Cardinal, House speaker discuss immigration reform [CC]


Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who served as Archbishop of Washington from 2001 to 2006, met recently with the speaker of the House of Representatives to discuss immigration …



Perhaps the Cardinal should focus on more important matters than meddling in American politics. If he wants to be a politician he should just be one.


So rude to speak so of a Church pastor. Sighs


One does not give up his citizenship rights once he is ordained. The Cardinal has just as much right to talk to politicians and you or I do.


No doubt. How surprising it is to have to mention on a Catholic forum that bishops shepherd. It is the purpose of their Holy Orders. Instead of complaining about “meddling” we should remember that our loyalty to God should precede party loyalties.


Since the article has no content at all other than a mild slap at “conservatives” at the end, no meaningful comment is possible.


What exactly does immigration reform mean? I suspect many that use that word are not using exactly as we’d think. Some of it seems to mean dealing with those (and the offspring) of those who’ve chosen to come to (or stay) illegally. That’s not exactly reform as it isn’t addressing a problem with our system just it’s enforcement.


I think for many, “immigration reform” means that warm, fuzzy feeling one gets when one volunteers others to pay the social costs of no enforcement at all.

Genuine, useful immigration reform is extremely unlikely. And I say that as one who favors immigration.


Of course it is unlikely: the people (on both sides) whose duty it is to bring it about seem more interested in satisfying their respective bases and winning elections. Meanwhile, despite repeated reassurances of the intention to do something, nothing actually changes. If I performed like that for any boss, I’d be “fired” forthwith, and all similarly performing employees along with me. :rolleyes:


Ok, I’ll rant a bit: My wife applied for a visa for her brother back in 1991. They’ve chosen to do everything by the book. Due to quotas, he’s still waiting. Now this is a guy who speaks English, has a sponsor willing to look to his well being so he doesn’t become a burden to the taxpayers and he has a college education. When I hear reform it usually seems to go with amnesty (call it what you will) for those who couldn’t obey our laws and by people who have only a small portion of the world in mind (Latin America). How about for reform we tighten border security, increase enforcement and increase quotas for the rest of the world. Lets reward those that choose to obey our laws.


You make it sound like those who don’t ‘obey’ simply willfully choose not to. It’s not that simple. The people who cross the borders to care for kids, mow lawns and harvest crops sometimes have no legal avenue available to them. Welcoming the college-educated is a great idea but will they do the demanding jobs out in the fields…or will we accept the outcomes of keeping the low-skilled out, such as, higher food prices with all its attendant repercussions?


This may be the biggest problem. Politicians seldom show any concern from those who are not in their base of power.


Sometimes one is simply amazed. Possibly illegals somewhere mow lawns and take care of citizens’ kids. Around here, they take industrial and construction jobs, particularly the latter. The people who are mainly getting hurt, I believe, are those who once were able to make a decent living in unskilled and semi-skilled work.

And so what if would-be illegals “have no (special) legal avenue available to them”? Their avenue is the same as it is for someone else who stands in line the legal way. I favor increased immigration, but it should be geared to the benefit of the country, not to make liberals feel good by giving others’ jobs away.

It’s interesting that those who tout everything about Europe, as liberals tend to do, don’t mention the fact that food is about twice as costly there as here, relative to peoples’ earnings. As to basics, that’s not likely to change. It’s only at the margins that illegal workers do much to keep food prices down. Is the world really going to end if those granite-hard winter strawberries are not at Walmart? Every summer I pick strawberries for myself and my family at a “pick your own” place. Some kids work there, picking to sell, also. Why should we be so quick to insist that foreigners replace them, particularly in government-subsidized desert irrigation projects?

Personally, I can wait for summer strawberries and grapes. If I can’t wait, I can always buy the ones from Chile that are ubiquitous in the stores. If I don’t want to raise the stuff myself, there are always the farm-to-market places operated by people who are here legally. I really don’t care if Walmart can’t make more money on produce picked by illegals. Why should my tax dollars go to the food giants and to the welfare messes serving them creates? Why should citizens lose their jobs in construction so illegals can swarm every construction site working under some “subcontractor” who pays in greenbacks and withholds no taxes?

You can’t turn on the television without hearing some commentator talk about how important education is. They wail and moan because the educational level in this country is so bad compared to all other developed countries. And yet, in our immigration policies (or lack thereof) somehow that’s all forgotten, and we prefer people who have no education worthy of the name.

But in the course of “reforming” the immigration system, there are serious problems if it’s approached seriously. Not the least of them is the fact that our courts will likely never allow real exclusion of potential terrorists or criminals. The system doesn’t now, in any meaningful way, and there is no reason to think it will in the future.

And no, I really don’t care if some lawyer/financier couple can’t find a Salvadoran nanny to take care of their kids for them. Let them take care of their own.


This is probably why I favor legal immigration and extreme reform. I believe laws should benefit most those most in need. What is good for the country is a greater work force. Period. People are a resource, not a burden.


I vote this as my quote of the month! All people are gifts, we just too often can’t be bothered to peel back the wrapping…


Another group that benefits from illegal immigration are the elites in the origin country. As long as there’s some way of letting off some pressure (letting some of their subjects leave the country to sent back remittances) there’s much less pressure to change. Mexico is a great example. It’s a very wealthy country in terms of natural resources but really a land of haves and have not’s. Last I hear one of the wealthiest men in the world was Mexican. I’m not saying they need another revolution as it would be unlikely to help the poor anyway but some political reform would go along way. (And an end to drug cartels as well).


Thank God for this country where people line up for miles in order to get in, “legally”. “Immigration reform” code word for amnesty and open borders. Wonder why the bishops and clergy have intentionally left out the word “illegal”. Pro (illegal) immigration activists have demonize this country and our immigration laws to promote an agenda forgetting that this is the best country in the face of the earth. Perhaps if we change our laws such as those of Mexico we would avoid all sorts of criticisms that’s coming from the mainstream media to include UNIVISION. There is nothing wrong with “immigration”, legal immigration.



Nothing was unintentional and there were no “code” words. It is, in fact, demons that the shepherds try and protect the sheep from, demons of pride, greed, selfishness and hate.


(my bold italics)

And there is pride, greed, selfishness and hate on the amnesty side. I have absolutely no respect for any politician who sees immigrants as mere voters, and who would trample on our constitution and rule of law in order to amass more votes to maintain power. Shame on them.



Why demonize someone with an opposing view? I would rather discuss the merits of the topic at hand. If you feel the term “code” is inaccurate perhaps you can give us a better definition what the bishops mean when they speak of “immigration reform” and why the word “illegal”, as defined by our immigration laws, has been removed from the discussion. Is the Church for or against illegal immigration?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit