Rocco Palmo notes a new pastoral letter written by Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa on the new anti-immigration legislation in his state, where the “basic intention is to deny those who have entered our country illegally the right to work in Oklahoma and the right to find shelter for their families..” Slattery stresses that the right to earn a living and shelter one’s family are basic human rights and criticizes the new law in the strongest terms when he notes that it would “create an atmosphere of repression and terror.” And the denial of basic rights is simply based on what kind of papers one can produced when approached by the agents of law:
“Regrettably, for many Oklahomans the rationale which justifies HB 1804 is simply the illegal status of those who have crossed into the country without proper documentation. All other arguments regarding the situation are simply dismissed by the over-riding fact that these hard workers, these good neighbors, these families who are so eager to contribute to the well-being of our society, have entered the country illegally and are de-facto criminals.”
This law, Slattery claims, would have the effect of “marginalizing whole segments of the population, breaking up families, punishing children for the crime of their parents, and criminalizing various expressions of concern and charity.” What seems especially chilling is the effect this is having on the sacraments. Slattery describes a horror story as follows:
“On Saturday, November 17th, the sanctity of Saint Francis Xavier Church in Sallisaw was violated by three policemen who knew that Hispanic Catholics trust the Church and come to Mass, even when they would not otherwise venture out of their homes for fear of deportation. That makes a Catholic church an easy place to ‘round up’ illegals, so arriving before the 5:30 o’clock Spanish Mass, they began to ask the members of the faithful for their papers as they came to offer Christ’s sacrifice. Such intolerable excesses may force the Church to go underground…”
This is truly horrendous, and raises the specter of the old penal laws, and the newer situation of the church in China. Will this wave of fear-induced paranoia that arose after the terrorist incidents in 2001 never abate? And how should Catholics resist such evil laws that threaten the ability of the Church to function? What kind of civil disobedience would be called for to protect Church-goers from such intimidation? Unless the climate changes and sanity is restored, these questions will not go away any time soon.
This should be a scandal for all Catholics, but we continue to be silent. At least the bishops have not been silent about it.
I am proud to say that my community just rejected such a proposal by one Assemblyman. yay! Praise God.
The Oklahoma law requires government contractors to verify residency status before providing benefits to them. Though it’s not definite, this probably includes Catholic Charities and other organizations that work with the marginalized and accept taxpayer funding.
The same logic that the ACLU has advocated to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions is the same logic that is turning Catholic charitable organizations into immigration policemen. Accepting government funding might be inescapable, but it is certainly perilous.
This brings two stories of my parents to mind.
The first is a story of my father, born in Mexico during the Mexican Revolution. During the Cristero Rebellion in the late 1920′s (where the churches were closed due to enforcing anti-clerical/church laws), his parents (my grandfather was a member of Knights of Columbus) would offer their home as a secret place for baptisms and weddings. Eventually, the townspeople forcefully reopened their church, but thankfully without resorting to the guns they brought along.
The second is about my mother who was born in Los Angeles to Mexican-born parents. They lived not far from La Placita – the plaza in front of Our Lady Queen of Angels Church – where in 1931 an immigration raid rounded up and deported 400 men and women – some Mexican nationals, some US citizens. Why? The Great Depression caused fear that Mexicans were taking jobs away. Eventually, my maternal grandparents took their family, reluctantly, to Mexico. My grandfather died soon thereafter, leaving my grandmother in Mexico with 5 children ranging from 2 to 17, with the children speaking English as a first language.
Please remember in your prayers all people whose dignity and freedom are repressed, despite legal status.
Let’s call it what it is. It’s not “anti-immigration”, it’s law put in place to protect the rule of law, that already happens to be just. It just so happens, that anyone who wants to can immigrate to the U.S. It also happens that a whole group of people think that they are beyond the law, and that they are more important than those who spend the time and effort to do things correctly.
Another thing never discussed in bleeding heart commentaries about the illegal immigration problem is why the host country is so bad. Maybe people should fix the problems they are running from opposed to running from them?
Let’s also not fall into the trap equating abortion with immigration. Illegal immigration includes theft of identity, evasion of taxes, theft of government services paid for by legal citizens tax money. What of the moral evils of these actions?
Do not mistake respect for the law to be cruelty.
“It just so happens, that anyone who wants to can immigrate to the U.S.” Not so! The process is limited, costly, and drawn-out. See this new publication from the Maryland bishops: http://www.mdcathcon.org/immigrationprocess
Also, just because a person enters illegally does not mean they also engage in theft of identity, or evasion of taxes (most pay taxes). And what government services are they stealing? They are barred from receiving most services except emergency medical care and education. Both of which are rights under Catholic teaching, not dependent upon someone’s ability to actually pay into the system. Besides, since most do pay taxes, they are contributing to those services.
“2. Employment-Based
Employers sponsor a potential employee for immigration; in select cases extraordinarily-qualified immigrants may immigrate without an employer-sponsor. Employer sponsors must demonstrate that there are an insufficient number of qualified workers available in the United States to meet their need. The wait can last 7 to 8 years because of the limited number of visas.”
Sounds like if there are jobs that only Mexicans can do, then the employers should find the correct way to fix the problem.
Shortcuts aren’t the answer.
As far as stealing. Let’s go as far as to say a “undocumented american” (PC at it’s best)
1. Broke the law by coming here illegally
2. didn’t steal a SSN or an identity to prove they can work
3. pays taxes (most are under the table, which makes them attractive)
4. Doesn’t use any .gov services “other” than medical and education.
I’d bet that the percentage of people that fit that description are in the tenths of a percent, which makes them not the subject of what I was talking about.
Where is all the Catholic sympathy for workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations? Where is all the Catholic sympathy for people who’s lives are ruined because their identities are indeed stolen, used and trashed? Where is the Catholic Sympathy for taxpayers who’s hard earned money is teaching the children of those who skirt the system?
TeutonicTim – I’m glad you’re shedding tears for “workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations” though I’m not sure how that is immigrants’ fault exactly. Undocumented workers mostly do things like pick lettuce, do construction labor and work as maids – they are indeed exploited, but only because the law (unjustly) makes them criminals, and thus powerless to stand up for their rights.
Amnesty, plus a far more liberal immigration policy, would:
1. Remove the temptation for employers to exploit undocumented workers;
2. Allow many more Mexicans to immigrate to the United States, enriching our culture (and incidentally, making the United States far more Catholic than it is at present);
3. Empower immigrants to stand up for their rights without fear of retaliation by an employer’s call to the INS, thus helping immigrant “workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations”;
4. Stand up for re-unionizing large segments of the labor force, to help non-immigrant “workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations.”
How about this:
Ceasing immigration, plus a far more lawful immigration policy, would:
1. Remove the temptation for employers to exploit undocumented workers because the act of doing so is illegal
2. Allow many more Mexicans to immigrate to the United States legally, enriching our culture (and incidentally, making the United States far more Catholic than it is at present) without stealing from others.
3. Empower the legal immigrants to stand up for their rights without fear of retaliation by an employer’s call to the INS, thus helping immigrant “workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations”;
4. Stand up for re-unionizing large segments of the labor force, to help non-immigrant “workers who are basically indentured by the vaunted evil corporations.”
So, TT, your real problem is with immigration, per se?
[...] 29, 2007 in Uncategorized Bishop Slattery on Immigration « Vox Nova [...]
“the rule of law”??? Catholics in China who worship in the undergound Church are also violating the “rule of law”; it appears therefore justified to arrest them and apply punitive sanctions. Or maybe there are natural rights that are superior and antecedent to all positive law… like the Church teaches?
TT – Actually, I’m having a hard time reconciling this:
Ceasing immigration…
with this:
Allow many more Mexicans to immigrate to the United States legally,
Are you for greatly increasing legal immigration from Mexico, or not? If so, would amnesty be part of greatly increasing immigration from Mexico? Or, do we catch and deport all the undocumented workers currently here, and then let them walk right back across the border, this time in a legally-sanctioned way? As a matter of both practicality and justice, amnesty would seem to be the best choice…
I’m for allowing legal immigration to the amount it benefits the host nation. In the long run, it would benefit FAR more people if the issues in their own country were corrected. Someone has a right to find something better for themselves and their family, as the Church teaches. They don’t have a right to steal, lie, cheat, cut in line, ad nauseum because it’s convenient for them and the greedy coporations to take advantage of them.
MM – You’re comparison of rule of law in this case is ludicrous.
In what sense do undocumented workers, broadly speaking, “steal, lie, cheat, cut in line, ad nauseum,” Tim?
If you’re referring to the circumstances of their immigration, the only cheating they are doing (generally speaking) is avoiding the consequences of breaking a law and circumventing a system which are both unjust: given the circumstances, pretty minor stuff. There is no moral obligation to obey laws that are unjust.
stealing SSNs, avoiding taxes, driving down wages, causing healthcare costs to skyrocket, stressing school systems they don’t contribute to I’d say counts as stealing, lying, cheating, and cutting in line ahead of those who respect the just laws of the U.S.
If there is a path for legal immigration, how is disobeying that path just?
How can you possibly think the laughably inadequate “path to legal immigration” you mention is anything but unjust, Tim? There are millions of undocumented immigrants already here – I’m sure if there had been a convenient, legal path for them to get here they would have chosen that, since by far the vast majority obey all but the immigration laws faithfully, and are productive members of society.
Why is it inadequate? Does it not provide the opportunity for people to immigrate into the U.S.?
Then why are all those workers undocumented? As I mentioned, given that the vast majority are law-abiding and stay out of trouble: Wouldn’t they have had the incentive to do things the legal way, if it had been possible?
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. They’re taking the shortcut because there are no consequences.
drunk driving killings
rapes
theft
murder
is markedly higher in the “undocumented” immigrant community that is apparently so law abiding.
The lack of respect for “the law” is kind of shocking here on this site, especially when people the MM constantly say I’m supposed to bow down to his ideas of law.
law-abiding? Didn’t they break a law when they came? They did it the easy way because they thought they were better than those who do it the right way or because they deserved it or because they knew they could get away with it.
drunk driving killings
domestic abuse
murder
rape
theft
gang violence
are all markedly higher in the illegal “law-biding” population.
It’s kind of entertaining to see the lack of respect for the “law” from MM, especially when he preaches that the law should be used to fulfill his agendas.
They’re ‘undocumented” because that was the easy, convenient, lazy way to get in the country.
drunk driving killings
theft
murder
domestic violence
gang violence
are all markedly higher in the “undocumented” population. Noone has yet answered why it’s OK for struggling middle class families to have to foot the bill for the costs the illegals shirk. It’s also entertaining to see MM’s disregard for the “law” that he so often says should be used to push his agendas.
test
They’re ‘undocumented” because that was the easy, convenient, lazy way to get in the country.
drunk driving killings
theft
murder
domestic violence
gang violence
It won’t let me post what I typed up more than once. But I ask you, how are they law-abiding if their very being here is breaking the law?
C’mon, Tim – doesn’t the fact that they overwhelmingly are hard-working, productive members of society, with no evidence that they break non-immigration-related laws at a higher rate than native-born Americans do, mean that they are law-abiding to you, Tim? I would think we’d want to encourage folks like that to come to America, for the good example they set of being hard-working, productive members of society, wouldn’t we?
Wrong. The crime rates for multiple areas including violent crimes, murder, theft, domestic violence, and gang crime is much higher in the illegal population.
We want to encourage people to come to America. – and respect our laws.
You still haven’t answered why it’s OK for these law abiding illegals (oxymoron, yes) to take advantage of hard working struggling middle and lower class families who pay their taxes to fund the programs the illegals are freeriding on?
I’m sympathetic to many of the positions advocated in Bishop Slattery’s pastoral letter, and several of the stories he tells are quite heartrending, But I’m troubled by what seem to be the implications of some of his remarks. For example, Bishop Slattery says that HB 1804 is immoral because it is intended “to deny those who have entered our country illegally the right to work in Oklahoma.” I won’t deny that people have a right to work and that this is a basic human right; that they have a right to work in Oklahoma, however seems less clear. But assuming that they do, I don’t see how any restrictions on immigration could ever be legitimate. If a person’s right to work means that it’s wrong to stop him from coming to this country to find work, well, then it’s wrong to stop him from coming to this country to find work. It doesn’t matter if he’s one of a million or one of a billion.
If, on the other hand, a nation can justly place restrictions on the amount of immigration it will accept (and the language in Bishop Slattery’s letter about the need to control the border does suggest that he thinks this), then it is not clear what criteria we are to use to distinguish between just limits on immigration and unjust ones, nor is it clear how to square such limitaitions with the “right to work” argument that he makes in the letter.
Blackadder:
The question you pose suggests that there may be something problematic with asserting there is a “right to work,” at least as something primary and not something remedial.
Teutonic Tim: I ALWAYS find that those vociferously against immigrants have one primary fallacious assumption. You state “It just so happens, that anyone who wants to can immigrate to the U.S.”
I assume you mean legally immigrate to the United States. And if you do indeed mean legally immigrate, you are sadly misinformed about our legal immigration laws. I seriously recommend you call your local immigration attorney and make the same statement to that attorney. Don’t get offended if he has to stop laughing for awhile before he can make a response.
Don’t you think that as an active, practicing Catholic, you should first educate yourself about our immigration policies before attacking the MILLIONS who have immigrated here outside the legal system? I would think that would be the first place to start. But if you assume your assumptions are indeed TRUTH I can see how there is no need for education.
Tim: I also assume you are pro-life as am I. You want to quote the law and make our civil law king over our Moral Conscience. Honestly, is that how you really believe? If I am to read what you write about them being criminals because they dare to immigrate outside the system, then abortionists must be doing a public service because they are within the law! Come on! Do better. The Law is NOT our guide when it goes against God’s Law.
Also, please cite your sources for your assertions that illegal human beings are “free riding.” Seriously. Because I just posted on my blog this week that illegals are not responsible for the health care crisis, and I have posted before on the whole “they don’t pay their taxes” nonsense.
Mom – If you think abortion and illegal immigration are on the same footing, you need to reexamine your analogy regarding following the law.
If there is a reason that an immigrant wants to come to the country, and they can make an additive contribution to the country, they will be able to immigrate. Don’t confuse the right to work with the “right” to leech of of my hard work.
The law provides a path to immigrate, and does not discriminate on race, religion, sex or any other unjust factor. Just because it doesn’t pander to your mother-like instinct to make everyone feel better doesn’t mean it’s not just.
It’s a well known fact that the children of illegals receive “free” education paid for by taxpayers. When you get paid under the table, it’s hard to put in your fair share, isn’t it? Medical care – It’s also known that if you need medical care, you get it. If you can’t pay or “no habla englais” or don’t have any identification that the isurance companies and hospitals can try to get reimbursed, that amounts to an advantage over a tax paying citizen who would get nailed in court for not paying their bills.
Tim, Tim, Tim Tim: Cite your source for your above assertion, PLEASE. The law may not discriminate on race, religion, sex, but it DOES discriminate against those who are economically poor and from 3rd World Countries. Seriously. Have you read our immigration laws?
You mean the INA? Why yes I have.
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe
It holds my assertion that if you benefit host nation, you are allowed to apply for immigration status. It also applies limits based on growth factors.
How is that unjust?
And for the unskilled workers:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe
How is that unjust?
And for those who are persecuted in their own countries:
http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=cb90c19a50729fb47fb0686648558dbe
Sure, there is red tape with all of these, but how is that unjust?
I see the shortcut isn’t exact.
ACTS: 203, 208, and 210
The process [to legally emigrate] is limited, costly, and drawn-out.
Then the law needs to be changed. However, our call to civilly disobey unjust laws, does not imply that there will be no consequences. There will be, for both the illegals and those breaking the laws supporting them.
I mentioned on Radical Catholic Mom’s blog that I would be willing to advocate easy immigration for anyone who can find work here if those supporting unlimited immigration would advocate English as our national language.
Any takers?
As a registered nurse is South Florida, I can attest that we do not turn away immigrants who come for care (E.R.). They are treated and then referred to social services where they can make arrangements for follow-up care. Now, you must say to yourself, well, thats humane, thats the way it should be. Perhaps, but 90% of those cases are for simple colds, flu, fevers, belly aches, hangovers, drug related problems. All on taxpayers nickel.
I am an immigrant from a Latin-American nation. My family waited for more than 3 years to get permission to leave our country and then an additional year waiting in another country (Nicaragua) to expedite our green card to the U.S. We did things legally despite all the descriminations and humiliations we had to endure in Mexico (yes, MEXICO) and to a much lesser degree in Nicaragua. Those wonderful people in Mexico City airport who lined up in a gauntlet to spit and hit my parents and myself when we deboarded our flight from a communist nation with nothing in our pockets and just a small suitcase.
In order for us to truly help immigrants come over, lets help the legal ones integrate into our society instead of slapping them in the face for following the law and being good future citizens.
I love and am proud of my adopted country. I am ever so grateful for this country taking my family and I.
We all speak English, even my parents who are elderly. My grandmother who came after us insisted on taking the Citizenship exam. The people at Immigration said she didn’t have to but she insisted because she had studied everything and new all the answers and did not want any special treatment…..she was 93 when she took her exam. Our languange in the house is Spanish, but all our business is conducted in English. It is out of respect for this country and the favor they did for us that motivated us to learn the languange, it was the least we could do. As time went on we incorporated certain American customs into our own without ever loosing respect or knowledge of our roots. This is what being multicultural means. The person coming here must be willing accept the customs of where they are going, not the other way around.