Whether one wants to assign the category of felon to illegal immigrants is a worthy point of discussion, but the coyotes that bring them in, and Americans who knowingly employ them, most certainly should be prosecuted as felons with harsh penalties attached. Offering humane assistance to those stranded should not be penalized, but facilitating their continued embedment should be. A humane process of a return to an overseas point of origin and application for re-entry is necessary so as to not betray those who entered legally in the first place, as well as to underwrite the importance of respect for the law as the foundation of American civilization. I do not recommend "expedited removal" as either humane or administratively realistic. The issue of those currently present illegally will resolve itself over a period of time as a consequence of hard enforcement of illegal border entry coupled with very harsh prosecution of illegal employment. Illegal immigrants, at least the poor and uneducated, are victims of corruption, and corrupt behavior, on the part of the better advantaged and powerful on both sides of the border. However, anything that smacks of "amnesty", a defacto reward for previous illegal behavior, however innocently accomplished, is unacceptable in the reconstruction of respect for American law. JES
Why is the Catholic Church involved in the immigration issue? There are several reasons the Catholic Church is involved in the immigration debate. The Old and New Testaments, as well as the encyclicals of the Popes, form the basis for the Church’s position. In Gospel of Matthew, Jesus calls upon us to “welcome the stranger,” for “what you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me. “ (Mt. 25-35, 40). The Church also is involved in the issue because many of the Catholic faithful are immigrants who need the support and assistance of the Church. Finally, the U.S. bishops believe that our current immigration system is not good for our nation and contributes to the human suffering of migrants. Thus, they seek to point out the moral consequences of a broken system.
The Church is properly concerned with the well being of the flock. That flock should include consideration of the consequences to many less advantaged American citizens who currently find themselves scrapping at the bottom of the barrel for jobs and pay, with illegals favored by the misguided philanthropy of accommodation. Concerns for poor Mexicans should be addressed to the Government of Mexico, and resolved in Mexico. Poor American citizens, at the very least, are due the respect, as citizens, of an opportunity to work in an economy governed by the American legal system. The employers of illegal imported labor enjoy the benefits of lording over powerless indentured servants at the expense of not observing the rules of the American legal system, and leaning on taxpayers to pick up the social costs. What a deal. One would expect the Bishops to be troubled by this arrangement as I am sure the Holy Spirit is. How much effort does the Church put in to lobbing the Mexican government for reform of their system of turning a blind eye and promoting Reconquista as the solution to the problem? JES
Does the Catholic Church believe in “open borders?” No, Church teaching supports the right of the sovereign nation to control its borders. This is necessary to ensure the common good. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk.
Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration? No. The Catholic Church does not support or encourage illegal immigration because (1) it is contrary to federal law and (2) it is not good either for society, because of the presence of a large population living outside the community, or the migrant, who is subjected to abuse, exploitation, and even death. Instead, the Church is advocating changing a broken law so that undocumented persons can obtain legal status in our country and enter the United States legally to work and support their families.
A broken law is not an excuse for illegal behavior. Were it so, the entire world would be in total chaos, as there are more broken laws than not, including certain Canon Laws that forbid Catholics, especially those in high public office, from promoting abortion and still celebrate the Mass. Of course, broken laws should be fixed, but casting stones at others without getting one's own house in order first must be done with great care. JES
What enforcement measures would the USCCB support? The USCCB supports an immigration enforcement regime that secures our borders in a manner that minimizes the risk of loss of life to migrants. A reform of our legal immigration system will help reduce the need for increased resources for enforcement because it will allow migrants to enter legally and not clandestinely across the border. Specifically, the USCCB supports enforcement provisions in the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033, H.R. 2330), provided they are accompanied by changes to our legal immigration system, as noted above. Enforcement provisions in S. 1033/H.R. 2330 include (1) the development of a National Strategy on Border Security, which would enhance information-sharing among federal, state, and local authorities, integrate security technologies, and combat human smuggling, (2) an electronic employer verification system which would feature biometric visas for workers, (3) increased cooperation with sending countries to manage the flow of nationals to U.S. jobs, discourage unauthorized migration and criminal enterprise, improve job opportunities in sending communities, and identify potential terrorist threats, and (4) funding for the Department of Labor to conduct targeted audits in any new temporary worker/legalization program.
Will a new legalization program simply lead to more illegal immigration? No, not if the new program contains all the appropriate elements and is implemented properly. In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which legalized many of the undocumented population. However, that legislation did not address “future flows” of immigrants by making necessary changes to the employment-based and family-based immigration systems. The creation of a temporary worker program with protections and more family reunification visas will help stem illegal immigration by providing legal avenues for migration. Moreover, the U.S. bishops have advocated for policies to address the root causes of migration, including sustainable economic development and fair trade and economic policies that take into account the plight of low-skilled workers. Only policies which address global economic inequities will provide the long-term solution to forced migration.
S. 1033, H.R. 2330), introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ.) and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA.) is a re-hash of 1986, and will lead to the same result. The American people aren't going to take it anymore, and are certainly not so stupid as to not see through all this. Neither are thousands of Mexicans lining up across the border waiting for their chance. My good fellows, there are circumstances when compassion becomes complicit with evil. Good intentions are found on the road to Hell. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) was the primary sponsor of the 1986 legislation. There is no evidence that he has changed his colors. JES
Is not an “earned legalization” another term for “amnesty?” Does not an “amnesty” reward illegal behavior and penalize those who are waiting in line legally? No, an “earned legalization” is much different than an “amnesty.” An amnesty is a giveaway or forgiving of a debt. For example, the 1986 IRCA legislation can be considered an amnesty because it provided legal permanent resident (LPR) status to undocumented migrants simply by virtue of their presence in the United States. An “earned legalization,” as defined in the S.1033/H.R.2330 bills, requires undocumented workers to “earn” permanent status by working over a six-year period before qualifying for LPR status. It also requires the payment of a fine and English language capability. Thus, illegal behavior is not rewarded with a ‘free pass,” –those here outside the law would be required to pay their debt and earn the right to remain. Moreover, S.1033/H.R.2330 would streamline the family reunification system and other employment categories so that those waiting in line will receive LPR status before those in the earned legalization program. Under this scenario, undocumented workers would not “ jump the line” over those who have played by the rules.
"Is not an “earned legalization” another term for “amnesty?” Does not an “amnesty” reward illegal behavior and penalize those who are waiting in line legally?". The correct answer is YES. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is a duck. There are none so blind as those who will not see. The proposed "earned legalization program" will be beyond the scope of anyone's ability to administrate it, and presupposes voluntary cooperation that in the real world is never going to happen. It is contrary to human nature to volunteer to pay fines, or to expose one's self to a bureaucracy with truly unknown consequences. And, of course, "earned legalization", as noted above, legitimizes illegal entry in the first place. JES
Would an influx of foreign workers, including those currently in the United States, take jobs away from U.S. workers? Studies show that immigrant workers are employed in jobs in industries that do not attract sufficient U.S. workers. For example, over 80 percent of agricultural workers are foreign-born, while the majority of laborers in the meatpacking and poultry industries are foreign-born. Over one-third of all dishwashers, janitors, maids, and cooks are foreign-born. The Department of Labor has predicted that the U.S. will experience a labor shortage in many “unskilled job categories” by as early as 2008. Further, S. 1033/H.R. 2330 does not increase immigration in the employment area, but merely legalizes it, since immigrants are already working and entering without documentation. By legalizing the undocumented workforce, wages for all workers increase because the undocumented are better able to organize and assert their rights in the workplace. After the IRCA legalization in 1986, for example, real wages for the immigrant population increased by 14 percent.
"Would an influx of foreign workers, including those currently in the United States, take jobs away from U.S. workers?". The truth is that nobody knows the answer to this question. Until employers are forced to hire overseas workers on the same legal and economic terms as American citizens, we are faced with an apples and oranges question. There is surely a need for some hiring of foreign labor, however in the absence of free market discipline all under the same rules, there is no yardstick with which to measure the issue. The answer to all this is a necessary prerequisite to intelligent immigration reform for legal immigration. Sorry, but the Department of Labor is currently just throwing darts. To dodge this point is prejudicial against American labor. JES
What about public resources? Does not increased immigration place stress on public resources? First of all, undocumented immigrants are barred from receiving any federal means-tested benefits and the large majority of legal immigrants are barred from such benefits for five years after their arrival. Undocumented immigrants are eligible for educational services for children and emergency health-care services. Studies find that after an immigrant works for a year there is a net benefit to the state and national economy because of taxes, Social Security taxes, and the “sweat equity” that immigrants contribute to the economy. Foreign workers and their families also contribute to the economy through their purchasing power, which adds billions to the economy each year.
This is utter nonsense and wishful thinking on your part. Again, There are none so blind as those who will not see. JES
Backgrounder
Background. The issue of comprehensive immigration reform may soon be considered by the U.S. Congress. On July 26, the full Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the subject and may soon consider several bills designed to reform the U.S. immigration system. To date, two major reform bills have been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Senator John McCain (R-Az) and Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) introduced the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005 (S. 1033) on May 12, 2005, and Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-Az) introduced the Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438) on July 19, 2005. In the House of Representatives, Representatives Jim Kolbe (R-Az), Jeff Flake (R-Az), and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) introduced the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (H.R. 2330), a companion bill to S. 1033, on May 12, 2005.
It is likely that another piece of legislation will be introduced by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, in the House of Representatives in the near future. In addition, President Bush may provide more details to the principles he outlined in January, 2004, on immigration reform.
Position of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In January 2003, the U.S. Catholic bishops outlined principles for immigration reform in their pastoral statement, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope. They stated that any just immigration reform proposal should address the root causes of migration, including poverty and conflict, and should include the following elements: (1) a broad-based legalization of the undocumented; 2). a temporary worker program with appropriate worker protections, (3) changes to the family-based immigration system to reduce waiting times for family reunification, and (4) restoration of due process protections for immigrants.
On July 19, 2005, Bishop Gerald Barnes, bishop of San Bernardino and chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, issued a statement in support of the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, stating that it “most closely comports with principles outlined by the U.S. bishops.”
What you can do. Now is the time to contact your Senators in support of S. 1033, the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act of 2005. You also can meet with them or their staff in their district offices and ask for their support of the bill. The Senate is expected to take up immigration reform proposals soon. Please visit www.justiceforimmigrants.org for further information and assistance in writing to your senators.