Word is that
PRESIDENT BUSH IS GOING TO BE GIVING A MAJOR SPEECH ON IMMIGRATION POLICY ON MONDAY.
Word also is that he will be laying out a "comprehensive" policy proposal for dealing with immigration and that it will include tougher border-securing measures.
Talk includes putting the national guard on the border.
That ain’t enough.
#1: The national guard can’t cover every single foot of the border the way that a wall can.
#2: The national guard won’t stay on the border permanently the way a will will. Eventually, units will be pulled back and reassigned elsewhere, when the public and the MSM isn’t looking.
The bottom line is that no solution involving just putting people on the border will serve as the kind of permanent fix for the torrent of illegal immigration that the nation is currently experiencing.
We’ve been down that road before, and it’s led us to the situation we’re in now.
After all the bridges that Pres. Bush has burned with conservatives, any solution that doesn’t involve a wall is likely to be perceived as another piece of insincere lip service from the president.
To put it bluntly: Conservatives no longer trust Bush, to the extent that they ever did. After debacles like the Harriet Miers nomination, the out-of-control spending while giving lip service to conservative principles, the gay marriage amendment that has gone nowhere, the president is simply no longer trusted by his base.
As a result, if the president comes out touting tough new border enforcement ideas and these do not include the building of a physical barrier that will permanently remain and that can’t simply be recalled and reassigned when the public isn’t looking then it may well be viewed as more insincere lip service on the part of the president.
In other words: It may look like another attempt from a phony-conservative president to deceive his political base.
If so, the proposals he trots out Monday will badly burn him.
It may be Harriet Miers all over again.
I think you are correct about Bush not gaining much support from conservatives. I only hope that what is meant by comprehensive reform is not just building a fence but speeding up legalization procedures as well as helping with the change in the political situation in Mexico. There are 20 million mexican voters in the United states that can vote in mexican elections. These voters also have contact with their voting family members. We can help their candiates that promote capitalist market reforms to get support and even campaign here. Hugo chaves is supporting the left wing marxst candidate financialy already. If the mexican economy is improived the inmugration debate is mute since there will be none.
Who cares what “conservative “think.
I care what the Church thinks.
The church calls for humane reform like some of Mr. Bush’s proposals.
Bravo for Mr. Bush!
No church leader has called for a wall. Instead, they have repeatedly called for the humane reception of immigrants.
Even the illegals.
I heard that you are a good Catholic. You don’t sound like a good Catholic.
After reding about your “wall solution”. I would guess that you’re closer in resemblance to the south end of a northbound jack.
Just because the elite in Mexico have a large population of illiterates to perform manual labor does not mean that America should be remade on that model, no matter what Mr. Bush and his Patrone allies think.
And you are right. He may offer the National Guard just to muscle the Minutemen out but he has every intention to pushing amnesty for the slave army he wants to import.
Mike Schlautman, Thank you for your kind and thoughtful comment. Do you do much “reding”?
“The church calls for humane reform like some of Mr. Bush’s proposals.”
The church also calls for a living wage for the lower classes. How this is compatible with dumping cheap labor on the market has yet to be explained to me.
I apologize misspelling the word “reading”. (Please see comment above, posted at 2:38:46 PM) I was experiencing an episode of astonishment.
I was led to believe that you are a Catholic. You don’t sound very Catholic with this “wall trash”.
Oh, yea, I forgot that Jesus died so that we could build walls to keep people out. My mistake.
I think this is another example of political ideology that hurts many good Catholics. You think like a secular conservative and not with the mind of a Catholic or listen to the bishops of the church. We must find a comphrehensive solution that tones down the extremes of nationalism. Let’s not forget that the immigrants are Catholic and members of the body of Christ like any other Catholic in the world. Does Christian brotherhood and Charity mean anything?
The Supreme Court is a hot-button-across-the-board issue that makes the conservative base take to the streets when they see it drifting towards judicial activism. That’s why Bush got pwnd like a noob when he tried to give us Harriet.
Immigration is a hot-button issue the way Social Security is a hot-button issue–only a section of the base is passionately intense about it, while everyone else is kinda-sorta-in-favor-of-reform-I-guess. With S.S., Democrat seniors own the issue. Contra-wise, with illegal immigration, it’s generally border-state conservatives who make the most noise. The northern states simply do not see the effects of illegal immigration firsthand the way SoCal, Nevada, N.M., Arizona and Texas do.
All of which is not to say Bush’s proposals will be good or bad or anything. Only that I doubt that he will get a Harriet-degree burning, whatever he proposes to do on Monday.
The church also calls for a living wage for the lower classes. How this is compatible with dumping cheap labor on the market has yet to be explained to me.
Keeping them out and/or sending them home might be good for American wages, but not for the wages of the Mexican immigrants (obviously, since otherwise they’d stay in Mexico or else go back once they found out that being in America wasn’t beneficial to them). The Church isn’t looking out for American interests alone — which isn’t surprising since it’s a global institution, not a purely American (or Mexican or French) institution.
“You don’t sound very Catholic with this “wall trash”.”
Mike Sclautman makes a good suggestion; why not make the wall out of trash? That would somewhat alleviate the problem of limited landfill space, while also discouraging illegal immigration.
Mike, my house is MADE of walls, which I hope will keep people out. I wasn’t aware that this was contrary to Catholic doctrine. What should I do?
Bush’s plan will be to get his poll numbers up by recapturing his base. To do that, he will pull a 180 on immigration on Monday night and talk tough. However, we need a wall. Troops are not enought. Not only that, but the House is the one pushing to send troops. They passed the bill, but I’m sure Bush will take credit for it.
Tim J,
How dare you sling logic into this cauldron of flamethrowers?
Tim J.:
Houses are not like nations. People don’t “own” nations. They are not property.
Houses have always had walls. Nations until very recently in history had nothing at all, not even a guy to check your passport. In fact, passports themselves are a very recent invention. Less than a century ago, people were free to wander back and forth from national jurisdiction to national jurisdiction without let or stay.
Laws that treat borders like walls won’t work. And frustrated immigration restrictionists will be debating all these same issues ten years from now.
I’m a conservative, and the key to my vote is the social issues. The key to the social issues is the judiciary. Setting aside the question of Miers, I don’t think we could reasonably expect a better president than Bush on that issue. A judiciary packed with Hilary Clinton appointees ought to make conservatives who see to it that such a thing happens out of unhappiness with Bush’s spending, immigration, etc., record, abashed and ashamed. But I doubt it will!
So many, many things could be far, far worse and unless conservatives stop the internicine warfare, they will be.
Everyone seems to agree that nations have a right to police their borders until one nation in particular actually tries to do so.
Then everyone just loses their marbles and starts hyperventilating about “being good Catholics.”
Mexico has been deporting Guatemalans basically since time immemorial, and I can’t quite recall one bishop saying Mexico didn’t have that right.
But I guess we have different expectations of different groups.
PVO
mulowepaul-
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Let’s just pattern our immigration policy after that of Mexico. That ought to make them happy.
Tim,
Thumbs up. Everyone has been talking about immigration reform. How about this: We set up a reciprical agreement with every nation. What every that nations laws are with us, then our will be the same as theirs.
This email has been making the rounds. I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but if true, it makes you wonder how Presidente Fox could be so arogant.
Received the following from (Tom O’Malley) who was a Director with SW BELL in Mexico City.
You remember I spent five years working in Mexico.
I worked under a tourist Visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working Illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval
During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara’s was the same except hers did not permit her to work.
To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:
1. Birth certificate for Barbara and I.
2. Marriage certificate.
3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation.
4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation.
5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year.
6. A letter from The ST. Louis Chief of Police indication I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was “a citizen in good standing.”
7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican Citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our “I am the greatest person on Earth” letter. It was fun to write.
All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.
Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican Attorney touring Mexican Government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times. At each location and we remember at least four locations we instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the Governments actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Loredo Texas. This meant we has rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.
We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.
We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the Licensing agency to come to our Headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back.
We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I was about twenty legal size pages annually.
The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees.
Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs.
It was a real adventure and If any of our Senators or Congressman went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.
The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest a! t their White house or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.
So let’s make our immigration laws match Mexico’s exactly. No one could complain that it wasn’t fair!
Sorry for the typos. I hope it is readable.
The Church isn’t looking out for American interests alone — which isn’t surprising since it’s a global institution, not a purely American (or Mexican or French) institution.
Ånd what exactly are the Bishops doing to improve the situation for Mexicans in Mexico? What, nothing? So do they believe that Mexicans are not capable of working to improve the conditions in Mexico. In other words, do they hold to a subtle anti-Mexican racism? Or perhaps what is really happening is that the Bishops are simply being consistent with the kneejerk reactions of anti-Americanism that is part of the liberal ideology they suckeled on when they were young.
I will ask is there any historical precedent for Catholic Bishops advocating mass migration of one people into foreign lands in an invasion like process? Did the Church Fathers advocate allowing the Goths, Visigoths, and Vandals into the Roman Empire to have their way with it with the justification that it was somehow humane?
Still and all, when there was famine in Ireland my ancestors fled to America and other places because they were dirt poor and could not feed themselves. They were not welcomed into the US with open arms. I remember reading somewhere that the Irish were not considered a part of the white race then–probably because they were not only poor but Catholic—and you know how many children they’ll have!! My Italian immigrant ancestors didn’t have a much better time of it either.
Seems to me what it all comes down to is that people are afraid of the “browning” of America.
Wry,
What the Church teaches is that countries have a right to control their borders and that they have a right to send illegals home if the common good is not served. See JPII.
One just has to live on the border to know the depth and danger of the problem. I am not afraid of the browning of American, I have mucho mas Hispanics is my immediate family.
It is too many, too fast for our culture to absorb them and just look at the bi-lingual everything everywhere to know they are not assimilating as did past immigrants. All my family are bilingual and we all resent the balkinization of our country with this dual language stuff.
We are frightened by the drug trafficers, the Reconquista mentality, the disease and the destruction of our social service and health care facilities.
The breakup of the extended Mexican family is the destruction of Mexican culture.
The Mexican is not starving like the people in the Sudan. Catholic charity should look to that situation rather than the Mexican invasion.
Why do not the half a million Mexicans living across the border in Nogales Sonora come across and stay? It is because the situation down there is not as bad as the MSM and the exploitive employers here would like us to believe.
To fall into welcoming the illegal immigrant is a pure naive. touchy feely type of charity. All one is doing is helping greedy employers and pandering politicians.
We need foreign policies which empower and enrich the person in their own land, culture and family. As JPII said there is a right not to have to EMIGRATE and the FIRST line of solving the problem is to fix the reasons one leaves their homeland.
Seems to me what it all comes down to is that people are afraid of the “browning” of America.
Of course, it always comes down to white racism against people with “brown” skin. Those white devils. What people are afraid of is that America will become another corrupt Latin American republic with a large, uneducated underclass that exists just for the benefit and at the leave of a rich elite. They fear the lawlessness and danger that comes with large waves of immigrants who by the act of sneaking across the border have alread proved that they have no respect a lawful order in society. They fear the loss of their neighborhoods. They fear the loss of whatever hope they had for the future because the increased public burdens and the loss of opportunity that comes from the wage rate being driven down. The fear the not so hidden racism of organizations like La Raza and Aztlan. They fear for their children and what they will inherit.
Please tell me. What did the Church Fathers teach on this subject?
It seems to me that people cry “racism”, because it’s easier than thinking and trying to formulate a rational argument.
My husband is an immigrant to the US. He became a citizen about ten years ago, 25 years after we were married. We went to live in his country in the 11th year of our marriage, and stayed there for five years. So we both have immigrant experiences in each other’s countries. Taint easy, as both of us can attest. Wasn’t easy at times for our children either.
Many rational arguments have been made by others for some charity in the way we see and deal with immigrants, especially immigrants who were like my great-grandparents. But if it hurts to contemplate that much of the argument for such tough, throw ’em all out, make ’em wait ten years just to see if they can get back in, it might just be because of fear of the other—especially when the other is not white. Maybe the mark is hitting home more than we’d like to think.
‘a will will’ –> ‘a wall will’
Please stop with the not white issue. It is not that for most Americans. It is too many, too fast, too dependent on welfare,unwillingness to assimilate and learn the language, depression of wages and destruction of both societies. It does not matter if they are green. blue or white, Mexican, Irish or Chinese. Just too many, too fast
I’m sorry, Ann, but you are not allowed to express that opinion because it doesn’t fit the template; it’s too logical, and, therefore, requires too much thinking to try to refute. It’s much easier to just cry “Racist!”
To me it sounds pretty racist to say I’m against these people because they won’t learn the language!?! My great-grandparents from Italy never learned the language well, always spoke broken English, and had to rely on their children to help them with the language. So did my husband’s relatives who were the first generation to come here from Japan. And I wonder how much welfare the immigrants that everyone is so worried about are really using. Sure, the Hmong and Somalis who have come here with the blessings of our government are using welfare for a time. Some of the older people may be using it all the rest of their lives, but they are not the ones everyone is so worried about, I think. The Spanish speaking immigrants among us that I see are mostly just working very hard.
And as to businesses exploiting the workers, yes I think that is true, but then why are the toughest sanctions being proposed against the immigrants? My great-grandparents did take the dirty, low-paying jobs and somehow our grandparents, my parents, and my siblings and I have not been consigned to them.
Again, we are a nation of immigrants who are really not being very welcoming or kind to the immigrants of today. All the arguments about too many, too fast, not assimilating were used in various forms when our forebears came here. It was racist then. To just say I’m not a racist and not even consider it as a motive today is just to hide our heads in the sand. And to me, that just makes the argument stronger that racism is a factor.
If you have evidence that those who are opposed to people illegally entering our country are racist, please present it.
“Good Fences make good neighbors.”
“If you have evidence that those who are opposed to people illegally entering our country are racist, please present it.”
It’s just that you don’t hear the same outcry about illegal Canadians.
patricia,
and all you who, with all due respect, are thinking so shallowly as to cry racism when an argument is not to your liking, please look at the facts.
It is all illegals with which we are concerned, it just happens that the majority at the present time are Mexicans. We are comfortable with political refugees and elderly and their problems.We are not comfortable with lawbreakers who come here and take up the social services, even if they work hard. That is because the illega is paid a slave wage by the greedy big business interests.
The arguments you say were heard in time past may or may not have been true. From what I know, they probably were and there was a political party which took that stance and changed the political climate.
It has been a requirement that one speak English to becoame a citizen.I personally do not care what language we speak in America, but it must be just ONE, Otherwise society breaks down.
I am not a racist and I am vehemently against illegal immigration and even too many too fast legal immigrantion, as are all my bilingual bicultural children, children in law and grandchildren.
First of all, I do not believe that I have called anyone here a racist. I have said that fear of others—and in particular, those who are non-white—is a factor in this immigrant debate. Just the fact that so many on this thread are taking this so personally, not considering that it is a factor, tells me that it is probably a bigger factor than people want to admit. Remember, immigration laws have changed much through the years–and it is the history of our immigration laws that those who were not English and Protestant, or white and European, were heavily discriminated against. I mean, we kept the “yellow peril” immigrants from becoming citizens for almost a hundred years! At one time we put not just the first generation immigrants but also their American-born children in horse barns in the desert surrounded by barbwire and manned towers. Again, take a moment and listen to what is being said on the radio, what is written in the papers and then tell me that racism isn’t a factor in what is going on.
By the way, Switzerland has three languages and it seems to be a pretty stable country that can get along with one another.
The charge of racism is easy to make because the “put-a-wall-up-and-throw-them-all-out” argument is so vacuous. When any logic tries to permeate this discussion the retort is “but they’re illegal.” I keep hearing “they” do this and “they” cause that. People who can’t speak intelligably about another race of people without going into ad hominen are racists.
If you substitute blacks or Jews for every time you see “they” or “immigrants”, maybe you’d be able to recognize it. No one on the pro-amnesty side is claiming that illegal immigrants are free from sin, both original and actual. But rather than address any of the issues individuals, the master plan of the anti-immigrant crowd is to send every single wetback back to Mexico, regardless of what they have done since they enterred this country, regardless of how long they have illegally been here, and regardless of how well they have assimilated in this country.
If your retort is “but they’re Mexicans,” don’t be surprised when you’re called a racist.
Patricia and MZ Forrest: You both have a talent for “Creative Reading”; i.e., thinking you are reading things that are not there.
Patricia: No one said that you called anyone here a racist. What some of us have noted is that you have cried “Racism!” instead of giving reasoned arguments.
MZ: I just re-read every post on this thread. No one has used the “but they’re Mexicans” retort or anything remotely similar.
Examples in this thread:
1)Just because the elite in Mexico have a large population of illiterates to perform manual labor does not mean that America should be remade on that model, no matter what Mr. Bush and his Patrone allies think.
2) We are frightened by the drug trafficers, the Reconquista mentality, the disease and the destruction of our social service and health care facilities.
3) What people are afraid of is that America will become another corrupt Latin American republic with a large, uneducated underclass that exists just for the benefit and at the leave of a rich elite. They fear the lawlessness and danger that comes with large waves of immigrants who by the act of sneaking across the border have alread proved that they have no respect a lawful order in society. They fear the loss of their neighborhoods. They fear the loss of whatever hope they had for the future because the increased public burdens and the loss of opportunity that comes from the wage rate being driven down.
4) It is too many, too fast, too dependent on welfare,unwillingness to assimilate and learn the language, depression of wages and destruction of both societies.
Another thread.
1) We have millions of illegal immigrants with no regard for our law pouring into our country, endangering the US economically and culturally
2) Then there’s the added crime from the added poverty, which is not off-set by how hard working many of them are, the language barrier problem, and the general concept of lawlessness that comes with anyone who disregards the laws of another nation because, essentially, they want money
See also here. I won’t document every example due to Rule #3.
That Robert Frost quote is a hoot: Frost was writing *against* walls, not for them:
Mending Wall
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
…
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
…
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’ I could say ‘Elves’ to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.”
M.Z. Forrest,
When any logic tries to permeate this discussion the retort is “but they’re illegal.”
And what about the logic of Church teaching that clearly has qualifiers allowing countries to regulate immigration?
All immigrants in this country should be treated with dignity and be expected to obey the laws of United States.
Strange that you can call everyone else a racist and yet you are the first one to use the term “wetback”.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“When any logic tries to permeate this discussion the retort is ‘but they’re illegal.”
It’s just shocking that there are hate-mongers in this country who are so vile that they want people entering the country to obey the law.
I didn’t call everyone a racist. This talk about wanting people to obey the law is supposedly the force de triumph. Excuse me, by far the majority of these folks follow the other 100,000 laws in this country. No one has seemed to have had a problem with them breaking this law for the past two decades.
Oh but this country has the right to regulate immigration? No duh! I also have the right to enforce claims on my property. But if you build a fence on my property, farm your illicitly gained land, and I don’t object until a decade later, guess what, the land is yours.
“But if you build a fence on my property, farm your illicitly gained land, and I don’t object until a decade later, guess what, the land is yours.” Under what law?
“No one has seemed to have had a problem with them breaking this law for the past two decades.” I have (but maybe I’m “no one”).
Under what law? Consult your attorney. This is why even in residential areas, there can be huge fights when a fence is not properly constructed on the property line. A brief overview is here.
I have have (but maybe I’m ‘no one’).
There are various ways of registering disagreement over a practice, and in fairness most weren’t available to you. As they say, if something really bothers you, you do something about it.
And you are right. He may offer the National Guard just to muscle the Minutemen out
Back to the issue of Bush being timid (and away from the whole racism discussion), I think it’s especially telling that Bush is going to suggest using the National Guard for this, yet the White House (is that racist? JK) has been “ratting-out” the Minutemen’s locations to the Mexican gov’t, so they can tell would-be illegal aliens where and where not to cross the border.
Sure, the Nat’l Guard will be there for a while – sending people back, making headlines, that sort of thing – until the first semblance of a natural disaster hits (hurricane season is right around the corner), and then they will be pulled from the border to go and do that work. And the odds that they will return to the border, once the disaster is resolved: slim to none.
Any takers?
M.Z. Forrest,
You are the one who constantly refers to race in this discussion. Let’s see if you can continue in the discussion without referring to race.
My wife is an attorney and I a very aware of squatters’ rights. Interesting that you bring it up. So you agree that we should remove illegal squatters in this country before it becomes theirs through adverse possesion right?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jamie,
Bush is trying to fool us again by “putting the NG on the border”. They will be castrated just like the Border Patrol has been. We need an Israeli type fence and volunteer and high tech monitors and increased employer sanctions immediately. Then we can get about the task of a reasonable and humane immigration policy.
Race doesn’t enter into the equation, except maybe for a very few old-school types, and (on the other side) the Gringo-haters (or are immigrants incapable of racism?).
Nor is it a question of class. Everyone on both branches of my family tree was a dirt-poor nobody. Irish, Scottish, Cherokee… I can look down on nobody.
I have no problem with anyone who comes here legally and wants to be an AMERICAN. Not a hyphenated-American, or an expatriot whatever, but an American.
That means throwing in with the rest of us, not coming here, taking what you can, and leaving.
I know these folks contribute to the economy to some degree, but not yet as they should. Contrary to the common fantasy, the economy would not collapse without immigrant labor.
I wanted to ask (that is, I really wanted to see a poll) about the May 1st Gringo boycott concerning the flip side of the question; how many of the protestors boycotted our emergency rooms, our welfare offices?
They have a perfect right to boycott, but if they really wanted a “Day without Gringos”, they should be consistent.
So you agree that we should remove illegal squatters in this country before it becomes theirs through adverse possesion right?
Oddly enough, yes. I think any policy that addresses illegal immigration should actually be effective and should actively seek the removal of illegal immigrants. This is probably the point that causes most of my anger on the issue: the point that those opposed to illegal immigration are not willing to take the steps necessary to remove illegal immigrants; rather their preference is to criminalize them and put off the day of reckoning until some distant day in the future. A limited policy – like making illegal immigrants felons, targeting humanitarian organizations, etc. – is gaurenteed to produce injustice. A limited policy puts us in the position of having to deport people who have been in the country over a decade. I have no problem deporting someone who has been here less than two years.
Now personally I am an open border advocate for Mexican immigrants. My reasons are prudential. Those opposed can have prudential reasons. That is why I would not actively fight a serious plan to deal with illegal immigration. I will fight a plan that inevitably leads to deporting decade long residents of this country.
MZ,
Adverse possession of land attaches to a specific piece of property and only succeeds when there has been no objection by the true owner for a limited period of time. These are state laws and the time periods are different for different states.
It does not apply to illegal immigrants because there is almost always no specific piece of property. In addition, even if you could attach it to the United States as a whole, there have been many objections.
May the Lord help us. It seems that we citizens of the United States, most especially those of us who are Catholic, are stuck between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, if we obey the Church (in effect obeying Christ Himself) and openly and graciously welcome the millions who have come here “illegally” (not that I doubt the validity of the term, but I use it to contrast between those who have followed procedures and those who have not), then we run the very real (make no mistake) risk of ending up with a massive influx of up to 36 million over a short span of years (by the time all of their relatives are here), none of whom were subjected to any kind of vetting or qualification, and none of whom need claim, therefore, any loyalty to the United States. Will they seek to become a part of America? Or will they seek to make America part of Mexico? Will they side with our enemies? (Many Mexicans celebrated on 911.) Remember, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
On the other hand, if we disobey the Church in order to protect our nation, then we run the risk of disobeying God Himself…
I cannot but believe that the influx of up to 36 million immigrants of a radically different culture and history in a short period of time will by nature result in the destruction of the United States as we know it, a la balkanization. There are groups that seek that result. This would cause me to wonder if the relevant question in dealing with the issue would be “What would be the greatest good for all?” (Vis a vis to restrict and deport, or amnesty…), not fogetting that the “all” includes the citizens of the United States.
At the same time, we cannot commit an intrinsic evil in order to attain good. That being the case, who wants to fail to show hospitality to a stranger, especially a brother or sister in Christ? Do we want to send a Mexican family that has been here for eight years back to Mexico? Where would they find food? Where housing? Where medical care? How would God judge that action…
Let’s face it: America is in a lot of trouble even without illegal immigration. We have murdered 48 million infants over the last 40 years through abortion. Our society is in moral chaos. Maybe illegal immigration is God’s way of replacing our population, and with many baptized Catholics at that!
Ultimately, maybe this issue calls forth a need for faith: Faith that the Most Holy Trinity, in His wisdom, is able to make circumstances that appear so terrifying to so many of us work out for the good of all concerned…and how wonderful if that should be the reward of our having shown mercy!
I personally have gyrated crazily on this issue…emailing my representatives one day that there should be no amnesty, deport them all, and build the wall, and accusing those who fail to do so of treason…Then, calming down and realizing that my words are contrary to the love of God and the teaching of the Church…and trying to formulate a proper correspondence to that effect.
My family has been in the United States for over 150 years. We have been soldiers and patriots, as well as brigands. It goes deeply against the grain not to want to defend my country against what clearly appears to be an invasion by the mass movement of populations…
But maybe we should all just stop and pray for God’s mercy and guidance…
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence, Dale–and that’s about it. The teaching of the Church is Charity to all, but it’s up to us to figure out how best to apply it in different situations. The Church does not teach that we must welcome all gate-crashers.
http://www.Johnbeck.tv/john-becks-tax-foreclosures.html
Guide to financial freedom by buying real estate for Pennies On The Dollar