Government finally admits: Immigration IS placing huge strain on Britain

[BT]

What is it we are doing that you think is not defensible?

Specific examples and documentation would be helpful.

[sirs]

But in trying to understand, I asked questions anyway. Three times. And you've refused to answer apparently because you've claimed victory over something that was never in question.

On the contrary, the point about me supposedly not supporting immigration has been the cornerstone of your latest "agree with me rant".  Because I don't support the Prince view, let any & everyone in, regardless, is tantamount to not wanting anyone in.  sirs really, by way of what he advocates, doesn't want anyone to immigrate to to the U.S.  Until you have figured the boil of a flaw to that thinking, I see no reason to entertain your questions

I honestly doubt that Sirs understands the complexities and difficulties involved in people from certain countries becoming legal citizens of the United States. That people from some countries have a quicker process than people from other countries.

And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue

Yelling LEGAL IMMIGRATION! is just a way to hide and offer no solutions. Or if one truly understands it then it is something far more dubious.

I've offered a plethora of suggestions.  They just don't happen to coincide with anything that supports a mass influx of immigrants

The same people yelled LEGAL SEGREGATION! in the 50's or they winked right back when Barry Goldwater said that the Civil Rights Act was good, but not constitutional. Or it is the same people who yelled JEDEM DAS SEINE! in 1930's Germany. Both perfectly fine phrases for their time...for those who chose not to care about what they really meant.

Ahh, now it's the Tee response to calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a racist and/or fascist.  Welcome to the lower wrung of debate, Js     

[_JS]

Statement of Most Reverend William Skylstad
President, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops
On Comprehensive Immigration Reform
June 15, 2006

Link

The U.S. Catholic bishops acknowledge that immigration is an emotional and challenging issue which has engaged the American public, including members of the Catholic faithful. We have heard from Catholics and others of good will who both agree and disagree with us on how best to respond to the immigration crisis our nation faces today.

Each day in our parishes, social services programs, hospitals, and schools we witness the human consequences of an immigration system which is seriously flawed: families are divided, migrants are exploited and abused by smugglers and human traffickers, and, in some cases, men, women and children who attempt to come here in search of a better life perish in the American desert and on the seas.

Because of these realities, we believe that the status quo is morally unacceptable and must be changed. Since our nation?s immigration policy does impact the basic dignity and life of the human person, it needs to be reformed urgently to uphold human dignity and to protect human life.

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), we will continue to work with Congress and the President to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation consistent with these principles. In the end, our immigration laws should be just and humane and reflect the values?fairness, opportunity, and compassion?upon which our nation, a nation of immigrants, was built.

Bishops Call For Comprehensive Immigration Reform; Urge Respect For The Dignity And Contributions Of Immigrants

Link

LOS ANGELES (June 14, 2006)? Legislative debates over how to restructure the nation?s immigration system should approach any policy change as a moral issue that protects the dignity of all immigrants, a panel of bishops said today at a press conference held during their national meeting.

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, CA; Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of San Bernardino, CA.; Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, NY; Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, AZ and Auxiliary Bishop Jaime Soto of Orange, CA. called on congressional leaders to enact comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the root causes of migration and creates an earned path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

Cardinal Mahony described the current immigration system as ?morally unacceptable because it accepts the labor and taxes of millions of workers without offering them the protection of the law.?

?At the same time, we scapegoat these newcomers for our social ills and use them as rhetorical targets for political purposes,? Cardinal Mahony said. ?While the immigration debate to date has focused on the economic, legal, and social/cultural aspects of the issue, it is ultimately a humanitarian, and moral, issue.?

Bishop Gerald R. Barnes, the Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops? Committee on Migration, said the bishops have a ?long history of advocating for just and fair immigration laws,? and have concluded that the current immigration system is ?seriously flawed with respect to the treatment of immigrants and does not serve the common good of our nation.?

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, the Chairman of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Board of Directors, highlighted several concerns the bishops have about recent congressional action on immigration that he hoped would be corrected in conference committee. ?For example, we understand the logic behind the three-tiered system included in the Senate bill, but believe it might be difficult to administer and that it unfairly leaves behind many who may be eligible,? Bishop DiMarzio said. ?For those persons who have been here two years or less, we are fearful that the requirement to return home and come back through a temporary worker program is unrealistic in that many would not participate and would remain in the shadows.?

Bishops are meeting in Los Angeles June 15-17 for the spring meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Attached are the complete statements given by Cardinal Roger Mahony, Bishop Gerald R. Barnes and Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio.


Statement of His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony

I would like to thank Bishop Barnes for his kind invitation to join the Committee on Migration and the CLINIC board today for this important press conference.

As you have heard, the issue of immigration reform is an important one for the U.S. Catholic bishops as well as our nation. We have specific solutions to the immigration crisis we face in our nation.

However, some in the Catholic community and in the public square generally have asked why the issue is important and why the church is so involved and compelled to speak out on it. I would like to respond, respectfully, to those who question our involvement and who may disagree with our message.

Why are we involved? Fundamentally it is because it is our Gospel mandate, our instruction from our Savior to ?welcome the stranger.? In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ teaches us that salvation is gained by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and welcoming the stranger, for ?what you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done unto me.? He teaches us in the parable of the Good Samaritan that we must help all of our fellow human beings, even though they may be different from us in many respects.

We also are involved because we see each day in our dioceses, parishes, social service programs, hospitals, and schools increased suffering because families are separated and persons are forced to live on the margins of society. In border states such as California, we see persons exploited by smugglers and men, women, and children dying in the desert. This suffering must end.

We also see an immigration system which is morally unacceptable because it accepts the labor and taxes of millions of workers without offering them the protection of the law. At the same time, we scapegoat these newcomers for our social ills and use them as rhetorical targets for political purposes.

While the immigration debate to date has focused on the economic, legal, and social/cultural aspects of the issue, it is ultimately a humanitarian, and moral, issue.

It is therefore incumbent upon our elected officials, including Catholics, to carefully scrutinize these laws so as to serve basic human dignity and protect human life. Laws and policies which infringe upon dignity and harm human life are wrong and, as a moral matter, should be rebuffed or repealed.

As Bishop Barnes stated, our nation has an opportunity to make history at this moment by reforming the system comprehensively in a humane manner. We should not let this moment pass. This must include a workable and viable path to citizenship for the undocumented, a temporary worker program which protects the rights of all workers, family reunification, and enforcement measures which are humane. I believe that the majority of Catholics, as well as the public, support this recipe.

Thank you.


Statement of Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

Thank you, Bishop Barnes, for including me in this event.

I would like to point out for you some of our concerns we have about what Congress has done to date which we hope will be corrected in the conference committee.

As Bishop Barnes stated, we would like to see a program which allows the undocumented to earn citizenship to be both workable and viable. In other words, we do not want to see a formula which causes confusion, inefficiencies, and could lead to fraud. We also do not want to see a program which is not easily implemented.

For example, we understand the logic behind the three-tiered system included in the Senate bill, but believe it might be difficult to administer and that it unfairly leaves behind many who may be eligible. For those persons who have been here two years or less, we are fearful that the requirement to return home and come back through a temporary worker program is unrealistic, in that many would not participate and would remain in the shadows. For those here from 2-5 years, we would like to see more detail on the requirement to return and ?touch base,? as it has been described.

In short, we would like to see a path to citizenship which treats all in a similar way but allows those who have been here longer priority in the system, behind those already in line.

As for a temporary worker program, we feel strongly that a self-petitioning mechanism must be included in any program?in other words, persons should be allowed to apply for a green card on their own and not be dependent on an employer to do it for them. In addition, we would like to see worker protections strengthened in the bill.

In the enforcement area, we, of course, have concerns about the erection of hundreds of miles of fencing along our southern border. We do not believe it will deter migrants from attempting to enter and may lead them into more perilous routes. Legal avenues should help relieve the pressure on the border.

We also have concerns about how asylum seekers and refugees are treated in these bills. The expansion of expedited removal is of concern, as well as provisions which would criminalize asylum seekers for using false documents to enter the country.

In addition, due process protections are removed in many cases, for both legal immigrants and asylum seekers. Mandatory detention along our border could lead to the separation of families and to the incarceration of vulnerable groups, such as trafficking victims, victims of domestic violence, and children. The authorization of local law enforcement to enforce immigration law takes away from the ability of those local authorities to apprehend real criminals and destroy trust between local police and immigrant communities.

Finally, we urge House and Senate leaders, as well as the White House, to carefully consider the tools available for implementing this bill. US Citizenship and Immigration Services should be provided the necessary funding and personnel to implement this program efficiently. Community groups and nonprofit groups who interface with migrants and their families should be included in this implementation.

As has been stated, we believe this is an historic opportunity to correct our flawed immigration system. We must get it right and not make the mistakes of the past.

Thank you.

Statement of Bishop Barnes

I welcome you to this press event on behalf of the USCCB Committee on Migration and the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. I am joined by Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, bishop of Brooklyn and chairman of CLINIC and members of both committees?Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson and Bishop Jaime Soto of Orange. I would also welcome His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony, the host of the bishops? meeting this week and the archbishop of Los Angeles.

Our nation stands at a critical moment. Our congressional leaders and the president have the opportunity to enact historic immigration reform legislation before the end of the year. We urge them to seize this moment and enact legislation which is comprehensive and which provides an earned path to citizenship for the undocumented population in this country.

Over the past twelve years, our government has spent over $25 billion on enforcement of our border. During the same period, the number of undocumented in the nation has nearly doubled. Tragically, nearly 3000 migrants have perished in the deserts of the American Southwest at the same time.

It is clear that an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform has failed and that our country needs a more diversified approach. The House of Representatives passed a border security bill in December which helped start the legislative process and the Senate has recently passed a bill which more comprehensively addresses the immigration crisis. While the Senate bill contains some harmful provisions, we believe it contains the essential elements necessary to bring justice to immigrants, including a path to citizenship for the undocumented and changes to our employment and family-based immigration systems.

As both the House and Senate prepare to reconcile these two bills, we urge them to agree to a bill which improves upon what both chambers have done. Any bill reported by a conference committee should contain a path to citizenship, a temporary worker program, family-based immigration reform which reduces backlogs. It also should restore basic due process protections for immigrants and refrain from criminalizing immigrants and those who assist them with their basic needs.

As bishops, we understand that the immigration issue is an emotional one and that Catholics and others in the debate disagree with our proposed solution to the immigration crisis. We will continue to engage with those who disagree and dialogue with them. However, we strongly feel that only a comprehensive approach to this problem will not only serve the best interests of our nation but also protect the basic human dignity and human life of the migrant.

We call upon Congress to put aside partisan differences and enact a bill which repairs a seriously flawed immigration system before adjournment for the year.

May 15, 2006

Link

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I welcome tonight?s presidential address to the nation on the need to reform our immigration system. It is important that the president highlight this issue to the American people as one of urgent national priority. For several years now, the U.S. bishops have urged our elected officials to address our nation?s immigration crisis in a just, humane, and comprehensive manner.

The Catholic Church supports the right of a sovereign nation to control its border. As we have stated in the past, however, an enforcement-only approach to this crisis will not solve the problem of illegal immigration.

Over the past ten to twelve years, our nation has spent billions of dollars on border enforcement and has tripled the number of Border Patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border. Yet, our nation?s immigration system, including its legal channels for entering the country, remain woefully antiquated and ill-suited to address today?s migration phenomenon. Consequently, during the same period that border enforcement has grown, the number of undocumented in our nation has doubled and the number of deaths of migrants in the desert has risen sharply.

News reports indicate that President Bush will use the speech to announce the authorization of the use of National Guard troops along the U.S.-Mexico border. I am concerned about the introduction of military personnel because there has not been an adequate public discussion about its implications, especially for the treatment of migrants.

The U.S. Bishops have stated consistently that the real solution to the immigration crisis lies in a comprehensive approach to the problem. This approach must include a long-term strategy to address the root causes of flight, such as combating poverty in sending countries. It also must include comprehensive reform of our nation?s immigration laws which features an opportunity to earn citizenship for the undocumented in our country and the creation of legal avenues for migration for migrants to work and join families in a safe, orderly, and humane manner. We are hopeful that the president also will commit himself to these elements as part of a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Our nation stands at a critical juncture in her history. As a nation of immigrants, we must look back at our history and recognize that America was founded and built by immigrants. Working together, we can find a humane solution to the immigration crisis which upholds our national values and preserves human life and human dignity.

A Valedictorian without a Visa

[_JS]

And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. If you know how the sysytem really works, and still support it - then you enter into the last paragraph of my statement. Hiding behind legalism is easy. You're simply the Levite Priest you doesn't want to get his hands bloody by helping the brutalised man on the side of the road.

[sirs]

And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt   

[Christians4LessGvt]

"who doesn't agree with you a racist"

BINGO

[_JS]

And again, Js with the knee jerk I'm smarter than you response with how sirs just doesn't understand the complexities of the issue

Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt   

*sigh*

If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote.

Or wallow in self-pity. Doesn't make a big difference to me either way.

[sirs]

Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt   

If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote.  Or wallow in self-pity.

I took option A, and noted precisely the implication, thank you very much.  But don't let it bother you, it's just disappointing to see you delve down into the levels of debate ususally limited to Tee & knute

[_JS]

Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt   

If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote.  Or wallow in self-pity.

I took option A, and noted precisely the implication, thank you very much.  But don't let it bother you, it's just disappointing to see you delve down into the levels of debate ususally limited to Tee & knute

Whatever floats your boat.

Hide behind the legalism all you like.

I've seen some serious racism in this thread, and you certainly have not distanced yourself from it.

[BT]

What part of current law do you find morally indefensible? Are quotas indefensible? How about restrictions on criminals? Or health requirements?

Any of those a problem?

[sirs]

Yea, implying I'm a dumb fascist racist is so much like giving me the benefit of the doubt.  I'll have to remember that next time I need to give you the benefit of the doubt   

If you take the victims card away for a minute and read what I said, you can see that the above interpretation is not what I wrote.  Or wallow in self-pity.

I took option A, and noted precisely the implication, thank you very much.  But don't let it bother you, it's just disappointing to see you delve down into the levels of debate ususally limited to Tee & knute

I've seen some serious racism in this thread, and you certainly have not distanced yourself from it.

Thank you for validating my point     

[_JS]

What part of current law do you find morally indefensible? Are quotas indefensible? How about restrictions on criminals? Or health requirements?

Any of those a problem?

Quotas, I think these are more economically indefensible than morally.

The massive waiting periods for citizenship, sometimes a dozen or more years depending upon the country is reprehensible. This includes splitting of families.

[BT]

Quotas, I think these are more economically indefensible than morally.

Why?

The massive waiting periods for citizenship, sometimes a dozen or more years depending upon the country is reprehensible. This includes splitting of families.

Let's focus on the US. Why are waiting periods indefensible?

[_JS]

Why?

Quotas assume that the government can predict the needs of the labor market. The proof that this is not true is rather obvious.

Let's focus on the US. Why are waiting periods indefensible?

They are not equal across nations. They are far too long for many nations. They split families.

[BT]

They are not equal across nations. They are far too long for many nations. They split families.

What does tha have to do with US law?

Quotas assume that the government can predict the needs of the labor market. The proof that this is not true is rather obvious.

Is immigration primarily driven by economics.