Posted by: Joe of St. Thérèse | April 30, 2010

What the CCC REALLY teaches on Illegal Immigration…And my thoughts on the AZ bill

I know that many of you are familiar with the undersecretary to the pope of the American Patriotic Catholic Church (aka Cardinal Mahony) and his recent comments about the Arizona bill on illegal immigration.

I thought it’d be a good time to remind the world what the CCC actually teaches on illegal immigration.

CCC 2241 “The more prosperous nations are obliged , to the extent that they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin, Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him”

Political authorities for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged 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.

I’m going to split this into parts

a. to the extent that they’re able to.

In case you forgot, we’re 12 trillion dollars in the hole, and really can’t afford ANYTHING as a country, I know that over a billion bucks on zerocare made you forget our 12 trillion dollar deficit, but we’ve still got it. If we were to capture EVERY illegal immigrant (illegal because the law was broken) and deport them all back to their country or origin, if the average ticket to whatever country of origin costs say 1000 bucks, it’s something we can’t afford. That’d $ 300 000 000 000 that we don’t have. Yet at the same time full amnesty is not the answer either because absolving them of a crime they’ve committed is wrong. Why have a law on the books if you’re not going to enforce the punishment?

b. welcome the foreigner in search of livelihood and security he can not find in his country of origin

In many situations, for example Vietnam, China, the Faith is being persecuted actively, in some situations it’s not practical for people to go back home because of safety concerns.  In other countries such as Mexico you have the drug cartels which are a handful to deal with. These are situations which you can understand why people are trying to escape. They shouldn’t be demeaned just because they’re an immigrant. We shouldn’t make the immigrants lives hell for coming over here, (this is the part where the US Bishops are right) and whether they’re legal or illegal they do deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

c. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him

You do have the right to live wherever you so choose, (of course under the laws of wherever you’re living), this is to be respected. This is NOT saying that we should have open borders (as we’ll later find out). While anyone is on our soil, we’re bound to protect them in so far as we’re able. Not like a nanny state police, but if something God forbid goes wrong, we should protect them first because that is our duty before God. (punishment comes later).

d. Political authorities for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants duties toward their country of adoption

The host country has a right to protect itself and enforce its own laws. I have bad news for those of you that think the official Church position is “amnesty for all” Far from it, the Church respects BOTH the rights of the individual and the state to enforce the laws. (An unjust law is talked about in the next section of the catechism). In this case, the United States has a right to set up what the rules for immigration are, to protect its sovereignty. The rules being if you’re here in the US you need a green card or some type of identification to say that you’re here legally.

e. Immigrants are obliged 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.

People are bound to obey the laws of the country where they are. They can not plead ignorance of the law, when you walk into the territory wherever you go, you’re under the jurisdiction of wherever you’re staying at. In this case the immigrant is bound to obey all traffic laws, city ordinances, state laws, federal laws, including immigration laws.That’s to say if you broke the law you’re bound to pay the punishment, or find a way to establish yourself legally here.

So how does the Arizona bill fit with what’s above?

The Bill is only 17 pages long, I would encourage you all to actually read the bill before coming to any conclusions. (Unlike the healthcare bill you’ll actually be able to finish the bill). Before I parse though the bill (I’ll update this tomorrow), I’d like to give a general synopsis of my view points.

a. The bill isn’t perfect, but I do agree with the premise of the bill, that allows the state to enforce the laws that already exist that haven’t been enforced by the federal government.

b. There are a few points of ambiguity within the bill which should be specified upon, for example what defines “probable cause” and what doesn’t.

c. Most people don’t have to worry about the police walking up to them and asking for your papers. Generally this will only happen if you break the law, if someone calls the cops on you, or if it’s late at night.

d. We already do racial profiling to an extent, I don’t know why people are getting so caught up on this point. Think about it. If you have a description of someone who has done a crime, does not the description eliminate those that don’t fit the description? Thus leaving those who fit the description? Racial profiling. Do you not do the same exact thing when determining who you’d date?  (I won’t date such and such a person, whatever reason) So, why should the law be any different? Does it suck, heck yes, should it be done? no, but as a mathematician, reducing things to least common denominator is always the easiest.

UPDATE

Now to the actual bill, I have no intention on parsing the whole thing, but I hope to point out somethings that are actually in the bill so people don’t freak out.

Article 8, lines 16-19 “A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE
ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT
PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”

The substance of the law is that it allows the state to enforce the federal laws on the books that arleady exist. This does not give the state permision to make up it’s own kind of vigilante organization, but rather because the federal government isn’t doing their job in protecting the border, the state gets to do it for them, nothing wrong with that right?

Article 8 lines 20-43 “B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.    A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”

Lawful contact, what the police can LEGALLY do, as I mentioned before, say for a speeding stop, someone calls the cops, of if you’re out late at night, your immigration status can be asked of. Think about it, when you’re stopped by the cops in your car, you’re usually asked for license, registration, proof of insurance. These are forms of identification, no need to walk around with your birth certificate right? They proceed to mention with acceptable forms of identification of your immigration status. A valid identification is one of these 4 that are mentioned here. Do you not usually walk with identification always on you? If not you should 🙂

Section E “E. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN FEDERAL LAW, OFFICIALS OR AGENCIES OF THIS
STATE AND COUNTIES, CITIES, TOWNS AND OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THIS
STATE MAY NOT BE PROHIBITED OR IN ANY WAY BE RESTRICTED FROM SENDING,
RECEIVING OR MAINTAINING INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMMIGRATION STATUS,
LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL, OF ANY INDIVIDUAL OR EXCHANGING THAT INFORMATION WITH ANY
OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FOR THE FOLLOWING OFFICIAL
PURPOSES:
1. DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR ANY PUBLIC BENEFIT, SERVICE OR LICENSE
PROVIDED BY ANY FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
STATE.
2. VERIFYING ANY CLAIM OF RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IF DETERMINATION OF
RESIDENCE OR DOMICILE IS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAWS OF THIS STATE OR A JUDICIAL
ORDER ISSUED PURSUANT TO A CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN THIS STATE.
3. IF THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN, DETERMINING WHETHER THE PERSON IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL REGISTRATION LAWS PRESCRIBED BY TITLE II, CHAPTER
7 OF THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT.
4. PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373 AND 8 UNITED STATES
CODE SECTION 1644.”

You see the legitimate reasons for exchanging information with the authorities here.

Section G “G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION
IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A
COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS
OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT
OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL
LAW.   IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS
SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT
LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR
EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION
PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.”

In otherwords, the wrongfully obtained clause, what happens if the government screws up and you prove that you’re a citizen or if they wrongly detained you. You get to sue, and the government foots the bill. (Not that we can afford it, but hey, who cares :p)…

Parsing shall continue tomorrow on a new post

Advertisements

Responses

  1. , I know that over a billion bucks on zerocare made you forget

    Don’t take this as nitpicking a well-written post, but zerocare is closer to 1 Trillion bucks, and possibly 2 when all is said and done.

    • LarryD, sometimes we get lost in all the zero’s, either way we still can’t afford it

  2. A billion or so here, a billion or so there. Sooner or later it’ll add up to real money!

    • Yeps, and by the time it adds up to real money it will be United Sates of America…sponsored by China

  3. Joe, we have read the Catechism & look for it to know what the Catholic Church actually teaches. I highly dount Cardinal Mahony has or does.

    • Of course he didn’t read it, Catechism reading went out after Vatican II :p

      • Reading the Catechism didn’t totally go out after Vatican II. I took a class at Loras back in about 77-78 that had Fr. Hardon’s recently written catechism as the textbook.

        It only went out with those “Spirit of Vatican II Catholics” who also didn’t read what was actually in the Vatican II documents either.

        I can’t remember any details of what he had to say back in the early 90s at the time of the new Catechism, but I feel fairly safe in saying he was pushing for inclusive language in it.

        Meanwhile, I am also willing to bet that he hasn’t read the more recent Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine either as it would even further undermine his stands.

        Kind of sad when a little old Italiano Nun in Birmingham & 2 Catholic laymen among others actually know more about wthat the Church actually teaches that a so-called “Prince of the Church” does.

      • That is a sad fact, that little Italian nun was right 🙂

  4. Linking to you Joe.

    • Thank you Lola 🙂

  5. (You have a new blog! Like it.)

    • Thank you 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: