Illegals Aren't Criminals, Cardinal McCarrick Says
From Cybercast News Service:
(CNSNews.com) - The head of the Washington, D.C., Archdiocese on Monday criticized immigration reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives because it would hinder the Catholic Church's ability to help the needy, he said.My Comments:
"The difficulty was that it made all these people who are illegal, criminals," Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told Cybercast News Serviceat a protest on the National Mall in Washington. "There's a big difference between being illegal and being criminal."
The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act (H.R. 4437) would categorize illegal residency in the U.S. as a felony. Democrats inserted the "felony" language in an effort to undermine the bill, said the bill's sponsor, House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said he and other Republicans wanted to make "unlawful presence" a misdemeanor, not a felony.
The House bill also would punish employers who hire undocumented workers. McCarrick said that particular provision would threaten religious workers who offer help to the needy.
[More]
So, according to Cardinal McCarrick, doing something illegal isn't the same thing as committing a crime. The things we learn from the leaders of our Church. Why, it was just the other day that we learned from Cardinal Mahony that Latin was the language of worship for only a "small slice" of the Church's history.
UPDATE (originally posted by me in comments):
For the record, I am in agreement with the position of the U.S. Bishops on immigration. I am a big Hispanophile, and am quite sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. My wife and I argue about things like "English only" laws - I point out to her that Spanish was being spoken in some parts of the country for 200 years (in some places, closer to 300 years) before the first Anglo ever set foot in those parts.
But that being said, my beef with Cardinal McCarrick on this is that I think it does McCarrick's pro-immigrant advocacy little good for him to claim that "illegal" and "criminal" don't mean the same thing. It comes off as disingenuous.
UPDATE # 2:
Publius makes a good point in comments that "running a red light is illegal. Is someone who does that a criminal? Or breaking the speed limit, or jaywalking, or failing to put money in the meter, or whatever."
Okay I concede the point that "illegal" doesn't automatically mean "criminal". However, there is a difference between violating civil traffic laws and consciously violating a nation's immigration laws.
Which is not to say that those who have come to this country illegally should be treated shamefully or should be denied basic services. Nor does it mean that we shouldn't do something to normalize their status here. But let's not pretend that they haven't consciously broken the law.
UPDATE # 3:
I also apologize to Cardinal McCarrick for being too hasty to judge his comments.
posted by Pro Ecclesia 8:04 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I am sure you have been keeping up with the "undocumented" aspect of illegal residents of the US. Many are illegal but fully "documented"... meaning, fake SS cards, fake DL, etc etc etc.
Sometimes these are easy to spot, like the SS cards that have come across my desk with the numbers erased out & retyped... others are very hard to spot. The fakes are good copies.
I for one am no expert in document verification, so what am I to do?
Deny every hispanic who comes to me looking for a rental property? Under this law, our compnay could be charged if we rent to illegal/undocumented aliens.
And the contractors we use for maintenance and building all hire hispanics w/ "documentation" as well. Are they now supposed to discriminate against hiring any hispanics what so ever bc they can't tell a real ID from a fake?
All I can see this as doing is fueling a fear to help out our fellow man based soley on their ethnicity.
I for one like McCarrick and tend to agree with him on this. Yes, our country is in trouble when anyone can walk past our borders & I honestly don't know what solution we can come up with it that will stabilize things.
Maybe we need to redefine what it means to be "undocumentated". I don't know, honestly. But I do see many hispanics being targeted, & I for one do not one to have to answer to the Big Man Upstairs for denying a family the basics of a roof over their head & a job. I have never been to Mexico, only Puerto Rico. I don't know what that person had to do to get here & what they left.
I am torn. And yes my maiden name is Fernandez.
Thanks for your comments on this, Carolina Cannonball. You make some good points.
For the record, I am in agreement with the position of the U.S. Bishops on immigration. I am a big Hispanophile, and am quite sympathetic to the plight of immigrants, both legal and undocumented. My wife and I argue about things like "English only" laws - I point out to her that Spanish was being spoken in some parts of the country for 200 years before the first Anglo ever set foot in those parts.
But that being said, my beef with Cardinal McCarrick on this is that I think it does McCarrick's pro-immigrant advocacy little good for him to claim that "illegal" and "criminal" don't mean the same thing. It comes off as disingenuous.
Well, running a red light is illegal. Is someone who does that a criminal?
Or breaking the speed limit, or jaywalking, or failing to put money in the meter, or whatever.
Okay, Publius, you have me there. But wouldn't you concede that violating civil statutes like driving laws is a little different than consciously violating immigration laws?
"...claim that "illegal" and "criminal" don't mean the same thing."
I don't think they do either. Symantics, I know. If we define the actuality of being illegal as a crime, then yes the term criminal applies.
But I think we can use a little charity here because not every illegal here is a hard core bone thug, like the meaning of "criminal" applies to here in this topic. Rapist, murderer, drug trafficker, etc. I think that is the difference Mccarrick was referring to.
Carolina Cannonball, I've now conceded your and Publius' point that "criminal" and "illegal" don't necessarily mean the same thing.
Okay, Publius, you have me there. But wouldn't you concede that violating civil statutes like driving laws is a little different than consciously violating immigration laws?
Sure, illegal immigration is different than traffic violations (which can be and often are done consciously — I know what of I speak). But this raises a legal question: is crossing the border a civil or criminal offense under Federal law (or does not Federal law make a distinction between the two)? I know it isn't a felony now from the hoopla about the House bill, but does the state even call it criminal?
Post a Comment
<< Home