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]

Zmirak is one of my faves. He has long been a biting critic of the USCCB in their knee-jerk support of waves of illegal immigration. In this article, he tries to sketch out an approach that would be principled and workable.

I had to cut out a huge amount. It's worth clicking the link and getting his whole argument in context. I just gave his conclusions.

"What's the next right thing?" Zmirak thinks the "next right thing" is to secure the border and get serious about e-Verify.

Catholics, this is something you could send to your bishop.

But please--- read it all.

[no-to-illegals]

Thanks Mrs. Don-o ... bookmark

[Tennessee Nana]

PING

[GeronL]

How many billions and billions should the US taxpayers be supporting in their view??

[GeronL]

Left a comment at the site.

[9YearLurker]

I’ve met John and he’s not a bad guy, but that’s really a horrendous argument—with those opposing illegal immigration and amnesty cast as a bunch of racists, the greedy, and other unsavory types.

If he’d deport some and deny them work through e-verify, then why is it that others much be allowed to stay in order for us to be “merciful”? Are the rest of the countries of the world who tend to enforce their borders and their immigration laws unmerciful?

[kitkat]

BUMP

[Mrs. Don-o]

"How many billions and billions should the US taxpayers be supporting in their view??"

Not sure what you're asking. Who is "they"?

[kabar]

I have read it all. This is pure BS. He is trying to create the illusion of being even-handed. It is just Clinton triangulation. Here is what is wrong with what he says and proposes.

He creates the phony strawmen of those who are on the right, i.e., white racists, population pessimists, selfish-upper middle class who resent paying taxes to support the poor, or cynical politicians who want to keep the illegals here as long as they can't vote.

People have a genuine right to switch countries when they are unsafe or cannot find “means of livelihood.” The Catechism says nothing about mere economic betterment; I would live better in Switzerland, but that does not mean that the Swiss owe me citizenship. Only the prospect of grave physical danger or the inability to live and raise children grants a right of immigration. Even then, this right is not absolute, but is subject to the “common good” of the receiving countries. Part of that common good which immigrants must respect, as a condition of exercising the right to enter a country, is to “respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

Pure claptrap. Immigration to America is a privilege, not a right. There are literally billions of people who would qualify for immigration to this country using his standards. Immigration must serve the national interests of America. We already take in 1.1 million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS A YEAR, more than the rest of the world combined. We have admitted 29 million legal immigrants since 1990.

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.

When you reward something, you get more of it. Any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here is amnesty. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.

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.

The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $6.3 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. 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 tens of millions over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers.

Zmirak says all the rights things about securing the border, implementing a system to track and deport visa overstays, employer verification, etc., but he fails to say how the transition will work. Do we stop deporting people while what he suggests is being implemented, which could take years? Why can't we just have enforcement only?

The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arizona proving that it does.

During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.

We must dismiss the instincts of tribalism on both sides of the issue and work together for the common good of the country. That is our duty as patriotic citizens who are grateful for all that our nation has given us, who know that love of neighbor demands the practice of thoughtful, active citizenship.

The author doesn't comprehend the motivations involved by the left. We need to reduce legal immigration substantially. We should go to a to a merit-based immigration system and not the current kinship system. Immigrants, legal and illegal, are taking American jobs and depressing wages. Immigrants, legal and illegal, use the welfare system to a much greater extent than the native born. And immigrants who become citizens vote more than two to one Democrat.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I don’t think that’s what Zmirak is saying -— especially since he’s opposing illegal immigration and amnesty.

[9YearLurker]

It sure reads like amnesty to me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

His proposal:

(1) At the border: Stop further invasion.

(2) IN the interior: swift and severe enforcement of e-Verify.

In language you can give your bishop.

He's not trying to thrill FReepers here: he's saying: here's why we have to accomplish #1 and #2 before anything else.

Frankly, I think if you do that --- plus #3, stop money transfers, remittances --- the illegals will self-deport.

[Mrs. Don-o]

How do you get "amnesty" from his three main points: (1) secure the border; (2) e-Verify, and make it swift, severe, and certain, and (3)"swiftly remove" unwelcome overstayers --- and then calls the propnennts of unconditional amnesty the real "obstructionists"?

"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."

[no-to-illegals]

Read the article Mrs. Don-o and wanted to Thank You, once more. There is common sense in the article thus doubt the article will be paid much attention to by those that should pay attention to the article. The writer might even find himself being a target by those that will take offense to the common sense contained therein though I saw nothing to be offend by in the article. Is too easy these days to paint a target on one's own back with written words of common sense and uncommon sense.

[9YearLurker]

Because he says it would be rhen be safe to give legal status to some illegals already here.

That’s amnesty.

[kabar]

(1) At the border: Stop further invasion.

Who is going to disagree with that? Under the Constitution, the President must protect and maintain our sovereignty--just like every other country on the face of the earth.

(2) IN the interior: swift and severe enforcement of e-Verify.

No objection here to turn off the job magnet. I assume that we will also identify illegal aliens holding jobs now and will deport them. Or will we be merciful and allow them to continue to work while the border is secured and a system in place to track and deport visa overstays who comprise 40% of the illegal alien population?

He's not trying to thrill FReepers here: he's saying: here's why we have to accomplish #1 and #2 before anything else.

The Democrats will never allow an enforcement first approach. They are holding it hostage to amnesty for the 12 to 20 million lawbreakers. It will take five to 10 years to get a real enforcement approach in place to include state and local law enforcement.

Zmirak doesn't say how this will be carried out in terms of sequencing and its impact on those already here. The way I read it, the lawbreakers will be exempt from the employer crackdown and will be allowed to stay here by a merciful American people who will willingly foot the $6 trillion bill. And this will not include the millions of their family members who will be allowed to join them thru chain migration. I can't imagine anyone preventing a father from being reunited with his wife and children--or aged parents.

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 who seems to favor allowing the lawbreakers to stay and work here. If their families join them, remittances will decline. Over $120 billion a year are sent from the US annually with $22 billion being sent to Mexico alone. Remittances are being sent by both legal immigrants and illegal aliens. It would be difficult to limit remittances without affecting legals and illegals.

[9YearLurker]

So amnesty is common sense?

[no-to-illegals]

Nope, but the article is common sense.

[Bigg Red]

Well said.

[Jabba the Nutt]

"A sane solution... would entail both border security and a measure of mercy."

It's easy for these people to call for mercy, they won't be the ones to pay for it. All the talk about being welcoming is done by people, who will be the least affected. The Americans, who's schools, hospitals, er's, crime, violence and degradation of neighborhoods all worsen are the ones paying for mercy.

The libs with their superiority morality to the rest of us, put the cost of their superior morality onto others. That's immoral, that's unchristian and that's narcissistic behavior.