WASHINGTON — Arizona’s controversial immigration law takes effect July 29 — unless the Obama administration succeeds in blocking it.
The law is expected to complicate efforts on Capitol Hill to pass comprehensive immigration reform this year — a longtime legislative goal of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
But even if the president’s legal challenge is successful, the nation’s Catholic bishops hope Arizona’s plight will be a wake-up call for legislators in Washington, D.C.
“The Arizona law is the result of growing levels of frustration and fear that have developed within the state,” acknowledged Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, who also serves as the U.S. bishops’ conference’s vice president. “But the bishops of Arizona do not believe this bill is the answer. The real answer is comprehensive immigration policy at the federal level.”
Last week in a Phoenix federal district courthouse, Judge Susan Bolton reviewed sharply opposing arguments by the Justice Department and the state of Arizona. But she has yet to issue a ruling, which could come at any time.
Attorney General Eric Holder hopes to secure a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which he criticizes as both an untenable challenge to the federal government’s traditional role in setting immigration policy and a problem for U.S. foreign policy. If Holder obtains the preliminary injunction, legal experts predict the judge will ultimately strike down the state law.
Arizona’s Republican governor, Jan Brewer, however, contends that the state has been forced to act because federal immigration laws have not been effectively enforced. If the measure stands, it will be a violation of state law to be in the country illegally; police engaged in routine law enforcement will be permitted to investigate the immigration status of anyone they suspect to be in the country illegally.
Whatever the law’s fate, polls confirm its broad popularity, not only in Arizona, but across the country. Support for the law reflects mounting public frustration with the real and perceived issues linked to illegal immigration during a time of economic crisis.
During testimony this month before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law, Bishop Kicanas argued that voters want real solutions to a “broken” system and that the Arizona law should revitalize the push for immigration reform in the nation’s capital.
“The message is to break the partisan paralysis and act now,” Bishop Kicanas stated in his testimony. “Without congressional action on immigration reform — sooner rather than later — other states will pass similar laws, to the detriment of our nation.”
He added that he witnesses “the human consequences of our broken immigration system in my diocese’s social service programs, hospitals, schools and parishes.”
Political Will?
President Obama signaled his interest in addressing immigration reform in a July 1 speech, but even immigrant-rights groups agree that Capitol Hill isn’t prepared to work out a compromise during an already contentious election year.
“The situation in Arizona has brought national attention to the crisis in the immigration system. But it will be difficult for Congress to act before the election,” said Clarissa Martinez, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, an advocacy group for Hispanics in America.
“The administration seems not to be anxious to advance legislation unless there were some assurance that 60 senators would support it,” noted Archbishop Thomas Wenski of Miami, a longtime Catholic leader on immigrant issues. “Unless there would be some action during a ‘lame duck’ session of Congress after the November elections, it seems that we are far away indeed.”
Republican senators say border security must be stepped up before they address divisive issues like legalization for illegal immigrants. But the USCCB’s director of migration policy and public affairs, Kevin Appleby, questions the logic of narrowly focusing on enforcement issues.
“Since 2000, the U.S. government has spent more than $100 billion on immigration enforcement,” Appleby wrote in the July 4 edition of the Register. “During the same period, the number of undocumented persons has grown from 6 million to 12 million, and border communities continue to see drug-related violence. Since 1998, nearly 5,000 migrants have died attempting to cross the American desert.”
“Comprehensive immigration reform, as supported by the U.S. bishops, would help achieve the seemingly incompatible principles of a secure border and a generous immigration policy,” Appleby continued.
The USCCB seeks passage of a number of measures, including an expansion of a path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented persons in the country and the creation of a new worker program, which would permit unskilled migrant laborers to obtain visas to come to the United States legally and work under certain conditions.
A recent USCCB-sponsored poll concluded that “69% of Catholics supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented, provided they register with the government.”
Prudential Judgments
But the bishops’ support for immigration reform has also sparked considerable debate and a measure of antagonism. Bishops who have used their own Internet blogs to criticize the Arizona law have received a flood of overwhelmingly negative comments.
“Some Catholics, on hearing Catholic bishops speak on social doctrine and social issues, can’t help thinking that the bishops embrace pious visions but avoid real messiness and costs and low probabilities of success,” said Michael Novak, the prominent Catholic thinker and an occasional critic of USCCB policy positions.
“Regarding immigration, there are probably hundreds of legitimate prudential judgments among Catholics about which are the most moral and realistic policies to support,” Novak observed. “Some of these judgments seem a lot less naive than others.”
Asked for his response, Archbishop Wenski acknowledged some “legitimate concerns regarding the rule of law — and so sometimes an immigrant’s ‘illegal status’ does not win him sympathy.”
But the archbishop also suggested that believing Catholics should take the Church’s social teaching to heart. Catholics in America “should not be divided on this issue. And the bishops, in our pastoral letter, ‘Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope: A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States,’ give clear teaching that good Catholics should be open to receiving.”
The archbishop vowed that Florida’s Catholic bishops would be “vigorously opposed to any attempt to pass a Florida-specific law, as was done in Arizona. Such an attempt would prove, I fear, divisive and counterproductive.”
In Arizona — the “epicenter” of an increasingly volatile immigration debate — Bishop Kicanas has echoed the Church’s consistent concern for the social needs and human rights of migrants.
But the bishop also has looked for opportunities to clarify the USCCB position, disputing common mischaracterizations of the bishops’ stance, and he has initiated public forums where all points of view are aired.
“Some people believe the Church is supporting open borders, but the Church does not support open borders, and it doesn’t support amnesty,” said Bishop Kicanas. “What the bishops are asking and pressing for is an earned pathway to citizenship. Illegal immigrants could come out of the shadows and wait their turn.”
“But we have legitimate policy concerns, like family reunification,” he added. “The Arizona law could force mothers or fathers or young people, who never lived outside this country but do not have proper papers, to leave the United States.”
Earlier this year, Bishop Kicanas presided at the funeral of Rob Krentz, the Arizona rancher whose still unsolved murder fueled support for the Arizona law.
Initial reports suggested that Krentz had been killed by an illegal immigrant, but state law enforcement officials have yet to confirm the identity of the rancher’s assailant.
“Krentz’s murder cries out for justice,” said the bishop, noting that the Church’s stake in the immigration policy debate was not limited to the plight of migrants, but also the plundering of Arizona ranches and the safety of border patrol officials.
“The Church has been criticized for getting involved in politics,” he said. “But it’s actually concerned with public policy — how we live together in a community.”
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Matthew Warner: Here's the lesson from the election, folks!
Joseph Pronechen: Bishops Call for 'Rosary Novena for Life and Liberty'
Comments
Post a Comment
Demo politicians don’t want immigration reform, because most of the illegals will vote demo once they are given amnesty.
THE FACTS ARE THAT JAN BREWER DID THIS TO GET REELECTED, HERE ARE FACTS.
1, HOW MUCH MONEY $$$$$$$ IS ALLOCATED TO ENFORCE THIS LAW?? NONE.
2, HOW MANY NEW POLICEMEN / WOMEN SHES HIRED TO HOLD AND PROCESS THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS? NONE.
3, HOW MANY NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES SHES HIRED TO PROCESS THE THOUSANDS OF DEPORTATION CASES?? NONE.
4, HOW MANY NEW JAILS SHES BUILT TO HOLD THE THOUSANDS OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS? NONE.
5, HOW MANY BUSES / PLANES SHES BROUGHT TO DEPORT THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF THOSE WHO ARE ORDERED BY THE IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO BE DEPORTED?? NONE.
CAN ANYONE ANSWER THESE FACTS? THE REPUBLICAN STATES ARE TRYING TO MAKE THIS THEIR PLATFORM, THEY WILL LOSE BIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG TIME.
ALL ARE GODS CHILDREN. NO HUMAN IS ABOVE ANOTHER. ALL ARE CREATED BY ONE ALMIGHTY GOD WHO LOVES ALL HIS CHILDREN.
I AM NOT SAYING DON’T CLOSE THE BORDERS I AM SAYING STOP THE FOOLISH HATE AND IGNORANCE.
Moments after signing Arizona’s tough new immigration law in April, Gov. Jan Brewer was asked WHAT A ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LOOKS LIKE????
The question, posed during a news conference that was broadcast live on TV, seemed to catch Brewer off guard. After a long pause, she said, “I DON’T KNOW WHAT A ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LOOKS LIKE. I can tell you that there are people in Arizona that ASS-U-ME they know what an illegal immigrant looks like. I DON’T KNOW IF THEY KNOW THAT FOR A FACT OR NOT.”
Her answer cut to the very heart of the controversy surrounding the law, which takes effect July 29. Although there are many people who assume they know what an illegal immigrant looks like, the fact is, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to tell a person’s immigration status by appearance, experts say.
So despite assurances to the contrary, some civil-rights groups and others fear that enforcement of the law will lead to racial profiling. Several lawsuits already raise worries of civil-rights violations, and a group of Arizona law professors concluded the law authorizes enforcement based on ethnicity. That, they allege, would mean officers would end up harassing and possibly detaining people who aren’t illegal immigrants.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. But most Hispanics in Arizona are not illegal immigrants - they are legal residents or U.S. citizens, many with roots dating back generations.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2010/07/18/20100718illegal-immigration-profiling.html#ixzz0u2wY1a1d
Bishop Kicanas’ (that’s okay, he’s probably never heard of me, either) statement—“What the bishops are asking and pressing for is an earned pathway to citizenship. Illegal immigrants could come out of the shadows and wait their turn”—obscures the fact that the US already do have an earned pathway to citizinship (albeit for people who are in the country legally). It’s statements like this that make even the less cynical Cathoclis believe that what the bishops mean when they say “comprehensive immigration policy at the federal level” is really “amnesty and open borders”; but not for all immigrants, of course (just ask the Indian applications developer who has to drive across two states at the last minute to renew their visa).
But I’m sure it’s not that the bishops are out of step with their flock. They just have a message problem and if they could only communicate their point of view better, then everyone would fall into line, as that strategy has worked so well in the past on other social issues.
Illegal aliens mean “Mexicans” racist U.S government. They need mexicans, otherwise how can u get cheaper food and other products those people work for almost free, 2nd kind of mexicans, they live off “one social security number” all of them and they look for cheapest way to live. The 2nd kind should be detained asap, cause they going to start steeling banks, houses etc….. Those are the vicious kind.
It’s going to get ugly people, wake up all we need amnesty, by doing background checks if they’re clean take dna and store it on system, no finger prints, blood samples. It’s that easy, but this country won’t do anything good for it’s people, i feel sorry for all of us “americans” :(
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has not helped in the immigration debate. Instead they look like just another bunch of east coast liberals. The Bishops started out with conclusions and backed into any available arguments they found handy. Until people hear a debate that includes discussion of the horrible crime oriented Mexican government that makes indigenous Mexicans desperate to emigrate, they will not have any credibility when it comes to immigration. Where is the condemnation of American drug use that enables the criminal drug industry? Where is the call for clarifying legislation for the 14th Ammendment to discourage the anchor baby business? Where is the acknowledgement of the horrible situation our Arizona citizens face? Outgoing L.A. Archbishop Mahoney’s support for criminal behaviors of “sanctuary cities”, and illegal border crossings, is despicable and undermines the credibility of the USCCB. It reminds me of the movie Reefer Madness that the government put out to discourage pot smoking. It had so many patent falsehoods embedded in it that it actually encouraged pot smokers to assume the opposite was true. There are plenty of good reasons for immigration reform, but the USCCB once again decided to go for the cheap shot and partner up with the Obama administration. Hopefully the new bishops of Benedict XVI will use their heads instead of their emotions to come up with a realistic approach to immigration issues. Deus succurro nos.
The Arizona law only applies to people who were already arrested for committing some other crime, and only enforces federal law. Why are the bishops so eager to prove to illegals that they value them more than Americans?
The illegal immigration “mess” is a problem requiring the wisdom of Solomon. I hear many talk about compassion for the illegals but not many who have compassion for the people of Arizona. Their border is a war zone with criminals smuggling drugs and people and they have to pay th price for all the benefits the illegals get once they succeedd in getting across. The current situation also make it easy for Mexiccans to slip in. What about Asians and people from Africa or Europe who don’t have it as convenient to sneak in. We do need a solution that has compassion for those who are here and those with children who were born here and are citizens. We faced a similar situation a number of years ago and we said let’s make all the illegals citizens and then we will fix the border. That didn’t work and critics will be wary of buying that argument again. The truth is that no recent administration has enforced the border or the law. One of the best compromise solutions was proposed by former president George Bush. That didn’t seem to appeal to either side. A good solution will require some compromise and both sides are and will contiue to play politics with the issue.
Amazing how the same institution which demands dotted letters of eligibility and documents for annulments and offers no latitude on the letter of the law is advocating for amnesty for those who essentially come here to covet resources instead of grow where planted and fight for rights in their homelands. Funny too how the Church is counting on these same folks to support the Church and sustain it in the future. Kind of like serving two masters or expecting the thief to become Robin Hood.
Common sense dictates past behavior is the best predictor of future actions.
Don’t get me wrong, I love my hispanic brothers and sisters! I serve them, donate necessities and participate in Spanish Masses so I somewhat understand their plight and support them. I’m just pointing out the illogical reasoning and hypocrisy of the fallible institution.
St. John Neumann and many others loved and served immigrant population all while encouraging them to become legal.
I am sick of the Bishops and their pompous attitudes. “Good Catholics have to be open to receiving”. What the Bishops don’t take into consideration is what it costs the taxpayer to have the illegal immigrants in our country. Yes, most work hard when they can get work and send money back home, which their President loves to help the Mexican economy. We, the people of the U.S. have to suffer financially (taxes going up, etc. ) because of illegals while the Bishops continue to live in their mansions. We peons are always told to give and sacrifice and always reminded of all our sins, while the Bishops allow the elite in Washington and the elite rich to get away with whatever (for instance Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, & all the other Catholic Pro-abortionists. The President of Mexico & the Catholic Church should be doing more in that country. The worse part of those poor people coming here (& I do feel sorry for the poor) is that along with them we have terrorists and the drug cartel coming over also. Our borders should be closed to EVERYONE. We treat the Illegal Mexicans better than Mexico would treat us if we were caught going over the border into their country. These are facts, and the Bishops should get their heads out of the sand. The U.S. is also at fault because this has been going on for years and all they think about is ‘votes and power’ and becoming more and more wealthy themselves. If we need more Mexicans here, then allow them to come legally, just as the immigrants of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. Regardless of what the Catholic church wants to make this—-it is really a political issue on both sides of the border.
Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader in the close knit pack of Democrats, considers he is getting bad polling numbers, owing to the ingress of new residents that don’t know him or his reputation? Fortunately he’s right, but there is more to it? A great bulk of the new arrivals over the last five years are illegal aliens, taking construction jobs in the once thriving building boom. Now with the economic downturn, the building industry has faded out, after the greedy grasping of cheap labor by construction owners. Now out of a job illegal immigrants unable to find work, are stifling the welfare offices and that is one of the causes the state of Nevada is hurting economically. The illegal alien invasion has not gone away and now has infiltrated more than ever, in the casinos and entertainment-service industry as a whole. While Americans and legal residents remain jobless, illegal immigrants have transferred to those positions at lower wages.
In any midterm elections or November, we must be careful to watch for abnormalities in Nevada, but across the wide spectrum of polling places in this country. Only a few states have strict regulations on federal voting rules and absentee ballots little or none. Absentee voting is especially opened to fraud, and incumbent politicians with their careers on the line have much to lose. If a person (s) has criminally penetrated America, without being processed, it is my belief that many illegal entrants will break the law further by voting for pro-amnesty spearhead like Sen. Reid? Citizenship is and should be a basic constraint for voting. Citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections, except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions. Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as our illegal alien population in this nation; but as for the deficiencies in state law and the miscarriage of federal agencies to obey with federal law, there are almost no measures in place that allow election officials to detect, dissuade, and avert non-citizens from registering and voting.
Instead, polling officials are chiefly dependent on an “honor system” that presumes aliens to follow the law. There are plentiful cases showing the failure of this honor system.
Here are some excerpts from eyewitness accounts and summaries of foreign nationals voting in federal elections
In California, as an example former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens. Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote.
In 1996, Congress sanctioned the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, creating it as a federal crime for non-citizens who vote in any federal election (or state election, unless authorized by state law). As a penalty, ineligible non-citizens who knowingly vote may be deported. In addition, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of this law. In 1997, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Dallas were investigating voting by illegal nationals. They forwarded a computerized tape of the names of individuals who had voted to the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service became ICE) requesting a check against INS records, but the INS refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation. An INS official was quoted as saying that the INS agency did not “want to open a Pandora’s Box…. If word got out that this is an extensive problem, it could tie up all sorts of manpower. There might be a few thousand [illegal voters] in Dallas, for example, but there could be tens of thousands in places like New York, Chicago or Miami.”
Eight of the World trade Center 11 murderers were registered to vote in either Virginia or Florida—registrations that were probably attained when they applied for driver’s licenses.
We cannot afford to let our guard down and those who are doubtful of these statistic as a fallacy, should type into Goggle, Yahoo “Voter Fraud?” We have already heard of intimidation by the Black Panthers, should be aware that in most states the so called “HONOR SYSTEM” prevails. We must eye incumbent elections, that a few hundred votes could put a bad politician back in office, such as Sen. Harry Reid. A few hundred illegal votes could make a world of difference in a close race. Your vote is important to Washington’s Senate and Congressman, so bombard them that you are adamantly against any type of Amnesty. You want them to secure the border and do it now, because Mexico’s carnage could easily erupt here. The DOJ with its Arizona immigration court battle over SB1070, is arguing we have already have damaged this country’s relationship with Mexico. Strange that the DOJ never thought of the damage done to America, by the Mexican government giving road maps to slip past the US Border Patrol and how to get welfare benefits in our country? Even Sanctuary Cities are being ignored by ICE, instead of arresting the Governors, Mayors, Judges and city managers who support this draining of taxpayers money, in there time of urgent need.
Call the Washington switchboard at 202-224-3121.
Learn more at NumbersUSA No copyright, Copy, paste and distribute freely.
Illegal immigrants are the pawns in the game between dems and republican politicians who have no interest in addressing (and fix) the “illegal immigration” problem. If the UCCB wants to play in this arena, they better understand the politics. Comprehensive immigration means amnesty for most people and we already tried that under Reagan. After granting amnesty, the bordes were supposed to be closed and controlled and the rule of law enforced. Niether happened. People don’t want to hear anything about legislation until the borders are closed. Then we can address the problems of the illegal immigrant if they are still around. It is very difficult to believe anything the current administration says (or does) at the federal level so I don’t blame the States for taking steps to defend their sovereignty (which they did not give up in joining the Union).
Our borders have not been enforced for decades. Illegal aliens have been allowed to enter at our southern borders as well as at seaports. Immigration is the job of the Federal government but people who illegally cross the border are not immigrants.
It is irresponsible for any government or organization to encourage violation of immigration law.
While it is our obligation to welcome immigrants we must question why they are leaving their country. “Migration today is practically an expression of the violation of the primary human right to live in one’s own country.”
Mexico is wealthy with natural resources, tourist attractions and a good workforce. Companies in Mexico are expanding. Emigration may stop or even reverse. We will want the same rights and benefits in Mexico as immigrants have here. Any immigration reform must be completely reciprocal.
Almost everyone outside of the family and my closest friends do not believe I am as old as I am, they do not believe I have had all the education and work experience that I have had.
There is at least one individual that have the EXACT same name as me. I have yet to be confused with her, but you never know…
In addition to my driver’s license, I carry a uncertified copy of my birth certificate, my adoption paper, AND my passport with me at ALL times even though I was definitely born in the United States. I am seriously considering making a copy of my SS card too (with only the last four digits showing).
Okay, if this law is going to stick, then it should be for ALL border states, not just Arizona.
We have a right to our sovereignty. If anyone wants to immigrate here, I have no objections to letting them in. But I do expect them to respect our laws and our culture, just as I would do if I went to another country. And I expect them to assimilate into our society for the benefit of ALL, them included. And if that’s racist or arrogant, than so is the entire world, because no other country expects anything less than what I just stated. And in fact most other countries are much harsher than this. I’m thinking of the hikers who accidentally crossed over into Iran. Or all the killing/kidnapping of foreigners in Mexico. Or the not so tolerant of Christianity, Saudi Arabia. Or how about the fact that you have to have a visa to get into any other country? Even Canada! We have these rules and laws for the sake of keeping peace and order. Without it we would live in chaos as we in the US are now. Federal government do your job and start enforcing our current laws before you make any more that will just be ignored!
The Obama Administration (and previous administrations) are breaking the law. “The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986” requires them to prosecute employers who hire illegal aliens. The Obama Administration is not doing its job in protecting our borders adequately either.
Read the Arizona law. It only allows Police Officers to ask for identification when someone is suspected of a different crime other than the crime of illegal immigration.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” requires immigrants to obey the law, and this includes immigration law. (2241)
The CCC states the Church is not to be confused with the political community. And only has the right to pass moral judgements when the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls require it. (2245 & 2246)
Most illegal aliens in the US are not starving, being deprived of religious freedom, or facing genocide in their home countries - which would violate their fundamental rights.
The primary responsibility of the Bishops is to teach and save souls (883 & 888).
There should be a greater emphasis on teaching the matters of Faith and Morals contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”.
This would automatically provide the foundation that Catholics need to live and vote with good moral conviction, and the Bishops would not need to be involved in politics.
Is there a possibility that the useless USCCB can lay out some details for solving the problem? It is doubtful. The bishops so not speak for themselves [which they are supposed to do] but rather accept bureaucratic platitudes from those who run the organization.
“We must love our neighbors”...Indeed we must. But specifically how do we express this love? Hand wringing is but an excuse for doing nothing.
Maybe we should have an immigration law like they have in Mexico?
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632
Gabriel and Sam
I started to outline the immigration problem on my website: recursoslatino.com Following is the beginning:
Immigration always involves two countries — An Outline
The USCCB can’t help solve the problem because it always blames one side. The US side.
To find a solution you have to go back and figure out the cause of the problem. You can’t just say love your neighbor because both countries are causing the problem.
What happened?
America was rich, Mexico was poor. America had social security, and other benefits. Mexico had none.
But, Mexico is rich in natural resources, tourist attractions, good climate and a good work force. What’s wrong?
The Catholic church says that countries have to take care of their people. Mexico is in a position to grow create jobs and take care of its’ people, There seems to be only one problem, the drug cartel.
Retiring Americans would love to take their money and move to Mexico but are afraid of crime. Foreign companies would love to invest and locate there (some are there) but their employees are afraid of the same problem, crime.
http://www.recursoslatino.com/immig00.htm
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.