Grassroots Commentary Church Sanctions Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a much-misunderstood problem in that church officials have the wrong angle on this dividing issue. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and now Bishop Dennis J. Sullivan, who replaced former Bishop Joseph Galante as bishop of the Camden diocese in Feb, issued a plea for illegal immigrants to be fully recognized, a moral urgency, no questions asked.

Bishop Sullivan said the system is broken, so what else is new, as the entire moral fibre of the country is broken and at risk. Sullivan sees an opportunity to fix immigration as God “Teaches us to welcome the strangers, to care for the least among us” – a truism, but even in the Old Testament, sovereign boundaries were protected.

Bishop Sullivan went on: “We are keepers of our sisters and brothers” – another truism, but can one country take care of the whole world wanting to immigrate to the US, particularly when the US is fiscally bankrupt? Yesterday letters with information in Spanish about how people can contact their members of Congress were handed out at each parish in the six county diocese.

Bishop Sullivan called on Congress to pass enforceable laws to secure the nation’s borders, and to create a clear path to citizenship. The Catholic Church has long supported progressive immigration policies but the problem is that there are already laws on the books that administrations, before and now, have failed or refused to enforce.

Bishops want to GIVE rights that are not in the province of the church to give. The fact is that in the absence of One World Government, probably a great evil, sovereign countries have the right to protect their borders and to issue rules guiding admission of aliens into their countries along with gaining citizenship.

The US is the most generous country in the world as regards admitting more alien immigrants than any other country. The point is that there must be enforceable rule of law, order, and guidelines to prevent abuse and chaos.

Actually, the church has its own rules for admission into full participation into the church, requiring training and education of prospects referred to as catechumens. As such, prospective members, after completing prescribed education, are acknowledged during preparation at a special Mass and then before the first of three essential parts of the Mass, are ushered out, an indication that more steps must be taken before Baptism that marks full admission into the church.

If the church has rules as to admission of converts, why should there be church opposition to the sovereign US to likewise have steps and procedures before acknowledgment as legal citizens? The church also has specific rules for confession of sins and transgressions before proper reception of Communion. The question is as to whether the church should harshly treat the US for its own rules for legal residency in the US, or pressure for legislation that more often than not is cumbersome, unexplainable, and unenforceable, particularly in this day and age of random terrorism.

The brutal fact is that illegal immigrants jump in front of the line of other immigrants who are trying to enter the US in the right and legally prescribed way. People jumping ahead in waiting lines instead of starting at the back are frowned upon, and many an outburst of words and fisticuffs have resulted from this dishonest jumping ahead in lines at stores and venues. Question is: Why does the church favor line-jumpers over and above those living by the rules?

Another issue is the demand for charity and consideration for the illegals, but that begs the question of the morality of illegals crossing into the US for gain of specific welfare benefits paid for by legal citizens. Some in the church seem to dismiss charity that in fact appears to be a form of stealing, acquiring property and benefits under false pretense that illegals are not entitled to; charity meant and paid for by legal residents of the US.

Adding insult to injury, illegals in droves cast votes, no doubt largely for their political party in power. The fact is that illegal immigrants, undocumented to the politically correct, receive every sort of welfare and benefit including food stamps, housing, education, health care, and many have the temerity to illegally vote. Add to that the propensity for lawbreakers to break still more laws, particularly those involving illegal drugs, and driving without required licenses or insurances.

What more do illegals want as they are already favorites with the administration? In what other country can illegal immigrants openly and brazenly stage protests against the host government? If anything, the bishops should tell the illegal immigrants to thank God and not abuse the unearned largesse bestowed by a more than gracious host. The USCCB pushes for immigration reform, needed or not, but in fact the only thing illegals do not have is amnesty and automatic citizenship.

Like every other large organization, the USCCB has its own skeletons and one of theirs is still not completely satisfactorily resolved: the cover-up and illegal transfer of pedophile priests from parish to parish, causing great moral and fiscal harm to the church. Perhaps bishops should concentrate on the herculean task of cleaning their own house before calling another house dirty. Give the American public credit for not informing authorities of the whereabouts of undocumented immigrants, many of whom work under the table and do not pay taxes, contributing to growth of the astronomical national debt. Not only are illegals free to roam the country at will, but “sanctuary cities” provide safe harbor to illegal aliens and refuse to prosecute wrong-doing.

Another stigma against the USCCB is their failure to fully use their pastoral authority, failing to use the hammer of excommunication to chastise and restrict catholic legislators and proponents from pushing government funded abortion ObamaCare through Congress as well as other morally prohibited causes, speaking too little, too late, and without urgency.

First on the excommunication list should have been Speaker Nancy Pelosi, VP Joe Biden, Senator John Kerry, perhaps Senator Ted Kennedy were he still alive, and certainly Sr. Carol Keehan. Bishops were certainly lax in their permissive glossing over moral and dogma issues that were being abused by many catholic institutions of higher learning. Are the bishops right on the immigration issue when they were lax on the ObamaCare issue? In their haste to get healthcare for the uninsured, bishops grossly missed the point of enforcing their own on the dangers of forbidden abortion funding in the bill.

Bishops should in humility shed their ceremonial attire as their original predecessors who walked and lived with Jesus were cowards; as one of the twelve betrayed Jesus for the now proverbial 30 pieces of silver; one denied Jesus three times; and nine of the remaining ten hid for fear for their own lives; though prior to that they in unison offered to suffer death with Jesus if it came to that. Of course, eventually it did come to that, but it was forgotten when push came to shove. The original history of the bishops as disciples of Jesus was not pretty so they should not be too proud in their red hats.

Actually, abortion was not directly addressed in ObamaCare, but that is exactly the point; its omission meant automatic approval. Stephen A. Privett, S.J. President of University of San Francisco (USF-CA) argued the point with me, demanding proof of exactly where in the bill was abortion. My answer was that mere omission of abortion as a procedure was de facto inclusion, and so it has proven to be.

Sister Carol Keehan serves as president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA) of the US, representing 59,000 catholic nuns and more than 50 heads of religious congregations and organizations. Sr. Keehan was critically instrumental in the passage of ObamaCare as she falsely assured Rep. Bart Stupak and undecided Blue Dog catholic legislators sitting on the fence, that government funded abortion was not in the bill, relieving their conscience, enabling them to cast the deciding votes to pass ObamaCare.

To make matters worse, the above-mentioned USF-CA honored Sr. Keehan for her part in the passage of the healthcare bill that did indeed prove to fund abortion. Sr. Keehan is credited with giving pro-life Democrats the political and religious cover they needed to reverse their positions against the measure because she assured them the bill lacked language enabling abortion funding with taxpayer dollars. USF honored Sr. Keehan for her enabling “healthcare reform that is a faith mandate for life and dignity of all of our people.” President Obama acknowledged Sr. Keehan’s contribution toward the passage of ObamaCare by having her present at the signing and giving her one of the ceremonial pens used to sign the bill.

Back to immigration, the Senate introduced a bill that would tighten border security and create a 13-year pathway to citizenship for immigrants living in the US illegally, but politicians are at odds over that prospect. Not to mention the fact that understanding and enforcement of their 1,000 pages plus regulations will, as with present laws, prove to be unenforceable.

Proposed legislation would enhance non-existent border security, create an agricultural guest-worker program, overhaul the existing immigration system, and provide a path to citizenship for an estimated 12-30 million undocumented immigrants. Republicans oppose provisions in the bill granting provisional legal status to undocumented immigrants on the fear that amnesty will be granted before border security is implemented.

President Obama has high hopes that immigration reform will be a major legislative achievement in his second term just as ObamaCare was for his first term, but problems of gridlock, gun control, budget, deficit, unemployment, under-employment, and the static economy linger in the shadows. But not to worry as the Executive Order pen is at the ready.

What makes anyone think this Congress and administration can get immigration right? First things first: Enforce the laws already on the books, and then tweak the law to accommodate shortcomings. Obama already chose not to enforce DOMA Defense of Marriage Act, so why would Obama let non-passage of an immigration bill stand in his way? Other than that, a new immigration law likewise will not be enforced but merely serve as a feel-good exercise in futility, but evidently that is what our One-Party, Two-Party system does best.