Long term, I think we need to have another Baracero-type program, where workers could come and go more easily than they can now.

However as for the illegal immigrants that are already here, instead of simply deporting them and fining their employers, because it is always more efficient to keep the same guys working where they are instead of changing things around, I think we should consider allowing the workers to keep working where they are, and requiring them to pay some nominal penalty (keeping their relatively low income in mind) and also, we should require the employers of undocumented Mexicans to pay some fee in order to help cover the cost of normalizing the worker's status. 

Also, the (illegal) employer should be made to hire an english teacher, and should have to pay the workers' usual wage while they sit in a class for an hour each day and learn english.  Once a worker demostrates reasonable (not perfect, just reasonable) english proficiency, his immigration status would be normalized.

Eventually - thanks to both the worker and the employers' monetary contributions and to both their efforts;

1 - The previously undocumented immigrants would be legalized and would know english, 

2 - The employer would have a legal work force and,

3 - The employer will have learned that in future, he will be money ahead to follow the law.

"Please consider my point. If a person does not live in the USA, how are they supposed to know what the legal requirements are to enter the US?"

"How do you know what the legal requirements are to enter Egypt, to use HLL's example? You trust your travel agent when they tell you what you need."

"So how did your great-great grandaddy (or however far back your people go) know what the USA required to enter the country legally?"

"And did he have it?"

"And how do you know?"

"I can spout "there oughta be a law" ideas about two years to demonstrate worthiness to be an American..."

"... and I can mischaracterize undocumented aliens as invaders and criminal malcontents."

"(WOPS = without papers, in case you ever wondered where that slur against Italians came from)"

"...But at the bottom of that, is there the love of Jesus Christ?"

Regards,

Old Sigma

cericlenhof

You make a very astute point about the reason why we're 10 million short of workers in this country.

You also mention that we must "address the issue of the injustice in Mexico that causes people to leave their homes."

The Bishops in unison with the teachings of the Magisterium do talk at length about this. Again I refer you to the Vatican website documents i.e. PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE PASTORAL CARE OF MIGRANTS AND ITINERANT PEOPLE http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/documents/rc_pc_migrants_doc_2003033_srilanka_hamao_en.html

In additon, Our Country through trade agreements i.e. NAFTA have directly contributed to the unemployment in our neighbors.

Rather than rewrite or cut & paste entire articles I'll give a few excerpts with the links:

quote:

http://www.losangelesmission.com//ed/articles/2006/0607cz.htm

---

...Writing in the November-December 2005 Houston Catholic Worker, Monseñor Álvaro Ramazzini, bishop of San Marcos in Guatemala and president of the Bishops' Secretariat of Central America and Panama, noted that "NAFTA displaced 1.5 million Mexican peasant farmers," many of whom "sought industrial jobs, causing Mexican wages to drop by 20 percent. Communities and families were torn asunder as those who lost their livelihoods undertook the perilous journey to the United States in hopes of finding some way to support their family."  http://www.cjd.org/paper/cafta.html

---

Here's an excerpt from another article by Christopher Zehnder that ties this in with Church teaching:

quote:

---

Pope Benedict appears to recognize that, in large part, we of the “First World” are responsible for the very problem we decry.(ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060109_diplomatic-corps_en.html

) It is our governments that foster and encourage the very policies that bring the poverty that people flee. It is our addiction to the highest standard of living at the lowest possible price that impels an economic system geared to produce products for the lowest possible cost, thus employing workers at the lowest possible wage. We may not benefit from the “goods” of an economic system without accepting its byproducts -- in this case, immigration.

As long as we fatten ourselves on the goods of others, we may not justly refuse them the goods that we possess -- including living in our homeland. http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=57f5f410-5a61-45b5-bd46-448bb34aaa8b

Houston Catholic Worker; Casa Juan Diego link:

http://www.cjd.org/paper/insists.html

Angels fly because they take themselves lightly. G.K. Chesterton

At the risk of taking this thread to yet another topic, I would observe that the Iraq war, while tragic, is not meaningless.  [I must admit most of the Iraqis I know personally are from the Kurdish north.] And the alternative to the current disappointing bunch in power are the bunch that genuflect at the altar of Molloch, killing 4,000 unborn babies daily.

I tend to agree with vytautas in that I wish our president had listened to the pope when he advised against the Iraq war.  I voted for Bush both times, but while I think he is an honest man, and I do not regret voting for him, I think he is wrong on this.  In any case, once he dicided to go to war, I think he was wrong in how he chose to go about it.  He simply was not firm enough, and did not put enough men and material to the task.  We Americans will not go for a hundred-years war; this one has in my opinion dragged out long enough.

I prefer Pope Benedict's approach of trying to engage reasonable Muslims and if possible, find some way to steer clear of violence.

I think we need to be very firm and sadly, probably use violence against militant radical terrorists, but I do not think the whole of Iraq is composed of such radicals. 

Ultimately we need regular, garden variety, "reasonable" Muslims, both those at home and abroad, on our side.  However as long as even reasonable Muslims think we are a godless people with a vulgar, repugnant society who truly want to undermine their culture, family values, and disgrace their children with our decadent ways, it is doubtful many of them will come to our defense and risk getting on board with our plans to help them build a democratic society in Iraq. 

I mean, we can build as many schools and hospitals as we like, and we can get the water and electric running, but as long as regular (i.e. traditional, but non-radical) Muslims honestly believe we are part of a Godless society that they both fear and loathe, we will not win.

I have read where even radical Muslims are not so much against democracy (witness the elections in Palestine, where the radical Hamas group actually won the election), as they are appalled at what we Amercians have decided to do with our freedoms.  Don't misunderstand me; I am not saying Osama bin Laden is democratic.  However the way they see it, rather than use our freedoms to advance things civilized, Godly, and gentle, the image we put out to the world is that we have chosen the way of abortion, gay marriage, free love, drugs, and a host of other decadent things that have lead to a society plauged with violence, mental and physical illness, a high divorce rate, a real drug problem, troubled, scandalized, or very cynical children, and the like.

While of course we need to fight radical Muslims terrorists (and we need to be serious about them, by the way), we also should take a look at ourselves.  At the very least we should examine the image we put out to the rest of the world. 

The cultural trash we routinely broadcast to the world by way of movies, TV, music and the arts are quite offensive to traditional cultures, but when for example, American NGO groups like Planned Parenthood or any number of gay pride or other types of atheistic, secular humanist groups internationally promote (via UN or other means) abortion, sexual liberties, and/or other types of anti-family, anti-religious policies and generally low morals, given our status as a superpower, of course traditional patriarchal and/or religious societies will find that (i.e., us) threatening.  These things offend and threaten many of the traditional societies in this world; in particular, they have driven the radical Muslim fringe of traditional Muslim societies into a violent rage against us. 

We would do well then, and it is in our best interest, to be aware of and sensitive to how other societies see us.  In short, we should try to put our best foot forward internationally, and try not broadcast things to these cultures that we know will disgust and horrify them..  

Reasonable conservatives in the US and reasonable Muslims (not fanatical mind you, but reasonable Muslims) both here and abroad, should try to see those things that - culturally - we in fact have in common (e.g., pro-life, respect for modesty, belief in traditional social values, etc.) and in the process, perhaps even develop some sort of mutual respect.  

RE: JLJewell's request for ladies imput: Is it possible that you roommate felt de-masculated by females in early life ?  I knew of one who felt sorry for his dad due to the fact that his dad was kept in line by the mother! This person did not have a high regard for women.

As a registered nurse, I worked with a couple fellows who favored same sex relations...both of them accepted females with grace. One of these guy's was actually married and had 3 children but everyone knew that if he allowed himself, he would have favored his own sex. That brings up the addiction and pleasure principle...Once addicted, it's not that easy to undo without the Grace of God. I read the book: Grace and addiction (Can't remember the Author, but he was a famous Psychiatrist ) and this Dr stated that there were no full proof remedies other than God's saving Actions. We have become a pleasure seeking society, the way I see it and unless we get on our knees and beg God's Mercy, we aren't going to make it.  Hopeful in the Lord !

I think we should bill a wall along the border!

The only problem is we'll need a few million illegals to build that wall.

I thought cericlenhof said it better than I could ever say it with "As far as immigration is concerned, I disagree with the "illegal immigrants are felons" argument. Although technically true, we have openly NOT ENFORCED this law, so it is not a law in practice. The problem with the USCCB document is one of emphasis. We must address the issue of the injustice in Mexico that causes people to leave their homes.  This issue is buried in one phrase in the whole document.  These people are coming here because there are jobs here.  Of course there are entry level jobs here."

Even without the Abortion connection this nails it for me.  With the abortion connection I say put a fork in it ... God makes straight with crooked lines.  Way to go cerc!

The top two lines were only for laughs.  I do not think a wall would do anything.

GK - God is good!

for the record "undocumented aliens" are NOT FELONS!

from what I've read regarding "criminal" vs. "civil" proceedings there are 2 issues involved. There is unlawful "entry" and unlawful "presence".

Unlawful ENTRY is when an alien is apprehended at a border crossing. The vast majority of aliens apprehended by the Border Patrol unlawfully entering the United States are either removed or (far more often) permitted to voluntarily depart in lieu of removal without being criminally prosecuted. Officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security stress that entering the country illegally is "an administrative violation." Although a federal statute does say that "improper entry" by an alien may be punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to six months (a misdemeanor in the criminal statutes), Homeland Security officials say the offense is usually handled with deportation under the civil code.

Unlawful PRESENCE (all those undocumented workers living amongst us - those not caught "red handed" crossing the border) are subject to "Removal hearings" which are not criminal proceedings. Unlawful PRESENCE is a civil violation and not a criminal violation. Criminal cases are conducted through judicial trial, removal cases are usually conducted through administrative proceedings before the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) within the Department of Justice. Though orders of removal may be reviewed by a federal court, statute and court jurisprudence generally provide that such review is limited in scope and largely deferential to the administrative authorities charged with implementing immigration laws. The constitutional rights accorded to an alien in a removal hearing are generally less than those to which the accused is entitled in a criminal proceeding. Among other things, in a criminal case the accused often has a right to both a trial by jury and appointed counsel, while an alien in a removal hearing does not.

The United States Supreme Court has held that “1. A deportation proceeding is a purely civil action to determine a person's eligibility to remain in this country. The purpose of deportation is not to punish past transgressions but rather to put an end to a continuing violation of the immigration laws. Consistent with the civil nature of a deportation proceeding, various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing. Pp. 1038-1039.”

Both SCOTUS and the Dept. of Homeland Security have said both cases "Unlawful entry" and "Unlawful presence" are handled as administrative proceedings.

Angels fly because they take themselves lightly. G.K. Chesterton

KenB wrote:  "...basically the economic problems with Mexico - and all of the former Spanish colonies for that matter - is that they were unfortunate enough to have been taken as colonies by Spain."

Economically, perhaps. And there apparently is more widespread corruption there than in the USA.  But consider that most Asian and African countries have more corruption as well.

And physically, I would say they got the better deal. The areas taken as Spanish colonies, and other Catholic countries for the most part, did not exterminate the natives as the English did.  It was not unheard of in Spanish, Portuguese, and French colonies to have European-Native intermarriage.  

In the Protestant colonizing of North America, we simply killed the natives off, or at least 99% of them.

How unfortunate indeed!

You are correct Protect the Rock, in that I did not mention the great contributions Spain made to the lands they colonized.  First and foremost, they brought Christianity.  They brought other good things, a list of which includes, but is not limited to; an organized social order, fine arts, music and literary culture, and some modern ideas regarding techonolgy and civic organization.  However, I must beg to differ with you on whether the Brits or the Spaniards were more cruel to the local Indians. 

If you check in any history book, you will see the fact of the matter is the Spaniards were far more ruthless with and cruel to the Indians of whatever land they colonized than the British were. 

Now, saying the Brits went easier on Indians than the Spaniards did is not saying much.  Both England and Spain were very rough on the local Indians.  After the British, of course the Americans were harsh with them as well, as were the Mexcians, who came after the Spaniards. 

In the end of course, the local indians - whether in North, Central, or South America - lacking the technology (e.g., originally the wheel, the horse, and metal weaponry were new to most of them) lost the war and were assumed in the Southern regions by the conquering Spaniards and later, the Mexicans, and in the northern regions, by the British, and later, the Americans.

To be sure, life was cruel in those days and in any case the Indians got a raw deal.  The following piece is but one of many accounts of the legendary Spanish cruelty; it was written by a priest who was along with some of the conquistadores.  The upshot is that to try to suggest or infer that the British were more hot tempered and cruel, while the Spaniards were somehow tolerant of and/or gentle with the indigenous populations is ludicrous.

-----

KenB: If you check in any history book, you will see the fact of the matter is the Spaniards were far more ruthless with and cruel to the Indians of whatever land they colonized than the British were.

Most history books we use are written from the point of view of the winners.  i.e. the English speaking US citizens.  In time I think we will find that if there is any clear "nation/culture that was better, less cruel than other nations/cultures of the time", that it may not be who we find in today's history books.  After archeological work and a wider angle view, we may find more of the truth.

For example did you know that the English destroyed Spanish settlements and an entire American Indian Nation in Georgia, USA?

GK - God is good!

RE: English vs. Spanish vis a vis the indigenous people

If there had been a decent "Border Patrol" in place, maybe the Europeans would have been held off for a few decades; likely not.  And yet look what happened on the plains and with the Chiricauha (sp?).A major question to ponder is by what right does the US Government, by letting illegal immigrants in, give up land to which they really don't have a moral title?  What compensation is due, on a moral plane, for what they have already done?

Riddle me that batmen.

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

pouliot, 

A major question to ponder is by what right does the US Government, by letting illegal immigrants in, give up land to which they really don't have a moral title?  What compensation is due, on a moral plane, for what they have already done?

If this is true than what moral right does the US Gov. have in charging "citizens" for land?

Ownership is said to be 9/10's of the law.  

America is an imperialist nation. 

 Maybe the Gov is interested in changing the face of America to where people are more tolerant? Where as the rest of the world does not encourage foreigners.

The question is will America become a new nation? a new Name?