← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Howard Campbell, Jr.
Thread ID: 18301 | Posts: 35 | Started: 2005-05-19
2005-05-19 15:46 | User Profile
Sign up now...
Border vigil planned for California By Jerry Seper THE WASHINGTON TIMES Published May 19, 2005
Minuteman organizer James T. Gilchrist, whose 850 volunteers shut down the flow of illegal aliens along a 23-mile section of Arizona-Mexico border last month, has joined forces with another citizens group to help organize a new border vigil in California -- beginning in August. The Minuteman Project has reached an agreement with the Friends of the Border Patrol (FBP) to help promote a new "border watch" aimed at assisting U.S. Border Patrol agents in apprehending illegal aliens on the California border near San Diego. FBP Chairman Andy Ramirez said more than 500 volunteers have signed up to patrol areas of the California-Mexico border in August, including former Border Patrol agents, retired police and military personnel and pilots. He said yesterday that at least 2,000 more applications from volunteers nationwide are still being reviewed. The California vigil will kick off an effort by the Minuteman Project to link anti-illegal immigration groups nationwide and create a network of civilian volunteers along the nation's borders, said Mr. Gilchrist, who lives in Aliso Viejo, Calif. He said he also intends to target employers in the near future who knowingly hire illegal aliens. "We did in our first 10 days what the federal government and Congress couldn't do over the past 10 years," Mr. Gilchrist said. The announcement of the California border watch comes in the wake of comments by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who praised the Minuteman Project in Arizona as bringing needed attention to the problem of illegal immigration. He also has said he would not be opposed to a similar effort in his state. Mr. Ramirez, who formed FBP in August as a citizens advocacy group to support the Border Patrol, said that America "was built on the spirit of volunteerism" and that "citizens volunteering to defend our nation in time of war and crisis is a time-honored American tradition." "The job of the volunteers will be to watch the borders, avoid any physical encounter, monitor and observe, and contact the Border Patrol. That is the bottom line," he said, putting the blame for the problem on President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox. "If President Bush would stop obstructing the Border Patrol and stop carrying out Fox's immigration policies for the U.S., none of this would be necessary." FBP's vigil is being called to highlight the failure of Congress and the Bush administration to secure America's borders from illegal aliens and terrorists, Mr. Ramirez said. He said extensive training sessions for the volunteers will begin in June. Mr. Ramirez said Mr. Gilchrist will help promote the California vigil, while he will choose the location -- still under consideration -- and manage the operation. More than a dozen Border Patrol agents told The Washington Times last week that agents in Naco, Ariz., had been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section patrolled by the Minutemen because an increase in apprehensions after the volunteers left would prove the effectiveness of their border vigil. They said supervisors at the Naco station instructed them during daily briefings that arrests were "not to go up." Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters has denied the accusations, but several other agents have since come forward to confirm the instructions. A total of 857 volunteers participated in the 30-day Minuteman vigil in Arizona, where they protested the lax U.S. immigration enforcement policies by trying to reduce the flow of illegal aliens along popular immigration and drug smuggling corridors east and west of Naco. Their goal was to show that increased manpower on the border effectively would deter illegal immigration. Organizers said the protest resulted in Border Patrol arrests of 349 illegal aliens, and Border Patrol field agents said the flow of illegal aliens through the targeted area dropped from 500 apprehensions a day to about 15 a day. Border Patrol supervisors in Arizona have discounted the Minuteman efforts, saying a drop in apprehensions during the border protest was because of the Mexican government's deployment of military and police south of the targeted area and the Arizona Border Control Initiative Phase II, which brought additional agents to the state. The supervisors blamed the volunteers for unnecessarily tripping sensors, disturbing draglines and interfering with the normal operations of the agents. They said their impact on illegals was "negligible," adding that civilians should leave immigration enforcement "to the professionals."
It'll do 'til "Operation Wetback II"...
2005-05-19 16:01 | User Profile
*More than a dozen Border Patrol agents told The Washington Times last week that agents in Naco, Ariz., had been ordered not to arrest illegal aliens along the section patrolled by the Minutemen because an increase in apprehensions after the volunteers left would prove the effectiveness of their border vigil. They said supervisors at the Naco station instructed them during daily briefings that arrests were "not to go up."
Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar at the agency's Washington headquarters has denied the accusations, but several other agents have since come forward to confirm the instructions.*
No surprise that Mestizo neo-con Aguilar favors Thirdworldization...
2005-05-19 16:01 | User Profile
Howard,
I've been following via Terry Anderson and John and Ken. This will piss Bush and Wall Street off even more. They might wish to patrol the area around L.A., seeing how it appears to have rejoined Mexico. You have my condolences.
2005-05-19 16:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Howard,
I've been following via Terry Anderson and John and Ken. This will piss Bush and Wall Street off even more. They might wish to patrol the area around L.A., seeing how it appears to have rejoined Mexico. You have my condolences.[/QUOTE]
At the rate the cheap-labor Neo-Cons are smuggling Illegal Mestizos into Georgia you might want to start a local chapter, Sarge.
2005-05-19 16:18 | User Profile
Howard,
That's not a bad idea. I've heard that out in your neck of the woods these folks are going to work on the problem of internal enforcement, which is something desperately needed here. As you can see I'm interested to see how these folks do this.
2005-05-19 16:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Howard,
That's not a bad idea. I've heard that out in your neck of the woods these folks are going to work on the problem of internal enforcement, which is something desperately needed here. As you can see I'm interested to see how these folks do this.[/QUOTE]
Eventually we must hit their collaborators in the "Business Community" with all weapons at our disposal--videotaping dirty contractors hiring Illegals at Home Depot has proven cheap and effective.
Time to Boycott all known hirers of the Invaders...
2005-05-19 16:45 | User Profile
Now that LA has its first Mexican Mayor thing are going to get very interesting, to say the least.
2005-05-19 16:49 | User Profile
Whites doing something that would penetrate the censorship of media zhids and hit the big media would be great. A reality check in terms of how little of expression of white identity is tolerated will hit the normally apathetic whites never questioning what role they have in this divershitty multi-kulti toilet bowl.
2005-05-19 23:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]Whites doing something that would penetrate the censorship of media zhids and hit the big media would be great. A reality check in terms of how little of expression of white identity is tolerated will hit the normally apathetic whites never questioning what role they have in this divershitty multi-kulti toilet bowl.[/QUOTE]
The Regime-approved role for Whitey is to shut up, pay his taxes and make sure his kids are registered for the Plutocracy's latest war... :clown:
2005-05-22 11:24 | User Profile
The supervisors blamed the volunteers for unnecessarily tripping sensors, disturbing draglines and interfering with the normal operations of the agents. They said their impact on illegals was "negligible," adding that civilians should leave immigration enforcement "to the professionals." Yeah, right. We can all see how effective the "professionals" have been. :rolleyes:
More vigilante action along the lines of the Minuteman Project is exactly what's needed.
2005-05-22 12:50 | User Profile
My wife returned from a trip to the WalMart in Moultrie, GA, with the comment, "I thought I was in the WalMart at Del Rio!"
On another occasion I went with her. Yeah, beaucoup Latins, but most didn't look Mexican. And, the Spanish certainly wasn't border TexMex or central Mexico. My guesstimation is that they're from the Central American countries south of Mexico.
'Rat
2005-05-22 17:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Yeah, right. We can all see how effective the "professionals" have been. :rolleyes:
More vigilante action along the lines of the Minuteman Project is exactly what's needed.[/QUOTE] They can show that it's really much simpler and requires much less resources than the fed portrays it to be. But the real meat is kicking out those 20 million plus cucarachas polluting the environment with their ugly mugs and behavior. Employers must be raided and fined for employing illegals. Choke cucarachas by denying them source of food and water.
2005-05-22 17:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Desertrat]My wife returned from a trip to the WalMart in Moultrie, GA, with the comment, "I thought I was in the WalMart at Del Rio!"
On another occasion I went with her. Yeah, beaucoup Latins, but most didn't look Mexican. And, the Spanish certainly wasn't border TexMex or central Mexico. My guesstimation is that they're from the Central American countries south of Mexico.
'Rat[/QUOTE] I was in Norcross the other day and noticed the same thing. Guatemalans and Salvadorans, probably.
2005-05-22 19:25 | User Profile
madrussian, maybe a minor point but consider: What the Minutemen did was no different from the little old lady watching her neighborhood and ready to speed-dial 911. The lol is part of "Neighborhood Watch", which is strongly suggested in municipalities nationwide, right?
So, using the word "Vigilante" in connection with the Minutemen--IMO--falls into the trap laid by those against them. After all they didn't take any laws into their own hands; they only sat and watched--and "speed-dialed" Las Migras.
:), 'Rat
2005-05-22 22:07 | User Profile
Where I used to see two or three Mexs whey I went to play Texas Holdem now I see ten or twelve.
Looks like home is not the only thing that they think about.
2005-05-23 04:36 | User Profile
The "Armed Citizenry" is suspect even when it supports positive measures such as preventing Latins from crossing the border. I fear that it would institute religious bigotry and wipe away the progress that has been made in the way of women's and homosexual rights if it came to power.
2005-05-23 04:49 | User Profile
I'd rather have straight male rights.
2005-05-23 05:06 | User Profile
Cheeky.
Straight male rights were never disserviced in this country. If straight male rights are under such a threat, where are the mainstream politicians/pundits/authors/activists claiming that heterosexual males should be 'kept in the home'/restricted in the number of ways they may serve their country in the military/barred from adopting children, etc. ? Nowhere, that's where.
2005-05-23 05:13 | User Profile
Your premise is laughable.
2005-05-23 05:23 | User Profile
What 'premise?' I am simply stating the facts, and the facts are that 'rights' for heterosexual males (propertied ones over a certain age, at least) have never been in short supply in the USA and that there is no indication of an impending change in the situation. Nice rebuttal, BTW.
2005-05-23 09:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Anuife-ke Quote: The "Armed Citizenry" is suspect even when it supports positive measures such as preventing Latins from crossing the border. I fear that it would institute religious bigotry and wipe away the progress that has been made in the way of women's and homosexual rights if it came to power.[/QUOTE]
Thank God our founding[U] fathers [/U]did not believe in such swill, our national anthem would still be "God Save The Queen".
2005-05-25 16:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Employers must be raided and fined for employing illegals.[/QUOTE]
The problem is there is about zero chance of getting State or Federal "officals" serious about enforcing the law against employing illegals.
In the wake of Prop 200 the public's feelings on illegals, here in AZ is quite clear. So recently some less-wimpy-than-most public servent introduced a bill to make english the offical language, prevent illegals from getting free english lessons, housing allowances, etc, stop cities from funding "day labor centers" with tax payer money, and step up enfocement at the state level against employers of illegals including fines and suspension of their state license (contractors, etc.).
Sounded good...l passed the house and the senate... But ol Gov. Napalitano Veto'd it all. Typical. The taxpyer be damned, cheap labor and the open border lobby rules.
2005-05-25 16:23 | User Profile
If the state doesn't live up to its own end of the deal, why should people continue to pay taxes?
2005-05-25 18:11 | User Profile
[QUOTE=madrussian]If the state doesn't live up to its own end of the deal, why should people continue to pay taxes?[/QUOTE]
Because they'll jail and/or kill you if you don't, though I guess the question was rhetorical. It's a good question, nonetheless. :wink:
2005-05-25 20:19 | User Profile
I remember back in 1970 I bought a hat at the swap meet with the word "MIGRA" and when I went by food truck where there were all Mexicans and they saw me everyone went bye bye, now days they would grab a bottle and use it on my head.
Anything that anyone does to you is because you let them do it, all you have to do is to stop them one time and they wont do it again.
2005-05-30 00:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]********
Thank God our founding[u] fathers [/u]did not believe in such swill, our national anthem would still be "God Save The Queen".[/QUOTE]What, pray tell, do you find abhorrent about being a part of the British Empire?
I rather like Q-ie E. Why shouldn't God save her?
2005-05-30 07:02 | User Profile
But the leader "Minuteman" is such a moron. :wallbash:
[QUOTE]Gilchrist waved off such details, preferring to look at the big picture.
"Look, I struck the mother lode of patriotism by using the Minuteman theme," he said, lighting another cigarette. "Then I used the theme of Martin Luther King ââ¬â nonviolent action, never let up and keep getting the message out. To me, the illegal aliens are economic refugees. They are not an invading army. It's a silent Trojan horse invasion that is eroding our culture."
Moronic so-called ââ¬ÅMinuteman Projectââ¬Â and Jim Gilchrist. [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17667[/url] [/QUOTE]
It is hard to put much faith in someone like that...
2005-05-30 12:46 | User Profile
| [img]http://www.thesocialcontract.com/images/letter.gif[/img] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][color=#0000ff][url="http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/emailarticle.pl?articleID=448"]Email this article to a friend[/url][/color][/size][/font] | [img]http://www.thesocialcontract.com/images/pdf.gif[/img] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2][color=#0000ff][url="http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf/five-three/simcox.pdf"]View original format[/url][/color][/size][/font] |
The Catholic Church has developed an elaborate theology of immigration since World War II, and along with this an abundance of moral-political prescriptions it promotes to secular governments for dealing with immigration. These norms have been enunciated by the Vatican, and even more energetically by The Catholic Bishops' Conference (NCCB) here in the United States.
The Church has virtually sacralized immigration, proclaiming it as a ''sacrament of unity,'' a process through which the Holy Spirit moves the world toward greater brotherhood. Migration, the Church preaches, witnesses to God's goodness, promotes the unity of the human family, and offers Christians a ministry of love and service to the stranger among us.
Human dignity, as the Church defines it, becomes a critical litmus test of the moral legitimacy of national responses to immigration pressures, just as it has been in Church judgments of other population and reproductive policies. The innate dignity of human beings entitles them to seek work in other lands and to be joined by their families there. This prerogative has in recent decades come to take precedence in Church teaching over the rights of nation-states to protect their borders.
The Church's concept of migrants' rights has moved closer to the absolute since Vatican II. Papal statements in the 1950s at least recognized the need to reconcile the right to migrate with national concern for the common good, as expressed in the regulation of immigration. That prudent approach is heard less now, Since Vatican II, and particularly in the thinking of John Paul II and the U.S. Bishops, any conditions on the right of migrants to cross national borders in search of work or to join family members have all but vanished. In the words of Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahony Catholic social teaching takes what many view to be a counter-cultural position on this matter and insists that the right to immigrate is more fundamental than that of nations to control their borders.1
Oddly, a statement of the Catholic Bishops in late 1994 claimed that ''the Catholic Church has long recognized the right and obligation of nations to control their borders and create systems regulating immigration.'' The statement, particularly in asserting states' ''obligation'' to control borders, suggest a departure from existing doctrine. But the statement cited no authority for this uncharacteristic position, nor has the concept figured in more recent angry Church discourse on proposition 187 or legal immigration reform.2
The Church's cosmic image of migration as a celestially sanctioned human right, not surprisingly, crimps the debate on immigration regulation for many policy makers, conservationists, advocates of a sound environment and high labor standards, and among millions of ordinary Catholics of good faith. Disputing the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium of a 2000-year old institution is, for many, an intimidating venture.
The Church's stress on immigration as a moral imperative has practical as well as mystical roots. Organizational politics, institutional self-interest, and the desire to maximize utility are hard at work. Migration is central to the Church's history of recovery and growth following its losses from the Reformation and the secession of the Church of England. The catholization by Spain, France and Portugal of much of the Western Hemisphere in the 16th and 17th centuries was essentially a work of colonization and migration.
The current immigration mentality of the Church has been deeply influenced by its experiences in the 19th century. In that epoch of mass migration, Catholic-sending nations such as Ireland, Italy and Central Europe populated regions in the Western Hemisphere that were either sparsely populated or heavily Protestant. The most important country of settlement, the United States, was neither heavily Catholic nor culturally congenial to Catholicism.
Catholic immigrants of that era were thus religious pioneers who, though beleaguered and isolated in the host nations, were creating bridgeheads for the spread of the faith in the New World. The Church views itself as having accompanied its sons and daughters in their wanderings. The growth of large Catholic communities in nations where the Church's presence had been weak or non-existent has, for the Church, imbued immigration with a providential character, seemingly a manifestation of God's plan working itself out in the world.
Spiritual and institutional interests have prospered together. Through immigration and high fertility, the Church acquired an important new treasure a community of nearly 60 million souls and contributors in the United States, the World's richest nation. Such temporal power and financial strength counts for a great deal, even in a belief system valuing humility and self-abnegation.
But during the 19th century the papacy's outlook on world immigration policy differed from what it is today. The Church's priority mission was to serve spiritually the Catholic immigrants in their new homelands, protect them to the extent possible from discrimination and anti-Catholic hostility, and ââ¬â in the U.S. ââ¬â ensure their cultural survival in an overwhelmingly Protestant milieu.3 The U.S. parochial school system is a response to early Catholic feelings that the public schools were expressions of Protestant culture.
Absent then were papal policies asserting the human right of free immigration for all the moral obligation of states to acquiesce in the individual immigration choices of millions. The open immigration policies of the United States and some other major host nations in the 19th century made such special claims unnecessary.
In the 1910s and 1920s Catholic groups, such as the Knights of Columbus and ethnic brotherhoods, fought the mounting restrictionist sentiment. But there is no record of papal opposition to the Johnson-Reed act of 1921 or other major restrictive actions, nor any high-level intimations that such immigration policies contravened God's will.
Circumstances in Europe after World War II had much to do with the radicalization of the Catholic Church's teaching on the primacy of immigrants' rights. Major migrations were taking place from the heavily Catholic, labor-surplus countries (Spain, Italy, Portugal and Yugoslavia) to nations such as Germany, Switzerland, France, and the Scandinavian countries, which perceived themselves as labor deficient. Europe was still awash with displaced persons scattered by the war.
It is in this setting that Pius XII issued ''Exsul Familia.'' This 1952 document explicitly identified emigration, immigration and family reunification as basic human rights. Worth noting is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations in that same period also enshrined the freedom to travel and the right of emigration as fundamental.4 But a series of diplomatic objections by the U.S. and other Western countries in the negotiations had blocked the treaty from asserting a comparable right to immigrate.
Since the late 1950s, in subsequent teaching documents of the Vatican and other magisterial bodies within the Church, the ''common good'' of receiving states has been increasingly soft-pedaled and in some instances rejected outright. The depreciation of the sovereignty of nation-states in migration matters has several different roots, some old, some recent. Three Theses
First, the Church, in the very catholicity of its name and in its outlook and mission is universalist. It has never been philosophically comfortable with the modern nation-state with its connotation of exclusion and its claims to be the ultimate community. For the Church, a main reason for the existence of states is to promote the human rights of individuals. Borders are often incompatible with human needs. Suffering this outlook is the biblical and early historical view of the Church as a cosmopolitan, multi-class, multi-cultural community for all. In the words of Paul ''there is no Greek or Jew here, circumcised or uncircumcised, foreigner, Scythian, slave or freeman. Rather, Christ is everything in all of you.'' (Colossians 3 11).
Another transforming factor has been demographics. In the United States and some other Western nations, falling fertility in the 1960s among long-established Catholic populations dimmed the prospects for further Church growth. Predominantly Catholic immigration from Latin America and Vietnam provided both a new ministry and a new opportunity for expansion of the flock. Immigrants, in the words of Reverend Richard Ryscavage of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, are the ''growing edge'' of the Church, as they were in the 19th century, and the ''assurance of the Church's health in the 21st century.5
A final tenet in the Church's open border vision is its faith in cornucopian economics as a response to issues of population growth and resource depletion. In current discourse it draws on writers like Julian Simon to argue that nations must welcome immigra-tion in their own best interest, as it enriches economically as well as culturally and spiritually. Church doctrine in the past has recognized that population in excess of resources can justify emigration. But it overlooks the corollary that excessive immigration can bring a similar imbalance to the receiving countries. Cornucopian economics, it seems, really applies only in Western industrial nations.
Changing priorities in Catholic social doctrine have also reinforced the view of immigration as a supra-national prerogative. The Church's heightened interest in social action to promote human rights to combat dehumanizing structures was both articulated in, and intensified by, the Vatican Councils of the 1960s. The U.S. Church's close exposure to Latin America conditioned its commitment to the ''prefer-ential option for the poor'' proclaimed in the literature of liberation theology. Pope John Paul II has made the rights of migrants a major theme of his papacy.
This outlook readily fused with the Church's vision of its area of future growth as the Third World and its increasing identification with the anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist liberation movements in those nations. Also present is an unfolding sense of mission to address the unequal distribution of the world's wealth highlighted in the U.N.'s North-South dialogue. Open immigration into major industrial nations becomes a way of sharing wealth and balancing out past exploitation. For the U.S. ''Sanctuary'' movement in the 1980s, acceptance of heavy flows of immigrants and asylum seekers was a form of national atonement for real or imagined U.S. foreign policy misdeeds and economic exploitation in Latin America.
The Church's theology of immigration takes operational form in the continuing tactical struggles of the Church against immigration restriction. Here are some of the leading skirmishes in the American hierarchy's ongoing battle
● The Catholic Bishops opposed employer sanctions in the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. In scattered areas and diverse ways Catholic religious groups have litigated unsuccessfully against sanctions as an interference with their freedom of religion. In a few cases, they have simply flouted the law. Church leaders backed a coalition of interest groups supporting the Kennedy-Hatch bill to repeal sanctions altogether. It is unclear whether that legislation will reappear in the Republican-controlled 104th Congress.
● Church leaders and organizations were major actors in the coalition of human rights, ethnic, legal and labor groups that in 1989 and 1990 designed and pushed through the 1990 law expanding legal immi-gration 35 percent and creating a new category for easier humanitarian admission ''Temporary protected status.'' Failing to get a universal amnesty for illegal aliens in the 1986 law, Church forces and other human rights groups won a special provision for otherwise ineligible immediate relatives of legalized aliens to remain here. High on the Church's agenda now is a new amnesty for those entering since the 1982 cutoff date in the 1986 act who do not otherwise qualify.
● The Catholic Bishops' Conference consistently condemned Proposition 187. California's Catholic dioceses worked assiduously but unsuccessfully in the fall of 1994 to defeat the proposition with special mailings, appeals from the pulpit, media outreach and voter registration drives. Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles once characterized support for the resolution as ''Grave social sin.'' The Church remains a major actor among the groups fighting to block implemen-tation of Proposition 187 in the courts.
● At the Cairo Conference on Population and Development, Vatican representatives worked with migrant-sending states in an attempt to establish family reunification as a basic right in the final document of the conference. They were unsuccessful in overcoming the resistance of the U.S. and other migrant-receiving nations.
● Generally, the American Church is well represented in the ad hoc coalitions that have formed to fight the current wave of what they call ''anti-immigrant hysteria'' and the drive for tighter controls of legal immigration, and for an end to abuse of asylum and of immigrant access to public assistance.
Polls consistently show that individual Catholic views on immigration are only modestly more supportive of generous immigration policies than those of non-Catholics. Some of the difference stems from the higher proportion of foreign born and Latinos among Catholics. But a solid majority of Catholic respondents in polls believe that immigration should go no higher or be reduced. This deviation from official Church doctrine resembles the profile of Catholic public opinion on birth control.
The vote on Proposition 187 indicated wide-spread resistance among the rank-and-file parishioners to the hierarchy's expansionist instincts on immigration. Overall, California Catholics, more than a third of them Hispanic, opposed 187 by 51% to 49%. But non-Hispanic white Catholics ââ¬â two-thirds of all Catholic voters ââ¬â favored it by 58% to 42%, roughly the measure's margin of victory statewide. The Los Angeles diocesan newspaper, The Tidings, saw in the results ''a Catholic electorate which increasingly seems to view the statements of its pastoral and moral leaders as having little credibility and urgency.''6
Many Catholic legislators necessarily share the pro-immigration instincts of the powerful ethnic constituencies in which they are rooted. Senator Edward Kennedy, tireless advocate of immigration expansion, particularly from Ireland, is an example. But there has been no shortage of Catholic legislators who have led or supported sound restrictionist efforts.
Well-known was Senator Pat McCarran, a leading Catholic layman, who co-authored the 1952 McCarran-Walter act that preserved national origins quotas and restrictions on Asian immigration. Another, Peter Rodino of New Jersey, originated employer sanctions legislation in the early 1970s, and Ron Mazzoli of Kentucky, a devout Catholic, saw that concept through to enactment in 1986. Mazzoli also favored a far more limited amnesty than Church leaders sought.
Senator Pat Moynihan, as a White House staffer, orchestrated the 1970 Rockefeller Commission on Population Growth, which recommended, among other measures, a freeze on immigration. Currently Moynihan plays a more passive role on immigration issues, although he supports a counterfeit-resistant social security card.
Perhaps most representative within the Church of pluralist views on immigration and the importance of separating the secular and the sacred, was the performance of Father Theodore Hesburgh as chair of the 1979 Special Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policies. Under his leadership, the commission recommended employer sanctions and an immigration ceiling more than a third lower than the present one.
The attitudes of lay Catholics in the U.S. on population, environmental and reproductive issues have shifted inexorably away from those of the Vatican and the American hierarchy, shrugging off warnings from the pulpit against what the Church characterized as immoral or inhumane options on these issues. An insecure, impoverished and ethnic-based immigrant population at the turn of the century, American Catholics have achieved the wealth, education and self-confidence, in an increasingly crowded and environmentally threatened world, to define values for themselves. Yet the Church's governing structure remains hierarchical, highly centralized and enduring. Changing attitudes in the pews are unlikely to profoundly influence the top leadership. The Church's name and organization clout are likely to remain indefinitely at the service of pro-natalism and immigration expansionism, with or without the assent of its millions of loyal contributors. This points up a fundamental irony in the Church's confusion of the realms of God and Caesar the Church hierarchy has power without responsibility ââ¬â Caesar, not Rome, will be accountable and responsible for the social and environmental costs of disruptions flowing from mass immigration and rapid population growth. ■
[url="http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=448&terms"]http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=448&terms[/url]=
2005-05-30 16:02 | User Profile
I've been away for months, but it's obvious that the sole purpose of this " Stigmata " character is to paste and post Anti-Catholic vitriols on all OD threads, regardless of their subject matter. He does a fine job of ruining the flow of the thread, I'm sure we all love that. See here for his other most recent attempt to demolish a thread, and my reply, which blasts him as nothing but a biased idiot. He doesn't check anything, he scours the net for anti-Catholic trash, and makes use of his copy and paste ability. [url]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?p=115118#post115118[/url]
2005-05-30 17:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE]A-k Quote: What, pray tell, do you find abhorrent about being a part of the British Empire?
I rather like Q-ie E. Why shouldn't God save her?[/QUOTE]
Read this, as many times as necessary, to understand the need for our "divorce" from the mother country:
[url]http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html[/url]
2005-05-31 23:26 | User Profile
jeffersonian
Well the AZ GOP is run by pro-immigration neocons. All of AZ's congressmen are for giving illegal immigrants in the United States legal work permits and eventual citizenship. All of them! Not one of them is anti illegal immigration much less attacking legal immigration. I do not trust any of them.
2005-06-01 01:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Aznuife-ke]Cheeky.
Straight male rights were never disserviced in this country. If straight male rights are under such a threat, where are the mainstream politicians/pundits/authors/activists claiming that heterosexual males should be 'kept in the home'/restricted in the number of ways they may serve their country in the military/barred from adopting children, etc. ? Nowhere, that's where.[/QUOTE]
Do you think women in general should be drafted into ground fighting forces? What do you think your average normal woman might think about that? Do you want to see the draft encompass [I]all[/I] women? If not, then you are asking for a special right.
Gay men already have the right to marry women and raise children just like heterosexual men.
2005-08-29 21:37 | User Profile
[url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3328782]Activists say Minutemen causing fear[/url]
Excellent news, in my opinion.
Any members here? PM if you want.
2005-08-30 05:58 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident][url=http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3328782]Activists say Minutemen causing fear[/url]
Excellent news, in my opinion.
Any members here? PM if you want.[/QUOTE][URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/member.php?u=1651]311inAZ[/URL] is at least something very close I think.
2005-08-30 06:11 | User Profile
Thanks, Okie.
This type of surveillance campaign in Houston is very doable, for me at least.