminence.

If you don't mind that illegal immigration helps to create a second-class citizen then your devotion to the poor and less fortunate should be questioned. Do you want to help Mexicans, other Central Americans, South Americans, Chinese, and all the other folks who come to our great country for a chance to work their way to success and a better life for their families? Then do it the right way... without illegal immigration.

There's more... so much more. Read it.

Of course, that article was not alone in the issue.
In immigration law, distinctions of ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ fairly recent

Here’s a little-understood fact about immigration law: Until well into the 20th century, pretty much anyone who showed up at a port of entry or walked across a border got to stay in the United States.

In other words, one reason so many people today can say “my ancestors followed the law when they came here” is because until fairly recently there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not. With few exceptions, anyone who got here was admitted.
Has anyone told the Catholic News Service that we also stopped slavery, land-owner voting, allowed women to cast ballots, and eventually graduated from cart-and-horse transportation to the automobile?
There were some exceptions to the open-door policy, explains an immigration law history article provided by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau, as the agency Meissner headed in the 1990s is now called. An 1882 Chinese exclusion law that remained on the books until 1943 was originally aimed at limiting cheap labor.
Imagine that?
[Doris Meissner, former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and now a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute,] said that as she travels around the country she often hears people say, “I can accept that these illegal immigrants are good, hard-working people, but they should follow the law and come in legally, like my great-grandparents did.”

Aside from the point that those great-grandparents probably came in at a time when everyone was admitted, Meissner sees a basic misconception about that possibility.

“People do not understand that there is no legal avenue for them to go through,” she said.
So those folks who sneak through hidden tunnels, pay smugglers to transport them across the border, and bolt under the cover of darkness would normally do that to go on vacation to get to Paris? No?

That piece was somewhat close to propaganda. It is an interested point of history... however, it's fairly pointless and useless today.

You didn't think that was all, did you? Of course not.
Concern for people, not partisan politics, should drive immigration debate

“The right thing to do is what’s right for the party.”

“Long live the party!”

You may have thought these political mantras lost their relevance along with the old Soviet Union. But it turns out the sentiments captured by these slogans are alive and well on Capitol Hill. These days, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle seem more concerned about serving their respective party than serving the people of the United States.
If Nick Coleman wasn't such a Godless-Commie, I'd suspect him of moonlighting for the Catholic News Service.

Say, Joe Towalski, do you realize that the party-before-people arguement you're using actually hurts your side of the debate?

Anyone who quotes Teddy Kennedy and compliments him clearly has a screw loose. Don't believe me?
Sen. Edward Kennedy summed it up best when he said that “politics got ahead of policy on this issue.” One hopes that lawmakers from both parties will remember that it’s people, not political parties, that matter most.

What a stunod.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home