www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Religious groups rally for immigrants

Support Ted Kennedy on immigration reform? Are you unaware that we as a nation have been through this with Ted Kennedy before?

Let me refresh you. In 1965, Ted Kennedy was an ardent supporter of the Hart-Celler Act which changed US immigration policy dramatically. At that time, Senator Kennedy assured the American people, "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs" (U.S. Senate, Feb. 10, 1965).


Well let's grade the statement: Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. 0 for 4. I don't see myself supporting Teddy on this.


'save the Republic from craziness of the House of Representatives'. All I can say is wow ! I'm with you regarding the House having its share of crazies, but for you to think that the Senate is full of sane people is too much. The two Senators that you want us all to support (Kennedy and McCain) are great examples of phonies and the exact craziness that they are supposed to save us from.

As an example, I would tend to say that supporting known Muslim extremist terrorist organizations like the Kosovo Libration Army(KLA) and supporting them against Orthodox Serbia is craziness. But John McCain was and still is an avid supporter of the KLA and turns a blind eye even to this day at the atrocities committed to the Serbs by the KLA. John McCain is silent while Serbian churches burn to this day. The Albanian lobby must have cut a big check. This is off topic, to learn more read here: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38b698747d0a.htm


As far a Teddy goes, I don't think that I need to get into Chappaquiddick. Or how about the time when Kennedy, who is big supporter of alternative energy sources but surprisingly was against a windmill farm at Cape Wind. Turns out the windmills were in sight of one of his homes and would ruin his view. He's also in favor of murdering the unborn. That's all pretty crazy.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the federal government should have a say as to how much water is in my toilet, yet they do this. But one thing that the federal government is supposed to do is protect the borders of our country. It's time that we get lawmakers and a president that listen to those who are US citizens and not to those who are here illegally and are not US citizens. If the gatecrashers protesting in the streets want to resort to mob rule, they will be disappointed at the results if there was a vote on this.

A big part of this problem would be remedied right away, if welfare, education, health care, etc. were denied to the gatecrashers as it should be. Also, busineess owners who hire them should face consequences as well. Take away the benefits and you'd see a mass exodus back. Hopefully Cardinal Mahoney will go as well and show us all how compassionate he really is.

mc

The problem of demanding blanket visas is not limited American Christians. During the 1970's American Jews advocated 'blanket US visas' for Soviet Jews. The American Jews dictated to the US government immigration policy. "Ou ah, ou ah our poor humble Jewish brothers and sisters are being oppressed in the Soviet Union - let our people go - our poor Refuseniks !". Were Jews being oppressed more than non Jews in the Soviet Union - probably no. Everyone was equally oppressed. But the Jewish American lobby needed to replenish it's rapidly dwindling numbers so the kept pushing until they got 'their' people out.

And in the Soviet Jews came by the thousands to the USA - many are now prominent hard working people who have enriched this continent, but there were also a whole lot who were pure Soviet Mafiosa. The Russian mob in New York city is in fact - completely a Jewish mob that came from the Soviet Union and of course spoke Russian. According to the FBI the most viscious and ruthless they have ever seen on these shores and very expensive to combat. In fact, as a rule only the FBI with the help of the CIA has the resources to fight the Russian Jewish Mafia.

Religious groups have got to stop dictating 'blanket immigration policy' for the United States.

I.F.

Hello,

And as it is, effectively.

How do you get welfare without being a legal resident of the US?

As I explained before, only US People get welfare. For immigrants who find themselves unemployed, it is much easier and safer to fall to petty crimes than to risk fraud with the Uncle Sam.

Why would an undocumented immigrant be interested in going to school? They come here to work, not to educate themselves. Now, their children do go to school, but most of them are US citizens by birth right.

Undocumented immigrants receive little more than emergency health care. Surely you are not suggesting closing down emergency rooms to these people. That is, well, illegal, even with the HR bill.

Which will only mean they will pass the bill to you in form of inflation, which will have a huge impact on everybody's micro-economy, not only in the macro-economy of the country.

When you start needing to pay $14 for a gallon of gas and $60/hr. to get your lawn mawed and $125/hr for child care and all that ends up generating double-digit unemployment rates, you'll start wondering where did all those undocumented immigrants go.

Don't count on it. What would make them go back to something that is at least as bad as what it would be here?

Something like what you propose could slow or even stop the flow in, but I seriously doubt it would start any flow out.

I do not know if you are aware of this, but His Emminence does spend quite a bit of time abroad in poor areas of the world bringing some relief to those places in the name of his Southern Californian flock.

As a Prince of the Church, His Emminence doesn't have immigration issues anywhere.

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo you said:

"When you start needing to pay $14 for a gallon of gas and $60/hr. to get your lawn mawed and $125/hr for child care and all that ends up generating double-digit unemployment rates, you'll start wondering where did all those undocumented immigrants go."

I say:

I agree with you. People can't think realistically. It's easier to get carried away with one's 'passions' when it concerns certain issues.

I for one know that the 'fortune' that we pay here in this NYC suburb to have our lawn taken care of by contractors that hire illegals, would jump from one and two thousand a year to who knows what. It's almost the same as listening to those that say that we should only buy American. Oh yes of course, buy American and spend $600 for an average pair of shoes, etc., etc., etc.

We've become pretty spoiled. I really don't think that we could go back to the lean years.

Zenovia

Michael,

"A big part of this problem would be remedied right away, if welfare, education, health care, etc. were denied to the gatecrashers as it should be."

The remedy already exists, your theory is incorrect. I am a welfare caseworker. Illegals are not eligible for Cash Assistance or Food Stamps. The only Medical Assistance they are eligible for is emergency services.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Deacon Lance hit the proverbial nail on the head. How many of the 11 - 12 million undocumented workers if made legal immigrants would immediately qualify for welfare, healthcare, food stamps, education benefits, and other social program free bees ? and how many would immediately apply ? and how many would then want a share of your old age social security and Medicaid you expect to receive when you retire (assuming they don't push the age up to 90 years) even though they never paid into it ? If made legal, how many would immediately ask 10 of their relatives to come over illegally and start the cycle over (the next time the problem would be 10 times the magnitude).

The US government is NOT SLOW to process immigrants as stated by some of the posters. The reality is the US government now does what Canada has been doing for over 25 years - it selects the type of immigrants the country needs to SUSTAIN our economy. In other words, they seek educated and skilled immigrants who can be integrated into our economy to SUSTAIN our standard of living. The process may seem slow for these illegal aliens because under the current immigration laws they will NEVER be accepted as immigrants. NEVER does seem long - because it is. Based on their literacy rates, their professional skills, health, and other personal characteristics which the government uses to score new immigrants - they would NEVER qualify as immigrants. Again, NEVER is a long time and complaining that the US Government is slow in processing requests to immigrate is a RED HERRING. Admitting these people as full fledged immigrants would be a huge economic burden to the country with the ultimate result of increasing taxes, and ensuring that we have a miserable old age with significantly reduced social services � including Medicaid.

Perhaps the Christian Churches advocating blanket amnesty wish to sell of more property - this time to paid for the costs associated with our retirement.

I.F.

Hi,

You are exactly right.

Let me start to clarify that yes, many of these people would probably qualify quite soon for government benefits. Benefits they would not only be entitled by law, but benefits they would have already contributed to pay for with the taxes they have been paying year after year after year.

So I take distance from the first part of your sentence. It is factually right, but I disagree with your disapproval.

Now, the second part is, in my opinion, a very legitimate concern: What happens next, after we solve the 11+ million issues at hand? Aren't we just digging up a hole to fill another one?

That's why I do not support a blanket amnesty as the first step in the process of solving the problem.

The first step is to overhaul the immigration process so that, when the time comes to regularize the 11+ million undocumented immigrants, they can ask the "next batch" to come legally, not illegally, to this country.

They're coming. There's no way around that. No amount of force or border control or whatever other name you wish to call it, will prevent it.

No matter how ugly the situation becomes here, as long as it is not uglier than there, people will still come.

It is in YOUR best interest that they come legally.

Now, when that is taken care of, then we can regularize the situation of the people already here.

And again, even then a blanket amnesty is not the right solution, I think. Among those 11+ million, there are some individuals that are not a positive influence and should not be allowed to stay.

I do believe these indivuduals are a minuscule minority and that most of the undocumented immigrants are able to be part of what makes this country great, but still, things need to be done in such a way that the problem is effectively solved, and not just transfered to 4-5 administrations down the road, as happened with the Roland Reagan Amnesty.

Shalom,
Memo

Jean Francois,

"and how many would then want a share of your old age social security and Medicaid you expect to receive when you retire (assuming they don't push the age up to 90 years) even though they never paid into it ?"

You should do your research. Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act Illegal was passed, immigrants have been paying into Social Security even though they have no hope of receiving benefits from it. Social Security officials estimate that 75% of illegal immigrant households pay into the system. They also estimate they are contributing around 6 billion a year to the system, one which they can never receive benefits from. From a Social Security standpoint illegal immigrants have been a boon. More details are available in this article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/b...c4641dc383&ei=5090&partner=kmarx

Fr. Deacon Lance

Jean Francois,

"In other words, they seek educated and skilled immigrants who can be integrated into our economy to SUSTAIN our standard of living."

In other words, legal immigrants are really the ones taking jobs Americans would want. Illegals on the otherhand do jobs that most Americans refuse to do, like harvesting fruit, because of the sub-standard wage our government allows farms to pay.

Fr. Deacon Lance

As I noted earlier, as originally submitted it was possible for the House version of the bill (if enacted) to be misinterpreted. A number of amendments made it clear that it was OK to give humanitarian aid but not ok to hide people or in any way help them stay here illegally. It�s been documented by our congressmen and news media that the good cardinal archbishop of Los Angeles clearly knew this before he started complaining about it. At best, he is being disingenuous.

Regarding the pope�s teaching, please see my comments where the Holy Father clearly supports the right of a country to control immigration. You must look at the Holy Father�s teaching in full context. You must also understand that he did not present it as dogmatic teaching, but as a pastoral call to help those in need.

Yes, the Berlin Wall was not within what used to be the Soviet Union. Yet it was not built by common agreement of the peoples of the Eastern and Western parts of the City of Berlin. It was built upon the orders of the communists in Moscow. Don�t forget that the existence of the separate communist nations was a fiction, and that all policy was ordered from Moscow.

The Berlin Wall was used to divide the city of Berlin. But it was not just to keep people from getting together. It was used to prevent the people of East Berlin (and East Germany by extension) from fleeing a totalitarian, communist state for the freedom found in West Germany.

A wall between the United States and Mexico cannot be compared to the Berlin Wall. A wall here would not be used to enslave anyone. The parallel here would be if Mexico was building the wall to keep people from leaving Mexico (as if to flee to freedom in the United States). Or if the United States was building the wall to keep Americans from fleeing into Mexico.

In the reality such a wall would merely provide border security and allow a sovereign nation the right to control immigration. Many thousands of Mexicans immigrate to the United States in a perfectly legal manner. That will not change. Also, many thousands of Mexicans and Americans cross the border on a daily basis for reasons of commerce and family.

The use of force to prevent people from entering the United States illegally is completely acceptable and completely justified. The right of a nation to control its own borders is not against any Catholic theology.

You might consider that there is no Mexican territory on the American side of the fence. California, Arizona, Utah, parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming and what was then the Republic of Texas are part of the United States. They are not Mexican territory and neither Mexico nor the Mexican people have had any claim to the land since Mexico ceded the land to the United States in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for US$15 million (+US$3.5 million in inherited debt) and the Gadsden Purchase (US$10 million) of 1853.

I do agree that it is morally unacceptable for border patrol agents to allow people to drown when attempting to cross the border. The proper response is to rescue them and then deport them. I hope that you will also acknowledge that it also morally wrong for people to cross the border illegally, and especially for those who physically attack our border agents in their attempt to come here illegally.

If anyone wants to better understand what can happen when certain ethnic and or religious groups dictate immigration policy, then read this fascinating book. The Russian Jewish Mafia arrived with the other 'Refusniks' who were welcomed with open arms under a blanket open immigration policy for Jews from the Soviet Union. They only had to have the word 'Jew' printed in their passports to be admitted into the USA as lawfull citizens.

Red Mafiya : How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America
(Hardcover)

"The Russian mob has become the FBI's most formidable criminal adversary, creating an international criminal colossus that has surpassed the Colombian cartels, the Japanese Yakuzas, the Chinese triads, and the Italian Mafia in wealth and weaponry." -- From Publishers Weekly

This disturbing, sharply rendered account tells how the post-Communist Russian Mafiya has infiltrated American life with tactical intelligence and a rare level of viciousness. Drawing from interviews with top Russian mobsters and police, journalist Friedman (Zealots for Zion: Inside Israel's West Bank Settlement Movement) trenchantly explores the brutal corruption of the U.S.S.R. and the anarchic greed that has flourished since its collapse, incubating a "criminal colossus that has surpassed the Colombian cartels, the Japanese Yakuzas, the Chinese triads and the Italian Mafia in wealth and weaponry." Friedman, whose reporting on this subject has appeared in Vanity Fair, the Village Voice and other publications, writes of one wise guy responsible for 100 hits and of "Tarzan" the swaggering Miami mobster busted while attempting to tender a Russian submarine to Colombian drug lords. Friedman documents how the mobsters have imported their brand of terror tactics shakedowns, kidnappings, bombings and public assassination from Moscow to Russian communities in Denver, Brooklyn's Brighton Beach and elsewhere, and examines what he casts as the largely inadequate, uninformed responses by law enforcement. Perhaps most disturbing, he suggests, is this: following profitable 1980s-era gasoline bootlegging schemes, Mafiya criminals shrewdly expanded into numerous quasi-legal pursuits establishing luxurious Russian-themed nightclubs, corrupting Russian ice hockey players and making inroads in Israel through their own Jewish ethnicity. Friedman isn't always in control of the bewildering array of players and narrative threads that make up his complicated tale. But there's much to praise in this frightening, urgent reportorial project a project that has resulted in death threats against Friedman, as he relates in his hair-raising introduction.

Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc

Well that doesn't clear things up at all. "Humanitarian" aid does inherently help people, in some way, to stay here. The interpretation of the house bill, in the very unlikely event that it would become law, would only emerge through court action. In the meantime it would have a chioling effect on "humanitarian" aid.

Earlier you shocked many by advocating lethal force. Now just "force. Progress?

Hi,

Yes, the shooting I mentioned happened across the commonly acknowledged border.

Parts of that border already "enjoy" some sort of fence and from that fence, the US Border Patrol agents shot a Mexican citizen who was in Mexico. This person later died from the wounds.

Again, not only immoral, but an act of war, as those committing the violation were doing so in their role of officers from a foreign government attacking a national of another country in the territory of that country.

If one of your soldiers goes to Iraq and kills an Iraqi citizen, it is called "war". Why would we call it anything else when a police officer goes to Mexico to kill a Mexican citizen?

I understand this is hard to believe from your all-holy and all-righteous government, but those are the facts.

Sorry.

That is entirely another issue. One, I think, doesn't belong in this thread or even in the immigration rights rallies.

Shalom,
Memo

Force = Any force necessary including lethal force.

Anyone crossing the border illegally can be shot on sight. That is not and should not be the first preference. First preference is always to physically detain them and deport them without the use of violence.

If I were to cross the border illegally into Mexico and refused to comply with the orders of Mexican officials to stop the Mexican authorities would have every justification to use all necessary force (including lethal force) to stop me.

There are always border skirmishes. The Mexican army has been photographed numerous times on American soil. There are documented cases of them helping people to enter the United States illegally. A sovereign nation has the right to protect its borders. Neither American nor Mexican officials should cross the border without proper authority.

The fact that the Mexican government publishes booklets to help people violate the immigration laws of the United States can also be considered an act of war. It is immoral for the government of Mexico to encourage its people to break the legitimate and just laws of another country.

Mexico is far stricter with aliens who cross into Mexico at its southern border. Why are you not complaining about this and demanding that Mexico embrace the types of economic and political reform that can reduce poverty, so that the people of Mexico don�t have to attempt to illegally enter another country for a decent life?

I note that your comment on what the Mexican authroities would be justified in doing to you does not include being "shot on sight". Then again, the prior sentences also argue against any justification for people to be "shot on sight".