Deportation and Family Separation
A priest protesting the deportation, and consequent family separation, of immigrants is taken into custody for blocking the street in Broadview, Illinois.
Many of my dearest friends from undergrad (at Franciscan University of Steubenville) are registered Republicans and/or self-described “conservatives.” They like to tease me about my weird brand of politics and some of them suspect that I have it in for the Democrats in my heart of hearts. The latest prank was to put some Rush Limbaugh books on the coffee table to try to get my goat.
These friends are like brothers to me. They would take a bullet for me, and I would the same. When we get together there is always plenty of politics, beer, religion, cigarettes, and the customary sappy man-talk about how much we love each other. It is pathetic and I love it.
One of the amazing things to me about our political disputes is that the deportation of immigrants that results in the separation of a family is off the table completely for all of us. Amidst all of the serious disagreements that continue to arise between us, there is no disputing the injustice of deportation in these cases.
To their tremendous credit, many of the self-declared “conservatives” were once registered Republicans until they faced this exact issue.
Polemics abound in politics, and immigration reform in general, but there are times when the truth speaks for itself.
Separating families through deportation is ugly and wrong.
This is where the immigration law in Arizona becomes deeply troublesome in practice.
Look, I think that drug cartels need to be disbanded; Mexico must be held accountable to its people and bring an end to the aristocratic and racist society it has built; U.S. employers–especially restaurants—need to advocate for ways to legalize their workforce, to free them from fear of deportation; the Americas need to build solidarity together and begin to re-imagine what we might become together. I think all of this and more.
But amidst all of these issues and polemics, the families who are being torn apart cannot be forgotten. Immigration “laws” that create orphans are intolerable non-laws and must be resisted.
Comments are closed.
Mexican drug cartels are a result of American laws/demand. American society isn’t exactly the land of equality either. Tijuana is largely the way it is because of American visitors. Legalizing Cannabis, a most wondrous plant, would go a long way to putting cartels out of business. Here in California we can get cards and visit legal dispensaries like the Four Seasons of weed, Harborside Health in Oakland. Not to mention that not needing drug dealers also destroys the “gateway drug” argument, which is weak to begin with, and ensures quality. And! Tax revenue!
“Illegals” are a “godsend” – cheap labor, easily exploited AND great to rail against come election time. Why would the system give up on such a valuable commodity ? They’re neither legalized nor deported en masse. The occasional roundup to placate red-blooded Americans, sure, but nobody’s serious about deporting them all. Perennial limbo. Obama probably doesn’t dare doing anything before the elections, which I dread, since the lunatics are already furious because he’s black and extended health insurance (try explaining this to Europeans) and is black. Now, if “illegals” are legalized, who’d be left to look down on for upstanding white citizens ? You gotta leave ‘em something. Having a black president who’ll kill their granny is stressful enough for the poor dears.
Sam, I am with you totally. Evil operates with this strategy to separate families.
I agree completely with you here.
I’d go a few steps further and say that separating a family through deportation violates the principle of subsidiary which recognizes the family as a socieity which precceds the state. And I’d go even further than that and say that deportations that separate families involve a violation of the fourth commandment.
Gerald, Why are you sugar coating your statement:)
But what about the own choices of the illegal immigrants to separate their own families? Aren’t there many who come illegally to the US to work and leave their families behind in Mexico sending monies home to them? I don’t see the difference in the choices of leaving behind family AND choosing to come illegally, having children that are citizens and perhaps having to be deported and separated from them. Either way families are separated and it is the decision of the illegal immigrant ultimately who makes this happen.
To clarify, I’m not in favor of separating families, but this seems to be a choice these people have made either way.
Sam,
I agree that no family should be forcibly separated. But, what if our governemnt gave the family a choice, if they broke the law (I’m not necessarily just talking about their breaking immigration laws), to leave as a family or they must follow the rules and get proper documents, and if they don’t or refuse to, they must leave as a family?
I don’t think that forcing the illegals that are already here to leave, and aren’t committing any heinous crimes is either right or moral. But, there must be some consequences for them coming here undocumented or if they refuse to follow our laws and still aren’t willing to become documented and legal citizens.
BTW- You look familiar-I attended FUS as well pretty much on and off from 1997-2003, sometimes part-time. When did you attend?
… the lunatics are already furious because he’s black and extended health insurance (try explaining this to Europeans) and is black.
Plus, he’s black!
“Separating families through deportation is ugly and wrong.”
Absolutely.
My question to you is this: why is the emphasis in the discussion not on putting pressure on the Mexican government to improve Mexico so that millions of their citizens no longer want to flee their homeland?
Pam S.,
We have had a lot of illegal immigration for a long time, so that there are now a large number of people who are illegal immigrants who never made a choice to become illegal immigrants. I’m speaking of people who immigrated illegally as infants and children with their parents. Many of these people are now adults who just want to live, work, marry and have children in the communities they grew up in. Surely they should have a right to do that? Some do not speak Spanish well and have american children and american spouses, but would still be subject to deportation if caught.
Alex asked,
“why is the emphasis in the discussion not on putting pressure on the Mexican government to improve Mexico so that millions of their citizens no longer want to flee their homeland?”
Good question. I think that the pressure should be put primarily on the Mexican government. I think it would be a good idea for the U.S. to help Mexico become a more prosporous place for its citizens to live. Plus, the U.S. allowing open borders would not solve the primary problem, only the secondary issue at hand.
In reply to the “question” asked by alex and reiterated by Teresa:
You might want to see this paragraph:
“Look, I think that drug cartels need to be disbanded; Mexico must be held accountable to its people and bring an end to the aristocratic and racist society it has built; U.S. employers–especially restaurants—need to advocate for ways to legalize their workforce, to free them from fear of deportation; the Americas need to build solidarity together and begin to re-imagine what we might become together. I think all of this and more.”
Your replies to my posts have all been mostly general replies and ignored the actual premise of each post. Someday I will get the fortitude to moderate, but for now I wish you would engage the particular aspects I am bringing up.
Teresa: I went to FUS from fall 2001 to spring 2005.
I say Buy Arizona,
Buy alot, and Buy Frequently!
Chear alot, Chear Frequently!
Do until others as others do until you?
So how does Mexico treat their illegals?
Why don’t you guys complain about Mexico for a change?
Read this……
How Mexico Treats Its Illegal Aliens
By Michelle Malkin
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin.php3
“U.S. employers–especially restaurants—need to advocate for ways to legalize their workforce, to free them from fear of deportation”
I agree with this statement, at least for immigrants who are already here. Although, I do have mixed feelings on this since if the federal government was enforcing the law then we wouldn’t be forced to deal with this issue.
“the Americas need to build solidarity together and begin to re-imagine what we might become together. I think all of this and more.”
Are you saying that you want countries in Central America, Mexico, and the United States to act as one country or form into one country?
If so, what is the point of having different Presidents, borders, different constitutions etc.?
Borders were contructed for a reason, and so was both our contitution and laws. I am all for legal immigration and people coming together (or people become together), people coming from all over the world, but doing so legally.
Plus, why should a Mexican be afforded more rights than a Kenyan or an Indian (citizen of India) – just because they happen to live next to our border?
I like the Picture, a priest being arrested. It reminds my of another great priest,
Father Norman Weslin is a priest that was arrested at Notre Dame University and is still being persecuted by Democrat, Left wing Catholics for supporting church teaching
Maybe he is not your politically correct progressive hippy priest so he does not get your support. Your might get more credibility at Vox Nova if you covered this priest’s trials and tribulations instead.
“Your replies to my posts have all been mostly general replies and ignored the actual premise of each post.”
I agreed with your premise in this post and said so. I 100% agree with you that separating families through deportation is evil.
Yes, you said (essentially) ‘Mexico sure does have some problems to fix’ but that’s not really saying anything at all.
My question remains. Where are all of the posts criticizing the Mexican government and their mistreatment of their own people? Not just here, mind you, but in general. Where are the links to statements from Mexican Bishops calling out government officials there?
Anyone who rallies for “the sanctity of traditional marriage” because of the traditional family unit MUST resist deportation that tears families apart. To do otherwise should be considered hypocritical, at best.
alex: I called Mexico an aristocracy and a racist society. More criticism? For now that seems generous since it is not the primary point of the post.
If you want to hear criticism of Mexico, then, ask me to write on it—I’d do so happily. Sadly, Mexican problems and US problems are often intertwined. After all, we are not clean of aristocratic and racist tendencies.
Gregory B: First of all, I have been an illegal immigrant, as you put it, in Mexico. I attended public schools had a sister born there who was given dual citizenship and liked it very much.
Secondly, if you think that I am sympathetic to the democratic party or “liberals,” then, you should peruse my writings here. I have lambasted liberalism and democrats many times.
Teresa: You asked why I wasn’t critical of Mexico, so I quoted the paragraph where I critiqued Mexico. Now you are giving line by lines to the other sentences there. It is too much to keep up with…
Sam, I think the absence of love in this discussion will be fruitless because there is always projecting blame on to someone else.
God’s Love has no borders and only through that Love can a solution begin to be constructed.
As a “Steubie” alumnus I appreciate the sentiment. As a person who appreciates the rule of law I don’t. The appeal to the sensitivities of those who wish not to see a family separated is not based in reality. In many if not most cases (at least those who have worked for me) men work in the States (in my case Texas) for the time demand is highest and then return home. These men make their money and return home with enough money to not work the rest of the year.
The above is of no importance except to devalue the argument of familial separation. In reality there is a law. The law in reference is as amiable as any country has ever written. The penalty for breaking the federal law of the United States is no penalty. The people breaking this law are returned to their home place, at no expense to them, and back to the place they started.
Yet, if you commit a federal offense as a citizen you are no longer able to teach in public schools, join the military, or work in the “public” sector. The anxiety created over Arizona’s new law is over the fact that suddenly the law is going to be enforceable by local law enforcement. In other words, thousands are taking to the streets to protest the fact that local law enforcement are going to enforce a law that used to be solely a federal law and is now a state law.
Despite the common analysis based on the Arizona house bill the bill that actually passed was the state Senate Bill that allows local law enforcement to arrest those who have entered the country illegally and only if the illegal status is confirmed during a criminal act in progress.
Horrible, heh? One cannot blame the arresting agency for separating a family. The person whom partakes in an illegal action is to blame for the separation of him and his family. The arresting officer is simply the person executing the necessary procedure initiated by the perpetrator.
Need more info supporting the fact that the people of Arizona need to protect themselves from an invasion?
Read this:
Justice Department: Border Patrol Agents Assaulted Daily, Kidnappings Every 35 Hours in Phoenix, 1 in 5 Teens Using Drugs Supplied by Mexican Traffickers
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64910
Mexican Drug Traffickers Now ‘Greatest Organized Crime Threat’ to U.S.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/42329
Mexico Decriminalizes Small-Scale Drug Possession
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/52855
Illegal Alien Supporters In Arizona Say They Will Murder Americans With Axes
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/37520/Illegal_Alien_Supporters_in_Arizona_Say_They_Will_Murder_Americans_With_Axes.html
Mexicans Slam Arizona Immigration Law, But How Do They Treat Their Migrants?
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/37777/Mexicans_slam_Arizona_immigration_law,_but_how_do_they_treat_their_migrants.html
Rush Limbaugh: Obama Anti-Arizona Police
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/limbuagh-arizona-law-brewer/2010/04/28/id/357229
A law Arizona can live with
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will042810.php3
Where to start?
……The US Bishops have roundly condemned the recent Arizona immigration law. That’s not necessarily surprising, especially given the social activist tendencies of some of the more politically liberal bishops, Cardinal Mahoney being a good example. What is surprising is this condemnation has also come from much more conservative quarters. Bishop Finn of the diocese of Kansas City/St. Joseph and Archbishop Dolan of New York have also both issued statements opposing the AZ law. It seems clear that the bishops are of one mind when it comes to this issue.
There is a gigantic problem though. The bishops’ opposition lacks any detail or specificity – and it is the details that are important. It’s a lot like saying one is opposed to war and for peace. Almost everyone can agree on that point. The disagreement arises in the details—because there are circumstances where war is justified and necessary to achieve peace.
Archbishop Dolan of New York addressed the AZ immigration bill in his blog. In this column he laments and condemns the fact that immigrants often become scapecoats. He also, quite rightly, points to the Catholic ethos of welcoming everyone, and the important role that immigrants have played in the U.S. There is only one problem with his analysis: immigrants can be separated into legal and illegal categories. By an overwhelming majority, those that entered the U.S. in the latter part of the 19th and the first of half of the 20th century, were LEGAL immigrants. The immigrants that the AZ law is attempting to address are ILLEGAL ones.
Cardinal Mahoney was one of the first to comment on the new law, he compromised his credibility by comparing it to Nazism. His comments really served no purpose but to ratchet up the rhetoric. One wonders if he even read the law. It’s only seventeen pages and having read it, there is nothing in it that would justify such an over-the-top slam. I would call it a quite reasonable and commonsense law – and one that I support.
So you see, there is a huge disconnect between the bishops’ almost universal criticism of this bill and my understanding as a Catholic layman as to why. Frankly, the President has the same problem with the citizens of this country; an overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens oppose illegal immigration – NOT immigration – illegal immigration.
Catholic bishops studied moral theology in the seminary; I have not. I admit that I may be ignorant on this topic and am very much willing to be educated about the moral imperatives of this subject. To that end I have a few questions to ask Your Excellencies. The answers may help me understand your moral opposition to this law.
Is it moral for a state or the federal government to impose controls on immigration?
Is it moral for the government to enforce such laws?
Does the government have the moral right to deport people that have entered the US illegally?
Does the government have the moral obligation to give illegal immigrants amnesty?
Is it immoral to ask people to document or prove they are in the U.S. legally? If so, how is that different than a foreign government asking me to show my papers/passport and prove that I am in their country legally?
Is it immoral for a government to deny FREE medical coverage to illegal immigrants for non-life threatening conditions.
Is it immoral to deny illegal immigrants and/or their children access to our FREE public school system?
I look forward to seeing answers to these questions in print, in the near future. Cardinal Mahoney, Archbishop Dolan, Bishop Finn, please educate me and the majority of Americans who currently disagree with you on this issue.
I do not oppose immigration; my grandparents were legal immigrants. What I oppose is illegal immigration. I favor immigration reform, as do the bishops. But like the topic of “peace” mentioned earlier, it’s easy to agree we need immigration reform, but the devil is in the details. Precise answers to the above questions will provide many of these details.
I have an open mind and am willing to be convinced that my opposition is misplaced. Answers to the above questions will go a long way to helping me, and many other Catholics in the United States understand the Church’s position on this issue—and therefore your opposition to this law. Your Excellencies, we the lay faithful whom you sheperd, ask you our spiritual leaders for moral clarity on this issue. While your position on this issue is quite clear, the morale underpinning for it is not.
Reprinted from
US Catholic Bishops Opposition To Arizona Immigration Law Leaves Many Unanswered Questions
By James Todd
Pewsitter.com
Thom, you are kidding, right? What you wrote does not make any sense in light of the illegal immigrants who voluntarily choose to leave their families in Mexico or whatever country they come from. Stop blaming your country for the envy of others. Yes, I said it, envy. Why do you blame the one whose property is stolen instead of the thief? Anyone who wants to protect the sanctity of marriage, including the church, should not approve of illegal immigration. Many leave their families promising to help them back at home and then come here and start new families, soon forgetting about the ones they’ve left behind. I know this because I’ve seen it myself. All people should be treated with dignity and respect but lawbreakers should not be aided and abetted.
I won’t be replying directly to these recent comments, and I continue to dislike moderating them. They do show a sentiment that erodes my opening hope in this post regarding the commonality my friends and I share with regard to this particular aspect of immigration reform.
Sadly, many of these comments seem to miss the fact that all this post addresses are the real instances where children are orphaned as a result of deportation.
Insofar, as people cannot bracket out this point from the rest they want to go on about, I am ashamed to admit this: I suspect that many are not reading the post, or, if they are, then, they are mis-reading it.
My premise stills stands unscathed:
“Separating families through deportation is ugly and wrong.”
Anyone who would like to take issue with that will need to do a much better job at arguing their position with clarity and focus on the particular issue at hand. Otherwise, it is like trying to pierce an object with a broad blunt end of a stick. Use a needle instead.
Peace.
Sam, You have made your point extremely clear. I am in total agreement with you. A lot of anger and fear seem to be wanting validation, but, then again that is why anger is always present.
Catholic Church Facilitates Foreign Invasion
Written by Cliff Kincaid
THURSDAY, 29 APRIL 2010 11:42
The controversy over Arizona’s immigration law should be used to highlight the shameful role of the Roman Catholic Church in facilitating the foreign invasion of the U.S.
This scandal deserves as much attention as the seemingly never-ending cases of sexual child abuse involving priests.
In a major embarrassment for followers of the U.S. Catholic Church, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles compared Arizona’s new law to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” He actually wrote this on his personal blog, under the headline, “Arizona’s Dreadful Anti-Immigrant Law.”
Mahony is described by the Los Angeles Times as “a nationally influential figure who heads the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese with 4.3 million members.” In other words, he is not a fringe player. Indeed, he is typical of Catholic Church leaders.
Why do Catholic officials want to encourage illegal immigration? The answer is quite simple. Most of the illegal aliens are Catholics. Plus, the church makes lots of government money by hosting and serving the immigrants.
These facts are considered by some to be anti-Catholic, which is why you seldom read or hear about them in the major media. But the fact is that millions of American Catholics are disgusted and outraged by the Catholic hierarchy’s statements and antics on this issue. They are organizing across the country.
James Russell, a Catholic who serves as National Secretary of Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, tells the story of betrayal of America by the Catholic Bishops in the book, Breach of Faith: American Churches and the Immigration Crisis.
In a major decision this week, the Supreme Court ruled that a Christian cross could remain on public land, despite the so-called separation of church and state. It has become a national controversy. But where is the debate or discussion over the Catholic Bishops getting $51 million a year from the government? A lot of that money is being used to cater to immigrants, legal and illegal. These immigrants, in turn, go to church, contribute to the collection plate, and vote the way the liberal priests and bishops dictate.
In short, the evidence shows that the Catholic Church hierarchy has become an agent of the government in facilitating a foreign invasion of the United States. There is no other way to describe it.
This explosive story of scandal and corruption must be told because “comprehensive immigration reform” cannot be defeated unless the role of the Catholic Church is exposed and addressed.
If you are in the market for more outrageous statements from Catholic officials, take a look at Russell’s book, Breach of Faith. He notes that Cardinal Edward Egan of New York and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn supported and addressed a 2003 illegal alien “Freedom Riders” rally in Flushing Meadows Park in New York, “not far from the site where five illegal aliens had assaulted a woman and her boyfriend, then dragged her to a makeshift hut in the vicinity of Shea Stadium, where they repeatedly raped her and nearly beat her to death.”
Russell formed the group, Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, in order to expose the Mahony-type characters in the church and church institutions.
In another book, On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration, also distributed by Catholics for a Moral Immigration Policy, Father Patrick Bascio notes that an estimated 70,000 criminal gang members have infiltrated U.S. cities. His book charges that Catholic Church leaders have aided and abetted “all the evils connected with illegal immigration” and have become corrupted in the process.
In going into detail about Catholic Church corruption on the immigration issue, Russell notes that the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) promotes amnesty for illegal aliens through its funding of such groups as ACORN and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network (CLINIC). The CCHD is funded by ordinary parishioners asked to provide money to assist the poor.
He says one of many American Catholic Bishops who have “achieved notoriety” for pro-immigration activism is Gerald F. Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona, who solicits donations of cash and first-aid items for illegal aliens making their way into Arizona.
So the Catholic Church in Arizona has aided and abetted the problem that the citizens of Arizona, through their elected representatives, have now decided to confront. It is a major breakthrough.
Russell traces the church’s involvement in the entry of illegal aliens into the U.S. to the Marxist-oriented “liberation theology” movement, also known as “social justice.” Russell particularly faults Jesuit Catholic institutions such as Georgetown University for adopting this approach and indoctrinating students to be in favor of liberalized immigration policies.
Russell is honest about the motivation behind these efforts, noting that the Catholic Bishops and their agencies, some which get government money to provide services to illegal aliens, “benefit from immigration by increasing the number of Catholics in the United States.”
He cites figures that most of the new immigrants to the United States are Catholics coming from Latin America.
He goes on, “When Catholic immigrants become naturalized, they may vote for candidates who support church policies.” What’s more, he writes, “The network of Catholic agencies relies on high rates of immigrants in need of social services to maintain government funding.”
Many Americans don’t realize that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which receives a federal tax exemption as a non-profit entity, gets one-third of its annual $146 million budget from the government.
“The USCCB is generally recognized as the single most active and most influential religious force for liberalization of American immigration policy, as well as for refugee resettlement, and hence merits our scrutiny,” Russell writes.
Pastor Ralph Ovadal of Pilgrims Covenant Church in Monroe, Wisconsin, is also providing that scrutiny. Ovadal has been pointing out for years “that the Roman Catholic Church is aiding and abetting the criminal invasion of America from Mexico because the illegals are almost all Roman Catholics.”
Ovadal says the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is “looking to turn America, founded and still a Protestant country, into a Roman Catholic country.”
These comments may sound harsh, but when a Catholic writer such as James Russell documents most of the information that lies behind such tough statements, one has to pay serious attention.
If anything, Russell writes, the position of the USCCB over the years has become more radical, to the point where the Bishops are emphasizing that amnesty for illegals-they call it “legalization”-has to be a “central component” of any federal immigration proposal.
Russell makes the case that current religious attitudes toward immigration “did not evolve slowly and authentically from traditional Christianity, but rather have been assiduously advanced by radical intellectuals, both Protestant and Catholic, whose goals have been primarily political, and have run counter to the best interests of the vast majority of native-born American citizens.”
The hijacking of the Catholic Church by Marxist elements is now front and center. Who in the major media has the courage and guts to write about it?
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.
I’ve heard “Catholics are invading the US” anti-Catholicism before. And I guess the Vatican is Marxist, because the Vatican has consistently sponsored migrant’s rights, including the “illegals.” What we have with Cliff Kincaid is typical Americanist ideology, not Catholic thought, but it is interesting to see how the anti-Catholicism of the 19th century is now embraced by so-called Catholics in the 21st.
Gregory B: From now on, I won’t be posting comments with lengthy external sources or arguments that do not address the content of the post itself. Otherwise I dear that this becomes a message board for things it is not intended to be. Thanks for reading though.