Friday, March 29, AD 2024 3:53am

Arizona: Doing the Job the Feds Will Not Do!

I am a proud American with a long and rich Mexican heritage.

My name is Tito Edwards and I approve this message.

_._

(Biretta tip:  Lucianne)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jasper
Jasper
Sunday, May 23, AD 2010 10:42pm

This is a failure by the federal government. I don’t know anybody who wants to send people back who are looking for work, but there has to be some kind of order. Why hasn’t the U.S and Mexican governments set up some kind of system where workers can come and go in a legal fashion. Instead of them risking their lives crossing the desert.

Joe Hargrave
Sunday, May 23, AD 2010 11:51pm

Nice touch on the “o” in “won’t”, lol

Joe Hargrave
Sunday, May 23, AD 2010 11:52pm

And, I’m a proud American with a long and rich Lebanese heritage, which means sometimes people think I have a long and rich Mexican heritage.

Alex Vargas
Alex Vargas
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 12:43am

As I agree I disagree… this new law will only provide police to wrongfully detain or haggle legal Hispanics. I would rather they start fining Businesses $500,000 per illegal. If there is no work many illegals will not try why punish those who are trying to come to our country to make a life for themselves.. punish those who want slave labor!!

Donna V.
Donna V.
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 1:45am

I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration. But relatives in Arizona tell me illegal immigration is making life down there hell – kidnappings, drugs, fights between rival gangs.

The French-born husband of a friend of mine tells me he waited 7 years before he was able to get a green card. Rather bitterly, he says the smart thing to do would have to been fly to Tijuana and head north; naively, he followed the rules…

Joe Hargrave
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:50am

Donna,

It makes me sick when people who don’t, and never have, lived in AZ make long-winded proclamations about this law or the situation down there. They know nothing. They’re the real “know-nothings” of our time, intolerant fanatics or people who are so deluded and ignorant about the realities of the situation that they shouldn’t even have an opinion.

I won’t stand for it. I’m not the racist. La Raza and MEChA, the Brown Berets, the radical Chicano professors and peddlers of hate speech against blacks and whites, are the racists.

People who agree with them or apologize for them are the soft bigots. They should be confronted.

They don’t care that we have a destabilizing failed state to the south that poses a security risk to the country. All they care about is moralizing and grandstanding.

afl
afl
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:34am

Amen Tito and there are many others who feel the same way. I agree with the stiff fine for anyone or any employer who abets an illegal regardless of country. Our Imimgration Dpt is as laxed as can be. I have often wonder why Custons could not work with employers who use migrant labor and have a system for them to enter and be controlled together and then return after work is completed. No benefits other than shelter, meals and pay. It would less expensive than the walls and fences. Mexico’s President was wrong in his statements. Why hasn’t he built industry in the rural areas for his people and created jobs for them. Why does he not tell people that entering Mexico is regared as a felony and carries jail time. What if our law was the same and we jailed imimgrants for jail time and anyone who abets them.. would we then need walls and and fences.

Tito Edwards
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 6:39am

La Raza and MEChA, the Brown Berets, the radical Chicano professors and peddlers of hate speech against blacks and whites, are the racists.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Alex V.,

Amen to fining businesses for hiring illegals.

That would have an immediate impact!

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 7:33am

I have often wonder why Custons could not work with employers who use migrant labor and have a system for them to enter and be controlled together and then return after work is completed.

Guest worker programs are socially corrupting. Employers who wish to hire ‘migrant labor’ should be told to hire citizens and lawful settlers willing to work for the wages offered.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 9:26am

Guest worker programs are socially corrupting. Employers who wish to hire ‘migrant labor’ should be told to hire citizens and lawful settlers willing to work for the wages offered.

This recommendation runs contrary to statements of many of our bishops, I believe.

Concerning an immigration enforcment raid on a North Portland, Oregon food processing plant (in 2007, I think):
“Portland Archbishop John Vlazny quickly denounced the raid by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, calling it “an affront to a nation whose tradition has always welcomed the stranger.” Calling for a moratorium on raids until national immigration reform is complete, the archbishop said the arrests tear apart families.”
http://www.catholicsentinel.com/node/8172

And a more recent statement by Bishop Slattery of Tulsa contained this recommendation:
“Some way must be found to give the 11-12 million undocumented workers presently in the country some form of legal status. This need not include citizenship and should exclude anyone convicted of a felony.”
http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=1458

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 10:16am

Neither statement refers to guest worker programs.

That aside, both statements as rendered require elaboration.

Some way must be found to give the 11-12 million undocumented workers presently in the country some form of legal status.

And why would that be, your eminence?

Calling for a moratorium on raids until national immigration reform is complete

Penal codes are flawed. Do we let the muggers have free rein in urban neighborhoods until they are comprehensively repaired?

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 11:31am

Thank you Messrs. Edwards and Vargas.

And both of you make your statements, unlike b@d bishops spambot quotes and hate-filled libs, without accusing anyone that disagrees of being “the face of evil.”

Let’s review how many sins against the Ten Commandments are b@d bishops endorsing? I make it only four: four, seven, eight and ten.

And, at their next riot for amnesty, I want Che-worshipping revolutionaries to trot out an American construction worker and his family: whose livelihood was taken by a 12,000,000 undocumented workers and now 25 of them rent the house he lost to foreclosure.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 12:19pm

Not sure about the Old Testament, but from the New Testament, the bishops often quote Matthew 25:35,
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,” etc.

http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm#v35

See, for example, here:
http://www.usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 12:51pm

Concerning Art Deco’s claim that the guest worker program is “socially corrupting”, the bishops have acknowledged there can be social costs associated with the use migrant guest workers. For instance, responding to reform legislation proposed in 2004, the USCCB expressed concern that some provisions would lead to wage erosion, and called for modifications.
http://www.usccb.org/hispanicaffairs/immigration.shtml

I have not found an instance where a bishop called for the elimination of guest worker programs.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 1:21pm

Concerning whether the millions of undocumented workers receive “some form of legal status”, Bishop Wester of Salt Lake City called for legal protection of immigrants’ due-process rights, among other things.
http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_14135073

Bishop Hubbard of Albany notes that “Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity and human rights that should be respected.”
http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/BishopHubbardArticle100226.pdf

As I understand it, the bishops want immigrants to have a legal means of recourse if they are exploited or victimized.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:10pm

As I understand it, the bishops want immigrants to have a legal means of recourse if they are exploited or victimized.

The persons in question do not have ‘legal means of recourse’ becuase they came here on the q.t. That is a function of the calcuations they made at various junctures with reference to their personal situation. Giving them the benefits of legal status post hoc is not a ‘reform’ of immigration law; it is the abolition of immigration law.

I have not found an instance where a bishop called for the elimination of guest worker programs.

So what?

Joe Hargrave
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:13pm

How can any honest person interpret “welcome the stranger” as “ignore all laws pertaining to immigration”? Because that’s what the bishops do when they speak out against the enforcement of immigration law.

To me, “welcome the stranger” means just that – in your midst, you welcome any person who is a stranger. You welcome them with kindness and hospitality. But you don’t clamor for immigration anarchy, or make mealy-mouthed sermons that amount to that implicitly.

I understand the human reasons often cited for illegal immigration. What I can’t tolerate is the political agitation, the visceral hatred and contempt, that so many seem to have or to at least go along with once they get here for this country and for Anglo Americans. You think its a minority. So did I, until I read about incidents like these. This is what they do in Mexico:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/4236314/

And this is what they do here, in this Snopes-verified incident:

“On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, “This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession.”

These are the things that normal Americans see every day, that a lot of over-educated, over-socialized, affluenzaed liberals never do. The plain fact is that a significant portion of the illegal immigrants from Mexico believe that they have a RIGHT to be here. Maybe they’re told that in their own society. Maybe they are told when they get here by the Hispanic versions of the KKK or Neo-Nazis that no one on the left ever talks about.

But they have a racial and national pride that any white person would be categorized as a Nazi themselves for holding. And they have a hatred for this country and its non-Hispanic inhabitants. This is what they do to the blacks:

http://www.alternet.org/story/46855/

“According to Stark, “There is no black gang that encroaches on the 204’s turf. The hate is so prevalent and obvious that activists and city officials can no longer avoid calling it by the name being used by everyone from prosecutors to opinion writers in the L.A. Times: ethnic cleansing.”

http://thelastgringo.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/16-LATINOS-ETHNIC-CLEANSING-IN-L.A..html

When the victims are black, of course, expect at least one conflicted liberal to come down on their side. If they were white, radio silence at best, tacit approval at worst.

Of course we don’t want to demonize Hispanics. But when I see tens of thousands of Hispanics show up at rallies with swastikas emblazoned on the US or various state flags, I have to wonder, are they saying we’re Nazis, or are they declaring their own race war? Maybe they think Hitler had the right ideas and the wrong race. Or maybe they hate Jews too. Who knows?

Joe Hargrave
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:16pm

“For instance my opinion of Mexicans in Mexico has been slowly degraded away over the years. I used to have a whole different opinion of Mexico and its people, but after seeing this continued America bashing by everyday Mexicans over and over my opinion and sympathy for the Mexican’s plight has gone to nearly zero.”

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002304.html

Expect a lot more Americans to undergo this change as they learn the truth.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:17pm

Well it is Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant, and their statements urge immigration reform, not abolition of guest worker programs (such as H2-A and H2-B) that I can tell, so I thought I would just point out what I have found and what I have not found in that regard.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:32pm

I’m still waiting for Cardinal Mahony and Archbishop Dolan to condemn Mexico’s brutally exclusive immigration laws as “mean spirited” and like “Nazi German” and “Russian communist” techniques.

I’ll probably be considered someone’s ancestor before that happens.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 2:36pm

Not one word from the bishops about this:

Eradicate the gangs. Treat them like enemy combatants.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 4:14pm

Well it is Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant,

I am sorry, what the bishops do not say about the technics of immigration enforcement, the designated hitter rule, trade winds, Mexican cuisine, and any number of other things is not of much interest to me. What they do say as a consequence of fulfilling their duties does interest me. And, of, course, faithful Catholics face the challenge of following the teachings of the Church when they are lost in a sandstorm of verbiage on ancillary matters from the staff of the bishops’ conference and diocesan chanceries.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 4:26pm

“Standing before a small white coffin, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said Wednesday that two small girls gunned down last week are martyrs of gang warfare and called on residents citywide to have the courage to rise up against gangs.

“Mahony delivered the stern words to about 300 mourners attending funeral services for 3-year-old Denise Silva of Boyle Heights. He said each member of the community must take responsibility for escalating gang violence.”
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-16/local/me-934_1_gang-members

That condemnation of gang violence was from 1992, though the shootings in video was from 2008, so I do not know if that quote will satisfy you or you want something more recent.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 4:28pm

What they do say as a consequence of fulfilling their duties does interest me.

Great. I think we are the same page. Now if we only had a quote from a bishop that supports your position I think we can just about wrap this up.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 4:57pm

Spam,

So you opposed Health Care Reform because the bishops did?

JohnH
JohnH
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:15pm

I don’t know about S.pamb.ot, but I’m on the same page as the bishops on both health care and immigration. And I applaud Bishop Olmsted’s affirmation of the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride as well as his opposition to SB 1070.

JohnH
JohnH
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:20pm

And I note yet again that the same tactic of opposition to Bishop Olmsted is used by both the Democratic and Republican loyalists.

From the Democrats/pro-choicers, you hear that Bishop Olmsted just doesn’t understand the realities of the hard choices we must make about women’s health.

And from the Republicans/conservatives, we hear that Bishop Olmsted just doesn’t understand the realities of how issues of immigration must be addressed.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:30pm

The problem with your analysis is that abortion is an intrinsic evil and can never be justified. While immigraion is a right, it is not an absolute right – the state may limit immigration and enforce those laws including deportation.

As such, immigration laws are properly the provence of the laity who are called to make such decisions. The bishops present the moral principles which the laity then prudently apply. If the bishops present a plan on immigration, a Catholic in good conscience can disagree.

The particulars of the abortion case are not clear. But if an abortion was performed, no one may licitly disagree.

JohnH
JohnH
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:41pm

The bishops present the moral principles which the laity then prudently apply. If the bishops present a plan on immigration, a Catholic in good conscience can disagree.

Fair enough.

But it seems to be the case that most conservative Catholics disagree with the bishops whenever a bishop’s position is contradicted by the talking points of the conservative wing of the Republican party. And when the disagreement is voiced by these Catholics, it is usually with ridicule.

I do wish more Catholics would step out from the boundaries of politics, especially when it comes to morality.

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:43pm

I will have to say that bishops’ opinions should be treated with respect. Though Cardinal Mahoney’s comments on the AZ law does deserve contempt.

Tito Edwards
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:48pm

JohnH, Phillip, Art Deco, Greg Mockeridge, Donna V., afl, T. Shaw, and S.pamb.ot,

While you guys are engaged in good dialogue why don’t you all put up some icon pics for your ID/gravatar?

Phillip
Phillip
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 5:51pm

I don’t know how. I’m technologically challenged.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 6:09pm

So you opposed Health Care Reform because the bishops did?

Yes. I commented about this briefly at Zippy’s a while back.
http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-funding-for-abortion-is-just.html?showComment=1269530687527#c4629179916212773003

I’ll leave at that for now to avoid going off topic.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 6:19pm

Great. I think we are the same page. Now if we only had a quote from a bishop that supports your position I think we can just about wrap this up.

No, we are not. I am not inhibited from advocating a social policy because my bishop has not pronounced on that specific subject. You have not offered one citation to the effect that an immigration policy which permits settlers but not the issuance of visas to imported servant-laborers is in contradiction to a moral principle articulated by the Church.

But it seems to be the case that most conservative Catholics disagree with the bishops whenever a bishop’s position is contradicted by the talking points of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

There is no consensual position on immigration within the Republican Party, much less ‘talking points’.

The bishops need to elaborate on how the moral and ethical obligations of the faithful are articulated in social policy and how the latter compels lax enforcement of immigration laws, amnesty, &c. If they can actually state things in those terms.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 6:45pm

I will have to say that bishops’ opinions should be treated with respect.

I think that is all I really wanted. Not necessarily from anyone one person in particular, but from Catholic sites in general when they examine the Arizona immigration law controversy.

What do the bishops say and why do they say it? Are the various bishops’ statements generally consistent with each other? Should Catholics feel obligated to line up behind them if they are relatively uniform in their opinion?

Those are some of the questions on my mind and tried to explore a little here.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 6:54pm

While you guys are engaged in good dialogue why don’t you all put up some icon pics for your ID/gravatar?

I am not sure I can get it to work.

Donald R. McClarey
Admin
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 7:17pm

How to set up a gravatar:

http://en.gravatar.com/

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 8:05pm

Just want to draw attention to the seriousness of the abuse of migrants in Mexico that Greg refers to and acknowledge that I could not find statements from Catholic bishops on that specific situation.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migrants-mexico-human-rights-crisis-2010-04-27

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 9:38pm

S.pamb.ot hits the nail on the head, so to speak.

” . . . Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant”

BINGO!!!!

Opinion.

I read books on my commute/RR. One book I read was The Republic. Plato said, “Opinion is not truth.”

I don’t much care about bishops’ opinions unless they jive with the Scriptures and the Pope.

Especially since the majority voted for Obama in opposition to Pope Benedict’s non-negotiables, I have no reason to blindly accept any bishop’s OPINION.

FYI Bamspot BUDDY: Check out OT Tobit on not giving alms to evil people. “Better to put your bread on the grave of a just man than . . . ”

The criminals (tearing at the guts of many communities) are not the least of Christ’s brothers. And, are breaking at least four of the Ten Commandments.

But, if you must feed them, send them food in their homelands. And, use your money for your charitable acts.

Those are my opinions and again opinion is not truth.

I’m a superannuated accountant who has to look up much of the vocabulary you people use. Plus, what is this gravatar thing?

BTW: Closed comments on the Second Amend. I am perennially banned at a certain so-called catholic website. Seems totalitarianism resides in socialist saints, as much as stalinists and nazis.

That’s okay. I had completed my post-doctoral field work in proctology at the time they banned me.

Joe Hargrave
Monday, May 24, AD 2010 11:35pm

Shaw,

“Closed comments on the Second Amend.”

I hope you aren’t referring to my post. Comments are closed here because I don’t want two discussions. On my personal blog, where you can read the rest of the piece, you can comment to your hearts content.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Tuesday, May 25, AD 2010 12:07am

Thank you, T.Shaw. I’ll try to keep all of that in mind.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Tuesday, May 25, AD 2010 10:16am

The USCCB on guest worker programs:
In May [2006], the Senate passed S.2611, which includes the 200,000 new H2-C visas supported by President Bush as well as pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have worked in the country five years or more.

Earlier this year [2006], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the enforcement-only House bill and subsequently called the Senate bill [S.2611] “a good start.”

Among the bishops’ principles for just immigration reform is a guest-worker program that helps unify migrant families and provides a path to earn citizenship.

“The bishops are not opposed to border security or national sovereignty,” Torres told Our Sunday Visitor. “But they want to balance the right to migration and the dignity of all human beings.”
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20754

Bishop Wenski testifying before a House Subcommittee on Immigration Reform in 2007:
While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of AgJOBS legislation [temporary workers provision of S.1348], we strongly oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary worker program that does not provide workers with the option of pursuing a path to permanent residency. This could create an underclass of workers in our society who are easily exploitable and without full rights and privileges in the society. We also have misgivings about workers having to return home after two years and remain outside of the country for a year. We fear this may result in some workers choosing to stay illegally.
Other problems we have in Title IV include its unrealistic requirements for health insurance and minimum income levels, and the reliance on the unrealistic triggers found in Title I of the legislation before the temporary worker program can begin to operate.
http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/meh-wenski-adopted-changes.pdf

The USCCB (again) on the AgJOBS program:
The U.S. Catholic Bishops support both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers. However, any such system must adequately protect the rights of workers. Visa costs must be affordable and wages should be sufficient to support a family in dignity. The program ought to provide for family unity and reunification and allow for worker mobility both within the United States and in making return trips to their home country. Labor-market tests should be employed to ensure that U.S. workers are protected. A segment of work visas should be designed to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. In allocating such visas, two factors that should be considered are family ties and work history.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/h2a.shtml

The USCCB (again) on immigration and border security:
The Catholic Catechism teaches that in the realm of immigration law all governments have two essential duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored.

The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person.

The second duty of government is to secure its border and enforce immigration law for the sake of the common good, including the safety and well-being of the nation’s inhabitants and the rule of law.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops have outlined various elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.

Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign-born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.
“http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/legal.shtml”

~~~~~~~
From these and other resources, I believe it is fair to conclude that our bishops support issuance of visas to temporary workers as long as legal protections against exploitation and abuse of the workers are provided. This leads me to believe they oppose elimination of the temporary workers programs.

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Tuesday, May 25, AD 2010 10:51am

An article concerning the USCCB’s position on guest worker programs:
In May [2006], the Senate passed S.2611, which includes the 200,000 new H2-C visas supported by President Bush as well as pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have worked in the country five years or more.

Earlier this year [2006], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the enforcement-only House bill and subsequently called the Senate bill [S.2611] “a good start.”

Among the bishops’ principles for just immigration reform is a guest-worker program that helps unify migrant families and provides a path to earn citizenship.

“The bishops are not opposed to border security or national sovereignty,” Torres told Our Sunday Visitor. “But they want to balance the right to migration and the dignity of all human beings.”
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20754

Bishop Wenski testifying before a House Subcommittee on Immigration Reform in 2007:
“While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of AgJOBS legislation [temporary workers provision of S.1348], we strongly oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary worker program that does not provide workers with the option of pursuing a path to permanent residency. This could create an underclass of workers in our society who are easily exploitable and without full rights and privileges in the society. We also have misgivings about workers having to return home after two years and remain outside of the country for a year. We fear this may result in some workers choosing to stay illegally.

“Other problems we have in Title IV include its unrealistic requirements for health insurance and minimum income levels, and the reliance on the unrealistic triggers found in Title I of the legislation before the temporary worker program can begin to operate.”
http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/meh-wenski-adopted-changes.pdf

~~~(cont’d)

S.pamb.ot
S.pamb.ot
Tuesday, May 25, AD 2010 10:51am

The USCCB (again) on the AgJOBS program:
“The U.S. Catholic Bishops support both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers. However, any such system must adequately protect the rights of workers. Visa costs must be affordable and wages should be sufficient to support a family in dignity. The program ought to provide for family unity and reunification and allow for worker mobility both within the United States and in making return trips to their home country. Labor-market tests should be employed to ensure that U.S. workers are protected. A segment of work visas should be designed to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. In allocating such visas, two factors that should be considered are family ties and work history.”
http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/h2a.shtml

The USCCB (again) on immigration and border security:
“The Catholic Catechism teaches that in the realm of immigration law all governments have two essential duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored.”

“The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person.”

“The second duty of government is to secure its border and enforce immigration law for the sake of the common good, including the safety and well-being of the nation’s inhabitants and the rule of law.”

“The U.S. Catholic Bishops have outlined various elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.”

“Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign-born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.”
http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/legal.shtml

~~~~~~~
From these and other resources, I believe it is fair to conclude that our bishops support issuance of visas to temporary workers as long as legal protections against exploitation and abuse of the workers are provided. This leads me to believe they oppose elimination of the temporary workers programs.

Political Junkie
Thursday, May 27, AD 2010 2:10pm

I have heard far more persons discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
Once again it only applies in situations where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you have forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it’s still a crime to enter our country illegally.
But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause on the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with specific foreign nations.”
Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top