What? Me blog?

As I understand Arizona's immigration law, it is more-or-less a codification of federal law and an attempt to actually enforce laws that the Feds are simply not enforcing. I sympathize completely with what Arizona is doing. I wish more states would adopt such a law. Better yet, I wish the pandercrats in Washingon would actually enforce the law. Good luck with that. I suspect the only way that would happen would be if the migrants were white libertarians and/or lower-middle class Republicans.

FWIW, one of my grandparents was a naturalized citizen (German by way of the Ukraine) and my wife is Hispanic. Her grandparents were also naturalized. I know why immigrants come and I do not object to their presence so long as they are here legally and they behave themselves. If and when they become naturalized citizens, I will welcome them and their children as such.

Charity does not demand that we let everyone into the US who wants in. Just as the Church does not give the Eucharist to every Tom, Pablo and Ivan that walks in the door - they are supposed to be one of us - and while we can and do welcome them, there is a process they have to go through to qualify as "one of us." You know - RCIA, baptism, confirmation and all that legalistic stuff? Even a cradle Catholic has to be reconciled to the Church before he can receive. Why some of the bishops and priests insist that we follow a national policy that the Church doesn't practice herself is beyond me.

True charity would dictate that we insist the Mexican and other Central American governments do something about the sorry states of affairs in their own countries and desist from depending on the US to do what they should be doing for their own citizens. Common sense dictates that we not allow people in who want to destabilize or overthrow our government.

And, really, if the place you are migrating from is so bad, why in the world would you want to recreate in the US the conditions of the hellholes you came from? Californians go home!

No, wait...

The politician who proposes the following is going to get strong consideration for my vote:

1. Build the fence. An open border policy is simply insane. It's no more rational than leaving your door unlocked. Simple folk looking for a better life and willing to work aren't the only people crossing that wide-open border, and more than a few of them are dangerous.

2. Amend the laws on citzenship to exclude children born of non-naturalized citizens.

3. Offer guest visas to those already here. AFTER A REASONABLE TIME, deport those we find who do not have one. Deport those who should not be here (criminals, etc) immediately.

4. Offer permanent visas to those who qualify.

5. Let those who wish to become citizens do so when they have met the criteria.

6. Fine or shut down the employers who hire them.

7. Immediate execution by burning at the stake of race-baiting, pandering politicians and lawyers.*

I'm not asking for a lily-white America. I am demanding that our immigration policy at least be coherent. Illegal immigrants are here. We need to treat them as human beings and take care of them as well as we are able and deport them as fast as is humanely practical if they do not deserve to be here.

*Wishful thinking, I know.


I edited and enlarged this from an earlier post. I daresay I'll be able to trot it out annually with only minor changes, as nothing much will change - except most likely for the worse.

Labels: immigration

****
While sitting in the local McDonald's over breakfast one Sunday morning with my Mexican-American wife. I overheard a snippet of conversation mocking Spanish speakers, another make disparaging references to Hispanics and yet another droppng the "n" bomb in reference to Blacks. I was embarassed by the blatant disregard shown for the people around them by the ill-mannered blockheads. I can only imagine what my wife must have felt, although she didn't say anything; I know how it made me feel.

The following is adapted from a short lecture I gave to high school juniors and seniors in CCD.

“Much of the current population of the US is immigrant. Best estimates are that some 13-14% - 40 million people - of the current population is immigrant. All parts of the country have been affected by this phenomenon, although some regions more than others. Memphis’s population, for instance, has been estimated as high as 31% immigrant and Savannah 21%. Far heavier proportions of the influx have affected the Middle West; Minnesota and Wisconsin, in particular, have had heavy immigrant influxes, leading to references to the area as Little Mexico.

While the reaction of native born Americans (not Amerinds) to this wave of foreign settlement has been varied, there has been some violence and persecution and inevitable results in the field of politics. Immigrants have been welcomed en masse in some states, like Wisconsin – to the point of allowing non-citizens to vote. Other states, like Kentucky, have been less eager to welcome them, even denying the vote to naturalized citizens.

The thronging immigrants are not only different in language and appearance from native born Americans, but their outlook and social customs are much different. Many of the immigrants are Roman Catholic, further complicating assimilation with the Protestant majority. Of the various anti–Catholic and anti-foreign organizations is the American party, which has gained control of local offices in Maryland and in New Orleans. The legislature is predominately Republican and Democrat, but many legislators are sympathetic to the American Party cause, and many mainstream candidates for president are also affiliated with the American party. An ex-President of the US has actually been nominated, and accepted that nomination, for President.

One of the greatest sources of embarrassment to leaders of the major parties is the necessity for taking a stand one way or the other for or against nativist policies; however, the need of business and the military, coupled with a low birthrate among more affluent Anglo-Americans, requires a pool of labor sufficient to meet the demands of both, and immigrants are the most obvious source of labor. To this end, the sitting President of the US has requested that due to the shortage of labor, governmental encouragement of immigration was necessary, whereupon Congress has passed laws to that effect.

While many aliens have been advanced on the road to citizenship through various amnesty programs, and others have entered the Armed Forces as aliens, most immigrants have been unorganized and working for lower wages than their native counterparts and even though the minimum wages has been rising – if, indeed, the immigrant workers are paid the official rate – the cost of living has increased even faster. There has been much friction between immigrants and natives in part because the natives believe - with some justification - that immigrants are holding wages down. There have been demonstrations for and against immigrants and even some violence.”

Now, before we continue I’m going to clue you in on a little secret. The foregoing was basically a paraphrase of a 47 year old book* about conditions that led up to the Civil War, mainly the period between 1850 and 1860. I tweaked the numbers based on the percentages and changed the immigrant problem from Scandinavian, German and Irish to Mexican. This is not the first time the nation has had to deal with massive immigration. Catholic teaching tells us that immigrants are human beings, and if we haven’t learned anything else this semester so far, I hope we’ve learned how we should regard other human beings made in the image of God.

In The Compendium of the Social Gospel of the Church, we are
taught:

297. Immigration can be a resource for development rather than an obstacle to it. In the modern world, where there are still grave inequalities between rich countries and poor countries, and where advances in communications quickly reduce distances, the immigration of people looking for a better life is on the increase. These people come from less privileged areas of the earth and their arrival in developed countries is often perceived as a threat to the high levels of well-being achieved thanks to decades of economic growth. In most cases, however, immigrants fill a labour need which would otherwise remain unfilled in
sectors and territories where the local workforce is insufficient or unwilling to engage in the work in question.

298. Institutions in host countries must keep careful watch to prevent
the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights that are to be guaranteed to all without discrimination. Regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance is one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity. Immigrants are to be received as persons and helped, together with their families, to become a part of societal life. In this context, the right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted. At the same time, conditions that foster increased work opportunities in people's place of origin are to be promoted as much as possible.

I have written on this before. True charity would dictate that we insist the Mexican and other Central American governments do something about the sorry states of affairs in their own country and desist from depending on the US to do what they should be doing for their own citizens. Also I would reiterate that, and this is my opinion, charity does not demand that we let everyone in who wants in. They should at minimum wish to become one of us, and while we can and do welcome them, there is a process they have to go through to qualify as "one of us."

Again, this is not the first time that the U.S. has had to assimilate large numbers of immigrants who spoke different languages and had different religions and customs. One need only take a drive to Southern Indiana and see the towns and churches built by German immigrants. From place names to surnames to festivals and businesses that recognize and celebrate German heritage, their presence is indelible. Likewise, Irish, Italians, Poles and Greeks have contributed to the wonderful tapestry that is the United States.

It is a matter of fact that all parts of the world have belonged to someone other than the current occupiers at one time or another. Many conveniently forget that our Mexican-American brothers and sisters were already living in territories extorted from Mexico during the settling of Texas by Anglo emigrants that saw no need to assimilate - and their subsequent rebellion against rightful Mexican authority. As a result of the Mexican-American war of 1846, even more Spanish speaking people were added to the population of the U.S.

The "solution" to the problem of immigration is as simple as it is politically unpalatable for the panderers in Washington:

• Drastically reduce access to social services for non-citizens. **
• Amend immigration laws to eliminate the granting of citizenship to children born of non-citizens.
• Set a coherent immigration policy with realistic quotas and MANAGE THE BORDERS with Mexico and Canada.

States and municipalities are limited by federal law as to what they can do; immigration is one of the areas for which the federal government is legitimately responsible, although it's no surprise the feds have screwed it up. Municipalities can enforce local codes and laws, as long as it's done universally. Locals can't enforce residency rules against a houseful of immigrants and ignore the natives next door who are in violation of the same code, for example.

Given the current political climate, I suppose it's too much to ask of the federal government to actually do it's job, and small town mayors and councils are ill-equipped to handle the problem. Demogoguery replaces reason and so nothing much changes, except for the worse. It takes an uncommonly brave politician to take on the problems at the local level.

I guess I could have made a scene in the restaurant by correcting the boorish oafs. In only one instance was I reasonably sure I knew who had said what, and I don't make a habit of upbraiding complete strangers based on overheard conversations. I think adressing the situation in class or here is more productive.

* The Civil War and Reconstruction by James G. Randall and revised by David Donald (2nd ed, 1961)

**While we're at it, drastically reduce access to services for everyone else, too!

Labels: immigration

****

...doesn't roll of the tongue quite as the Clash would have snarled "London Calling," but Christopher Hitchens, in an article for Vanity Fair, has a problem with multiculturalism in Merrie Olde England:

...59 percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under British law rather than Shari'a; 28 percent would choose Shari'a. But among those 55 and older, only 17 percent prefer Shari'a, whereas in the 16-to-24 age group the figure rises to 37 percent. Almost exactly the same proportions apply when the question is whether or not a Muslim who converts to another faith should be put to death …

Hmmm? Just a guess: The proportion of Shari'a proponents will likely increase as the old folks shuck this mortal coil.

...you can't be multicultural and preach murderous loathing of Jews, Britain's oldest and most successful (and most consistently anti-racist) minority. And you can't be multicultural and preach equally homicidal hatred of India, Britain's most important ally and friend after the United States. My colleague Henry Porter sat me down in his West London home and made me watch a documentary that he thought had received far too little attention when shown on Britain's Channel 4. It is entitled Undercover Mosque, and it shows film shot in quite mainstream Islamic centers in Birmingham and London (you can now find it easily on the Internet). And there it all is: foaming, bearded preachers calling for crucifixion of unbelievers, for homosexuals to be thrown off mountaintops, for disobedient and "deficient" women to be beaten into submission, and for Jewish and Indian property and life to be destroyed. "You have to bomb the Indian businesses, and as for the Jews, you kill them physically," as one sermonizer, calling himself Sheikh al-Faisal, so prettily puts it. This stuff is being inculcated in small children—who are also informed that the age of consent should be nine years old, in honor of the prophet Muhammad's youngest spouse. Again, these were not tin-roof storefront mosques but well-appointed and well-attended places of worship, often the beneficiaries of Saudi Arabian largesse. It's not just the mosques, either. In West London there is a school named for Prince Charles's friend King Fahd, with 650 pupils, funded and run by the government of Saudi Arabia. According to Colin Cook, a British convert to Islam (initially inspired by the former crooner Cat Stevens) who taught there for 19 years, teaching materials said that Jews "engage in witchcraft and sorcery and obey Satan," and incited pupils to list the defects of worthless heresies such as Judaism and Christianity.

I suppose an age of consent at nine years old and beating women into submission holds some appeal to a certain kind of man, but methinks NOW would object - unless a Democrat supported it in his campaign against a Republican. Welcome to Teddy's World!

And how's this for stupidity?

A non-Muslim child who lives in a Muslim-majority area may now find herself attending a school that requires headscarves.

Hitchens is hardly a wingnut, and while he gets credit for pointing out the obvious, he's a little short on solutions.

Welcome to the brave new world! I'm thinking a shaggy beard and few stanzas of "Peace Train" now and then is a small price to pay for domestic tranquility.

Besides, after 5 or 6 kids, most women would look better in a burqha. Or -ka, or however one spells it.

Labels: immigration

****

Found in inbox - not attributed:

Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented immigrant" is like calling a drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist."

Labels: immigration

****

One of my grandparents was a naturalized citizen (from the Ukraine) and my wife is Hispanic. Her grandparents were also naturalized. I know why immigrants come and I do not object to their presence so long as they are here legally and they behave themselves. If and when they become naturalized citizens, I will welcome them and their children as such.

True charity would dictate that we insist the Mexican and other Central American governments do something about the sorry states of affairs in their own country and desist from depending on the US to do what they should be doing for their own citizens.

The politician who proposes the following is going to get strong consideration for my vote:

1. Build the fence. An open border policy is simply insane. It's no more rational than leaving your door unlocked.

2. Amend the laws on citzenship to exclude children born of non-naturalized citizens.

3. Offer guest visas to those already here. AFTER A REASONABLE TIME, deport those we find who do not have one. Deport those who should not be here (criminals, etc) immediately.

4. Offer permanent visas to those who qualify.

5. Let those who wish to become citizens do so when they have met the criteria.

Charity does not demand that we let everyone in who wants in. The Church does not give the Eucharist to every Tom, Pablo and Ivan that walks in the door. They are supposed to be one of us, and while we can and do welcome them, there is a process they have to go through to qualify as "one of us."

You know - RCIA, baptism, confirmation and all that legalistic stuff? Even a cradle Catholic has to be reconciled to the Church before he can receive.

And while we're at it:

"Anchor baby" is a perfectly good term.

A "racist" is not someone who disagrees with you no matter what your relative skin colors.

There is a difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigration.

"Discrimination" is perfectly reasonable - it's why you choose Chips Ahoy over Famous Amos - and is not synonymous with "racism."

Your imperfect interpretation of Church social teaching is not a bludgeon to be used in an argument over points of law and policy; I am no less Catholic because I may disagree with you. Whatever else the Bishop of Wherever has to say on faith and morals, his position on what he thinks America should do to secure her borders is irrelevant unless he is also a citizen and can vote.

Illegal immigrants are here. We need to treat them as human beings and take care of them as well as we are able and deport them as fast as is humanely practical if they do not deserve to be here.

I'm not asking for a lily-white America. I am demanding that our immigration policy at least be coherent.

Labels: immigration