Posted on 07/15/2010 1:50:38 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
July 15, 2010
Addressing the issue of immigration reform, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson told a congressional subcommittee on July 14 that “the US Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable.” In a change of tone from previous bishops’ statements, Bishop Kicanas, who serves as USCCB vice president, added, “Comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.”
During his testimony, Bishop Kicanas called for immigration reform “that provides a legalization program (path to permanent residency) for undocumented workers in our nation; reforms the employment-based immigration system so that low-skilled workers can enter and work in a safe, legal, orderly, and humane manner; and reduces waiting times in the family preference system for families to be reunited,” according to a USCCB press release.
“Immigration is ultimately a humanitarian issue, since it impacts the basic rights and dignity of millions of persons and their families,” Bishop Kicanas added. “We cannot accept the toil and taxes of immigrants without providing them the protection of law.”
Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.
A lot of those crossing in are not for jobs. It’s about drugs and terrorists. How does the good bishop plan to handle that little problem.
The USCCB has long been dominated by the old-line lefty bishops. I don’t know much about Kikanas, but he sounds more rational than most, and I think there are changes coming in the USCCB. This is to be encouraged and not shot down right off.
I have no objection to anybody being treated humanely and within the law, but I also think the bishop is acknowledging that a country has a right to make laws that bring it the kind of immigration it needs and that immigrants should conform to this. And that really is a first for the USCCB.
That said, if Latino groups really think Obama wants to legalize Latinos (who do have the potential to be conservative, especially once they have a chance to make money legally and start businesses) they’re fools. He will stir up a lot of feeling about Latin Americans because it is useful to him but refuse to do anything about their situation. Obama thrives on pitting groups against each other.
This is because what we need for Latin Americans is short-term guest worker visas, after which people who really want to stay can apply for legal status or can simply go home legally once their visa is up. But this was a program that was destroyed by the unions and is still violently opposed by them.
What he is going to do is legalize the masses of visa-overstayers, most of them here on the insane “family reunion” basis or flimsy refugee claims (like his auntie) and most of them from Muslim or Third World countries, including Albania and Muslim Eastern Europe, the ME and Africa. His goal is to fundamentally change the US and hand it over to our enemies, and while you may not like Latin Americans, they’re not our enemies and do share a lot of common culture (for one thing, they’re at least nominally Christian, and the Church is actually doing a lot of work among them in terms of catechizing, regularizing and even teaching English to those who are here).
The good bishop should stick to teaching the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, and not spend his time trumpheting his own interpretation of social justice, which many justifiably consider a variant of socialism.
At a time when gay marriage has become accepted, abortion remains prevalent, young Catholics are uninformed and even misinformed about the precepts of their faith, and Catholic universities (with a few exceptions)run away from Church morality (e.g. Georgetown shrouding AMDG at Obama’s bidding), it would seem to me that Bishop Kikanas has more than enough on his plate.
Give me Bishops Olmstead, Chaput, Cardinal Dolan, any time.
We obviously profoundly disagree. God Bless our disagreement.
Bishop Kikanas as Bishop of Tucson has made a habit of traveling across the border to Mexican jumping off points for illegals where he comforted and blessed them etc. He is vehemently against SB 1070 and has threatened to sue Gov Jan Brewer over its enforcement. You’ll have much time to evaluate this Chicago bishop as he steps into his new role as President of USCCB.
On the other hand he is a very good man and an excellent administrator. He should stick to being a pastor. So sad that he is so misguided.
I don’t think there is a profound disagreement. See, there you go personalizing your comments again. At least this time, you actually explain why you don’t care for the Bishop. However, after reading the article this thread is based on, I don’t understand how you conclude that he is “trumpheting his own interpretation of social justice, which many justifiably consider a variant of socialism.”
You must have gathered this from some past incident(s) and not the current one. Pertinent to the article, both livius and myself have pointed out simply that his Congressional testimony on illegal immigration is an improvement over what we have heard from the bishops previously.
I’ll let you have the last word. Bye.
Holy rollers and Evangelicals are laying in wait for them ~ and are capturing the majority!
July 15, 2010
Addressing the issue of immigration reform, Bishop Geraldo Koocooas of Juarez MX told a Mexican congressional subcommittee on July 14 that “the Mexican Conference of Catholic Bishops [MEXICOCATBIS] wholeheartedly agrees that the rule of Mexican law is paramount, and that those who break the law should be held accountable.”
In a change of tone from previous bishops’ statements, Bishop Koocoonas, who serves as [MEXICOCATBIS] vice president, added, “Comprehensive Mexican immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented Americans to pay a fine of 50,000 pesos, pay back Mexican taxes to 1917 even tho' they were not born yet, learn Spanish, and get in the back of the line behond the Guatemalans and Ecudoreans and the Italians and become CATHOLICS.
We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense, considering we hate Gringos in our country of Mexico, since California, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska, as well as Hawaii, Florida & Georgia, too, [ owned by Spain but we inherited it from our mother country!] and Midway Islands [which were discovered by wayward Mexican shrimp fishernmen] belong to Mexico”.
We also claim Canada, too, because the Spanish explorers were there discovering it and we also inherited it from our mother country Espana! Oh what the hell- just give us the whole frikin' tamale continent! oh, BTW, the Philippines belongs to Mexico to because we inherited it from Spain, our mother country, but it`s too far away for us to swim to it.
I met this bishop when he visited one of our NICU babies. He is a very sweet and humble man. I’m happy that he made these statements to Congress.
>>comprehensive immigration reform would honor the rule of law and help restore it by requiring 11 million undocumented to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English, and get in the back of the line. We believe this a proportionate penalty for the offense.” <<
Bishop, You must be joking. These people have been stealing food stamps, housing assistance, medical care, schooling, etc and you are going to require they pay a fine and pay back taxes. Don’t be ridiculous. They’ll say we can’t afford to pay anything. Send them back to Mexico or their home country and tell them to start again, legally.
Upon becoming a bishop, a priest selects a coat of arms that includes symbols of significant inspirations in his life and symbols of his ministry. When a bishop becomes the bishop of a diocese, he incorporates the symbols of his coat of arms into the coat of arms of the diocese.
Isn't it so cute that he advocates illegals learning English while he whips out the spanish for them on his coat of arms....
Did you actually read the letter in post 1?
He has completely embraced the concept of social justice for illegals. The headline is misleading.
He’s a traitor to the U.S. Read the whole article and letter in post 1. He’s nothing more than a mouthpiece for the open borders crowd.
There is no letter. The article is about the Bishop’s testimony before Congress and includes quotes from his testimony.
I don’t know the man, but so many of our priests are truly holy and humble. Sometimes, they tend a little naive and it can be frustrating. This is the first time I’ve heard a representative of USCCB state firmly that they support “rule of law” in this country and do not support the faithful breaking the law. Some of the rest of it is a little too “compassionate” from my POV. IOW, why is the U.S. responsible for the fate and welfare of border-trespassing Mexicans, and not Mexico? Is the Roman Catholic church IN MEXICO advocating for the poor of that country????
Here is his statement in a synopsis from his own testimony.
My testimony today will focus on many of the recommendations contained in the U.S.-Mexican bishops’ joint letter, including 1) the need to address the root causes of migration so that migrants can remain home to support themselves and their families; 2) the need to reform U.S. immigration policy so that migrants can enter in a safe, legal, orderly, and humane manner; 3) the need to reevaluate our immigration enforcement policies so that the abuse, exploitation, and death of migrants are eliminated at the same time legitimate national security concerns are addressed; and 4) the need to restore due process protections for immigrants and their families.
Nowhere does he talk about enforcement of current laws. It's all about gaming/working/changing the system to open the floodgates.
You really should read the link in post 1.
Here is another excerpt:
D. Enforcement Policies Madam Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders and to ensure that our immigration laws are just and humane is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Others maintain that the United States must first “secure its border” and only then consider broader immigration reforms.
We believe that enforcement is part of a immigration reform package, but must be complemented with reforms in the legal immigration system. “Enforcement First” has been the de facto U.S. strategy for over twenty years, yielding too many costs and too few results. The costs have indeed run high. Since 1993, Congress has appropriated and the federal government has spent about $50 billion on border enforcement, multiplying the number of Border Patrol agents by a factor of five (over 20,000 agents)12 and introducing technology and fencing along the border.13 Border Patrol in particular has seen a ninefold budget increase since 1992.14 Border fencing and other physical barriers have cost $2.6 billion since fiscal year 2005.15
In addition, the Obama Administration has continued enforcement initiatives, increasing the number of detention beds, committing National Guard troops to the border, and pledging an additional $500 million in border enforcement funding. Proponents of an enforcement first strategy counter that enforcement is worth the investment. They point to border apprehensions between ports of entry which have dropped from 1.7 million in FY 2005 to 556,000 in FY 2009.16 While the economic recession explains part of this trend, many argue that border enforcement efforts should be credited as well. The problem is that apprehensions are only part of the story; unauthorized migrants continue to enter the country in significant numbers. Over 500,000 unauthorized migrants entered through the southern border annually between 2005-2008.17 Tragically, since 1998 nearly 5,000 migrants have perished in the desert trying to enter the United States.18 This trend shown no signs of decreasing -- border deaths in 2009 reached their highest level in three years, despite the efforts of Border Patrol teams that have rescued thousands of desert-crossers.19 Judging by these measures, enforcement first has largely failed to end illegal immigration on its own.
This “enforcement first” strategy has failed partly because of its unintended effects. For instance, by tightening border checkpoints, it has spawned a booming human smuggling industry. In fact, these “coyotes” have become very good at evading detection, helping migrants gain a nearly 100% success rate at eventually entering the United States.20 Border security build-up has also disrupted “circular migration” – preventing some immigrants from returning home to Mexico and Central America after a few years of work in the United States. Instead, these workers bring their families to settle in the United States.
At root, “enforcement first” has failed because it has not addressed the underlying cause of illegal immigration: an outdated immigration system that does not meet the economy’s demand for workers. We are hopeful that comprehensive immigration policy reform which emphasizes legal avenues for migration will mitigate the perceived need for continuing to increase the number of border patrol agents and the amount and length of border fencing. Such reform could alleviate the pressure on border enforcement by undermining human smuggling operations and reducing the flow of undocumented migrants across the border. It also could help create a more stable atmosphere for the implementation of enforcement reforms, such as biometric visas and passports, which will help better identify those who come to harm us.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the position of the USCCB on several enforcement issues you may consider during consideration of comprehensive immigration a mandatory electronic verification system on employers nationwide, so that employees who are hired are in the country legally and authorized to work. While we are not per se opposed to such a system, several steps must be taken to ensure that any system is applied uniformly and accurately. We would not oppose the adoption of a mandatory employer verification system provided that 1) it is accompanied by a broad-based legalization program, so that all workers have an opportunity to become legal and not remain outside of the system; 2) the system is phased in at a reasonable rate with objective benchmarks so implementation is feasible for both employers and the government; 3) inaccuracies in the government databases used to cross-check identification and eligibility are corrected so that employees are not wrongfully dismissed; 3) protections are put in place so that employers do not use the system to wrongfully discharge certain employees; and 4) employees who have a false positive are given the opportunity to correct any misinformation that lead to the false positive.
His conclusion is that our current system is broken and needs to be fixed to accommodate his open borders policy. There is nowhere in his statement that the current laws should be honored.
Then there is this passage which I find offensive and particularly shameful:
The Catholic Church is an immigrant church. More than one-third of Catholics in the United States are of Hispanic origin. The Church in the United States is also made up of more than 58 ethnic groups from throughout the world, including Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Latin America.
The man is a bald-faced liar. The Catholic Church is not an "immigrant Church".
This whole statement reads right out of anything La Raza or any other open borders organization. He has totally politicized himself with this statement by quoting AFL-CIO statements. He stands for everything that is wrong with the immigration debate.
Yes, the headline is totally misleading. It's meant to convey to Catholics that the Church is behind law enforcement - if only they would open the borders.
Catholic bishops go all out for illegals.
Well! There you have Karl Rove's Theory in a nutshell. In the real world, the latino legal voter goes 80% democrat, except for the Cubans. The illegal immigrant vote, of course, goes 100-105% for the Democrats ... and as many times and places as needed. As Loretta Sanchez showed B-1 Bob Dornan, they don't even have to be alive. Hell, they needn't even actually exist, except on some hard drive!
They foolishly go all out for these border bounding bastards, who upon arrival become Mormons, Baptists, Pentecostals, or join whatever church is serving the best sandwiches and has the best thrift shop.
The problem with the American Catholic Church is that it is still somehow madly in love with Pope Pius IX. If Irish-American Catholics' ancestors had been sentenced to do a little time in Papal Political Prisons, maybe they wouldn't have such a rosy view of their bishops and popes. The Papal States weren't exactly a loving democracy, ya know?
While old Pio Nono was penning his Christian Socialist Encyclicals with one hand, he was locking up political dissidents with the other ... and hanging more than a few! The Papacy gave up the Papal States only after a rather thorough military drubbing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.