Immigration, Patriotism and the Common Good

National Catholic Register ^ | 07/09/2014 | JOHN ZMIRAK

[Mrs. Don-o]

[huge snip]

Strict justice for such immigrants would mean deportation.

But we want to be merciful, where we can, while protecting the common good. And it is surely imprudent to deport 12 million people. It is equally imprudent to grant those people an amnesty while the U.S. borders are still insecure — since doing so would surely invite yet another influx. Even the rumor of a possible amnesty goaded thousands of parents to dump their children across our borders. Every child who dies in the desert is a victim of those rumors.

A sane solution... would entail both border security and a measure of mercy. First, we must complete a border fence and make mandatory the strict enforcement of workplace verification for workers. We must track visitors who overstay their visas and swiftly remove them. Lawmakers have proposed workable plans for enacting all these reforms — which have been obstructed and sidelined by proponents of unconditional amnesty.

If we put such firm policies in place, and made their enforcement well known to potential immigrants, it would then be safe to grant some legal status to current illegal residents. Rashly extending amnesty without border security would lead thousands more to die in the desert — and extend the problem of illegal immigration indefinitely into the future. We would simply be kicking the can down the road to our grandchildren, as we do when we load up on deficits that they will have to pay back.

[snip]

Our ancestors used to make sacrifices for the sake of their descendants. We have learned to make things easy for ourselves at the expense of the next generation — just one more symptom of the "culture of death."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Some few illegals really would qualify, in terms of law as well as justice, for amnesty. Some few.

I'm thinking of people who have actually been targeted with death for opposing the narcotraficantes --- people like that police chief down in, I think it was, San Pedro Sula who had his two lieutenants shot out from under him, and was told he and his family would be beheaded.

Also people who just have an innocent, non-culpable minor documentation problem.

This (almost) happened with our family, when we were adopting our son from Russia 17 years ago. I filled out a line improperly on one of the (many) documents I had to fill out, and we got a crisp, cold notification that the entire shebang was henceforward void and the adoption process terminated.

We were fortunate enough to find a faceless but not heartless apparatchik in DC who mercifully listened to our desperate pleas, rightly concluded that this was a paperwork glitch and not perjury or fraud, and let the adoption go through.

The idea of allowing entrance to people who are really in danger of death or inadvertently guilty of a Line 14b on page 97 hiccup, is well with the American tradition of rule of law.

As for the rest? Swift, humane transport and family reunion in their country of origin.

[Mrs. Don-o]

" Frankly, I think if you do that --- plus #3, stop money transfers, remittances --- the illegals will self-deport....
Now you are imposing your own views and not those of the author.

Very true --- that was my own point, not John Zmirak's. (That's why I said, "I think".)

But. If you were to google Zmirak, you can see he's written a lot on illegal immigration that is a lot "hotter" than this. In fact, he is pret'near distraught over this whole lawless invasion thing, particularly as certain Catholic Bishops are enabling it so cluelessly and so ruinously.

I think he needed to force himself a drink a tall glass of chill in order to write this brief article using a lexicon that people like the bishops could understand --- and not crumple up and toss after Paragraph One.

Many people of Faith --- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish --- are really in the throes of perplexity over this, wanting to do the just and merciful thing, and not really perceiving the underlying subversion that's being carried out --- with the the vulnerable poor and young of Central America being exploited as pawns in a huge Hemispheric socialist power grab.

I think Zmirak has succeed in making the main points while using such language as can appeal to well-meaning "people in the middle."

I could not have sent my bishop many of Zmirak's earlier writings, where he was almost consumed with anger.

Just like real estate is all about "location, location, location," persuasive writing is all about "audience, audience, audience."

[9YearLurker]

That’s completely different. That’s asylum, which we already have and which isn’t what John is talking about here. Nor is he talking about a mistake in an adoption filing.

[9YearLurker]

But the article is for amnesty, and it basically calls those who don’t favor amnesty merciless, racist Neanderthals.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Fact is, he doesn't define the scope --- narrow or wide --- of any potential amnesty, just the timing: after closing the border, and after using e-Verify to deal with the millions of illegal employees (and employers.)

I think you're justified in what you're saying, though, based on what's in this article. Zmirak is at his most irenic here; in his larger oeuvre, he is not dovish on lawbreakers.

[no-to-illegals]

I did not read the article in that manner nor did I think your thoughts as I read the article. Different minds react differently when reading an article. Is simply one of those times we each saw something different in the article.

[9YearLurker]

Yes, I agree. I think he’s contorting himself from his regular political instincts because of the Church’s position on illegal immigration.

[kabar]

Just like real estate is all about "location, location, location," persuasive writing is all about "audience, audience, audience."

I am not persuaded by the substance of his argument. He supports amnesty. And I am offended by the way he paints some of the opponents of amnesty including pulling the race card. He doesn't ascribe similar motives to those supporting amnesty and unlimited immigration. He could have just as easily said that groups like La Raza (The Race) want more Hispanics to change the demography of the country in their favor.

[9YearLurker]

Then what’s all that “mercy” stuff about and why list opponents of amnesty so negatively?

[Mrs. Don-o]

As I said elsewhere, the idea of allowing entrance to people who are really in danger of death or inadvertently guilty of a Line 14b on page 97 hiccup, is well with the American tradition of rule of law.

As for the rest? Swift, humane transport and family reunion in their country of origin.

I

[no-to-illegals]

to keep from copying myself ... all can do for your is refer you to my post #26