Catholic commentary on culture, media, and politics.

Friday, April 28, 2006

Chutzpah to the nth degree

My jaw continues to drop at the spectre of swarms of illegal aliens threatening, boycotting, hectoring a country they broke into illegally.

The disgusting spectacle, which seems to grow daily, will eventually create a Mexifornia founded on breaking and entering. And dontcha love how the MSM sticks to terms like "pro-immigrant," "migrant worker rights," etc etc.

Thanks, Mr. Bush.

And thanks, Cardinal Mahoney. Oustanding leadership. Give your pro-abortion Catholic mayor buddy a hug for us. (Ooops, sorry, that would be inappropriate boundary crossing. By your own zero tolerance policy, you'd have to quit your job. On second thought....)


Blogger Athanasius contra mundo said...

Unfortunately crime sometimes DOES pay.

2:02 PM

Blogger Patrick said...

True enough....

2:11 PM

Blogger Bill said...

It is not just illegals marching, Patrick. And though you clearly have an issue with your archbishop, he is not alone; his statements agree with that of the other Catholic bishops, including all the bishops of Texas. As you are a guest of this country as well, you might consider joining the bishops and these immigrants (and the children of immigrants) in seeking to preserve the freedom and hospitality which has made this country the rich melting pot that it is. You might also want to consider the fact that a little over a hundred years ago xenophobes were complaining about Canadians; a Massachusetts government official denounced Quebecois and Acadiens as "the Chinese of the Eastern States," who came only to suck money out and who intended to offer nothing to the US. There were waves of protests at that time against his remarks. And in the article you link--it is sadly ironic that the head of a vigilante group that specializes in intimidation suggests that immigrants exercising free speech are engaged in intimidation.

4:22 PM

Blogger Patrick said...

Nice try, Bill. I'm well aware that it's not just illegals marching. Obviously. On prudential matters of the state, Catholics are free to assess and act according to right reason and common sense. There's no official doctrine at stake in determining whether it's good or bad to break into a country and then start carping for amnesty. Disagreeing with His Eminence on this doesn't imply dissent from Catholicism, and not only because some bishops happen to disagree with Card. Mahoney.

Playing the bishop card doesn't fly. Even if the entire USCCB structure should rise up with some pro-illegal document, it woudn't be binding in conscience on American Catholics, as a man named Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out in 1983: "A bishops' conference as such does not have a mandatum docendi. This belongs only to the individual bishops or to the College of bishops with the pope."

I am a guest in this country. Exactly right. Your point being? I came here the legal way, as did my Latina wife, and we consider ourselves blessed to be here at the largesse of the United States under visa status. I don't march in the streets waving my home nation's flag, or jump up and down demanding rights that properly belong to American citizens. And I resent those who cross illegally, essentially butt to the head and whine about alleged racism.

Cute allusion to xenophobia, too. You created a straw man and a non sequitur simultaneously.

By refusing to acknowledge the simple distinction between illegal and legal, you make fuzzy what is clear to most Americans. Legal immigrants who ought to "preserve the freedom and hospitality which has made this country the rich melting pot that it is." Yes. True. I admire immigrants who came here with nothing and live out there dreams. Legally. The illegal ones should go home, and start the process over the correct way, like thousands of their Hispanic brethren are doing as we speak; US employers who hire them should be handed stiff fines; and the border should be properly secured. Not necessarily in that order.

That's my opinion. Most Americans polled agree.

You smirk that the Minutemen is a group that specializes intimidation. Spin it any way you like. Some intimidation is just and proper, such as serving as an extension of the intimidating presence of US Border Patrol. I wish them godspeed and best wishes.

I could go on about how many LA County hospitals have had to shut down in the last five years due to illegal aliens swamping facilities, the over-representation of Latino criminals in US prisons who snuck in as illegals, and how illegals steal low wage jobs from Americans, or how hypocritical it is of the Mexican Government to applaud the northern invasion while militarizing its own southern border with Guatamala.

But that would be sadly ironic.

9:39 PM

Blogger gmknowles said...

A couple of questions that you are not addressing of only hinting at:

1. If a law is unjust, the law must be changed?
2. Is immigration law a just law per se?
3. Why is American immigration of such high value?
4. How does civil disobedience and the change of laws apply in regards to changing unjust laws in this case? Assuming the moral obligations to civil disobedience in unjust laws?

Just a view cursory ideas:
1. If a law is unjust on higher moral grounds it MUST be changed.
2.Many countries do not even allow immigration. That America allows for immigration provides a higher moral ground.
However, the justness of the immigration process, once established, is questionable. 500,000 green card applications are approved yearly. (I believe that is the number - someone correct me on this if I am wrong)The law regarding qualifications of immigration is difficult to determine, but it appears that at least 50% of these green cards are issued due to economic-social influence. I believe only 100,000 are provided for in the lottery program. The justification for this difference is justified under the reasoning of "national interest".
3. I would argue that the reason for the high "value" held for immigration to the United States is primarily material gain in the majority of cases.
Where and how forcibly should Catholics way in on this issue?
Instead, would we better served by providing and spearheading social policies that eliminate "severe" poverty and "severe" economic indulgence.
Would we be better served in seeking moral spiritually required human liberties in the world?
4. Civil disobedience is morally required if a law is inherently unjust.

Patrick, one comment to comments you made is unsound.
"Most Americans polled agree."
What value is the "majority" opinion in regards to matters of justice? What was the "majority" opinion regards to the crucifixion of Christ? What would the polls have said?

11:41 AM

Blogger Wimsey said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:43 AM

Blogger Patrick said...


Welcome abroard. I'm afraid you're way off on your numbers, though.

According to the BCIS, 140,000 green cards are approved annually, and 480,000 are extended to applicable family members.

50,000 green cards are approved each year through the lottery.

None of these includes TN visas, the H1-B visa, the O visa, the Religious Worker visa -- not to mention US Citizen immigrants. (The green card is simply a permanent resident verification; it's not citizenship.)

"Social programs" are not going to solve one thing. Illegals come here to MOOCH off social programs while not contibuting anywhere near a proportionate tax contribution. That's the point; that's the problem.

11-15 million are here, came here illegally, and are now pulling stunts like walk-outs of schools and workplaces, and now Monday they're holding a boycott of American companies in Mexico. The goal is to put enough of a crippling dent in teh economy to get what they want.

Which is amnesty.

No one has a RIGHT to be in the United States. Citizenship and other resident statuses do confer certain rights, of course, but the process to get to that point is a priviledge.

My poll question is not unsound. Your analogy to the crucifixion is. I'm talking about what most Americans say when asked whether they want full amnesty to illegals, big majorities routinely say no. They're the ones who vote in, or out, law makers.

You have great things to say about justice. How is according full amnesty to those who break the law in any way just? If securing a nation's border -- especially in a post-11/11 world in the middle of an undeclared but very real war -- is not just, then I'm the Easter Bunny.

5:20 PM

Blogger xavier said...

Here's a tough question: what can the Canadian and American governments do to compel Mexico to institute societal reforms so that the illegal immigration stops?
The problem I see is that American government isn't very serious about demanding Mexico reform itself for whatever reason. The Canadian government doesn't appreciate how illegal immigration threatens Canada too with the breakdown in the rule of law.


6:36 PM

Blogger Patrick said...


Welcome to Seize the Dei. Great questions. First, I don't see how it's the responsibility of the US or Canadian governments to reform the Mexican government. That's up to Mexican voters and the leaders they choose.

The trouble is, liberals in the US love illegals because it seems nicer, more compassionate to the downtrodden underdog to allow full amnesty and turn a blind eye to how they got here and the havoc the often wreak once they arrive. (Don't get me started on Catholic liberals especially....)

Conservatives love illegals becaue of the cheap labor they provide. It's a diehard myth that illegals merely "do jobs Americans won't do" (Bush's favorite mantra). No. They do work that Americans won't do AT THOSE EXPLOITATIVELY LOW WAGES. No one thinks about lower income Americans and teenagers who now have fewer and fewer job ooportunities because illegals have undercut the pay scale.

I agree with you entirely about what the Canadian government doesn't appreciate. This whole isue goes to the heart of what is meant the rule of law.

10:16 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home