Recently in IMMIGRATION

Category

Pope Benedict has now returned to the Vatican -- his visit to the United States was a wonderful experience to receive -- but I'd like to offer my individual reflections upon the issue of illegal immigration as raised by Pope Benedict, referred to him as "immigration" and "immigrants" and "their families."

I wondered often while listening to some of the statements by Pope Benedict why he was not touring Central America -- especially Mexico -- and emphasizing the wrongdoing of brutality many Mexicans/Central Americas inflict upon the laws and citizens of the United States.

I often also wondered this past week, as I have at many times past, why Latin American bishops do not instruct citizens in their respective congregations as to moral, chaste, honorable ethics and behaviors because that so many of the people from Central America leave their nations and enter and remain in the U.S. illegally and illicitly, engaging in a myriad of very morally wrong behaviors in light of Catholicism and certainly illegal acts in light of the laws of the U.S.A. (if not also amoral and immoral acts in light of our laws) is the issue, as to beliefs and contexts of immortal souls and Christian morality.

Instead, we receive the lectures from nations that produce a great deal of amoral, immoral and troubled people with troubled families -- people who bear children as tools for economic gain and without regard for their personal responsibility for the economic and moral liabilities involved, engage in sexual contact with children as soon as females are of child-bearing age (yet still children themselves), bear multiple children without regard for a dedicated family (or Christian) relationship with or often without Church involvement -- generally what I describe as individuals by the millions who engage in exceptionally irresponsible behaviors to the point of utter selfishness (and sin accordingly) that disregards all humane recognition of "human rights" and for purposes solely of ethnic and political motives.

Everyone always "needs" more. Mexico, for example, appears to do very little to next to nothing for it's poor citizens. Why do so many people from Mexico, from all of Central America, "need" to enter and use the U.S. illegally and illicitly? I do believe it is need that motivates them but it isn't the same need that the Church attempts to convince us here in the U.S. of as to why we must or have to accommodate the illigitimate, illicit behaviors by illegal aliens, inherent in their illegal immigration if nothing else (but their behaviors are compounded afterward, which I don't hear the Church addressing -- somehow it always comes back to the U.S. under some pressure to allow these illicit acts and amorality). And I see a lot of illegal aliens -- a LOT of them -- in the U.S. with a lot of money to spend. Many have new cars. They never seem to lack money for beer and fast food, cell phones, radios and big screen television sets...

No, the "need" that is motivating a lot of illegal immigration is the need to proliferate bad character and amorality, that includes a great deal of political amorality followed by political method replacment in regards to the U.S. as a democracy and as a sovereign nation. There is most decidedly a "need" to proliferate one ethnicity and replace other ethnciities and races, which is certainly not reflective nor indicative of a renewed soul as a Christian. It is, actually, quite a "lower order" behavior as it also is a "lower order" motivation.

Thus, many of these who are illegal aliens who also present as "Catholics" appear to be affiliated with the Church on socio-cultural terms without reflection in their individual lives, oftentimes, of what the Church holds as principles of faith and moral, spiritual requirements. The Church provides them a cultural meeting point, so to speak, that then can be used to rationalize ongoing amoralit and illigitimately, without regard for the Christian context. Because God demands charity, not works. If we are demanded upon to "love" or otherwise engage in "charity," the Christian context is absent. And if we steal, we violate even moreso what God commands.

So there is no basis in Christianity in my view to rationalize striking out directly or indirectly at anyone when it involves gratuitous rewards and supplements gratuitous, cruel, irresponsible acts.

Illegal aliens arrive in the U.S. without regard for our United States legal contexts and/or remain here similarly. These behaviors inflict, intentionally, real harm on the United States of America and in that, upon the citizens of this nation. Reducing wages and employment opportunities and conditions overall for U.S. citizens is not a friendly act, nor a conscientious one, nor does it indicate a thoughtful, considerate state of mind by the illegal aliens who are responsible for the detriment of our nation from so many aspects. Mexico, especially, has made this type of usery of the United States a form of government. It reflects an amoral culture, not a Christian one, not a Catholic one.

Hearing Pope Benedict and many Catholic bishops and priests -- an exceptionally liberal priest ("Father Edward Beck") just appeared on The O'Reilly Factor today, lecturing for amnesty in an accusatory tone because, as he says he feels, the U.S. has some "moral obligation" to accommodate "those suffering from economic hardship," that we "force people to go elsewhere to support their families" (as to citizens of other nations somehow being "forced to" arrive and remain in the U.S. illegally), to grant amnesty to "families already here" (irregardless of the negative impacts) and to disregard our laws and many other liabilities inorder to do that, without regard for what harms may be placed upon others in doing so.

It is difficult for me because I do know with certainty just how accommodating and generous our nation is as to immigrants and immigration (the legal kinds). There are many areas in the U.S. today where the majority of residents are not "native born" and many are not even citizens, nor here legally, and certainly don't speak English, don't want to speak English, don't have much regard for the U.S. and are exceptionally disrespectful to and about citizens, and, aside from the U.S. being in some need to accommodate "immigrants," I wonder where the responsibility is for non-citizens to respect citizens, for people from other nations to respect the United States, and why the Catholic Church is silent in these regards.

And if a person from another nation does not want their "family" broken-up, then they are certainly capable of not allowing such to happen. The importance of personal responsibility of illegal aliens, if and as they are in the U.S. illegally, is entirely absent from the message from the Church: if an illegal alien does not want their family divided, they can take their family with them and return to their native country. Better yet, they can remain there with their family and take up their grievances with their own government.

Certainly there is nothing in the Catholic Catechism that addresses unique responsibilities of the citizens of the United States -- nor to and about our government -- inorder to be Christian and maintain honorable participation in the Catholic Church. There are Christian instructions, there are Catholic traditions and understandings of faith and principles, but there are no specific requirements of the U.S.A. and citizens to act in some unique fashion inorder to be Christian and Catholic. That is, our nation and citizens are under no specialized customizatons that all Christians and Catholics otherwise are. Individuals are Catholic and Christian, or, they are not, and the terms are universal.

Our nation, however, does have unique requirements to be a citizen and to behave in observance, legitimately, of our laws. These are two distinct areas of moral observation, with the religious principles being, of course, of far greater reverence yet neither are disrespectable nor to be advised against inorder to be one or the other.

But there ARE areas in the Catholic Catechism, as also in the Bible as to Christianity (and even Judaism, that is, in both the New and the Old Testaments), as to charity and love of onesself and one's neighbor -- to briefly paraphrase the essential statements of accountability and responsibility with family and community -- and, love of self and others that can be said to come to bear in these areas of "immigration" emphasised by the Church, and by Pope Benedict. But the Catechism, nor the Bible, does not command (and therefore, require) anyone inorder to be faithful to Christ to disobey civic, legal requirements.

This priest that was guesting today earlier on O'Reilly rationalized his emphasis on amnesty for illegal aliens by way of suggesting our nation's laws or some of them were "not just." That, as he reprimanded, it was right to violate the laws or any law if it was "not just."

Which is anarchy from a position of civics, certainly the method that most criminal processes rely on inorder to engage in violations of our laws, when there's awareness of violations involved and a persistence to violate ensues. An individual makes an individual, moral and ethical choice to violate, and, when they do, the liabilities for their actions are theirs. Civilly and as a Christian, either or both.

So I was repelled by this particular priest's remarks. We are not called as Christians NOR as Catholics to NOT observe whatever civic laws, the requirements of the state, so to speak. And, to violate a law or laws because an individual defines them as "not just," but then to expect the violators to be regarded BY that legal process is...irrational.

It's circular, rationalizing thinking to expect and demand amnesty for illegal aliens because the legal requirements for legitimate entry into and/or residence in the U.S. are "not just," yet by way of amnesty be granted recognition under those very same laws, and what context that degree of rationalization about this particular issue remains not an aspect of Catholicism, but one of socio-political decision by an unnnamed author or process.

What I think is involved here, in all due respect, is that certain people like this particular priest on O'Reilly and more than a few bishops -- in the U.S. and in Central America -- are caught up in "churchiosity," so to speak, a way of life that is highly preoccupied with "religiousity" that then manufactures or bastardizes a religious context to rationalize wrong doing, irresponsibility, amorality, violations of laws, the whole scope of offenses that has beset our nation as presumed upon us largely by people from other nations without regard for the liabilities they create, or for the offenses they commit against us, this nation, this United States of America.

One aspect that bothered me in the Sunday Mass celebration from Yankee Stadium yesterday was the format of the Second Reading. The Mass was being celebrated in the English language with a few aspects recited in Latin. The Second Reading, however, was done by a female Hispanic in the Spanish language with an interjection that was rude -- it abruptly interjected the Spanish language into the Mass without regard or introduction -- and in rendition was presumptuous because the Reading referred to "the race" as to CHRISTIANS yet when read by this Hispanic woman, the expression was unduly emphasized with apparent bastardization to direct the expression toward Hispanics using this Spanish language format.

The Catholic Mass is celebrated in many languages but always by preannouncement: people know what Mass in what language they're attending and there's no exclusion by language to the general celebrants by suprise of alternative, unusual or unknown language. If a person who is from Germany feels more comfortable at Mass celebrated in the German language, they can seek out such a celebration of Mass if/as available. Same goes for Korean, Spanish, Italian, French and I'm sure many dialects in Africa, as from other nations, also, around our globe.

And yesterday's Yankee Stadium Mass was in English, in the U.S., begun in English, carried forward in English, with this one Reading sprung as interruption in Spanish, referring to "the race." It was hardly happenstance or accidental, is my point. That there were, later in the Mass, more than a few other languages making declarations of faith in the celebration was a noted aspect to the Mass, as it is also when the Pope reads his greetings in multiple, international languages, but the abrupt interjection of Spanish in that Reading alone was very unusual and certainly was not reflective of a casual plan.

So, as much as I loved and adored participating in the past week's visit and wonderful visit from and by Pope Benedict, what his visit has now brought more into the light is that the Church is, in fact, involved in aiding and abetting illegal immigration to the U.S. but especially doing so as to people from Latin countries.

The Church does not advise people to lie, cheat, steal, violate others, to be promiscuous, to forge, to be dishonest. But the Church is doing that by not chastising those who do; in other words, by surreptiously attempting to apply pressure to the U.S. to accommodate people from other nations who ARE engaging in these acts and not working to encourage these people to act morally and ethically in keeping with Christian principles of faith -- certainly in keeping with principles of faith as defined by Catholicism -- in doing so, the Church assumes a responsibility for these substantial and ongoing sins.

It was hugely commendable that Pope Benedict revealed a genuinely sorrowful heart (and mind, meaning, morally) as to accepting responsibility for the terrible sexual abuse of the (I hope by now) past by a small but greatly damaging percentage of priests (but priests no longer, I hope), but, we should all recall the conditions that existed in the Church during the dreadful years this abuse was occuring: there was an emphasis on accommodating and understanding (and "assisting") homosexuals, even as priests, in "accepting" and such and much rationalization about liabilities involved, if even recognition of liabilities at all.

That same environment, unfortunately, today appears to characterise much of the Church as to illegal immigration. Illegal aliens do not "simply" enter our nation illegally in defiance and disregard of our laws. They do so with intention (indicates poor moral and ethical character, despite the justifications, at least indicates a moral dilemma that should not go unaddressed), they then persevere in proliferating wrong doing afterward (fraud, stealth, cheating, lying, use of resources for political purposes, including sexual promiscuity and bearing children for political purposes, indicative of amorality and severe ethical compromises, as also utter selfishness that affects the lives of others in very negative fashion and by intention, at that), so illegal immigration is not a slight or easily justifiable act, nor are the myriad of behaviors that characterise the act afterward by illegal presence in this nation (or any other).

The Church is using a Christian context, in my view as a Catholic, to rationalize an ultimate result that is politically and perhaps plainly practically profitable for them, but what the result is remains the stuff of speculation.

What is not speculatable after this week is that the Church is engaged in a rationalization or usage process as to illegal immigration that serves to sink their ethical and moral credibility, just as the "sexual abuse scandal" nearly has.

Related:

POPE GENUFLECTS BEFORE THE UNITED NATIONS
...a meaningful series of remarks about Pope Benedict's speech before the United Nations, and, a column that poses many of my same questions

VIOLENCE IN BORDER AREAS OF MEXICO PROMPTS U.S. (STATE DEPARTMENT, TRAVEL) ALERT

MEXICAN POLICE, (MEXICAN) MARINES BEATING UP (CENTRAL AMERICAN) ILLEGAL ALIENS IN MEXICO
...not such a Catholic culture, in reality

WHEN THE POPE SPEAKS ABOUT HUMANITY, IS MEXICO LISTENING?

SOUTH AMERICA'S MOST TROUBLED BORDER
...South America's drug money funds violence in South and Central America

This headline may be a bit harsh but so are the stakes in this Election 2008.

I am not a fan of Mike Huckabee for a number of policy and track-record issues, just as I am not a fan of Obama, Hillary and Edwards, et al. for similar reasons: when they are evaluated as to what their positions on issues are and how they have used public office to-date, they don't meet my expectations and requirements as a voter and I can't (and don't) support them. Same goes for McCain. And to a great degree, also as to Giuliani.

Which is why I do support Romney, Thompson and Hunter: they're the only candidates in the running who represent -- believably -- most of the important issues most important to me.

These three supported candidates -- Romney, Thompson and Hunter -- also disappoint me in some areas but overall, the issues that I place as higher priorities for the Presidency are most met by Romney, Thompson and Hunter. Comparatively, the other candidates (in both parties) disappoint me, fail to fulfill even my basic requirements, or, in some cases, utterly contradict and oppose even the few issues I regard as the most important ones.

But as to Huckabee, he's the guy "on the right," so-called, with the affable personality, that "likable" factor and polished ease with public speaking that draws people in socially. Thus, many people -- me included -- have been willing to listen to what he has to say, watch how he behaves in his campaign, watch what the people he's aligned with as a campaign organization do and why. That he speaks out as a Christian is, has been, of course, up to recently, a very appealing and supportable aspect to his candidacy.

So here we go, to the contrary: Huckabee's lost my good faith in his good faith as a politician, what with the recent emergence by Huckabee as victim.

First there was the "I'm being attaaacked" erosion point, followed by the negative "attack" campaigning ("I'm being attaaacked [and therefore I'm attacking]"), which very much offended my sense of what should and should not be among Republican candidates. We all saw what happened in the last Election when the Democrats went into this destructive personality territory, and it's just a failed method altogether, so to see Huckabee engaging in this was both surprising ("how can he be so foolish") and off-putting ("how can he be so offensive and insensitive").

I'm no Mormon but I find Huckabee's reliance on a certain method of speak about who is and who isn't "a real Christian" -- in this context -- to be either nonsense or cruel or both. As a Protestant minister, I'd think it was relevant to a sermon that he'd discuss his perceptions about Christian theology, but as a politician, him functioning as Protestant minister sermonizing does not only not work, it is offensive and creates an air of doubt about Huckabee as to his intelligence and intents.

I have to ask: is he aware that he's running for the Presidency or is he not? It's a reasonable question when presented with a candidate who appears to blur the lines and confuse the context, such as has Huckabee, in this particular regard and as he has focused the negativity (the "attack" ads) on Romney as Mormon (and as "not a real Christian" or so many affiliated with his campaign express -- and it leads me to consider that Huckabee is indeed, himself saying these same things among more private appearances, such as "faith based" supporters not covered by the media -- again, a blurring of the lines of what Huckabee's perceptions are as to what the job is he's seeking and how).

And while I very much appreciate any candidate sharing what their religious beliefs are -- it's important to have a frame of reference on any candidate inorder to recognize what influences their moral character, so it's even fair to ask a candidate to explain what his theological beliefs are, partiucularly in relationship with the Presidency -- I find the Huckabee and campaign emphasis from an antagonistic point as to their Christianity to be at the expense of the Christianity of others. Which leads me to wonder just what Huckabee and supporters mean by Christianity, since they don't think the rest of us know what it is and they're selecting out political opponents to criticise them on this basis...for the Presidency, not for their respective Protestant groups as ministers

After I read earlier today what Ed Rollins (hired on by Huckabee to manage Huckabee's campaign) had to say about Romney -- that he'd "like to bash his teeth in" -- it was too much to even continue to consider Huckabee as remotely "nice guy" material because whether or whether or not Rollins is responsible for this particular "attack" advertising upon Romney, Huckabee's the candidate and they're both chalking one another up to be a bad message.

"A bad message" as in, "not right."

I agree with Rush Limbaugh -- about Huckabee, about McCain and certainly about Hillary, to state the obvious -- and that is that Huckabee is "not a conservative."

I have long said that the candidate who wins my vote of confidence in '08 for the Presidency, as also my standard of voting for all public office otherwise, is the candidate who has a proven and reliable record on the issues of discouraging if not discontinuing illegal immigration as also all areas of immigration enforcement -- those who have participated in advancing amnesty for illegal aliens, aided foreign governments in exploiting the U.S. taxpayers via foreign illegal alien populations in the U.S., enabling illegals to gain access to and use taxpayer-paid social services in the U.S., all of these are no-vote legacies as to my vote.

The only candidates speaking frankly about these issues are Romney, Thompson and Hunter. The rest -- they're using the same tired phrases and terms they appear to think works well politically while their track records (particularly McCain's, Huckabee's and Giuliani's, among the Republican candidates) reveal a dedication to servicing the problem/s if not opposing nearly all solutions.

Us voters continue to express these perspectives and the politicians in both parties continue to try to run contrary to these perspectives and the voters notice. Some of these politicians are supported by the interests that fuel illegal immigration, or, they "retire". Or, in Huckabee's, McCain's and Giuliani's case, they lose.

From the overwhelming read on the internet and heard from broadcast opinions, I'm among the very, very few who found the Iowa GOP debate from last week to be tolerable, perhaps even pleasant.

It's somewhat school-marmish of me to even use terms like that ("tolerable" and "pleasant") in reference to the Iowa event, but I think the source of that is, by this stage of events, that my expectations are lowered: after the Miami-Spanish-language Appeasement Experience, my expectations for these candidate debates has plummeted -- at least as to the standards and conditions upon which they've been produced up to this point -- so by the time the Iowa GOP debate occured, I just felt, well, "fine, they were pleasant enough and no one yelled at anyone else and the moderator didn't bat her eyelashes or otherwise behave too terribly, so, well, fine..."

Which in and of itself is a low point of my expectations to have to admit (my having found the Iowa GOP Debate tolerable). It was a case of degrees and comparisons-within-a-lowered-standard-of-media-produced-"debates" and since during the Iowa production, there was no howling or yuck-yuck-yucking from Hillary involved (maybe Alan Keyes' odd appearance at Iowa was somewhat suggestive of Hillary's yucking), I took the Iowa production in stride as a reasonably acceptable television broadcast -- at least far above what occurred in Miami -- and that is, yet another lowered-standard, highly restricted and opinionated Liberal charade intended to exclude, manipulate and marginalize Republicans.

Yet in spite of that, the GOP Presidential candidates (excluding Keyes and perhaps Paul, also) handled the format as best as could be expected: pleasantly and intelligently. I objected to the Miami debate due to the "Spanish-language" nonsense, but not as to what the GOP candidates had to say at that debate -- they, again, did very well that night on what issues they addressed but I agree with Tancredo that the event itself was pandering.

BUT, I did find it critical that Iowa's Liberal media organizers opted to exclude from the debate two of the top-most significant issues of concern to most voting Conservatives -- immigration/border security and national security -- and I now wonder in retrospect what that moderator would have done had any one candidate among the GOP present there [omitting Alan Keyes] raised either or both issues.

My conclusion after reading many commentaries and critiques of the Iowa Liberal Media GOP production was that these Presidential candidate debates need to be wrangled out of the hands of the media, and since the media involved, so far, involved has been of the Liberal kind, there should either be a requirement that a Conservative media host a series of Presidential debates; if not, then, there should be no media allowed to produce these highly biased and Liberally claustrophobic works that so far, to date, have appeared in 2007.

My suggestion: get the GOP Presidential candidates in some venue where they're asked issues important to Conservatives, in a realistic fashion -- that'd exclude most Talking Heads right there from the Liberal media -- and let the Democrat candidates be held responsible to the same audience and venue because so far, what these ongoing debates have been is extremely suppressed by the demands by Democrats for a highly modulated, Liberally biased low-ceiling series of events. It's no wonder the Democrats won't appear on FOX News: because they'd be out of their comfort zone of control and be asked actual questions without the network kissing their pinkies.

I'd prefer to see the GOP candidates being questioned on issues important to voting Conservatives because, so far, I've seen a lot of Republicans answering Democrat's questions on Democrat's terms.

But as to Iowa, and the moderator's request if not demand for a "hand show," I sure did enjoy Fred Thompson's confrontation of that ridiculous moment. And from the sound of the audience response that followed -- and a lot of comments on the internet since -- a whole lot of Conservative voters did, too. The episode was quintessential Liberal media at it's worst and Thompson at his best.

Thus, my new favorite phrase is:

Romney / Thompson / '08.