Here’s another newsitorial–this time from Catholic News Service.
It has the startling headline:
In immigration law, distinctions of ‘legal,’ ‘illegal’ fairly recent
Huh? Really? Nobody distinguished between legal and illegal aliens until recently?
How does this headline get justified? Let’s look at the opening of the story:
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.
You’ll note that I’ve put two phrases in blue here and two phrases in red.
The blue phrases are designed by the reporter (Patricia Zapor) to convey the impression that it is a "fact" that "there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not." That serve to justify the headline of the piece.
But the phrases in red indicate that the blue phrases–and the story as a whole–is creating an inaccurate impression. The reporter knows that there was a distinction between legal and illegal immigration, because she concedes that she says people got legally in "pretty much" of the time and that there were "exceptions."
That means that she’s deliberately slanting the news. She knows that the impression she’s trying to create isn’t accurate, but she’s creating it anyway because of her agenda.
Either that or she’s too slow witted to realize the contradiction.
It’s hard to credit the later idea, though, because the contradiction gets more blatant as the story goes on. Later we read:
"The number who got sent back at Ellis Island was less than 2 percent," Meissner told Catholic News Service in an interview, "possibly less than 1 percent."
And those rejections were almost always because the people suffered from an illness that might make them financially dependent upon the community, she said. For instance, a then-common eye infection left victims blind and presumably unable to support themselves. People who had it were turned away.
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.
Other laws of the era excluded polygamists, those with criminal records for "moral turpitude," people with contagious diseases or epilepsy, professional beggars, anarchists and those who were insane.
So it turns out that there were a whole bunch of categories of people who could not legally enter the country, meaning that if they did enter it that their entry was illegal.
The percentage of people who showed up and were disallowed entry may have been smaller than it is today–or it may not have been smaller at all. I don’t know that more than 1-2% of aliens who show up at U.S. airports today get turned away. The story doesn’t go into that. And it’s not the number of people turned away from Ellis Island that indicates how large a problem illegal immigration was, anyway. It’s the number of people who circumvented Ellis Island and similar institutions that’s an indicator of how many illegals there were.
In any event, the story contains abundant evidence that there was a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. "Pretty much anybody" is not the same thing as "anybody."
So what we have here is another instance of a unprofessional story that violates journalistic ethics with a blatant attempt to slant the news in favor of the author’s agenda.
According to their copyright, CNS is part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Perhaps the bishops need a refresher on the Eighth Commandment. (But there I go again! Thinking that our Shepherds should set a good example for us!)
So, we are comparing denying entry to the terminally ill to denying entry to someone who hasn’t won the immigration lottery. There is a party being disingenous.
That’s it. I only read the Register now!
This slanted story is not at all surprising to me. The bishops have always espoused the liberal Democratic party line on “social justice” issues like this.
To paraphrase Captain Renault in “Casablanca”…
I’m shocked, shocked to find deliberate distortions in the media!
The fact that Ellis Island was used for immigration is evidence enough that there were illegal immigrants. Even if every single person who went to Ellis Island was let in, obviously somone who didn’t would still be illegal because they failed to go through the appropriate immigration process.
Outside such categories, everyone else was presumed to be admissible. It wasn’t until 1924 that the U.S. government began requiring immigrants to obtain visas in their home countries in advance.
At that time quotas also were created for how many people could be admitted from each country, with the exceptions of Mexico and Canada. Within a few years, the Border Patrol was reformed and its focus changed to keeping out and deporting those who didn’t have permission to enter the country.
In short, the country moved from a “everyone is accepted except those rejected policy” to a “everyone is rejected except those accepted policy”. The fact that immigration has changed over the years (which isn’t surprising) is worthy of being news. Comparatively speaking, the former policy was an open border policy. It is only when “open border” is redefined by its oppenents that the article loses veracity.
In San Franscisco harbor, we have Angel Island, which was referred to as the Ellis Island of the west. Health screening was perforned there too. We could do with health screening of immigrants now. Third world antibiotic TB is on the rise in the US.
Jimmy, thanks for giving the “other” side of Catholic teaching on immigration.
“And those rejections were almost always because the people suffered from an illness that might make them financially dependent upon the community, she said.”
The exception this woman cites is for turning away the poor? The blind?
Is this the policy she is recommending now?
Now that would be editorializing Tim. This article is just facts.
Did I miss the part of the article that used the term “open border”?
Because Jimmy pretty clearly pointed out why the veracity of the article was questioned.
“That means that she’s deliberately slanting the news. She knows that the impression she’s trying to create isn’t accurate, but she’s creating it anyway because of her agenda.”
She’s deliberately trying to be fair as demonstrated by the multiple exceptions that she took great efforts to point out. You blame her for creating an inaccurate impression, but by your pointing out the numerous exceptions she herself has offered, your own testimony contradicts your claim against her.
“”Pretty much anybody” is not the same thing as “anybody.””
Are you trying to create an inaccurate impression? She never even used the word “anybody”, not even once. She did use the word “anyone”, and each time she used it, she immediately modified it for clarity. In one case it was “pretty much anyone” and the other was “With few exceptions, anyone”. I think the distinction is clear. And so did you.
Perhaps he was “too slow witted to realize the contradiction.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not sympathetic to the anonymous poster of 1:24 p.m.
The fact that the story was headlined as it was and that it stated that “until fairly recently there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not” shows that the author of the story was trying to create an erroneous impression.
The statement that “until fairly recently there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not” is flat-out false.
This distinction *was* made, as the examples cited in the article show.
No distinction, eh? So someone is claiming my grandma’s father and his brothers didn’t know how to make it legal to bring his family over?
That’s odd, since they worked for years to meet the requirements– a hundred dollars, in hand, and a way to support yourself.
Seems to me that folks are ignoring the way that the goverment didn’t do much for folks back then, while now it does a *lot*. Also, there was a huge demand for folks to fill up the empty areas. There isn’t that same demand, even if some folks want cheap labor.
Is a Catholic allowed to support immigration restrictions?
“The fact that the story was headlined as it was”
The “fact” is that the headline did not say ALL distinctions are recent. Perhaps that was your interpretation, your assumption. Is it fair to expect a headline to convey the whole story? I found it be enticing. Perhaps you did too.
“shows that the author of the story was trying to create an erroneous impression.”
It might suggest that, but it does not show that, as clearly demonstrated by your own testimony as to the numerous exceptions the writer herself took pains to point out. Do you presume yourself fit to judge the writer’s heart?
“The statement that “until fairly recently there was no distinction made about whether someone arrived legally or not” is flat-out false.”
Yes, that sentence taken by itself is a mess. But as you pointed out, or rather as the writer herself pointed out, the very next sentence (“With few exceptions, anyone who got here was admitted.”) plainly contradicts it. So why choose the route of slamming the writer’s honesty, when it would perhaps be more polite to wonder if perhaps she simply was lacking in the perfection of her English skills?
“This distinction *was* made, as the examples cited in the article show.”
Exactly, so why slam the writer’s honesty? You aren’t pointing out anything she herself didn’t say.
C’mon, anonymous.
The editorial slant of the article is crystal clear.
Embroidering a paragraph with qualifications is a well-worn CYA maneuver for writers.
Let me guess… you are against increasing immigration restrictions?
“So what we have here is another instance of a unprofessional story that violates journalistic ethics with a blatant attempt to slant the news in favor of the author’s agenda.”
Here is the agenda, according to Catholic News Service itself:
“The mission of Catholic News Service is the mission of the Church itself — to spread the Gospel through contemporary means of communication.”
Does someone have a problem with that? If any one of you is without agenda, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.
#1. There is a difference between what is stated and what is lived.
#2. Indicating faulty reasoning is not throughing a stone. On the contrary, it is conveying truth.
If Peter was not above fraternal correction by Paul; why then should CNS be above charitable correction.
anonymous has forgiven her,
Now let her go and slant no more!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
I am writing this with the deepest sadness at being at odds with the policies of the American Bishops. I attended a talk on March 24, 2006, given by Bishop Kicanas of the Tucson Diocese. It was part of the American Bishops’ campaign on immigration.
I do not question the Bishops’ subjective intent, nor their subjective sense of compassion and Christian charity. However, I do strongly disagree that they are being truly compassionate or Christian. I also think they are not following the command of Christ and the authentic teachings of the Church to promote the common good and to seek justice for all.
The talk focused on a film produced by Notre Dame University which was frankly very little more than a propaganda film. It showed pobrecitos (poor illegal immigrants) coming for work to “feed their family”. It spoke about the reasons for illegal immigration, the push of poverty and the pull of jobs. It used Scripture to support the need for “hospitality” without distinguishing between the hospitality which helps in real need and the hospitality which encourages and assists in illegal and immoral and voluntary establishment of need by the lawbreaker immigrants.
It dismissed or did not mention, or elaborate on if mentioned, the displacement of American workers, the depression of wages, the fact that a million more people go on the poverty roles every year in America or the aggressive demand for services the current crop of immigrants demonstrate. It did not talk about the militant groups who wish to take over the Southwest because they think it belongs to them. It did not talk about the waving of the Mexican flag and the desecration of the American flag that occurs at various public events where there are Hispanic immigrants. There was no distinction made between legal, illegal, refugees or political asylum seekers.
There were calls for allowing illegals to stay here, work toward citizenship. There were calls for increased numbers of legal immigrants. Any statistic which establishes a reason to oppose illegal immigration is denied or dismissed.
No country can absorb huge numbers of immigrants in a short period of time, legal or illegal, Hispanic or Martian, black or white. Every statistic, every opinion based on experience or common sense tells us that is what is happening.
The Bishops are supporting it without concern for the fact that it is hurting millions of American citizens, breaking up Mexican families and they are using Church resources which belong to all Catholics, including the ones being harmed by excessive immigration, to do so.
I have been watching this issue from the perspective of an orthodox Catholic loyal to the Magisterium, who has roots on both sides of the U.S. Mexican border beginning in 1891 and whose nine grandchildren from three separate families are all one half Hispanic.
I have come to the conlusion that the American bishops are just goofy on this one. Of course that is the same group who brought us Always Our Children, the homosexual/abuse crisis, the bad liturgies and catechesis, the failure to teach Humanae Vitae and who now want to abuse our children with graphic sexual information as a way to “protect them from abuse”.
As I said previously, no nation can absorb too many immigrants too fast, whether they are legal or illegal. We have had too many come in recent years and they help no one, but the rich and big business interests. At the same time some 500,000 a year come illegally, a million Americans go under the poverty line during the same year.
The Church teaches that nations have a right to secure their borders and regulate immigration for the common good. JPII also said more than once that the first line of attack should be to fix the problems in the country of origin so there would be no reason to want to immigrate.
The American Bishops must promote the teachings of the Pope and the Catechism.
ARE THEY?
____________________________________________
Pope John Paul II – Message for World Day of Migration – 2 February 2001
—the Church acquired in Christ, urges her to proclaim the fundamental human rights and to speak out when they are trampled upon. —
–Specifically, these are the right to have ones own country, to live freely in ones own country, to live together with ones family, to have access to the goods necessary for a dignified life, to preserve and develop ones ethnic, cultural and linguistic heritage, to publicly profess ones religion, to be recognized and treated in all circumstances according to ones dignity as a
human being—-
–The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave ones country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant. —
*****************************
When the Bishops in American support the influx of up to a million illegal entrants year after year, while at the same time a million more people in America go on the poverty rolls year after year,* they are promoting harm to both the citizen and the illegal immigrant who works for slave wages. It is detrimental to the common good. *U S Census Bureau statistics on poverty
______________________________________________________________________
MESSAGE OF THE HOLY FATHER JOHN PAUL II FOR THE 90th WORLD DAY OF MIGRANTS AND REFUGEES 2004
–As regards immigrants and refugees, building conditions of peace means in practice being seriously committed to safeguarding first of all the right not to emigrate, that is, the right to live in peace and dignity in ones own country. By means of a farsighted local and national administration, more equitable trade and supportive international cooperation, it is possible for every country to guarantee its own population, in addition to freedom of expression and movement, the possibility to satisfy basic needs such as food, health care, work, housing and education; —-
***********************************
The American Bishops rhetoric does not seem to be in keeping with first of all insuring the right of the illegal entrants coming to America their right to live in their own country. Rather they speak of family unification, amnesty and legality as the first lines of action.
____________________________________________
Encyclical Pacem In Terris
Blessed Pope John XXIII expands the right to migrate as well as the right to not have to migrate:
“Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence within the confines of his own country; and, when there are just reasons for it, the right to emigrate to other countries and take up residence there.
We think it is most opportune that as far as possible employment should seek the worker, not vice versa. For then most citizens have an opportunity to increase their holdings without being forced to leave their native environment and seek a new home with many a heartache, and adopt a new state of affairs and make new social contacts with other citizens.
********************************
The American Bishops should be working first and foremost on making Mexico develop its own natural resources for the benefit of the Mexican citizen who would be able to stay in their own country in the embrace of their extended family. To unite the illegal’s nuclear family in the U S is to break up that sacred family system. We already have enough isolated nuclear families in the U. S.
_____________________________________________________________________CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him. 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 with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
*****************************
The attitude of the current crop of illegal entrants is riddled with animosity and disrespect for America and its citizens. They break our laws with the initial act of entering without permission. The anecdotes are in available for all to see in multiple media reports.
Cardinal Rivera says best answer for migrants is not to have to migrate Mexico City, Sep. 07, 2004 (CNA) – In commemoration of Migrant Day this week in Mexico, Cardinal Norberto Rivera, Archbishop of Mexico City, said the best way to help migrants is to ensure that they do not have to leave their countries of origin
This is the position the American Bishops should promote as the first line of action.
_____________________
OUR VERY CULTURE AND SURVIVAL IS AT STAKE. THE CHURCH HAS A DUTY TO THE DISPLACED AMERICAN CITIZENS BEFORE LAWBREAKING ILLEGLA IMMIGRANTS.
PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LEGISLATORS AND YOUR BISHOPS.
Ann-
Pasting huge amounts of text into the combox is REALLY bad form and makes people more likely to dismiss what you have to say.
Slanted a little? Uh, no. Slanted a lot. Part of the reason our textbooks spend so much time lauding immigrants is that previous American generations didn’t. At all. And they kept out as many immigrants as they could, quite frankly. There were extremely strict quota systems. And people got deported back to dangerous countries where they were killed, while others, like the Jewish ships escaping Nazi Germany, were kept out.
Those quotas — what groups got in, what groups were kept out — changed lives, changed American culture and industry, affected who settled where. There used to be tables in textbooks about this kind of stuff. Lies about this are lies about everything in American history.
Tim,
Thanks for the the constructive criticism. I am just so frustrated with what I perceive as just pure injustice on the part of the American Bishops, I was flailing.
Ann,
A huge AMEN to your entire post!!! I am so glad I’m not the only one who strongly disagrees with the bishops on this. Your post beautifully fleshed out my thoughts on this issue…I think you’re in my head… 🙂
k9mtgnwssl41 dl2wycws73 [URL=http://www.758809.com/380708.html] fcimccub5ojtzg8 [/URL] 4wnu56pk5ldmzec
The lcoal bishop in Austin, Texas put out a letter this weekend for all the faithful. We are to take in the immigrant in our community as one of us.
A short time back a large international company replaced all the workers in one large office. The displaced employees would get no discharge benefit if the walked out, but were required to train Indian immigrants.
The letter wants the faithful without question to support the immigrants in our area and for us to write the government to be very passive and grant all who are here with amnesty.
Two handouts were made available and one even notes in the Catholic Catechism that the immigrants are not required to obey the law.
The information on the handouts was old information and very biased and never touched on the illegal immigrant issue.
Save Me,
Pat
jbjplvql
jbjplvql
urhecpuo
urhecpuo
vrmhtonj
vrmhtonj
yyyrijzq
yyyrijzq