A friend sent this.
People will surely have differing views on the Arizona illegal-immigrant legislation, but you have to hand it to Gov. Jan Brewer for this response.
Arizona governor vs. Phoenix Suns owner – I’d say she makes a
pretty good case with her analogy!!The owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team, Robert Sarver,
came out strongly opposing AZ’s new immigration laws.Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, released the following statement
in response to Sarver’s criticism of the new law:“What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people
were sneaking into games without paying? What if they had a
good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and
security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to
produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn’t
be ejected.Furthermore, what if Suns’ ownership was expected to provide
those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink? And
what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured,
the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?”– Arizona Gov. Jan
Loading ...
Amen! I want a governor like the one in Arizona!
I saw a splendid and very even-handed explication, from a Catholic point of view, of the immigration controversy on another blog.
I’ll see if I can track it down.
Spot-On!
Semper Fi!
AnAmericanMother, I’d be interested to read it if you can find it.
I live in AZ, and Jan Brewer is also a staunch pro-life advocate. I think her analogy is apt.
A silly analogy. Entering a country illegally because you are desperate to work is not plausibly comparable to sneaking into a basketball game. And yes, we should express discomfort at the idea of security guards demanding tickets of only those people that they have “a good idea” are the gate-crashers. As for free medical care, does the stadium provide that for bona fide ticket-holders?
Stop for a minute and think of all the real-life “How would you like it if…” scenarios that an undocumented immigrant could hurl back at Governor Brewer, if only he could take some time off his three jobs.
People can differ on what to do about immigration — and I’m not sure why a basketball team owner’s opinion has been seen as significant enough to merit a Governor’s response — but this reply is populist misdirection. [Or perhaps the populist label should be applied to the owner of the Phoenix Suns.]
Umm . . . let me guess, Mr. Sarver has an agenda somewhere in there. What AZ pol is he beholden to?
I’m amazed at the change in positions of conservatives and liberals on this issue in the last 25 years. The AFL-CIO had a major flip-flop and endorsed amnesty around ten years ago. And even the most conservative of libertarians run contrary to the strongly held view of classical economists like Milton Friedman that immigration is best for the immigrants and best for the US when it’s illegal.
Kind of similar to abortion in the early seventies. Ted Kennedy was strongly pro life while mainstream republicans were in favor of legalized abortion.
Archiantor the only thing silly (and tired) is your liberal rhetoric and word play.
This is not immigration. Immigration is what my great grandparents did. This is illegal entry into a sovereign nation of which you are not a citizen. No amount of feel-good liberal platitudes will turn that wrong into a right.
They’re desperate for work? So am I. And I was born here. If I thought I had a better chance of getting a job in another country, I would apply for LEGAL entry into that country, because that’s what a good citizen should do, even if he’s “desperate.”
Your silly liberal self-righteousness should be directed at the government of Mexico and Central American countries whose corruption and leftist policies leave their country’s economies in such pitiful shape that they force these saintly “undocumented immigrants” to become border jumping law breakers.
Well, you’ve not established that those entering this country illegally do so because they are “desperate to work” and cannot find employment elsewhere. Getting back to the point, the analogy is spot-on. In both cases an individual desires to obtain something. Also, in both case, the individual chose to obtain it illegally (that is, sinfully). You seem to be suggesting that the “goodness” of the desired end somehow justifies the means used to obtain it.
Now, I can agree that individual circumstances can mitgate and individual’s culpability, a starving man stealing a loaf of bread, for example, but this does not change the fact that the act is in and of itself morally wrong.
Jason, to be fair and truthful, your statement should read as follows:
<blockquote cite="Your silly liberal self-righteousness should be directed at the government of Mexico and Central American countries whose corruption
and leftist policiesleave their country’s economies in such pitiful shape that they force these saintly “undocumented immigrants” to become border jumping law breakers.”Far right policies have also doomed several of these countries. The old term “Banana Republic” comes to mind. Our own country experimented with complete lack of regulation in the 19th century and we ended up with 3 astonishing rich people and millions of poor with no leverage at all.
The analogy would have been somewhat more useful if it had acknowledged both the tremendous violence in Mexico, largely fed by our appetite for drugs, as well as the fact that there is generally no legal means of immigration for those who choose to cross the border. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Of course, we could see the influx of Catholics as a godsend. Just think of what we could if, instead of allying ourselves with Nativists, we actually welcomed and helped catechize those whose religious instruction was lacking (which is a goodly many of them) instead of leaving them to the tender mercies of secular atheists and Protestants. But then, that would require that we give a damn about our fellow Catholics and place people above partisan politics, and we can’t have that.
Jason said: If I thought I had a better chance of getting a job in another country, I would apply for LEGAL entry into that country
Hi, Jason. This “self-righteous liberal” is a life-long conservative voter whose great-grandparents immigrated just like yours, back when immigrants were actively sought to clear forests and dig in mines, and I find rhetoric like the good Governor’s hopelessly tired.
Very sorry to hear of your work situation. But I’m assuming from what you’ve said that you *don’t* see a better chance of getting a job in another country, and that’s the whole point. Blaming the Mexican government won’t put food into the mouths of a migrant worker’s children, and obtaining a work visa in another “sovereign nation” is no cake-walk (as I can attest from experience). Debating immigration laws isn’t silly; but as you seem to know all too well these are often desperate situations, and it *is* silly to compare them to crashing a basketball game.
Father, I’m not sure what Mr. Sarver is up to, but I’m not sure it counts as populist. If his position is branded as “un-American” it will hurt his ticket sales, not whip up the masses. Then again, if the people of Phoenix like to “stick it to the government”, it could well be a seller!
The analogy is flawed. A correct analogy would be Sun’s amazing new forward who crossed the border illegally but scores 30 points per game and only want $1m per year in compensation. The fans pack the house for each game paying $12 per seat at courtside. The owner makes millions and the Suns win the championship.
Think of this when you pay $.88 per pound for onions and strawberries. [Okay! There’s another strong analogy to consider! Good one. I would go so far as to add that businesses around the area benefit on games nights, jobs are created, in the area, in the bars, not great ones, but not nothing. But that pesky “illegal” remains. “Illegal”.]
Many illegal immigrants enter this country because they are starving. 25 people die in Mexico City due to starvation each day. 1/5 of Mexico lives in extreme poverty. I think that most illegal immigrants in this country come here to just save their families from starvation. That is why they risk their lives crossing the border. To those who say they should have come the legal way: it is very difficult to immigrate into the United States unless someone has an advanced degree or a limited variety of seasonal jobs. Additionally, those who are allowed legal entry into the United States have to wait an average of five years. The legal way is often very unrealistic.
About four years ago I was fortunate enough to hear the then Bishop Wenski (now archbishop of Miami) talk about this issue. He gave his own analogy, but I can’t seem to exactly remember it so I’m going to kind of improvise.
-A man walks home at night after doing something (maybe he’s taking out the trash). He then notices someone is coming around from the side of his house. He then sees a knife come out from his pocket. The man then runs into his neighbors house (he knows his neighbor often leaves the door unlocked) and locks the door. Did this man do anything wrong?
I wish I could remember how then-Bishop Wenski said this, but I think this gets the point across.
May God bless my state’s very pro-life governor.
That’s one fine Governor!
If there’s one thing I hate, is champagne socialism.
Illegal immigration causes conflicts among poor, punishes the legal immigrants making humble jobs, and encourages lawlessness.
It is very easy for rich people to sit on their lush gardens, sip their gin & tonic and play “humanitarian”.
Mundabor
Paulus Magnus –
I live in Northeast Texas and believe me, the Catholic Church is quite welcoming to Hispanics, legal or otherwise. There are 13 Catholic churches within a 60 mile radius of our ranch. Of the 13 pastors, only 3 speak English as a first language. Have you ever made your confession with a priest whom you can’t understand and who you are pretty sure can’t understand you? It’s quite frustrating! The Catholic Church in this Diocese is quite welcoming and cares pastorally for Hispanics. English-speaking people, not so much.
While Gov. Brewer’s response was quite clever, I’m more of a mind with what NicholasFrancis says. If the U.S. is going to get serious about enforcing the border, we also need to get serious about reforming immigration to allow an easier path for potential immigrants to enter legally. Personally I’m frustrated with the conservative position on the immigration issue and for once I mostly agree with the bishops on this one.
Legal entry is extremely hard to get. I’m afraid that in this case saying “let them enter legally” is the same as saying “let them eat cake”.
But the Suns owners wants to pay $7.50 an hour with no benefits for cleaning his arena and parking lots. he’ll go out of business if he had to pay a living wage for those services. He might have to get ride of one of his houses and the servants.
“And do you therefore love strangers, because you also were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Deuteronomy 10:19.
“If a stranger dwell in your land and abide among you, do not upbraid him:
“But let him be among you as one of the same country; and you shall love him as yourselves: for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:33-34.
Conservative talk radio will not save you.
Supporting illegal immigration is supporting coyotes, pimps, druglords, and just plain old slavers. (Not to mention the illegal takeover of Azusa, California by the “Mexican mafia”.) Support for illegal immigration encourages businesses to use and abuse illegals working for them, and not even to pretend to pay them fair wages.
Even the Triangle Trade didn’t make slaves save up and pay for their own transport to America. Chinese and Mexican illegal slaves often do just that.
As long as we are quoting scripture:
If Anyone Will Not Work, Let Him Not Eat.
II Thessalonians 3:10
Joanna,
Found it. It was written by a poster on Free Republic as a rejoinder to an article by the director of the “Peace and Justice Office” in Knoxville. The article is at the top, the rejoinder at post no. 1.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2505877/posts?page=1
The part that really resonated with me is the same point that Suburbanbanshee brings up:
timothy,
Also from the same article:
Nicholas Francis,
Anybody is happy to give temporary refuge to somebody who is in immediate danger. That’s giving immediate, personal aid to a stranger and sojourner in need.
But what if the fellow who ran into his neighbor’s house to escape the scary man with the knife decides that he likes his neighbor’s house much better than his own? He abandons his house (and his family who are still living there, presumably in closer proximity to the guy with the knife), helps himself to the contents of the refrigerator and the clothes in the closets, and uses the TV and stereo and puts fingerprints in all the books. He uses the neighbor’s computer to access his bank account and spend his neighbor’s money as he likes, and maybe sets up a business on the side using his neighbor’s car and telephone.
When the neighbor whose assets have been diverted objects, he’s called a racist and xenophobe. Did he do anything wrong? Did the migratory neighbor do anything wrong?
Jesus advised the young man who wished to follow Him more perfectly to give away all he owned to the poor. He didn’t qualify what poor meant. I do wonder about people who have such an attachment to their money that they are all too willing to risk denying an innocent child food or medical attention in the interest of punishing the parents, who entered the country illegally. I want no such attachment to money or a politician like Jan Brewer. I also wonder how many of you actually know any illegal immigrants. I do, and they’re concerned with one thing: making a living to support their families. They work extremely hard at jobs few Americans want. They live simply, humbly and with great faith. They are not perfect, but who is?
I have to work much harder to see the resemblance to Christ in someone like Jan Brewer than I do in the faces of these families.
\\we actually welcomed and helped catechize those whose religious instruction was lacking (which is a goodly many of them) instead of leaving them to the tender mercies of secular atheists and Protestants.\\
A friend of mine works at an Arizona school that is overrun with Somali refugees and Mexican students. The number of the later who entered illegally is unknown.
He congratulated one Mexican girl on being baptized, confirmed, and making her First Communion last Easter. But when asked how she was doing recently, she said, “I have my sacraments now, so I don’t have to go to church any more.”
(This school is also the worst in the state on the AIMS test, but that’s another issue. It’s not entirely the school’s fault, as many of the Somalians have never even seen a pencil before–no exaggeration. Their education consisted of merely rote memorization of the Coran in Arabic.)
I don’t think the question “Is illegal immigration a good thing?” is really in question. No one supports illegal immigration. The issue is not if we should allow people to come into our country illegally, but what we should do with them once they’re here.
There are millions of people now living in the US illegally; these people are for the most part the most despised, poorest, and least-protected people in the country. They are frequently exploited, subject to criminal influence, disease, and a host of other evils. The idea that it is at all a moral option to take all these people, many of whom have spent years and a great deal of their lives here, and deport them, dropping them back off in their countries of origin without a single resource in the world seems to me pretty clearly inadmissible. Nor is it all practical to fine these people anything more than a symbolic amount, or to throw them into prison for their crime. ‘Amnesty’ and a path to citizenship seems to be pretty much the only reasonable and moral option for dealing with illegals currently living in the US. In this opinion, I am of course joined by the Bishops of our country.
Because the basic fact remains that we have a duty to treat these people, the stranger among us, the least of these my brethren, with respect and kindness; and we have a responsibility to see to their welfare as much as we can.
Clearly, illegal immigration is not a good thing; it should be prevented as much as possible, and it should absolutely NOT be encouraged or permitted. The borders should be secure, and people attempting to cross should be sent back to whence they came; but this cannot be done either morally or practically to the illegal population who have lived and worked among us for years now.
The idea that amnesty and respect to current illegals would serve as an incentive for more illegal immigration is a reasonable objection to all this, of course, as is the issue of the necessity of respect for the rule of law, but ultimately it doesn’t really change anything concerning our moral duty and the practical situation, at least in my opinion. But of course this is a prudential judgement, and Catholics can and do differ as to the best way to apply the various principles involved. But we should all at least be able to agree on the principles themselves.
The analogy is deeply flawed. Why is the word ‘illegal’ being used. What makes someone from Mexico living in the United States an “illegal’? Think about the Nazi when the basically made being Jewish illegal. That is an unjust law.
Not long ago, anti-Catholic Racists from northern Europe could come over to the US without so much as even a PASSPORT. They could come over and stay as long as they liked because America decided that these were desirable people. You know with their white skin, their Germanic languages and what not. Then America decided that it didn’t want those filthy, stinking Catholics from southern Europe or South America. So when they set the number of people from each country that could legally come the the US, there weren’t many spots of Catholics.
Think of it like this, country A produces a movie and decides that everyone in the world can get this film on DVD but country B. Country A doesn’t want to sell movies to the people in country B. Ok, so do they really expect the people in country B to not illegally download the film?
Lets say I open a movie theater and I decided that I don’t want too many blacks coming and ruining the experience for all the whites so I set aside three seats out of the two hundred or so that blacks can sit in and all the rest of the seats must be filled by whites. Do I really expect blacks who are not one of the three to not sneak in and watch the movie anyway?
Let’s suppose I own the only grocery story in town and I decide that I only want to sell to one black guy because I know him and like him but I instruct the staff to refuse a sale to any other black person who comes in looking to legally buy food. Do I really expect a father to not steal food so that he can feed his family?
In all these analogies there is one constant, an activity is legal for one person and illegal for another person; not based on the merits of the people, by based on someone else’s decision. Illegal immigrants are engaging in an activity that has been made lawful for other people, but illegal for them bases solely on America’s deep seated hatred of Christ and Catholics who worship him.
You know, if it was legal for Whites to invade Texas and then start an unjust war with Mexico to force them to cede land then I really don’t see why anyone has a problem with hard working Catholics coming to America to do right by their family.
How about this to chew on. It was illegal for me to become a priest from the moment of my birth. I’m not a woman, I’m a man so we aren’t talking about a lack of substance here. My parents weren’t married when I was born, so I could not without special permission become a priest. Now, I resigned myself to the law of the Church and humbly obeyed the law but if I had been allowed to study for the priesthood when I first converted to Christianity the Catholics here would not have to go to the Bishop and beg for a priest to say the extraordinary form because I would say it for them and would be happy to do so.
As far as the “free eats and drink” stuff goes, well, America having a warped sense of helping the poor is hardly the fault of the father of five who wants to provide for his family.
Think of it like this. Imagine back to the cold war and the soviet union. This is a bit far fetched but just imagine some big organization over in the Soviet Union wanted, needed, Americans to come and do some vital work for them. Suppose they were willing to pay a salary of 1 million a year. But the Soviet government doesn’t want filthy, dirty Americans coming in and polluting their perfect atheist society so the only way for an American to get their 1 million a year is to go over illegally. Would we do it? You bet we would. Americans would be lined up at every office the organization has asking to go over even if it means breaking the law.
The reason you can’t make an analogy with something like illegal immigration is because the underlying issues and causes are not the same as what everyone thinks they are. Mexicans don’t come to the states to get free “eats and drink” or free health care. Their reasons are diverse and important enough to them to risk their lived trying to get in. Just as 1 million a year would be important enough to a money hungry American to go to the Soviet Union illegally to get it, Mexicans are coming here for reasons that are important enough for them.
What this is all about is greed. Americans want what they want and they will lie and twist the truth to make it seem like they are on the just side but it is all really about them trying to get material possessions, and status and get what they want. When the idea is reversed they will take the opposite position simply because they want to win. There is no higher justification for anything that they are doing, they just want to win and I don’t blame Mexicans for not falling for it. Mexicans want to win too.
America one made it illegal for Indians to live anywhere on the eastern side of the Mississippi River. Do you blame Indians for being “illegals”? They one made it illegal for Blacks and Whites to get married. Do you blame the Catholics who happened to have a spouse of the other race for being “illegal”? It was once illegal to drink wine. Do you blame the priest who celebrated Mass with wine for his “illegal” activity?
If you want illegal immigration to stop then give them a way to come to the US legally. Create a legal path and they will likely go down that path just to not be bothered. These people are not hardened criminals, they would come legally if they could but the US won’t let them.
You know, and it really sickens me that Americans are bending over backwards to be accepting and accommodating to Muslims whose ‘holy’ book actually instructs the to KILL US, but we give these honest, hard working Catholics a hard time.
Remember, we aren’t talking about something that should be illegal for everyone, we are talking about something that is legal for British people but illegal for Mexican people, that is coming over to the US with no passport and no visa.
quomodocumque,
I can’t go through that long post and find every error, so I’ll just point out one: you are dead wrong about British subjects being able to visit here without a passport or visa. They must hold a passport, and while they do not necessarily require a visa for a visit of less than 90 days, they must get an ESTA which is essentially an electronic visa – and you have to have a passport AND a major credit card AND pay in advance. See here:
https://esta.cbp.dhs.gov/esta/esta.html?_flowExecutionKey=_cADA76364-8E96-7C38-D944-788DA18713BF_k5A141E50-B23C-435D-4B2D-56F7835822AE
The opposition to unrestricted immigration didn’t begin with the southern Europeans. It didn’t even begin with the Irish – some of them my ancestors who came over in the “plague ships and swimming coffins” (look at a Thomas Nast cartoon sometime). You can make a good argument that it began with the Pilgrim Fathers, who discriminated on the basis of religion rather than race. They didn’t even like Anglicans or Baptists.
The Mexican government, by the way, has one of the harshest anti-immigration laws in the Western Hemisphere. Is it ‘all about greed’ for them as well?
As an Arizonan and a Catholic, I am waiting waiting for some bishop somewhere to pick up that train of thought and run with it along these 2 lines:
1. When the habitual lying and corruption of the freeper piece are added to the actual risk to life and limb, how many souls are thrown into Perdition every year? We have a running tally down here that figures about 25-400 death every year for recent years. What was the state of their souls if they died in the midst of this activity? Do we care?
2. Look at the catechism:
WHY does our Right Reverend His Excellency Gerald NEVER seem to find the highlighted second paragraph? Nor do his counterparts south of the border. Nor do the COMMUNISTS and USURPERS at USCCB.
What must we do, Lord?
I think Henry Belton at 2:10 pretty much summed up my position on this issue.
What no one seems to have pointed out, though, (unless I missed it) is that the problem with illegal immigration has as much (or more) to do with unduly and irresponsibly restrictive immigration laws as with non-enforcement of the law.
I understand that people think immigrants should just “get in line” and “wait their turn”, but most of the people who come here illegally would NEVER be allowed into the country legally. When the choice is between raising your children in an impoverished village run by a vicious drug cartel, or raising them in a rich and free country where technically they and you are criminals, I’m sure that everyone would choose to be an outlaw against being poor, frightened, and victimized.
I’ll believe people are serious about resolving the immigration problem when they clamor as loudly for just and equitable immigration laws as they do for enforcement, because enforcement alone will never solve the problem of there being millions of people who have no alternative but to enter as criminals.
And for those who believe that American immigration laws are already just enough, I’d like to point you to this flow-chart designed by an Australian whose immigration to the US was so heinous, he wondered what it must be like for people who weren’t affluent, white, English-speaking people from 1st world countries… and he found that the result was less pretty than what he had gone through.