Posted on 12/23/2010 8:10:12 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Washington D.C., Dec 22, 2010 / 07:50 pm (CNA).- Although the controversial immigration DREAM Act failed to pass through the Senate last week, the support that the bill garnered in the House was enough to make Archbishop Jose Gomez, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Migration, “confident” that the legislation will succeed in the near future.
Despite the U.S. bishops endorsing the the DREAM Act – a bill that would grant citizenship to many children brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents – the measure was defeated in the U.S. Senate on Dec. 18 after supporters failed to muster enough votes to block a filibuster.
Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but proponents could only gather 55, with 41 senators voting to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote before the full Senate. The U.S. House of Representatives, however, had earlier passed the bill on a 216-198 vote.
The act's full title is the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act. It would have allowed young people who entered the United States before the age of 16 to apply for legal permanent residence and eventual citizenship, as long as they finish high school, have no criminal record, have lived in the U.S. for more than five years and complete two years of college or military service.
While Democrats largely supported the measure, Republicans had criticized it for encouraging illegal immigrants to bring their children across unsecured borders.
Archbishop Gomez said in a Dec. 21, statement, however, that because of the widespread approval the bill had among most U.S. representatives and a significant show of support among senators, “it is clear that a majority of Congress and of the American public support this common-sense humanitarian measure.”
“I am confident that one day – sooner rather than later – the DREAM Act will become the law of the land.”
Archbishop Gomez extended his thanks to congressional leaders who supported the legislation but also expressed sadness over its current failure.
“My heart goes out to the thousands of young people who would have been helped by the DREAM Act and were disappointed by the Senate action,” he said. “We will continue to work so that one day soon you will have the opportunity to become Americans.”
“The U.S. Catholic bishops will continue to advocate for humane immigration reform, so that we can attain an immigration system that properly balances the need to protect our national sovereignty with our obligation to honor fundamental human rights.”
Archbishop Gomez underscored the need for more “education” to ensure that “Catholics, as well as all Americans, fully understand the humanitarian consequences of a broken immigration system, especially on families.”
Not wanting to? No, that's a thought, not a behavior.
Not leaving? That's a bad behavior. Lots of things I don't want to do, I do, because it would be bad not to.
You asked for an example, I gave one, but I see you've already called the grounds crew in to move the goal posts. That too would be a bad behavior. It's a form of dishonesty.
When it comes to publicly supporting whatever immigration "reform" that comes along, while simultaneously criticizing efforts to enforce existing immigration law which might stem the tide of foreign nationals invading this nation from our Southern borders, the two [Mahoney & Gomez] are as peas in a pod.
Check it out!
You wrote:
“The children are not entitled to become Americans or be granted citizen status just because they’re illegal alien parents illegaly carried them over the border, in utero or otherwise.”
I never said they were.
” Why would they be entitled to cut in line over those that have obeyed the laws of this nation, especially those who came here legally with their children?”
I never said they were entitled to “cut in line”. I also do not make the mistake of dismissing the fact that these kids have grown up here, speak the language already, and consider themselves Americans. Those are facts. I don’t believe it is “cutting in line” to recognize those facts.
“The children suffer as a direct result of their own parents and their criminal actions.”\
True. If that suffering - on the part of innocent children who committed no wrong on their own - can be eased, should it?
“Their parents by their illegal actions create a “harmful and unfair” situation.”
True. And again, if that can be eased for the innocent, should it?
“Actions have consequences, and the right consequence for coming into this nation illegally is deportation, not preferential treatment over those who obey the immigration laws.”
They didn’t come here. They were brought here. Should the innocent children be punished in the same way and to the same extent as the guilty parents?
Their parents had no problem bringing them to a country they didn't have any familiarity with.
Now you're saying I should be more generous to them than their parents? Geesh, talk about bleeding heart liberalism.
Deportation is not a punishment. It's just righting a previous wrong.
You don't get to keep a stolen bicycle, just because you didn't know it was stolen and fell in love with it. The police officer checks the serial number, determines it is one reported stolen, and returns it to its rightful owner. That's not punishing you.
You wrote:
“Their parents had no problem bringing them to a country they didn’t have any familiarity with.”
Exactly. Their PARENTS.
“Now you’re saying I should be more generous to them than their parents? Geesh, talk about bleeding heart liberalism.”
No, I think you should at least take the fact that these kids have known nothing other than America into your calculations.
You wrote:
“Deportation is not a punishment. It’s just righting a previous wrong.”
Deporting someone to a country he doesn’t even know is a punishment. The suffering seems out of proportion to his action (which was NOTHING since he wasn’t the one who violated the law).
“You don’t get to keep a stolen bicycle, just because you didn’t know it was stolen and fell in love with it.”
No, you don’t, but then again they don’t burn down your house because your dad stole the neighbor’s bike either. To automatically assume someone should lose the only homeland he has any knowledge of because of what dad or mom did seems excessive.
“The police officer checks the serial number, determines it is one reported stolen, and returns it to its rightful owner. That’s not punishing you.”
Your analogy doesn’t work. It would at least work better if you used a house rather than a bike.
You feel it is necessary to make a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with your opinion which is a sign of low self-esteem.
Again, Merry Christmas ......
They DO know they're breaking the law. That's why they're protesting all over in public for the DREAM Act. How dense are you?
Your analogy doesn’t work.
It works fine. You just don't like it because the grounds crew has to scramble around the field so much carrying those heavy goal posts.
It would at least work better if you used a house rather than a bike.
Oh, so what, you're arguing for "squatters' rights"?
Thank you.
I don't care. If I had my way, I'd be stripping a lot of citizenships too.
Now if anyone wants an example of an analogy that doesn't work, here's a great example here. This is about as non-sequitur as they come.
You wrote:
“You feel it is necessary to make a personal attack against anyone who disagrees with your opinion which is a sign of low self-esteem.”
You mistake truth for an opinion and fail to actually make a coherent argument. I would rather be falsey accused of low self-esteem than to be shown to be of low intelligence.
You wrote:
“Now if anyone wants an example of an analogy that doesn’t work, here’s a great example here. This is about as non-sequitur as they come.”
You used the false analogy of a bike being stolen. I pointed out that - using your analogy - the innocent kid would have to lose his home for his father’s crime. Your analogy was poor. Mine was on the money - using your own poor example as proof of how poor it was.
You wrote:
“I don’t care. If I had my way, I’d be stripping a lot of citizenships too.”
Oh, so you would have some sort of American version of the Nuremburg laws of something? Your America would be a scary place.
The problem I have is that every conceivable relative, houseguest, dog and cat will be amnestied also. They will be lax at every conceivable enforcement perspective.
And some of the minors would abuse the program -- registering for one semester at community college, then never showing up, etc.
Besides it pisses the hell out of legal immigrants like my wife (whose family will never get here).
The kid loses the bike that wasn't his to begin with. Why are you having such a difficult time grabbing this?
These people aren't even being stripped of any property, so you're analogy is really, really wrong. Any of this sinking in?
For liberals, free loaders, parasites, and criminals it would be utterly terrifying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.