Bishop Gomez On Supreme Court Review Of Arizona Imm. Law

[Anomaly]

[b]The Supreme Court’s immigration hearing: Human dignity not up for debate[/b]
[i]By Roman Catholic Bishop [/i][i]Jose H. Gomez[/i]
This week the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on Arizona’s controversial immigration law. The case before the court focuses on a few provisions of this law, but the principle at stake is whether the federal government holds full authority to enact and implement immigration law in this country.
The implications are huge. How the court responds could fundamentally alter how our country governs immigration. Instead of one federal law that applies to all the states, a patchwork of 50 state immigration policies could suddenly define our nation’s immigration system.
In a friend of the court brief submitted in the case, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argues that the federal government is in the best position to balance competing goals of enforcing of immigration laws while upholding long-held American values such as family unity and human dignity. These values help define America as a nation. They should not be taken for granted.
State laws such as that in Arizona do not always honor these closely held values, long enshrined in immigration law. Indeed, these laws threaten to remove such humanitarian considerations from our immigration system altogether. This would be a tragedy for the individuals subject to these laws, but also for all Americans.
As a pastor, I am less inclined to speak to the legal principles involved in the case, but I am deeply concerned about the human consequences if Arizona’s law is upheld.
First, it would create a society that treats foreign–born men and women not as contributors to our American life, but as threats. The Arizona statute permits law enforcement officials to detain a person pursuant to a legal stop if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is undocumented and the person cannot prove otherwise. This encourages a kind of racial “profiling” that is inconsistent with traditional American respect for human dignity and equality before the law. It opens every ethnic minority person to being targeted under even the slightest pretext — such as having a broken tail light. There is no way to tell from the color of a person’s skin whether or not he or she is “documented.” So inevitably, a law like this will cause confusion and injustices not only for undocumented persons, but for U.S. citizens and “legal” immigrants.
Second, upholding the Arizona law would accelerate a disturbing anti-family tendency that we find in our nation’s current enforcement of immigration laws. In recent years, we have witnessed an alarming rise in the number of undocumented parents being seized and forcibly removed and separated from their U.S.-citizen children. Arizona-type laws will only increase the circumstances of a child waiting at home for a parent or parents to care for them, only to never have them arrive. We must retain a deep concern for innocent children and family unity in our immigration policy. If we don’t, we do more than disregard the futures of the 4 million innocent U.S. citizens children living with an undocumented parent or parents. To lose our abiding care for children and families in our law enforcement would signal a deep and unhealthy change in our American character.
The Arizona law gives state and local law enforcement officials full sway to act as “immigration agents.” This is an unprecedented power, and changes the relationship between the government and our immigrant communities. As many law enforcement personnel would testify, trust between law enforcement and a community is essential to public safety. It is hard to create that trust when members of a community are always a potential target of criminal profiling.
Most disturbing, upholding Arizona’s law would change our American identity as a welcoming nation, which has served us well since our inception. The goals of Arizona-type laws are to discourage immigrants from coming and to encourage those who are here to leave. We must carefully consider whether that is the signal we want to send to the world, given that immigrants and their ancestors—all of us—built this country and will continue to renew it.

Of course, we should not have arrived at this precipitous moment. Congress and the administration already should have reformed our failed immigration system. I hope this case will serve as a wake-up call to them.
The Supreme Court decision in [i]Arizona v. United States [/i]will mark a critical juncture in our nation’s immigration history. We will either maintain the direction which has made us a great nation or embark on a darker course that weakens and divides us. Let’s pray we choose the right path.
[b][i]The writer is the archbishop of Los Angeles and chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration. [/i][/b]

[Anomaly]

Bishop Gomez makes a few points in his article he wrote and published in the Washington Post.
-Federal Government alone should handle Immigration.
-As a pastor, he isn't inclined to speak to the legal principles.
-He makes no distinction between legal or illegal immigrants.
-Enforcement of A's immigration law would treat foreign born persons as 'non-contributors' to American society.
-The law is anti-family as it will break up families.
-Enforcing immigration laws on the State level would ruin any relationship between immigrants and law enforcement.
-It will ruin America's identiy as a 'welcoming' nation.

Many in my family were born in other Countries and don't look like the typical white American. Even those that do look 'white' have had to deal with document issues when traveling, attempting to travel outsidet the County, taxes, marriage, etc. The State(s) already enforce citizenship laws and requirements for documentation.
If a couple breaks a law, they go to jail. They don't get released just because they have kids.
As he noted near the end, America's immigration system is broken now, but we're still identified as a welcoming nation. Shouldn't he USCCB have been looking for Federal Immigration reforms long ago instead of wasting effort trying to circumvent the Federal Laws?
And finally, ignoring 'illegal' immigrant status only puts these people in a 'quasi-legal' position and still makes them subject to fear and intimidation, restricting them to the fringes of our society. I think the Bishop is quibbling about the band aid on a broken leg.

[Winchester]

United [i]States[/i]. The bishop's understanding of the purpose of the Federal government is typical of centralists. That whole subsidiarity thing just went out the window.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1335397202' post='2423412']
United [i]States[/i]. The bishop's understanding of the purpose of the Federal government is typical of centralists. That whole subsidiarity thing just went out the window.
[/quote]I think you're constantly misapplying the Catholic conception of subsidiarity to American politics. Your idea of American government is only part of the story.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1335399408' post='2423420']
I think you're constantly misapplying the Catholic conception of subsidiarity to American politics. Your idea of American government is only part of the story.
[/quote]

Then could you explain how your perception of subsidiarity is different from Winchester's? Because more often than not, his applications of it to various scenarios that have come up on this board seem more in line with what I've read about subsidiarity in various Church documents.

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1335397202' post='2423412']
United [i]States[/i]. The bishop's understanding of the purpose of the Federal government is typical of centralists.
[/quote]

How so?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1335658348' post='2424553']


Then could you explain how your perception of subsidiarity is different from Winchester's? Because more often than not, his applications of it to various scenarios that have come up on this board seem more in line with what I've read about subsidiarity in various Church documents.
[/quote]The principle of subsidiarity is that the government handles issues and problems at the most local level possible. Sometimes that requires the federal government to step in to say something. Sometimes the federal government steps in when it shouldn't. Either way, the higher levels are to support the lower levels in their work, particularly when they are doing the right thing. In America subsidiarity has been wrongly applied to states' rights. Sometimes this also goes into more local concerns than that even.

Msgr. Pope has a good article on this whole question: http://blog.adw.org/2012/04/subsidiarity-and-solidarity-not-necessarily-what-you-may-think-they-are/

I'll see if I can drag up more explanation on subsidiarity. I might also see if I can explain the other side of the same coin, solidarity.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

are the children illegitimate citezens and should they be deported with the parents possibly, and how is reasonable suspician wrong? a broken tailight is reasonable suspician to pull are car over and cite a car defect to be fixed a.s.a.p. and the car to be put in the red on the computers as defective. If the person can't produce a valid drivers liscence than sure why can't the police take them in black,white or brown ? It's like these so called detention centres in australia as being against human rights but surely if the refugees are truely escaping humanitarian disastors and all persecution there way better to do waiting in these centres till there papers are processed or there is a social and political turn around where there from. Surely more money needs to be spent on these centres and education(cultural and basic english and maths) provided as something to do while awaiting acceptance into australia or being returned to there home country. There fed well,there sheltered from the elements etc etc. Personally i think the U.S. is to soft on immigration hence the schism,paranoia and loss of your culture that has become a fantasy driven mega corporation pop monster.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

but than thats just an outsiders opinion and inside opinions are always worth more,hopefully. Both opinions surely valid though. And by the way i'm not being anti u.s. because australia seems to be skipping along behind lardi dardi snap crackle pop ,like your some un-beatable GOD, which i hate that we do that. Australia,u.k. , canada and new zealand are like your best friends, best believe if you descend into hell one or all of us will be dragged down with you, you have agrave responsibilty which i find many from your nation are obliviouse too.

Edited April 29, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1335664587' post='2424622']
Personally i think the U.S. is to soft on immigration hence the schism,paranoia and loss of your culture that has become a fantasy driven mega corporation pop monster.
[/quote]Actually, I think the US isnt welcoming enough for immigrants to come here on legal work visas. But I think you make an interesting point about our paranoia about other cultures. I find it odd how people make comments about Cubans in Miami and having to speak Spanish. But my dad, born in the US to immigrants, grew up in an ethnic Polish neighborhood in Chicago and didn't speak English until he was 12.

The US should allow regulated immigrants. We shouldn't have reasons to have illegal immigrants as they stay on the fringes of society.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1335658663' post='2424555']
How so?
[/quote]
I just kind of skimmed it, saw an appeal to the Federal government as a solution, it irritated me and I fired my weapons.

[Winchester]

I'm for free immigration. I think most of the anti-immigrant arguments are dumb as floopy. Especially ones appealing to some national identity everyone is afraid will disappear if we don't make foreigners jump through hoops before stealing really labor intensive jobs from honest, hard-working Americans who really would go lay tile, mow lawns, do roof work, for the going prices, although they're entitled to higher wages because they spent a bunch of money obtaining a degree, so they absolutely must not be "underemployed".

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1335850949' post='2425555']
I'm for free immigration. I think most of the anti-immigrant arguments are dumb as floopy. Especially ones appealing to some national identity everyone is afraid will disappear if we don't make foreigners jump through hoops before stealing really labor intensive jobs from honest, hard-working Americans who really would go lay tile, mow lawns, do roof work, for the going prices, although they're entitled to higher wages because they spent a bunch of money obtaining a degree, so they absolutely must not be "underemployed".
[/quote]Gahhhh. Don't get me going on the lack of respect American society has for any job that may cause a drip of sweat.

[Groo the Wanderer]

gofer it. us americans have become fat and lazy to a large extent. me included.

[Socrates]

With all due respect to the Good Bishop, his spiel here is so much mush.

The Arizona law in question simply gives state officials the power to arrest and prosecute aliens who enter the state illegally, and allows law enforcement officials to question persons about their legal status under "reasonable suspicion," which includes behavior such as driving without a license, obtaining a fraudulent license, or if a person is observed crossing the border illegally or if a police officer recognizes a previously deported gang member engaging in criminal activity. (The standards of "reasonable suspicion" are already well established by court rulings). The law does not allow state officials to do anything that is in violation of federal law, nor does it allow officers to question persons about their immigration status outside of "lawful contact" with that person. It basically makes what is a federal crime of entering the country illegally a state crime as well,

More drug trafficking comes through Arizona that any other state, and the the problem of drug and gang-related violence coming from south of the border is a serious one (and targets of drug and gang violence are often themselves Hispanic). Nations and states certainly have a right to monitor who enters the country, and enforce the border against those coming in illegally. The problems of drug and gang violence from Mexico, as well as assimilating massive numbers of people from a foreign culture, are very real, and there are plenty of people of Hispanic ethnicity living here legally who are opposed to unchecked illegal immigration. This isn't about racism, but about enforcing the law, and keeping criminal elements out of the country. The principle of subsidiarity does apply here, as the federal Border Patrol has not been able to do enough to secure our borders, and is already overwhelmed.

As someone said, trying to protect the borders and ensure that people chow immigrate into this country do so legally is no more "anti-immigrant" than trying to protect one's home against burglars or other criminals is "anti-guest."