Question: What kind of immigration reform do the bishops want exactly? Amnesty? Open borders?
Answer: Neither. The U.S. bishops’ prescription for mending our broken system is to bring the 11 million undocumented out of the shadows, register them with the government, require them to pay a fine and any taxes owed, and require them to learn English and work as they wait in the back of the line for a chance for citizenship. This is not “amnesty,” which is generally defined as granting a benefit without anything in return.
I could live with that, but I would like to see the Bishops to do the following:
1) As Bishop Slattery did a few days ago: they should demand complete security on the border. No one gets in without permission. Period.
2) A clear admission that illegal means illegal. I would like the bishops to admit that, at least in normal circumstances, that it is morally wrong to violate laws established for the common good.
3) The bishops should denounce welfare fraud, drug trafficing and all the other crimes commonly associated with illegal aliens and explicitly acknowledge that they are crimes ASSOCIATED with illegal immigration.
4) The bishops should also demand reforms in Mexico. Period. The Bishops should denounce the anti-clerical, leftist establishment in Mexico that has erected an oligarchy that conspires to maintain a strangle hold on resources, capital and advancement in Mexico.
5) The bishops should insist all immigrants learn English and assimilate to American culture in general.
6) The bishops should actively work to prevent Catholic immigrants from being co-opted into the pro-abort Democratic Party because it and its policies work against Christianity and specifically promote the murder of children.
Answer: Neither. The U.S. bishops’ prescription for mending our broken system is to bring the 11 million undocumented out of the shadows, register them with the government, require them to pay a fine and any taxes owed, and require them to learn English and work as they wait in the back of the line for a chance for citizenship. This is not “amnesty,” which is generally defined as granting a benefit without anything in return.
Pure sophistry. This is amnesty. Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay and work here is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty alone would be $2.6 trillion. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.
Definition: Amnesty, from the same Greek root as "amnesia," forgives past crimes and removes them from the record for future purposes. In the context of immigration, amnesty is commonly defined as granting legal status to a group of individuals unlawfully present in a country. It overlooks the alien's illegal entry and ongoing illegal presence and creates a new legal status that allows the recipient to live and work in the country.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The textbook example of an amnesty. The 1986 law's path to citizenship was not automatic. The legislation stipulated several requirements to receive amnesty, including payment of application fees, acquisition of English-language skills, understanding of American civics, a medical exam, and registration for military service. Individuals convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible. No one disputes that this act provided amnesty. Supporters said it would be a “one-time” amnesty. It was estimated that one million would apply, but the true number turned out to be 2.7 million.
Here is MY tough question for them:
“Why stop at amnesty for 11,000,000 illegal immigrants? Aren’t there hundreds of millions who want to find work and earn a ‘living wage’? Why not bring them ALL in to America? Or why not have America pay them all a ‘living wage’ to stay out? Surely a country that borrowed 1,400 BILLION this year alone could borrow 5,000 BILLION from somewhere?
or,
Why does the Catholic Church support MEXICAN illegal immigration? Isn’t it aware that Filipinos and poor people all over the world want to come? Couldn’t it, as a ‘global organization’ sponsor ships to bring in millions of Filipinos and Chinese so that THEY could also earn a ‘living wage’? Why should Mexicans get in free, while others wait?