| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Interfaith Statement on Immigration Reform | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 27 2006, 01:27 PM (794 Views) | |
| FrankM | Apr 1 2006, 02:36 PM Post #26 |
|
Senior Carp
|
If one truly reads that policy statement, rather than simply assuming they know what it's likely to say, they'll find it finely shaded enough to accomodate virtually any politically and economically, as well as humanely, reasonable position. In other words, when dissected, there is nothing either controversial or especially remarkable about that policy statement ... except maybe to bigots. |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 1 2006, 08:41 PM Post #27 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
First of all, thumps, when you read legislation like this, you need to read all the references laws it refers to. As you know in having read the House's legislation, much of it are very short phrases/sentences calling for thew addition or deletion of phrases/sentences to existing law. When you follow the specific proposed changes back to the specific provisions the United States Code these provisions modify, it is clear that the House intensifies the definition of illegal entry to that of being a felony -- with all that implies. When you do this, it is also clear that the House Bill envisions (but does not fund) the rounding up, detention and deportation of all 12 million illegal aliens.
I think the bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee gets it pretty well right. First, it speaks to enhancing border security which must be done. Second, it provides for normalizing the status of those already here, while establishing significantly stricter requirements and a significantly longer process for naturalization and citizenship. Thirdly, it allows for a guest worker program which will hopefully reduce the need for people wanting to improve their lives to cross illegally.
I have no trouble with this as long as they are not penalized for not having done what they could not do because of their undocumented status. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 1 2006, 08:46 PM Post #28 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
It seems to me, Frank, that this is the way religion should insert itself into the public square. It should address the validity of all of the primary issues involved, not ignoring some, and providing a discussion which outlines more a value system by which specific proposals can be judged, rather than laying out its own specific legislative or regulatory proposals. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 1 2006, 10:27 PM Post #29 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
I am not convinced of your analysis. I tracked down several of the referenced passages such as USC 8 -1325 sec 275, and could not see where everyone gets felonized or deported. And other language seems to argue against that interpretion. Given that the Congressional summary does not indicate that as the intent of the bill, unless you can show me otherwise, I am not inclined to accept that this is the case. What do you do with those who defrauded the system, or engaged in illegal activities while here? Where do you draw the line? Drunk driving? Jumping bail? Felonious activity? Drug trafficking? Or do you give them a pass because "they had to" due to their undocumented status? And how do you propose that illegals are encouraged to come out of the shadows so that they can be subject to background checks (even if it means potential deportation)? What sort of time frame would you give everyone to declare their presence before they are reasonably considered to be attempting to circumvent the laws of the country? And then what do you do with the illegals who continue to attempt to flood into the country after these laws are enacted and the present population is regularized? |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Jolly | Apr 2 2006, 04:35 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
My point is pretty simple...the Catholic Church, particularly in those areas heavily influenced with illegal immigrants (who are overwhelmingly hispanic) has a vested interest in keeping those folks in the country. They also have a vested interest in swelling the ranks of those already here. That interest is driven by money, power, and perhaps the satisfaction of seeing full churches. Therefore the Catholic Church cannot be deemed an uninterested observer in this political battle... |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 2 2006, 05:53 AM Post #31 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
The Catholic Church is not an uninterested observer, but not for the reasons that you think. If you read the documents of the Church (you can start with the link RZ posted), it is a social justice and human dignity issue. The immigrants are not exactly bringing vast fortunes with them to dump in the Church's coffers-- in fact, they typically put additional strains on the system and contribute financially very little (I know this from working in Anglo-Hispanic parishes). Furthermore, the Church does not mobilize Catholics as voting blocs -- if they did do you think that abortion would not have been overturned back in the 70s? From all the reasons you give, you seem to be taking the Zimmerian Dialectic ® as your playbook. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 07:44 AM Post #32 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I would treat them with compassion, with an understanding of sin and forgiveness and also with a recognition of the legitimate right of a society to protect itself, as my Church teaches me to treat people.
In the 1980's, the last time we normalized immigrants, they were brought out of hiding primarily through the influence of the organizations which worked with them -- non-profits, churches etc. If the government convinces these organizations of the legitimacy of the process, these groups have the credibility to bring those currently in the shadows out. Time period? A legitimate time frame given the amount of work involved and the ability of the system to handle and process 12,000,000 such cases.
If you think the legislation is not sufficient for the US to control its borders properly, then the legislation need to be modifed. It seems to me it is the clear intent of the American people to have the borders controlled. Since this movement across the border is primarily market driven, I suspect if we simply allow the market to handle it, allowing as many guest workers into the country as the market needs, we probably will not find this to be any where near the problem it is now. If we arbitrarily establish a maximum number, we will cotntinue to have the problem. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 2 2006, 04:51 PM Post #33 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
OK, great non answer. Do you treat rapists and child molesters the same way? Incarceration is so brutal and uncompassionate. So why not try giving a real answer?
Would there be a date by which you had to be in the country, or is this just some sort of perpetually moving goal post for you?
So what you are effectively arguing for is open borders and no prosecution of illegal aliens? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be what you are getting at. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 2 2006, 10:17 PM Post #34 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
No, I do not think all crimes are the same nor all criminals should be treated the same. Do you view crossing a border illegally as the same level of crime as rape and child abuse? And do you believe that we should set aside our basic religious obligation to compassion as well as the Catholic emphasis on sin and forgiveness simply because someone is a criminal?
The bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee gives a time frame. I have already said it seems like a good bill to me.
You ARE putting words in my mouth. I have not called for an open border. What I said was that we should have a guest worker program that allows as many workers in as our economy needs. Seems to me that having a policy which strengthens the American economy, rather than one that arbitrarily sets limits without reference to our needs, is not the best way to go. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 2 2006, 11:20 PM Post #35 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Rick:
You never answered my question: what do you do with those who commit crimes while up here? Do you give fraud a pass if they happen to be illegals? If so on what basis? Because they are forced to do it by their very status? What about those who work ethically and diligently while here? Or do you assume that they are all unethical?
As far as sin/forgiveness -- that is in the spiritual order, not the temporal order which deals with laws and social order and crime and punishment. Why do you divert the conversation? Why are you so averse to answering questions that pertain to the very threads that you start? You want to talk about "the morality of immigration reform", yet you refuse to talk about morality and the need to obey laws.
So what is the time frame in the specific bill that you are talking about?
The last question that you again are so averse to answering has nothing to do with a guest program -- but what do you do with all those who will continue to flood into the country despite the guest program -- who don't want to wait, or can't get a visa, or who find the criminal opportunities more profitable here, or for whatever reason ignore the laws of this country and continue to enter illegally? I am trying to work with you on this thread that you started, but you seem so averse to answering very practical questions. I am beginning to assume that you have no real answers for the issues that I raise, but that you just hold your position of social justice and think it will all work out. EDIT: You seem quick to effectively ignore the very important idea in Catholic political thought that a nation does indeed have sovereign rights to control its borders, to create and enforce laws that promote and maintain the common good, and that all people in a country have a very serious moral obligation to obey the law. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Apr 3 2006, 09:18 AM Post #36 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Sorry to butt in a flog a dead horse guys, but: I was listening to NPR today 'round 12:00, and one of the callers mentioned Cardinal Keeler's remarks about the new immigration bill that was passed through the House in December. He (Keeler) called it "evil". Here's a catholic.org article about the remarks: http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19132 And here's what the bill is: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...7:@@@L&summ2=m& Mighty strong rhetoric, wouldn't you say? Think he's right? |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Apr 3 2006, 09:52 AM Post #37 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
It's hardly a dead horse, Aqua. The summary link is the same one I gave to Rick where he claimed that the bill felonized all illegals. He then tried a shell game gambit to suggest that I needed to read all the previous laws that this one amends in order to get to the felonization, but I had already looked at USC 8 -1325 sec 275 and could find no substantiation for his concerns. I asked him to provide me his analysis, but that is still "forthcoming" at best. There is some language in 4437 about aggrevated felonies* which now "Makes sexual abuse of a minor an aggravated felony for immigration purposes." I am not sure why Rick might be opposed to protecting children from sexual abuse by increasing the definition under the law to an aggrevated felony. However, I see no statement where illegals themselves, or those helping them them for humanitarian reasons are felonized. As far as I can tell, only those who are helping them to evade the law are subject to felony crimes. Don't US Citizens have an obligation to uphold the laws of the land? This present situation is not in the least analogous to the Underground Railroad--where one could in good conscience help a runaway slave evade the law--, because the illegals need to present themselves to the US Government for evaluation anyway. Even assuming that Rick is correct, and this does felonize the illegal aliens, that does not make it "evil" -- the category of crime and subsequent punishment is a prudential evaluation, and is elastic enough to allow for mitigation. It does not display the sort of "absence of good" to render it evil. There might well be a strategy whereby illegal aliens are charged with felonies, since it is probably easier to deport with felony convictions, but that on a case by case basis the charges are reduced to misdemeanors and the person pays a fine, is given a work visa, and returned to gainful employment. I don't know, just speculating. Keeler is grandstanding with his rhetoric of evil. I would pay close attention to what Chaput of Denver says about this. He is a very prudent and careful thinker. *
|
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Rick Zimmer | Apr 3 2006, 02:37 PM Post #38 |
|
Fulla-Carp
|
I am not sure what you want me to say, thumps. I have said I support the right of the state to protect its citizens. I have also said that I recognize that there are levels of crime. Do you want me to say I think we should arrest those that have crossed the border illegally and that is all they have done wrong? It should be obvious I am not going to say that. Do you expect me to say I think we should arrest those here who drive without a license because they are not allowed to get one? I am not going to say that. It is part and parcel of being an undocumented alien. Do you expect me to say I think we should arrest those who are guilty of fraud by getting a fake social security card, paying their social security taxes and then never claiming them? I am not going to say that. It is part and parcel of being an undocumented alien. It seems to me that my comment about society having the right to protect its citizens is ample evidence I do not support allowing rapists and child abusers to be allowed to roam free. I have said I support the bill reported out by the Senate Judciary Committee which recognizes and treat such people as the criminals they are. So, what more do you want me to say?
As for your differentiation between the spiritual and the temporal -- I disagree. I use my religion and my spiritual life to inform and direct my temporal life. I see little or no distinction. Indeed, i have no trouble whatsoever with assignming a moral and ethical value to certain government actions -- exactly as you have no problem doing so when it comes to legislation on a woman's right to choose, marriage of homosexuals and similar issues dealing with sexuality and reproductive rights. There is a moral and ethical side to temporal acts of governments -- and to dismiss this by creating a false differentiation between the two is, in my opinion, wrong. You are free to choose to do as you wish, though.
Feel free to look it up. Indeed, you may wish to read the entire Senate Judiciary Bill, since it addresses all of your concerns -- from what to do with violent immigrants to those involed in gangs to how to increase border security to dealing with terrorists, etc. Here's the link: The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (BTW, the time limit in the bill is 3 years per individual which the bureaucracy can extend to 6 years, by which time the worker must either be in conformance with the legiuslatiojn or return home).
Again, I am not sure what you want me to say. You assume that people will continue to flood into the US. The Senate Bill makes significant provisions for border security as well as a way for people who now come illegally to enter legally. If you don't think the bill is strong enough, feel free to challenge it. It seems to me the bill is a significant improvement in both border security as well as reducing the primary reason for undocumented workers, lack of the ability to be documented. Whether or not this will stem the tide, I don't know and neither do you. But it is far better than what we now have. And a separate post in which you responded to Aqua you said:
This is from a link on the Archidocese of Denver's (Chaput's fiefdom) webpage:
It seems that Archbishop Chaput and I agree on which bill should be adopted -- the Senate Judiciary Committee Bill not the House Bill. Indeed, Chaput wants no amendments to it at all -- he wants it to stay intact. I can agree with Chaput on that. Adopt it as is. It is as good a bill as we are going to get. |
| [size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size] | |
![]() |
|
| George K | Apr 4 2006, 02:43 AM Post #39 |
|
Finally
|
How Mexico Deals With Immigration Reform. According to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions: * Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days. * Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable." * Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports. * Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be "a Mexican citizen by birth." Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices. In accordance with Article 130, immigrants - even legal ones - may not become members of the clergy, either. * Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, "Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters." * Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right! * The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action." What's that about glass houses? |
|
A guide to GKSR: Click "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08 Nothing is as effective as homeopathy. I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles. - Klaus, 4/29/18 | |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Register Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2








10:33 AM Jul 11