Skip to content

Rick Santorum: The Bishops are Wrong

December 14, 2011

In an interview with the Des Moines Register, Rick Santorum has challenged the U.S. Bishops on their stand on immigration.    Here are the two key quotes:

If we develop the program like the Catholic bishops suggested we would be creating a huge magnet for people to come in and break the law some more, we’d be inviting people to cross this border, come into this country and with the expectation that they will be able to stay here permanently.”

What are we saying to all the families who are doing it the right way, who are separating from their families, who are making those sacrifices and then we say well, everybody who broke the law came here and we’re going to let you in and those folks, well sorry you’re chumps, you played by the rules….We have to have rules and we have to keep those rules in America or we would be a magnet for more people who want to break the law.”

Immigration is, of course, a prudential question on which Santorum may disagree with the bishops.  However, it would be helpful if he actually addressed what the bishops proposed.  The bishops have specifically responded to the argument Santorum makes in the first quote.  The following is from an FAQ on immigration at the USCCB website:

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 the undocumented population in this nation. However, that legislation did not address “future flows” of immigrants by making 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 which 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.

As for Santorum’s second argument, I think we should get the opinions of the people he is putatively protecting:  immigrants who “are doing it the right way.”  The Pew Hispanic Center, in their 2010 National Survey of Latinos, asked the following question:

In other words, 81% of Latinos responding to the survey want to provide a pathway to citizenship or legal residency for illegal immigrants.  This does not suggest that legal immigrants feel they are being played for “chumps.”  Rather, it suggests a strong degree of sympathy and understanding:  they may have done it legally, but the vast majority are not angry or vindictive.   (Let me forestall objections Pew can’t be trusted that point to the recent flap between CRS, the USCCB and Pew.  This is an evolving situation and all parties are working through this quite amicably.)

Santorum comes back to a trope we hear frequently in this debate:  America is a nation of “rules” and we need everyone to “obey the rules.”  Since a majority of Latinos suggest that immigrants seeking to regularize their status pay a fine of some kind, it would seem that they agree with Santorum to the extent that breaking the rules requires some kind of punishment.   I suspect, given that many of those surveyed are friends with or know illegal immigrants, is that they understand the reality that millions of people have made their lives here, raising families and becoming part of the community, and harsh laws and mass deportations are a sin against charity and justice.  This is exactly the point the bishops are trying to make and which Santorum does not acknowledge.   So this may be a prudential matter, but the bishops are right and Santorum is wrong.

About these ads
59 Comments
  1. Dave Bjerklie permalink
    December 14, 2011 8:29 am

    The problem with Rick Santorum is that he has no Faith. Faith that treating others well will lead to good things. He sees treating others well as leading to bad, unmanageable things.

    • December 14, 2011 6:38 pm

      If we have laws set in place it is good for people to obey them. You can’t allow people too break the law and just say it’s ok…… If you did that then I guess our other laws are no good. You can’t have it both ways.

  2. Ronald King permalink
    December 14, 2011 9:24 am

    It is interesting that a white man would call the legal immigrants “chumps” if charity was the solution to illegal immigration. It is also interesting that he calls himself pro-life and pro-family yet is willing to break-up families in the name of justice.

  3. December 14, 2011 11:07 am

    One of the things I always like is how “good Catholics” the so called “right Catholics” always pit themselves against the US Bishops on issues which the Vatican agrees and always ignore the Vatican so as to make it look like it is just a US issue.

    • Bruce in Kansas permalink
      December 14, 2011 4:09 pm

      I don’t disagree, but hasn’t VN taken issue with the US bishops before as well?

      • December 14, 2011 4:29 pm

        Bruce

        A few things. One, VN has never disagreed with principles,especially principles proclaimed by the Vatican and the US Bishops. There has been contention in the prudential interpretation of facts outside of the normal domain of competency of Bishops (finances and the like). However, the principles were affirmed.

        Second, and more importantly, look to what I have said: ignoring the Vatican. That is key. The idea is the US Bishops are alone, and talking about principles which are not solid. This of course is not true.

      • Phillip permalink
        December 15, 2011 6:11 am

        There is no denying principles by seeking to limit immigration or punish illegal immigration. Such principles are part of CST. Some may in their prudential judgments seek to allow all immigration even if illegal. But some in their prudential judgment may seek to limit immigration and punish illegal immigration.

        No violation of principles in the latter.

  4. December 14, 2011 1:25 pm

    It’s quite simple, really. Go through the legal immigration process. If you are here illegally, goodbye!

    Santorum is right, Catholic Bishops have no idea what they are talking about.

    • Brian Martin permalink
      December 14, 2011 3:04 pm

      That depends on what lens you are looking at the issue through. If you are looking at it from a secular lens, you could be right. When looked at through the lens of Catholic belief and Catholic Social Teaching…they have a clue what they are saying

      • Mark Gordon permalink
        December 14, 2011 4:06 pm

        It’s Nate, the non-Catholic, who has no idea what the Catholic bishops are talking about. Santorum, a Catholic, ought to know better.

      • December 14, 2011 7:51 pm

        @Brian Should Bishops be playing in Politics though? @Mark you’re a such a silly liberal lol How’s occupy going?

    • Bruce in Kansas permalink
      December 15, 2011 3:24 pm

      Putting the “inside Catholic baseball” aside for a moment, even the simple and satisfying, “if you are here illegally, then goodbye!” is not feasible. As a practical matter, how do you propose to identify, find, detain, process, transport, and deport all of the people already here illegally? There are an estimated (low in my opinion) 11 million in the USA, some of whom have been here for twenty years or more. Do you understand the sheer scope of that number? Add on to that the layers of family, the fear, randomness, and the ethnic dimension…

  5. Peter Paul Fuchs permalink
    December 14, 2011 3:09 pm

    Oh Me oh my, I wonder how Thomas Peters will explain this deviation from the magisterium by his great crush Santorum. Get a room, fellas! I won’t find out because I now avoid going on their Catholic Agitprop site or whatever they call it because they seem to have put a mountain of computer cooties on their page which slows my computer down immediately. They’re so sneaky, the little machiavelles.

  6. December 14, 2011 3:56 pm

    In my opinion, both the bishops and Santorum are partially correct. The immigrants may not be hardened criminals but the fact is that immigrants broke the law in order to enter the U.S. I wonder what the pew poll results would have been if a broad spectrum of the U.S. electorate had been asked the same question. Latinos aren’t the only ones who immigrate to the U.S. so posing that survey only to Latinos skews the results and is somewhat misleading on the part of the Pew Center. I am not disputing what Latinos believe on immigration. The bishops did not address a huge component which contributes to illegal immigration, securing the border. I do agree with the rest of their suggestions.

    Here is something I composed on the immigration topic – http://catholibertarian.com/2011/12/08/evolving-immigration-beliefs/

  7. David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
    December 14, 2011 4:30 pm

    Theresa writes:

    “The bishops did not address a huge component which contributes to illegal immigration, securing the border.”

    From the FAQ linked to above:

    “What enforcement measures would the USCCB support?

    The USCCB supports immigration enforcement which secures our border and 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 (such as retina scan) 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.”

    • December 14, 2011 4:49 pm

      That is good. I agree with their points of reform that you mentioned. I was going by what you quoted above which didn’t mention securing the borders.

  8. Kurt permalink
    December 14, 2011 4:31 pm

    but the fact is that immigrants broke the law in order to enter the U.S.

    That is not the fact but again part of what is said to demonize immigrants. It is a civil violation, not a crime to be in this country without papers. Not all undocumented broke trhe law to enter the US. Some came here legally but their visas expired. Some ar not here illegal but do not have work permits.

    Let’s not call falsehoods “facts” in a political climate so full of hate towards immigrants.

    • December 14, 2011 8:21 pm

      @Kurt

      Did I say all immigrants? negative. But, the fact remains that if the immigrants visas expired they are still breaking the law by staying here without a current visa.

    • December 14, 2011 8:37 pm

      “Some came here legally but their visas expired.”

      And if they are still here they are breaking the law and here illegally.

      That’s like me getting pulled over by a cop for expired tags and saying “but I’m not breaking the law officer, I just forgot to pay for new tags”

      Try it out and see how that excuse works out for you..

      • Kurt permalink
        December 15, 2011 9:30 am

        Nate & Teresa,

        It doesn’t get you out of a traffic ticket. But it is time to stop demonizing the undocumented and admit that the actual issue is a matter of a civil violation. If you can preface your accusations with that, we can have a fair discussion. And we can look at how we treat other people who commit civil violations.

      • December 15, 2011 1:32 pm

        @Kurt how is wanting people to abide by the LAW “demonizing”? I don’t care who comes here, but go about it the legal way. It’s a lot of paperwork and hassle and money but that’s life. I don’t like and agree on a lot of things like having to pay into social security and medicare knowing it wont be there for me but that’s life.

        • December 15, 2011 3:05 pm

          having to pay into social security and medicare knowing it wont be there for me

          It absolutely will be there for you, and for everyone who paid into it, unless the Party of The Rich succeeds in destroying it.

      • David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
        December 15, 2011 9:01 pm

        Nate, see the question I posted below for Theresa: what is your realistic answer?

  9. Ronald King permalink
    December 15, 2011 10:08 am

    Nate, you judge by how you were conditioned socially. What is the spiritual solution applied to this situation?

    • December 15, 2011 1:36 pm

      Ronald the spiritual solution is for them to abide by the law. If you truly loved them and cared for them you would want them to abide by the law as well.

      • Ronald King permalink
        December 15, 2011 3:29 pm

        Please see Brian below.

  10. Peter Paul Fuchs permalink
    December 15, 2011 12:33 pm

    I think part of the reason this whole question is so fraught in the U.S. is because people here have quite false notions of Mexico as a conceptual totality. It would be like judging the entire United States on the denizens of a small town somewhere that you happened to meet. Or extrapolating from the the most crime- ridden inner city neighborhood one could choose for analysis. Terribly ironically, the typical pattern of tourism to Mexico has only exacerbated this problem. Most American visit Mexico to go only to a tourist locale that is isolated from the rest of the country. The real antidote for all this is to visit Mexico City. This is something most are not going to do. It is a great shame. For they would find there a city that in many ways is more refined and developed and throughly rich-looking in parts compared with many a US city. This gives an utterly different sense of what the country is about, and the heights of culture that has been achieved there. This goes back a long way too. When visitors from Spain came to Mexico City in the 17th and 18th centuries they often were astonished. The style of life and development of the city was greater than they knew in Spain itself!

  11. Brian Martin permalink
    December 15, 2011 2:02 pm

    Matthew 25:43
    “I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.” It says nothing about throwing the “illegals” out of the country

    Nate…the Bishops have a responsibility to teach Truth. It’s funny how when it comes to abortion and gay marriage, conservatives are all for the Bishops “playing politics”
    If man’s law is contrary to the teaching of God…who do you follow?

    • December 15, 2011 10:32 pm

      I know a verse where it says we should obey Man made Govt. Lets see if you can find it, Brian.

      • Brian Martin permalink
        December 16, 2011 10:45 am

        Mark 12:17
        “Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.”

        Hmmm….maybe conservatives should be less adamant about the Gov. not havinbg the right to tax people……
        but I refer again to Jesus words…Matthew 25 42-45
        “42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

        44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

        45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.

        Which do you really think Jesus wants us to do…build a wall to keep the rabble seeking a better life out….or offer food and shelter?

        Now that food and shelter can be a prison if they are smuggling drugs etc.

  12. Phillip permalink
    December 15, 2011 3:21 pm

    As noted above, the Church teaches that there can be limits on legal immigration and that illegal immigrants can be deported. Such would not be contrary to the teaching of God.

    Now if Nate was advocating killing immigrants then that would be like abortion.

    • December 15, 2011 10:27 pm

      Exactly, and I’m not advocating killing illegal immigrants. I’m saying there are laws and they need to be followed.

  13. December 15, 2011 4:25 pm

    The Democratic Party believes in the status quo @Matt Talbot and if the status quo is maintained with regards to social security it won’t be there for future generations. The GOP actually wants to fix it and give people more options to benefit themselves in the upon their future retirement instead of the Democratic Party who believes in forcing – coercing – people to pay into one particular option, the only option.

    • Kurt permalink
      December 16, 2011 10:03 am

      The Republian Party has never been an advocate of Social Security. It fought it when first proposed by FDR and the Catholic Church and has never been in the lead on any Social Security issue. The Republican proposals to wreak Social Security are partcularly harsh on teh disabled and widows with limited covered work history. The Republican plans most benefit middle aged people from wealthy families.

  14. December 15, 2011 4:42 pm

    The problem is Mexico and other Latin American countries , not the U.S., yet the bishops keep on saying that it is the United States’ responsibility to take care of their fellow man. In some ways I can understand this and agree, but it is the fellow man’s responsibility to follow civil laws and respect a nation’s sovereignty. The bishops need to start focusing on Mexico and the other economically challenged nations rather than focusing on the United States. The bishops need to put pressure on their officials in Mexico etc. to better the economic conditions of people in those countries instead of putting the onus on the United States and its citizens. I would even think it would be good if the bishops called on the U.S. and other governments to assist in the building and/or rebuilding of businesses to improve their economies. I have not seen the bishops call out Mexico or any of the other countries like they have called out the United States. Simply allowing immigrants into our country is not going to fix the root cause of the problem. We are not going to begin to solve the problem of there being poor folks in Mexico as well as other countries until we start to address and fix the economic woes in those countries.

    • David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
      December 15, 2011 8:59 pm

      Theresa, all well and good, but let me ask you a simple question: there are 8 to 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Many have lived here for years, if not decades. These include teenagers and young adults who have no memory and no connection to the nation they are putatively from and would be deported to if they are caught by ICE. What, in charity and justice should we do with them? We cannot simply repeat pieties such as “they should obey the law”—that does not solve the problem. They are here and we have to deal with them. We can do it harshly and vindicatively, or we we can do it with charity and brotherhood. Or maybe you can suggest another way. So again, I ask you: what are we going to do?

      • December 15, 2011 9:24 pm

        I don’t propose sending them all back. That is unrealistic and would be unjust IMO. If you want a more extensive thought-out answer on the immigration issue I invite you to read my post to which I linked in my first comment.

      • December 15, 2011 10:44 pm

        In Charity and Justice? They are breaking the law, David. Do you advocate breaking the law? What kind of message does this send? If a bank robber robs banks for 15yrs before getting caught should we just let him keep robbing banks because he’s been doing it for so long? What do you have against having them come here the legal way so they can get background checks and make sure they’re not a known criminal/ and or rapist?

        On top of that, we are having to pay for these 8-10 million illegals. And we simply don’t have the money for it.

      • Phillip permalink
        December 16, 2011 4:58 am

        Families should be able to stay. The parents should have a path to legal residency but delayed (perhaps 10 years) citizenship. The children should have citizenship. Those who are single can be deported.

        • David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
          December 16, 2011 9:10 am

          Why deport single individuals? What if they grew up here? Or have lived and worked here for years? And why delay citizenship: that seems punitive for now good reason.

      • Phillip permalink
        December 19, 2011 10:45 am

        We deport single individuals because they have broken the law and have no legal or moral standing to be here. If they have lived or worked here for years that does not change the fact that they can licitly be deported.

        Delaying citizenship is in part restitution for violating the law in coming here. It is also morally licit.

      • Bruce in Kansas permalink
        December 20, 2011 4:36 pm

        Just a thought experiment – every commenter here, with the exception of anyone who’s pure Native American, is a descendant of someone who immigrated to the US. Now, imagine that you found out that your great grandparents – or whoever in your family were the ones to come here from the old country – came here without performing the legal requirements (however few there were back in the day). I think the odds are pretty good that some of us here fall into that category. As David C-U mentioned earlier somewhere, the US has a tradition of periodically coming to grips with the dissonance between our laws and reality and making a reasonable correction.

        • David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
          December 20, 2011 5:09 pm

          I believe I said this in an earlier post: my father came on a tourist visa which he overstayed. His immigration status was regularized about 3 years after he came to the US. My wife’s grandfather (a Ukrainian) came to the US from Canada; he was still undocumented when he died.

      • Phillip permalink
        December 22, 2011 9:32 am

        Actually I believe the Native Americans immigrated here also though much earlier than the rest of us. Caused the first man-made extinctions in the Americas as well as introduced slavery and tribal warfare. It was so bad at one point that Southwest American tribes welcomed the Spanish as protectors from the Comanche.

      • David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
        December 22, 2011 11:49 am

        I’m not sure how this is relevant to the thought experiment proposed by Bruce in Kansas above….

  15. David Cruz-Uribe, SFO permalink*
    December 16, 2011 9:28 am

    Nate wrote

    “In Charity and Justice? They are breaking the law, David. Do you advocate breaking the law? What kind of message does this send? If a bank robber robs banks for 15yrs…”

    This is not a valid analogy: they are not breaking the law as in committing repeated new offenses. They have broken the law, once, by either entering without papers or by not leaving when their visas expired. In the generic sense I do not advocate breaking the law, but moral reasoning cannot be done exclusively in the abstract. We need to look at the circumstances. A poor man is justified, morally, in stealing bread to eat; someone desperate enough to come to the U.S. illegally to clean my office or clean chickens for sub-minimum wages deserves some considerations of mercy.

    Finally, skip the canard about “paying for” illegals. Most of them pay taxes and what evidence I have seen shows that they are little or no drag on the system and indeed are contributing to Social Security even though they will never be able to receive benefits. See here, for example.

    • Kurt permalink
      December 16, 2011 9:56 am

      Let me add that governments regularly have “amnesty periods” for people in arrears on their taxes, properties with minor non-conforming zoning usages, overdue library books, parking and traffic tickets, etc. Does one ever see with these amnesties the level of vitriol one sees with the civil violation of overstaying a visa or lacking a work permit?

      Temperate cases can be made for various policy proposals, but it seems clear to me that the level of hate and anger one often sees towards the undocumented can only be motivated by bigotry and racism.

      • December 16, 2011 11:54 am

        Its nice to see that Kurt is using progressive tactics in using the race card whenever a person happens to disagree on policy issues which are a matter of prudential judgement. So much for charity? Or having a friendly discussion with fellow Catholics. Kurt believes in Big Government which has been known to hurt people in the past and continues to do so today. The Catholic Church has never endorsed social security as he claims. In fact, Catholic bishops in the U.S. were skeptical of the social security program.

      • Kurt permalink
        December 16, 2011 12:50 pm

        Teresa, I will repeat my point that allows for both proper and improper reasons for opposition to undocumented immigrants. Temperate cases can be made for various policy proposals, but it seems clear to me that the level of hate and anger one often sees towards the undocumented can only be motivated by bigotry and racism.

        I’m sorry to see you using the regretable tactic that the reality of race discrimination can never be mentioned as if unlike every other human failing, this one sin has been eliminated from the face of the earth. Supression of any mention of racism enables its practice, as our bishops have taught us.

    • Ronald King permalink
      December 16, 2011 11:23 am

      David, I am in total agreement with you. I do not believe that your discussion with Nate will change his thinking. I have noticed that when people rely on the “law” as their basis for their beliefs their thinking is very linear and logical which means that they are greatly influenced by the left brain which is detail oriented but does not have the capacity for empathy which develops when there is an integration of the right hemisphere of the brain which has the capacity for a global perspective and an ability to emotionally connect with others.

    • December 16, 2011 12:53 pm

      I agree that immigrants crossing the border illegally are not equivalent to criminals who rob banks. There are different levels of breaking the law, from the non-violent offenses to the violent ones. Our immigration laws are unjust and need to be changed. Plus, enforcement of the law needs to be addressed too. While laws are unjust I still don’t think it is right or a “right” for immigrants to cross the border illegally and commit a civil crime. I know that in Mexico food, water and living conditions probably is sub-par and is a much lower standard than the U.S. but if the immigrants have access to any of these things I don’t see them having a “right” to cross the border illegally to gain better living conditions, food, water, etc. If they don’t have access to the necessities of life then that is a different story. In addition, I don’t think it is right for us to deport either families or single individuals after having grown up here. They should not be punished for our inefficiency in enforcing the laws.

  16. Brian Martin permalink
    December 16, 2011 11:04 am

    Also, Nate seems to be ignorant of our legal system…comparing a illegal boarder crosser with a bank robber may play to people’s emotions well, but for the sake of discussion, it is an illegitimate comparison because our legal system defines the type of offense differently.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that workers using false documents must be shown to know that the social security number they are using belongs to someone and is not simply a fake in order to be prosecuted for identity theft.

    It also breaks down to how you got here…If you overstay your Visa…”Illegal presence” as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.
    If you sneak across “Improper entry by an alien” as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail. However, unless they are caught in the act of crossing, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Also, it is , io believe a misdemeanor offence, hardly comparable to robbing a bank.

  17. Paul B permalink
    December 16, 2011 11:42 am

    I have a question for Nate and others who seem to hold obedience to civil law as a moral absolute without any reflection on the justice of the statute. Were you alive in the 1850′s would you have advocated strict observance of the Fugitive Slave Act? Would you have called for the prosecution of people who served the Underground railroad? Would you have called assisting slaves to escape an unjust appropriation of personal property?

    • Peter Paul Fuchs permalink
      December 16, 2011 5:09 pm

      Paul B,

      Are you aware that Catholics in the South were at the forefront on providing false religious rationales for the continuance of slavery?? Check out Bishop Verot and his terrible sermon which was one of the worst bolsters of the slavery regime. Even after all that, Bishop Verot was welcomed warmly at the First Vatican council.

  18. December 16, 2011 6:39 pm

    I never claimed that racism had been eliminated Kurt, just that it is the fall back position that many progressives rely on when someone disagrees on a topic when there is race involved or another person of a different ethnic origin involved. Based on my experiences, I don’t believe racism is what motivates the majority of those who oppose illegal immigration. The motivation is that laws should be followed. You can disagree with people who are in favor of a strict adherence of the laws but when progressives use the charge of racism needlessly without any proof that only diminishes the legitimacy of the word (or takes away from the meaning) and doesn’t help when there are truly occurrences of racism.

    • Kurt permalink
      December 16, 2011 9:50 pm

      I never claimed that racism had been eliminated Kurt

      No, you just won’t accept anyone publically stating that racism exists in our society, which I find to be a conservative tactic that enables racism. You don’t deny it exists, but you just don’t want anyone talking about it. I presented the proposition that some folks were motivated by policy concerns and someothers by racism. Even you concede that you don’t believe racism is what motivates the majority of those who oppose illegal immigration suggesting there might be a minority so motivated.

      It’s time we stop enabling racism by suppressing its mention. Racism is real and Catholics are obligated NOT to keep quite about it, even if some think their political agenda is best advanced by censoring its mention.

  19. December 16, 2011 8:12 pm

    I seriously give up. Forget the law, lets just do anything we want. Who cares. Lets give reparations to the ones who are here illegally. How dare we enforce laws. Lets all be gay and have wild orgies and its ok because no one can say anything to us. Lets tax the rich 100% because capitalism is evil. Lets never militarily defend ourselves again and if we die, we die. Lets be Communist and Socialist because its so clearly right.

    The U.S is burning and I’m just gonna sit back and watch. You liberals want to destroy the country, go for it.

    • Bruce in Kansas permalink
      December 17, 2011 2:21 pm

      There was a tweet from a conservative a while back that pointed out the kind of people who overcome obstacles in order to set the conditions to provide for a better life for them and their families are EXACTLY the kind of people we WANT to be Americans.

  20. Paul B permalink
    December 16, 2011 11:44 pm

    PPF, I am aware of the rather shoddy record of Catholics, especially clergy and Religious with regard to slavery. I’m not sure how this is relevant to my question.
    Nate: try growing up; you sound like a petulant nine year old who isn’t getting his way.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 849 other followers

%d bloggers like this: