Some on the right who support the House bill think this is an open-and-shut case of right and wrong. And while they denigrate the Catholic Church's position on this, I wonder if they feel that a law criminalizing human aid to illegals is any more moral than one which legalizes the murder of children in the womb?
Sometimes it's better to be on the outside looking in. Like those on the left, we on the right are much more effective and much more comfortable on the attack than on defense. And although his enemies have been largely swinging and missing, George Bush and his conservative base are suffering an acute bout of second term-itis.
The first symptom was the nervous rash that developed during the Harriet Miers affair, when many untrusting conservatives savaged her Supreme Court nomination until the poor woman withdrew her name from contention. Next came severe inflammation over the Dubai ports snafu where Republicans and Democrats joined forces to scuttle the deal.
Now the long-festering sore of the illegal immigration issue has come to a head, causing a further split in the party. A recent irritant seems to be the images of half a million immigrants waving Mexican flags at rallies protesting the House version of legislation to stem the tide. Americans of most ethnic and racial backgrounds see this as a slap in the face and an arrogant display of biting the hand that feeds.
Some typically try to cast the problem as one of civil rights, which of course is ridiculous. America's non-Caribbean black population–who were here before most of us whose families didn't make the Mayflower trip–faced dreadful discrimination because of skin color rather than national origin. The question is not one of race but of legality and assimilation, both valid issues yet extremely complex.
Many who oppose guest-worker type programs acknowledge that while they themselves are the children of immigrants, their forebears entered this country legally. While true, this claim is a bit disingenuous, as the greatEuropean exodus in the late 19th and early 20th centuries proceeded mostly via east coast seaports where it was easy to control–the question of legality wasn't really an issue.
Were there an opportunity for desperate families to flee the abject poverty of Ireland or the cruel repression of Eastern Europe in a less costly or quicker fashion would they have availed themselves of it? The fact that they had oceans to cross instead of a few miles of desert naturally negates the question but renders it no less worthy of consideration.
As for assimilation into American culture, that grand tradition has for decades been under attack by our liberal friends eager to weaken it in order to make us more "global," and thus more worthy in their eyes. Our national motto, E Pluribus Unum is considered by them to be as dead as the language in which it's written.
But for two glorious centuries, the phony and noxious notion of forced multi-culturalism was preceded by that of the grand American melting pot, into which every immigrant contributed without the government wielding the spoon. Today, multi-culturalists seek to divide by emphasizing what makes us different rather than what should bring us together; in the process producing envy and resentment, the left's favorite tools. Witness the sickening travesty of banning American flags at school protests.
At the same time, many on the right howl when supporters of guest-worker programs drag out the claim that immigrants will do the jobs "that Americans won't do." The truth, at least in my corner of the Northeast, is that these illegals are doing jobs that others used to do, but this is largely due to our modern lifestyle.
Years ago, the burger-flipping and supermarket jobs were filled by American teenagers; stay-at-home mothers raised their own children; non-union apprentices on their way up the ladder filled the construction ranks and all but the rich did their own landscaping, which used to be known as yard work.
Today, with most women working outside the home, husbands have no need for second jobs such as driving cabs or pumping gas. As a result, this has created cottage industries where child-rearing and yard care are delegated to others who work two and three of these jobs at low pay in order to mimic the ascension of their employers. We used to call this the American dream.
Some on the right who support the House bill think this is an open-and-shut case of right and wrong. And while they denigrate the Catholic Church's position on this, I wonder if they feel that a law criminalizing human aid to illegals is any more moral than one which legalizes the murder of children in the womb? Caring for the poor and defending innocent life are the Church's mandates, and good priests would risk jail for both.
Now before my email box is deluged with love letters, let me state that I'm of two minds on this issue. While I'm fairly certain that my grandparents would have used any means to ensure that I was born here in the land of opportunity, I also firmly believe in the rule of law. But we should take special care to de-politicize this issue and try to compromise on a bill which upholds our sovereignty yet is compassionate and wise.
Whether such a compromise is possible is an itch which may be unreachable for some in the GOP who denounce President Bush as un-conservative. But in doing so, they should try and remember the Eleventh Commandment as espoused by the last president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. In his second term attempt at compassionate conservatism, Ronald Reagan got it wrong; we have a chance to get it right.
Quote: “And while they denigrate the Catholic Church’s position on this, I wonder if they feel that a law criminalizing human aid to illegals is any more moral than one which legalizes the murder of children in the womb?”
What an outrageous comparison, equating defensless unborn children with those who are compelled to engage in the criminal act of hiring those who have entered this country ILLEGALLY for their own selfish benefit. The Catholic Church has it wrong on this one. Caring for the poor is one thing, assisting lawbreakers is another. For more insight to the church’s stance on this, I guess we’ll just have to once again, follow the money.
Cardinal Mahoney’s position on this matter is actually quite immoral: his plans would make the situation far worse. He’d encourage more corruption in the U.S., strengthen Mexico’s corrupt oligarchy, cause more worker abuse, and on and on. The only moral solution is to enforce our immigration laws, something that Mahoney will always oppose.
I respect the Catholic church’s teaching. I respect Cardinal Mahoney’s position. However, it seems to me that the good Cardinal should apply the principle to comply with government authorities so long as those authorities do not contradict the clear and simple teaching of the Scriptures. In this case, the government has a clear right, indeed a duty, to label these persons illegal. The government has a duty to enforce its rules and return these criminals to their home country, or otherwise prosecute them. The good Cardinal has a duty to provide comfort and guidance to these criminals. And that guidance must include compliance with the law since compliance does not interfere with their relationship with God. The good Cardinal would do well to remember even our Lord understood this principle when He said: “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matthew 22:21b, NASB). Previous verses should prove sobering to the good Cardinal when Jesus called those who tried to entrap Him “…hypocrites…”(Matthew 22:18b, NASB).
I am tired of the excuses made on the behalf of illegals. Everyone of them knew they were breaking the law when they crossed the border. Therefore, I propose a solution. Let’s get a bunch of people together, (retired people would be great), send them across the border into Mexico, find jobs and have them send the money back into the US, pay no taxes, have them insist that they can’t be deported, demand that they be given legal benefits from other people’s taxes, demand that street signs, school classes, and everything else possible be given in English as well as Spanish, and march in the street in protest when the Mexicans want to deport them. It would only be fair.
So because the poor people in Mexico are closer to the US than the poor people in Europe were it makes it okay for them to break the law? Your logic is ludicrous. Our Biblical duty to the poor does not include aiding people in breaking the law. Do you think we should also help people steal groceries from the stores as long as they really need them? Where do you draw your moral line? There are plenty of poor people in the United States that the American church could and should worry about. The church of Mexico should worry about the poor people in Mexico. At most, the American church should make every effort to help Mexicans IN MEXICO, by helping them build communities and reform their corrupt government, not by supporting them in breaking the law.
I suppose I should begin by saying that I more or less support the Church’s position, or, more correctly, I hold the same position for very different reasons, which I shall not really discuss here.
What I want to address here, however, is the relentless “assimilation” nonsense I keep hearing. As this article pointed out, many of the past’s legal immigrants from Europe had to cross an ocean, not a few miles of desert. More importantly, many of those immigrants came over before there were immigration quotas, making it much easier to enter the U.S.
The article wisely asked whether or not these European immigrants, had they had less than an ocean to cross, would not have come illegally as well. This just underscores the fact that, no matter how much some super-patriotic conservative Americans may say that the legal immigrants of the past wanted to assimilate and become true Americans, many, if not most, immigrants do not come because they want to share in American patriotism and traditions.
True, many come to appreciate these traditions, and many immigrants do become proud and “assimilated” Americans, but for most immigrants, both today and in the past, this is not the reason for coming to America.
The real reason is usually much more mundane: Work. Yes, the illegal Mexicans come here to work, just as most legal immigrants come here to work. While the textbook tales of Ellis Island (at least the ones written before the crazy P.C. police got a hold of the schoolbooks) may tell of the wonder and excitement at coming to a new land, immigration, and more particularly its natural precursor, emigration, are usually painful and difficult experiences, things nobody would do lightly.
There are many arguments to be made on this issue, all of which touch perfectly legitimate problems in the immigration dispute. Distinguishing between legal and illegal immigrants may be perfectly fine. Distinguishing between immigrants who can be “assimilated” and those who cannot is silly, pointless, and profoundly un-intellectual.
Getting moral advice from a Catholic Bishop is equivalent to getting marriage advice from Bill Clinton. Take out the religious overtones of Catholism and you have the reason RICO was drafted. Capo Mahoney has no authority over morals or policy to have anything more than the opinion he is entitled to.
To the point at hand- Immigration
Its been said a hundred times and no one is doing it.
1. Seal the borders- we can deal with the illegals once we stop the influx. We can’t deal with anything unless we do this.
2. All illegals must be paid according to the tax code. Have these people subsidize the welfare programs they take advantage of.
3. Fine the employers heavily when they try to circumvent the laws. If these illegals do not have jobs to get they will go back home.
Concerning the contradiction in points 2 and 3, I do support a program to legalize these aliens. It may take 3 or 4 years to implement the entire process, but while this is happening, tax them the same as if they are legal. I believe the desire for employment here may diminish when everyone is playing by the rules.
Shane – Great idea, although I am not sure how much $10 a week will get you family back home.
That’s why you have retired people do it, Hman:-)
Honker,
Just heard an interview with an IRS agent. She said that they are still processing aliens from the last amnesty…twenty years ago! She said that an amnesty now is laughably unworkable, not only in the IRS, but in nearly every federal agency.
Maybe a massive amnesty that destroys the IRS, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is something to root for:)