Toning Down the Immigration Debate among Catholics (Lots of Interesting Comments)

On the heels of the health-care debate comes a potentially more contentious furor over proposed immigration legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who helped secure abortion funding in the health-care bill, is now telling us the bishops came to her and said, "We want you to pass immigration reform."

I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your, whatever the communication is -- the people, some of them, oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels.

Matt Smith, writing at Catholic Advocate, was quick to note that Pelosi stumbled over her words ("whatever the communication is"), and he remarked, "Well, we know she confuses feast days and the teachings of the church on the sanctity of life . . . so maybe she just doesn't pay attention during Mass."

Smith, who spent six years in the White House handling Catholic coalitions, also noted the irony of a "Catholic" politician who urges bishops and priests to use their pulpits to encourage political action on immigration but resisted every attempt of the Church to communicate its pro-life message to her during the health-care debate.

Pelosi's occasional forays into Catholic instruction and apologetics earns her Smith's just rebuke:

Let's just drill down to the basics -- I didn't realize white smoke came from the south side of the Capitol when she was elected Speaker, so what makes Nancy Pelosi think she can give direction to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church?

The hierarchy, as it turns out, doesn't need direction from Pelosi. Roger Cardinal Mahony, the outgoing archbishop of Los Angeles, already delivered a May Day harangue comparing Arizona to "Nazi Germany" for its new immigration regulations. New York's Archbishop Timothy Dolan also aimed a few barbs at Arizona's governor and legislature:

Arizona is so scared, apparently, and so convinced that the #1 threat to society today is the immigrant, that it has passed a mean-spirited bill of doubtful constitutionality that has as its intention the expulsion of the immigrant.

If the bishops are to succeed at converting unconvinced Catholics, as Speaker Pelosi has demanded, they will need to turn down the temperature of their rhetoric. In 2005, the immigration issue caused a cultural and political explosion, and we don't need another replay of those passions -- on either side.

Bishop Robert Vasa has published just the kind of argument on immigration I would offer to Catholics who remain unconvinced of the bishops' position. I would not direct them to the USCCB's Web site -- "Justice for Immigrants" -- where the underlying rationale for its immigration policy is deeply flawed.

Bishop Vasa begins his argument with a masterful distillation of the vexing question of how the legitimate human rights of the undocumented immigrant are related to "the right and duty [of a nation] to properly police its borders or protect its citizens."

If you read his column, he acknowledges the fears and concerns that many Catholics have about upholding our nation's laws and protecting our borders. As he explains, Catholics are not being asked to forget legal issues, but also to keep in mind the fact of human solidarity.

Bishop Vasa's explanation is laudable for its nuance and recognition of the objections that abound among Catholics in the pews:

As Catholics we must try to look upon every Catholic in the world, indeed every person, as "our brother," and this is a different relationship than a legal/citizenship relationship. Just because something is "legal" does not mean that it is morally correct. There are any number of examples from our own history and the histories of other nations where something "legal" was grossly immoral and needed to be resisted.

Most importantly, Bishop Vasa makes sure that the natural law argument being employed by the bishops does not completely erase the standing civil law:

I am not suggesting that the American "immigration policy" is immoral, but there seem to be some elements of injustice that permeate it, and it is this injustice, whether legally sanctioned or not, the Church opposes.

In short, Bishop Vasa acknowledges the problem of the injustice of illegal immigration while warning against "too harsh a solution." If Catholics are to be convinced, the crime of crossing the border illegally has to be acknowledged. It doesn't help when the document being circulated among parishes by the "Justice for Immigrants" program actually portrayed a Mexican family sneaking across the border as if they were heroic.

In his conclusion, Bishop Vasa articulated the immigration dilemma in a way that many Catholics will identify with, as I do:

Very few of the slogans, pro or con, resonate with me. I do find, however, that thinking about real, identifiable people, concrete human persons and human families, makes it much easier to see that those who cross our borders or remain here illegally are not necessarily evil or wicked men or women but simply people with human aspirations and longings and dignity. Crossing a border illegally does not eliminate that person's right to be treated as a brother or sister. Remaining in this country illegally does not eliminate that person's human dignity.

Readers have left 19 comments.

Quote(1) Untitled
May 17th, 2010 | 1:36am

Remaining in this country illegally does not eliminate that person's human dignity.

— Deal W. Hudson

— Bishop Vasa

Of course viewing other people as dignity-less is wrong, but is that what Arizona is really doing?

Allowing millions of illegal immigrants to enter and stay in the US--at the cost of our citizens, families, and communities--is a violation of our duties as citizens of a sovereign nation and a sin against our neighbors.

It is not a violation of their dignity to deport illegals (there are, of course, some exceptions) and prevent them from entering illegally. This is the issue: is our immigration law (the same immigration law Mexico has and nearly all governments throughout all of history have had) immoral? does it, in principle, violate the dignity of the illegals here already and does it violate the dignity of any individual who decides he wants to live here?

Breaking our immigrations laws (and the burden of proof is on the opposition to prove them unjust) or any law means different treatment, period. If we had some kind of duty to treat all people, regardless of their criminal record, equally, we'd be in a lot of trouble.

In legislation, we ought err on the side of justice, for misguided charity paves the road to hell. Justice is tempered by mercy (is an exception to, that is), not the other way around.

Written by Drew

Quote(2) dolan's "barbs"
May 17th, 2010 | 2:01am

http://blog.archny.org/?p=652&cpage=1#comments

Archbishop Timothy Dolan (D-NY) hardly "aimed a few barbs" at opponents of illegal immigration. He published a sustained, hysterical, bigoted, thoroughly dishonest rant against them. I call, as a witness to the truth of my characterization, Abp. Dolan himself, at the above link.

Note how the issue is misstated as "immigration." Note how no acknowledgment is given to the horrific violence that has been taking place in Arizona--home invasions, murders, decapitations, kidnapping and human trafficking, etc.

With this Following close upon his jaw-dropping description of the pro-abortion Governor of New York as "a Catholic who takes his Christian faith seriously," and his implausible claim not to know where Andrew Cuomo stands on abortion, Abp. Dolan has a tough row to hoe if he is to establish a reputation for intellectual honesty.

Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

Quote(3) Regulate Immigration
May 17th, 2010 | 2:19am

Secure the border.

Allow more legal temporary workers, make them play by the rules, pay taxes, etc.

Don't give preference to Mexico alone, there's a lot of other countries full of people happy to come here to work. The Philippines comes to mind, great people and very Catholic.

Written by Paul

Quote(4) the "debate" itself is a fraud
May 17th, 2010 | 4:32am

Anyone, bishop or layman, who promotes any kind of "immigration reform" during this administration, is irresponsible, just as it was irresponsible for the USCCB to participate in promoting "health care reform" when the result was guaranteed to be a monstrously statist law, with windfalls for the uber-wealthy cronies of Obama, with mechanisms for dealing death to the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly.

No legislation that is going to emerge from the current socialist, pro-abortion regime is going to be anything but another multi-thousand-page, indecipherable power-grab for our Marxist central government.

And, as with "health care reform," the "input" and the "debate" will be a charade. As with "health care reform," any "immigration reform" legislation is already prepared in the bowels of the Soros-funded foundations from which issue all the "ideas" of the Obama regime.

Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

Quote(5) Re Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick
May 17th, 2010 | 5:22am

Yeah, that was a disconcerting post by Dolan. I was at his first Chrism mass in NYC and he did stick up for the Church during the priest-abuse scandal as well as seeming to be pretty conservative politically. But no one is perfect, obviously.

Thank god they don't have Mahoney, at any rate. Still, his stance on/lack of understanding of the immigration issue notwithstanding, I think Dolan was a good choice. Judging by the attendance at that Chrism mass back in March, Dolan looks to be a boon to the Catholic community in New York City.

Written by Drew

Quote(6) Illegal immigration
May 17th, 2010 | 6:36am

I suspect, if the Bishops had their way, we would not deport any illegals, including gang members and violent felons. There are many gangs of illegals, MS-13, being the most prominent, who if you add it up, commit literally thousands of violent felonies, murder, rape, armed robbery, every year. I imagine that we, the citizens are not allowed to protect ourselves from these gangs? I wish the Bishops would address this issue, but I doubt that they will.

Written by Austin

Quote(7) Re: Illegal immigration
May 17th, 2010 | 6:53am

— Austin

Who do you think is to form the nucleus of Obama's "Domestic National Security Force"? You can't have a "Domestic National Security Force" composed of people who won't fire on Americans. Ergo, it must be composed of foreigners.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Fr. Pfleger--these people have deep ties with the street gangs, which are really armies. Why do you think Cardinal George has failed to deal with Fr. Pfleger, even failing to require that Pfleger obey a direct order--an assignment to a new parish? George wanted to stay alive.

Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick

Quote(8) Untitled
May 17th, 2010 | 9:41am

The question I have been dying to ask persons of Archbishop Dolan't inclination is, just what would you have us do? Should we open our borders, North and South, and allow an unchecked flood of immigrants to swamp our country?

I believe the bishops and the politicians have a common interest in the continued flow of illegal aliens. The bishops are hoping to fill their churches and the politicians are looking for votes. If you would argue that they cannot vote, explain to me what stops them.

The U.S. is broke and headed to bankruptcy. The problem may be solved when there is no longer a reason to come here.

Written by Brian

Quote(9) THEY ARE NOT IMMIGRANTS, THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS
May 17th, 2010 | 10:15am

Bend, Ore., May 14, 2010 / 06:04 am (CNA).- In recent column, Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon spoke on the controversial topic of immigration, saying that although a nation has the “duty” to protect its borders, “remaining in a country illegally” does not eliminate a person's human dignity, nor his or her right to be treated “as a brother or sister.” THAT IS TRUE INSOFAR AS EXTENDING HUMAN RIGHTS, IT DOES NOT EQUATE WITH EXTENDIGN CIVIL RIGHTS, OR SOCIAL BENEFITS THEY HAVE NOT EARNED NOR TO WHICH THEY HAVE A LEGAL OR MORAL CLAIM.

On Thursday, Bishop Vasa framed his Catholic Sentinel article with a clarification on humans rights and the law in regard to immigration policies. “Just because something is 'legal,'” he explained, “does not mean that it is morally correct.” THAT IS TRUE. I BELIEVE ST. THOMAS CAUTIONS ABOUT HOW TO RESPOND TO THE "UNJUST LAW IS NO LAW AT ALL" SITUATION. HE DOES NOT ADVOCATE BREAKING IT EXCEPT IN THE MOST UNUSUAL OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

“There are any number of examples from our own history and the histories of other nations where something 'legal' was grossly immoral and needed to be resisted,” the bishop noted. “I am not suggesting that the American 'immigration policy' is immoral THEN DO NOT ADVOCATE CHANGE IF IT IS NOT IMMORALbut there seem to be some elements of injustice that permeate it and it is this injustice, whether legally sanctioned or not, the Church opposes.” YOU ABSOLUTELLY MUST BE SPECIFIC.

Though the prelate stressed that a country has the “right and duty to properly police its borders,” once illegal immigrants have crossed them, the Church is charged with the task of providing the same care for them. NO, THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUE. THE CATECHISM SAYS THAT WEATHLIER COUNTRIES SHOULD ACCEPT IMMIGRANTS,( NOT ILLEGAL ONES,') TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE ABLE. WITH OVER 10% UNEMPLOYMENT AND A DEFICIT CAUSED IN PART BY REMITTANCES TO OTHER COUNTRIES AND A DECLINING TAX BASE AS A RESULT OF MANY FACTORS ALONG WITH THE DRAIN ON HEALTH, EDUCATION AND OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES BY ILLEGAL IMMIRANTS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ABSORBE THEM. JPII IN 1996 SAID THAT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE HELPED TO BECOME LEGAL( IF REASONABLE RE THE CATECHISM), BUT IF NOT REASONABLE THEY SHOULD BE HELPED TO FIND ANOTHER COUNTRY OR SENT BACK TO THEIR OWN.

If undocumented workers are “here and in distress then the church will provide comfort,YES solace YESand

Written by Ahard

Quote(10) Untitled
May 17th, 2010 | 10:18am

perhaps even sanctuaryNO, THEY ARE NOT ASYLYUM SEEKERS NOR REFUGEES. THEY HAVE A HOME TO GO BACK TO IN MOST CASES AND A FAMILY THAT LOVES THEM AND NEEDS THEIR PRESENCE. because that is what the church does,” he asserted.

“There may be some of this that is technically 'illegal,'” Bishop Vasa added, “but splitting up a family or sending a family-wage earner back to Mexico where he can no longer provide for his family THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THEY CANNOT PROVIDE AMERICAN WAGES TO SPEND IN DEVALUED PESOS, BUT THEY CAN EARN A DIGNIFIED LIVNING IN MOST CASES. MY PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS LIVED HERE (ONE FROM MEXICO) JUST LIKE MOST MEXICANS DO IN MIEXICO. I HAVE SEEN HOW THEY LIVE AND KNOW IT IS NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE DESERT HERE AND NOW. IT IS BETTER THAN SOME OF THE HOMELESS WOMEN AND CHILDREN LIVING ON THE STREET HERE AND WHO ARE BEING SERVED BY PROTESTANT SOCIAL SEVICE AGENICIES WHILE YOU AND BISHOP KICANAS SPENC CATHOLIC MONEY ADVOCATING FOR AN AMNESTY THAT WILL PUSH THEXE INNOCENT LEGAL AMERICAN RESIDIENT FURTHER DOWN. is not in accord with what we are to do as members of a church.” THE ABOVE IS NOT WHAT THE CHURCH SHOULD DO.

“It is not consistent with the dignity of human persons.” MEXICANS HAVE DIGNITY IN MEXICO. THEY AND YOU WHO ENCOURAGE THEIR ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES FROM ENTRY TO FALSE ID, TO LOW WAGES AND 'SANCTUARY ARE TAKING AWAY THE DIGNITY OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND AMERICAN BORN WORKERS. THEY ARE ALL YOUR SHEEP AND YOU, AS A SHEPHERD, MUST FOCUS ON JUSTICE, NOT A FALSE COMPASSION WHICH DESTROYS AMERICA AND MEXICO AND MOST OF THE SENDING COUNTRIES.

Although there “is a form of injustice done to the American people when our borders are not respected,” he clarified, “there is also a possibility that a grave injustice could be done to an undocumented worker if too harsh a solution is enacted.” AGAIN, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT FOR THE MOST PART REFUGEES OR ASYLUM SEEKERS. THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS. WE CAN LOBBY FOR COMPASSIONATE HEARINGS FOR THE HARD CASES, BUT NOT FOR AMESNTY. REMEMBER HARD CASES MAKE BAD LAW.

Bishop Vasa underlined that although it is easy to identify all undocumented workers as “criminals,” this fails to distinguish between those who are here “peacefully and productively” versus those who are here for “criminal pursuits.” I LIVE IWTH THIS. IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THEIR INTENT IS TO LIVE PEACEFULLY AND PRODUCTIVELY IF IT IS UNJUST AND IF IT IS DESTRUCTVE OF THE AMERICAN WORKERS AND TAXPAYERS.

It is certainly not right for anyone to violate or seek to circumvent the immigration laws of this nation but unless we know all of the reasons and factors that led a person to the decision to come to this country or to remain illegally, I suggest that it is very dangerous for us to judge that person as a 'criminal'.” IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER WE CALL THEM CRIMINAL, THEIR ILLEGAL ACTS ARE DESTRUCTIVE. IT IS MORE DANGEROUS FOR THEM TO COME HERE, OFTEN CARRYING DRUGS AND ALMOST ALWAYS BUYING ILLEGAL IDENTITIES THAN TO CALL AN ILLEGAL ALIEN A CRIMINAL.

The Oregon prelate then observed that “thinking about real, identifiable people, concrete human persons and human families, makes it much easier to see that those who cross our borders or remain here illegally are not necessarily evil or wicked men or women but simply people with human aspirations and longings and dignity.” BUT THEY MUST CROSS LEGALLY OR THEY ROB THEMSELVES AND US OF OUR DIGNITY AND US OF OUR ASPIRATIONS AND LONGINGS. WE MUST HAVE LEGAL AND REASONABLY REGULATED IMMIGRATION. YOU BISHOPS SHOULD BE ADVOCATING FOR THE SENDING COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY MEXICO, TO CHANCE THE CULTURE AND ECONOMIES SO THAT THE WOULD BE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAN FIND THEIR DREAMS AND LONGINGS IN THE COUNTRIES OF THEIR BIRTH AS JPII AND B16 HAVE PUT FORTH AS THE BEST SOLUTION.

“Crossing a border illegally does not eliminate that person’s right to be treated as a brother or sister,” he concluded. “Remaining in this country illegally does not eliminate that person’s human dignity.” CORRECT, BUT THEY HAVE ROBBED THEMSELVES OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE IN THIS COUNTRY AND THEY HAVE ROBBED US OF OUR RIGHTS AND OUR DIGNITY.

Written by Ahard number 2

Quote(11) Don't Forget It!
May 17th, 2010 | 10:21am

Fr. Fitzpatrick...
like many astute Americans who take the time to catalog and connect the ratings and actions of Obama and the hundreds of carefully appointed Czars and special administrators specifically positioned to, at the time of need, arise and join the government controlled media in subduing isolated pockets of dissent among his subjects.

Anything as big as the “tea parties”, Fox news, or the RNC which would require a much larger and publicly recognizable force at this time won’t be revealed accept at election time. Obama promised his followers during the campaign the absolute need for a force equally as strong and well funded as our military to control “domestic” problems. Don’t forget it.

This was cover needed to dupe voters into thinking he was referring to terrorist. Terrorists are not a problem for him. Remember he believes Americans because of our actions deserve terrorism. What America needs protection from are capitalist pigs, corporations, Wall Street, Christian Evangelism (“if the winds shift I will stand with the Muslims”), non- Union employers, a super-power status, economic superiority, a day of prayer, “stupid cops” (in all 57 states I’m sure), and most importantly border security which could limit the influx of thousands of potentially grateful new supporters for his socialistic agenda. Don’t forget it.

Fr. Fitzpatrick is not only a loyal Catholic he’s also an American patriot. Don’t forget it!

Written by Bill Sr.

Quote(12) Untitled
May 17th, 2010 | 10:42am

I really apologize for not editing my post before submitting it. I commented on the article in a hurry last night and just copied and pasted to you forgetting to review.

Written by Ahard

Quote(13) a small question
May 17th, 2010 | 11:04am

Would the Catholic Bishops be interested in this issue with such passion or at all....if it were 12 million Chinese Jehovah Witnesses coming down from Canada and sending cash back to Canada in some cases while they raised our taxes and our medical insurance by using our emergency rooms for medical?
Would our bishops say a word in favor of them?

Written by Avignon Days

Quote(14) If Pelosi is for it, and the USCCB is for it, I will probably be
May 17th, 2010 | 11:36am

To the extent that these leftist organizations and people have principles, they most often are not principles I can support.

As a conservative, I am certainly not against immigration. I believe visitors to other countries, need to respect the laws of that land, and the culture, or risk paying a price. I certainly do when in another country.

The US has allowed...even supported the ease of illegally entering our country. It should not be so easy to get here illegally and difficult to get here legally (for work). What to do with the millions already here is a tough question, for which I admit, no easy answers come to mind. But until we address our border security and have a guest working program for lower level jobs, the problem will compound itself.

The fact that Arizona has chosen to enforce existing Federal law is not the problem, nor are they the culprit.

Written by Mark Brumbaugh

Quote(15) For Me, The Bottom Line Is...
May 17th, 2010 | 11:47am

as well as seeming to be pretty conservative politically

— Drew

I don't want conservative bishops. I want Christian bishops. Catholic, preferably.

If there is one idea that I could beat out of the heads of every Catholic in this country, it would be that "conservative" or "liberal" is a good thing, a goal toward which we should strive, or the test of someone's adherence to Christian faith and morals.

It is ideology and a distraction from Christ and the law of God. It keeps us bottled up in the bipolar dualities constructed by the powers and principalities that rule this present darkness in order to neutralize the threat of the Gospel. It is the stuff that makes us susceptible to demogoguery and false messiahs of every sort, and the stuff that makes us reject Jesus Christ when he does not say what we want or presupposed that He would. Anyone who buys into this rubbish, sells his soul for this nonsense of "conversative" vs. "liberal" has very likely missed the point of the Gospel entirely and has never known - or has forgotten - Jesus Christ.

Do you think Jesus Christ was a nice conservative, someone holding down the status-quo, or who just went about blathering about lower taxes and personal responsibility (both very good things)? Do you think the Gospel so puny, so cheap? Is this sort of pettiness the best that we Christians can offer America in the 21st century? No wonder the outside world thinks we are so flipping irrelevant.

We will we, the Church, break free of this tripe!?

Written by Ryan Haber

Quote(16) Political Hijacking
May 17th, 2010 | 12:27pm

Politicians such as Pelosi do not have a genuine charity
in mind when they insist on bringing illegals in. She further
proves her lack of charity when she insists on guiding the church instead of listening to her.
Are American catholics so much more charitable than catholics south of the border that only we can take care of illegal immigrants? I would hope our catholic brothers and sisters elsewhere are able to take care of themselves where they
are at.

Written by Mark

Quote(17) Injustice?
May 17th, 2010 | 1:08pm

His Excellence Bishop Vasa states that "some elements of injustice permeates (US immigration policy)." I read the article and nowhere does he list even a partial list of these injustices.

US Immigration laws do not split up families. People who enter the U.S. illegally or remain in the U.S. illegally make a conscious decision to break U.S. laws. If a child is born in the U.S., that child is a US Citizen. Should the illegal alien parent be arrested and removed from the U.S., the U.S. citizen child can return with the parent. It is the parent’s choice on whether the U.S. remains in the U.S. or departs.

Often I have heard bishops state that nations have the right to control their borders, and then basically deny that right and responsibility in practice. There is a reluctance to call people “criminals?” I can understand that but it doesn’t change the facts that those who enter the United States illegally have committed a criminal act.

I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Hudson’s praise of Bishops Vasa’s article. He is basically calling for the same outcome as the other bishops, only without the inflammatory language. Doesn’t Roger Cardinal Mahoney realize what the Nazis did to people? To compare that to the enforcement of immigration laws is obscene.

I would never oppose anyone in the Church who helps people who are in need. I would not require the Church to question someone' immigration status. But it is irresponsible to state that anyone who gets here should be able to stay here as long as they don’t break certain laws. No state could survive if such policies were followed.

Written by Mark

Quote(18) Right concerns, wrong conclusions
May 17th, 2010 | 1:17pm

Of course American immigration policy is permeated by injustice, because it's based on a lie. We have a border, with laws stating how and for what reasons people may cross that border, and armed men guarding it; but when people cross the border illegally, our political and corporate class looks the other way and showers benefits upon them. Law-abiding people will tend to obey the laws, while the less law-abiding and those who are more savvy about the lie will not, but once here, they are dependent on those political and corporate overseers to maintain the lie for them. How could all this not lead to injustices?

But the injustice is not that someone might get deported or that someone else may not be able to get into the country. The injustice is that some people (at the top and bottom of the system) aren't being held to the same laws and standards that the rest of us are. Deporting someone doesn't violate his human dignity; it respects it by holding him accountable for his actions. His human dignity is violated when he's hired with a wink and a nod at wages and conditions that we Americans claim are immoral, or when he's driven to a polling booth and handed a fake ID and $20 and shown which circles to fill in on a ballot he can't read.

Bishop Vasa is right that every person in the world is "my brother." But that's not an argument for a porous border or amnesty for illegal aliens. A Mexican is "my brother" whether he's in Mexico or the USA, and if I have a Christian duty to feed or clothe him, I can do that in Mexico. His breaking the law by crossing the border illegally doesn't make him any more my brother (less, if anything), but it does make it possible for me to pass his care along to my government and social services, letting him be their brother rather than mine.

Written by Aaron B.

Quote(19) Defending Arizona and her citizens.
May 17th, 2010 | 1:19pm

Thank you Fr. Fitzpatrick for your comments. After watching the health care reform bill rammed through Congress and signed into law, I would be suspicious of any comprehensive immigration reform; Cap-and-Trade scam a.k.a. American Power Act etc.

Governor Jan Brewer has an excellent information website and petition:

SECURE THE BORDER - SUPPORT ARIZONA

You can read on this website: Border Facts & News; the Law; the letters from Governor Brewer to Washington that were never answered, etc. Sounds like a pattern emerging from our present government.

I have been reading from the Catholic Advocate; American Thinker etc. that the Obama administration wants to take control of the internet, too. I guess that is one way to silence any opposition.

Written by Charity in Truth