Most Americans are aware of the National Labor Relations Act [NLRA] enacted and signed into law on July 5, 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was this Act which established protections for the nation's workers, and put in place mechanisms to hold union elections, to help resolve labor disputes, and to mediate issues between employers and employees. The National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] is the enforcement arm for the NLRA.
However, few Americans realize that 77 years ago the NLRA specifically excluded two groups of workers: agricultural workers and domestic workers. And worse, those two groups of American workers are still excluded from the Act and have no recourse to the laws, procedures, and protections of the Act.
The very words of the Act:
§ 152. Definitions
(3) The term "employee" shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act, as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined.
And why were these two groups excluded in 1935? Historians tell us that the reason for their exclusion at that time was both groups were primarily African Americans. Many members of Congress with larger populations of African Americans would not vote for the Act without this exclusion.
Even more shameful for our country is that over these past 77 years no session of Congress has ever attempted to amend Section 152 and to remove this blatantly racist exclusion.
And why does Congress today not try to amend that original Act? In my opinion, it is because so many of those workers are unauthorized immigrants. To many of us, this seems yet another punitive action against a large group without political voice or power.
Here in California, recent attempts to assist farm workers and domestic workers in the State resulted in two bills which passed the State Legislature. However, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed both measures. Fortunately, he has indicated an openness to sign future versions if certain changes are made. I urge our Legislature to take up those two issues once again in January when their new Session begins.
To his credit, Governor Brown did help pass and sign the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act in 1975. Modeled after the NLRA, ever since it has covered the States farm workers with similar protections.
Nothing has been done for domestic workers, however. With Baby Boomers turning 65 at the rate of 10,000 per day, one can imagine the huge number of domestic workers will be needed in the coming years to help care for this large population.
I hope and pray that organized labor and other groups working on behalf of the poor across the country would press the next Congress to end the shameful exclusion of farm workers and domestic workers.
It is the only just step for us to take as a nation.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
I'M AN IMMIGRANT TOO!
On a recent trip to Philadelphia, I had the privilege of visiting four Catholic campuses on immigration issues: Villanova University, St. Joseph's University, La Salle University, and Cabrini College. I am both impressed and inspired with the faculty and students as they help educate about our immigrant brothers and sisters, and how they are reaching out to them in the greater Philadelphia area.
At Cabrini College I attended a large gathering to give my power point presentation on immigration issues. A young lady gave an opening reflection, and I was truly impressed. With her permission I am reprinting it here for you--it is truly insightful and powerful.
I'm an immigrant but not like you think. You're one too and I'm about to tell you how.
These are the things people characterize an immigrant as:
* how you sound
* the language you speak
* what you don't know
* your mannerisms, and
* the questions you may ask.
You're an immigrant too. Listen close because I'm about to tell you how.
Remember your first day in a new place?
Whether it be college, work or even a new face?
You come to a foreign land, and new country and eventually want to be loved.
Am I wrong?
You expect that over time you will be accepted and that this foreign country won't be one anymore.
That your face won't be a new one but one that's become a part of.
You're an immigrant too, listen close because I already told you.
When you say immigrant it should hit home, no matter where your home lies.
Don't look across the border for someone to sympathize with.
Look in your own eyes and realize you long for that very same prize.
That your face won't be a new one but one that's become a part of.
A part of a melting pot of culture that we all have a piece of in us.
We can't deny someone else our warm embrace only because they have a different face.
Think of immigration as your own immigration.
Jenay M. Smith
At Cabrini College I attended a large gathering to give my power point presentation on immigration issues. A young lady gave an opening reflection, and I was truly impressed. With her permission I am reprinting it here for you--it is truly insightful and powerful.
I'm an immigrant but not like you think. You're one too and I'm about to tell you how.
These are the things people characterize an immigrant as:
* how you sound
* the language you speak
* what you don't know
* your mannerisms, and
* the questions you may ask.
You're an immigrant too. Listen close because I'm about to tell you how.
Remember your first day in a new place?
Whether it be college, work or even a new face?
You come to a foreign land, and new country and eventually want to be loved.
Am I wrong?
You expect that over time you will be accepted and that this foreign country won't be one anymore.
That your face won't be a new one but one that's become a part of.
You're an immigrant too, listen close because I already told you.
When you say immigrant it should hit home, no matter where your home lies.
Don't look across the border for someone to sympathize with.
Look in your own eyes and realize you long for that very same prize.
That your face won't be a new one but one that's become a part of.
A part of a melting pot of culture that we all have a piece of in us.
We can't deny someone else our warm embrace only because they have a different face.
Think of immigration as your own immigration.
Jenay M. Smith
Sunday, August 26, 2012
MAJORITY SUPPORT YOUNG IMMIGRANTS
Several days ago the results of a recent poll gave heartening encouragement to all of us in favor of assisting younger undocumented adults and children to obtain legal status.
The USC Annenberg--L.A. Times poll showed that 61% of respondents favored granting a legal residency status following the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA]; 30% opposed the program; and 9% did not know or did not answer.
That 61% to 30% is consistent with all polls which give Americans the opportunity to voice their approval or disapproval to find a pathway to legal status for the 11 undocumented people living in our country. This is really encouraging for all of us who are trying to highlight the impossible status of so many of our immigrant brothers and sisters.
I hope and pray that President Obama and Governor Romney will take note of these polling numbers, and that they will be bolder in offering new and creative ways to bring our immigrant brothers and sisters out of the shadows, and to give them a sense of dignity and worth in our midst.
With almost 1.7 million young people eligible to participate in the DACA program, I am so enthusiastic about their ability to participate fully in our society and our economy, and with the right to work openly and freely, they will now be contributing to our economy through their various payroll taxes. This is truly a "win--win" situation for all of us.
However, the DACA program only grants this limited legal status for a period of two years. What will happen in 2014 when the two years expire? What will be the status of these young people? Will there be the will to extend the program indefinitely?
I am hopeful that these two years will convince Americans that the immigrants in our midst deserve to have their dignity recognized and to have an earned path forward so that they can move from the shadows and live fully in the light of our society.
The USC Annenberg--L.A. Times poll showed that 61% of respondents favored granting a legal residency status following the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals [DACA]; 30% opposed the program; and 9% did not know or did not answer.
That 61% to 30% is consistent with all polls which give Americans the opportunity to voice their approval or disapproval to find a pathway to legal status for the 11 undocumented people living in our country. This is really encouraging for all of us who are trying to highlight the impossible status of so many of our immigrant brothers and sisters.
I hope and pray that President Obama and Governor Romney will take note of these polling numbers, and that they will be bolder in offering new and creative ways to bring our immigrant brothers and sisters out of the shadows, and to give them a sense of dignity and worth in our midst.
With almost 1.7 million young people eligible to participate in the DACA program, I am so enthusiastic about their ability to participate fully in our society and our economy, and with the right to work openly and freely, they will now be contributing to our economy through their various payroll taxes. This is truly a "win--win" situation for all of us.
However, the DACA program only grants this limited legal status for a period of two years. What will happen in 2014 when the two years expire? What will be the status of these young people? Will there be the will to extend the program indefinitely?
I am hopeful that these two years will convince Americans that the immigrants in our midst deserve to have their dignity recognized and to have an earned path forward so that they can move from the shadows and live fully in the light of our society.
Monday, August 20, 2012
IMMIGRANTS IN SMALL BUSINESSES
Recently I met a Hispanic man in his 50s who is surely the poster image for how immigrants are helping to establish small businesses and create jobs for others. The man is from Mexico and is documented.
He had been working in the field of optical products, and eventually, he moved up the ladder and bought the company. He has since expanded the company and employs 140 people, most of them with immigrant backgrounds. The jobs require specialized training with optical equipment, and many have learned the skills needed.
However, he told me of a recent very difficult problem--agents from the government were coming to his company to check the documents of all his employees. While he had on file documents for each employee, he could not verify the accuracy of each piece of paper. Employers in our country are not required to take extraordinary steps to verify documents submitted by employees.
He informed all the employees that agents would be coming to their company on a certain date, and that they would want to question each employee and review their documents.
This announcement created panic among the employees, since in many cases documents had been supplied by relatives or others. Not everyone would be able to verify each piece of paper. As a result, 20 of his employees quit their jobs prior to the visit by government agents.
They feared that any irregularity would lead to their immediate detention, where they might languish for many months before their case would be resolved. This would break up their families and impose great hardships on themselves and their loved ones. So they just quit and left.
What is so sad about this case is that these 20 employees had learned highly technical skills and were producing optical products which people needed. They were contributing to our country, to their families, and to their communities. They were paying payroll taxes, they were helping a small business become successful, and they were part of building up the economic strength of our nation.
I commend the millions of small business owners across the country who have hired newly arrived peoples, have given them needed training, and who have given them the opportunity to provide for their families and the community.
Our current broken immigration system does not allow small businesses to hire, train, and utilize the labor of immigrants in our midst. We all lose because of this broken system.
There are some 10 million undocumented brothers and sisters across the country in similar situations. And like these 20 people, many were trained and fulfilling an important role for our economy. But our hopeless immigration policies leave these people in the shadows, living in fear that their families will be broken up, and that their labors will be in vain.
As a nation we have a moral obligation to end this dreadful situation in which millions of people are not respected, are not shown basic human dignity, and are not permitted to regularize their legal status.
The new Deferred Action program to benefit DREAM students is a helpful step forward, but it only deals with a small portion of our immigrant population. We need a comprehensive approach which creates an "earned" path towards legal status for all those in the shadows.
Both candidates for President have a moral obligation to lay out their plans for these 10 million undocumented and how their status can be gradually moved from undocumented to an earned legal status. Members of Congress running for reelection have the same obligation.
Let us continue to stand with our undocumented brothers and sisters, and let us continue to point out the countless success stories across the country like the one I have outlined above. Let us continue to raise our voices on their behalf, and let us expand networks among all peoples of faith to give a new and bright future for all of these brothers and sisters.
He had been working in the field of optical products, and eventually, he moved up the ladder and bought the company. He has since expanded the company and employs 140 people, most of them with immigrant backgrounds. The jobs require specialized training with optical equipment, and many have learned the skills needed.
However, he told me of a recent very difficult problem--agents from the government were coming to his company to check the documents of all his employees. While he had on file documents for each employee, he could not verify the accuracy of each piece of paper. Employers in our country are not required to take extraordinary steps to verify documents submitted by employees.
He informed all the employees that agents would be coming to their company on a certain date, and that they would want to question each employee and review their documents.
This announcement created panic among the employees, since in many cases documents had been supplied by relatives or others. Not everyone would be able to verify each piece of paper. As a result, 20 of his employees quit their jobs prior to the visit by government agents.
They feared that any irregularity would lead to their immediate detention, where they might languish for many months before their case would be resolved. This would break up their families and impose great hardships on themselves and their loved ones. So they just quit and left.
What is so sad about this case is that these 20 employees had learned highly technical skills and were producing optical products which people needed. They were contributing to our country, to their families, and to their communities. They were paying payroll taxes, they were helping a small business become successful, and they were part of building up the economic strength of our nation.
I commend the millions of small business owners across the country who have hired newly arrived peoples, have given them needed training, and who have given them the opportunity to provide for their families and the community.
Our current broken immigration system does not allow small businesses to hire, train, and utilize the labor of immigrants in our midst. We all lose because of this broken system.
There are some 10 million undocumented brothers and sisters across the country in similar situations. And like these 20 people, many were trained and fulfilling an important role for our economy. But our hopeless immigration policies leave these people in the shadows, living in fear that their families will be broken up, and that their labors will be in vain.
As a nation we have a moral obligation to end this dreadful situation in which millions of people are not respected, are not shown basic human dignity, and are not permitted to regularize their legal status.
The new Deferred Action program to benefit DREAM students is a helpful step forward, but it only deals with a small portion of our immigrant population. We need a comprehensive approach which creates an "earned" path towards legal status for all those in the shadows.
Both candidates for President have a moral obligation to lay out their plans for these 10 million undocumented and how their status can be gradually moved from undocumented to an earned legal status. Members of Congress running for reelection have the same obligation.
Let us continue to stand with our undocumented brothers and sisters, and let us continue to point out the countless success stories across the country like the one I have outlined above. Let us continue to raise our voices on their behalf, and let us expand networks among all peoples of faith to give a new and bright future for all of these brothers and sisters.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
DREAMERS GET NEW OPPORTUNITY
Providentially, a new program to assist our Dreamer young people goes into effect on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary into heaven, August 15, 2012.
Young people who are under 31 years and who were brought to the US. as infants or children are often referred to as "Dreamers" and they would have been granted legal status under the provisions of the Dream Act in Congress.
However, various forms of the Dream Act have been stymied or even voted down in Congress over the years, the last time occurring in December of 2010. This means that Dreamers have no legal U.S. national status or identity.
Many Dreamers find out about their legal limbo when they try to get a driver's license a Social Security card, or try to get a job.
Two months ago President Obama announced the Deferred Action Program for Child Arrivals [DACA]. This program will apply to undocumented children and young people brought by others to the U.S. under the age of 16 years, who have spent the past five years here, and who are under 31 years as of June 15, 2012.
The program is set to take effect on August 15, the feast of the Assumption of Mary.
In charge of implementing the program are the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service [USCIS].
What will Dreamers be able to achieve under the provisions of this new program? Their benefits will include a two-year reprieve from the danger of deportation, renewable in two-year increments. They will have the right to apply for a work permit, and therefore, be able to work legally. Obviously, they will now begin paying taxes when they are legally employed.
Unfortunately, no legal immigration status is conferred--either temporary or permanent. Only Congress can grant that status, and to date, they have refused to do so.
The young people who qualify, however, will have no ability to petition for the legal status of a spouse or other familly member.
Applicants must be at least 15 years of age and have a clean criminal record. Any applicant who is suspected of being a danger to the community or national security will be denied.
Applicants will need to obtain a passport and birth certificate, and I urge them to apply at once to the Consulate of their country of origin.
Applicants also need to check to see if they have any criminal record, including misdemeanors, and they will have to prove that their status is not a threat. The applicant will have to pay the costs involved in all of these steps.
It is anticipated that at least one million young people will apply. Fees will include a $465 processing charge for the "Request for Deferred Action for Children Arrivals" form, and this includes an $85 biometrics fee.
The work permit appllication, which is submitted with the DACA form, is an additional $380.
Applicants must show that they have completed education or military service requirements. Fortunately, they can now enroll in school and GED classes in order to meet this requirement.
Dreamers are encouraged to begin now collecting proof of their date of birth, their date of arrival in the U.S., and proof of residence for the past five years.
These requirements could be met from various parsh records, such as Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, and the like. Our parishes may be the only place where such proof of residency could be located, and we must urge our parishes to cooperate with our young people making application.
Some Dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, are developing a parish identification document for parishioners in order to demonstrate their stable presence in the U.S.
There are several links that are helpful for our Dreamers:
1. USCIC website: www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals
2. ICE website: www.ice.gov
3. DHS website: www.dhs.gov
Applications will be accepted on-line beginning August 14 or 15 with a new form "Request for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals." Look for it on: www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals
We also need to alert our young adults about the danger of scams, of some people and even attorneys offering to do everything for the Dreamers for a large additional fee. Many of these are bogus and not helpful.
Uncertainty remains because of unanswered questions. What happens when a young person has been denied the new status, but now have their name, address, and other information with the federal government? Will there be appeals for denied applications?
Since the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of advocating for the rights of all undocumented persons, this offers us a good opportunity to oencourage our young people to apply, and to assist them in any way that we can.
Our Lady of the Assumption, strenthen our Dreamers in this new phase of their lives in our midst!
Young people who are under 31 years and who were brought to the US. as infants or children are often referred to as "Dreamers" and they would have been granted legal status under the provisions of the Dream Act in Congress.
However, various forms of the Dream Act have been stymied or even voted down in Congress over the years, the last time occurring in December of 2010. This means that Dreamers have no legal U.S. national status or identity.
Many Dreamers find out about their legal limbo when they try to get a driver's license a Social Security card, or try to get a job.
Two months ago President Obama announced the Deferred Action Program for Child Arrivals [DACA]. This program will apply to undocumented children and young people brought by others to the U.S. under the age of 16 years, who have spent the past five years here, and who are under 31 years as of June 15, 2012.
The program is set to take effect on August 15, the feast of the Assumption of Mary.
In charge of implementing the program are the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service [USCIS].
Unfortunately, no legal immigration status is conferred--either temporary or permanent. Only Congress can grant that status, and to date, they have refused to do so.
The young people who qualify, however, will have no ability to petition for the legal status of a spouse or other familly member.
Applicants must be at least 15 years of age and have a clean criminal record. Any applicant who is suspected of being a danger to the community or national security will be denied.
Applicants will need to obtain a passport and birth certificate, and I urge them to apply at once to the Consulate of their country of origin.
Applicants also need to check to see if they have any criminal record, including misdemeanors, and they will have to prove that their status is not a threat. The applicant will have to pay the costs involved in all of these steps.
It is anticipated that at least one million young people will apply. Fees will include a $465 processing charge for the "Request for Deferred Action for Children Arrivals" form, and this includes an $85 biometrics fee.
The work permit appllication, which is submitted with the DACA form, is an additional $380.
Applicants must show that they have completed education or military service requirements. Fortunately, they can now enroll in school and GED classes in order to meet this requirement.
Dreamers are encouraged to begin now collecting proof of their date of birth, their date of arrival in the U.S., and proof of residence for the past five years.
These requirements could be met from various parsh records, such as Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, and the like. Our parishes may be the only place where such proof of residency could be located, and we must urge our parishes to cooperate with our young people making application.
Some Dioceses, such as the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, are developing a parish identification document for parishioners in order to demonstrate their stable presence in the U.S.
There are several links that are helpful for our Dreamers:
1. USCIC website: www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals
2. ICE website: www.ice.gov
3. DHS website: www.dhs.gov
Applications will be accepted on-line beginning August 14 or 15 with a new form "Request for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals." Look for it on: www.uscis.gov/childhoodarrivals
We also need to alert our young adults about the danger of scams, of some people and even attorneys offering to do everything for the Dreamers for a large additional fee. Many of these are bogus and not helpful.
Uncertainty remains because of unanswered questions. What happens when a young person has been denied the new status, but now have their name, address, and other information with the federal government? Will there be appeals for denied applications?
Since the Catholic Church has been in the forefront of advocating for the rights of all undocumented persons, this offers us a good opportunity to oencourage our young people to apply, and to assist them in any way that we can.
Our Lady of the Assumption, strenthen our Dreamers in this new phase of their lives in our midst!
Saturday, July 28, 2012
A CHICKEN SANDWICH & RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
In the past several months the Catholic Church has been alerting everyone in the nation to the great new dangers affecting religious freedom: The government determining what constitutes a Church, who belongs, and what services they may or may not offer, and to whom.
The end of June leading to the 4th of July we Catholics celebrated a "Fortnight for Freedom" to highlight the present dangers to our constitutional religious freedoms, and to point out how the federal government increasingly attempts to restrict those freedoms, as well as to regulate how Churches live out their freedoms.
The latest visible and glaring example of people in government punishing people for holding differing beliefs from government leaders focuses on a chicken sandwich.
Chick-fil-A is a national restaurant chain which specializes in chicken sandwiches, other chicken foods, as well as various sides, drinks, and desserts.
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."
Sounds to me like speech from a son of God and speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.
But three liberal Mayors not only attacked Cathy's beliefs and words, but they threatened to block any Chick-fil-A restaurants from being opened in their cities. Those threats were not veiled.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago stated "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," and threatened to make it impossible for Cathy to open any more stores in Chicago. He's probably too late. There are 19 stores across Illinois, and several are on or near college and university campuses.
Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston offered this: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." Massachusetts has two stores, and I suspect that this outrageous comment will prompt new ones to open. How a Mayor could so violate the true meaning of the historical basis of the Freedom Trail is staggering. The Freedom Trail takes visitors past the many important places in the development of our freedoms as Americans. Can one walk along such locations as the Shaw Memorial or the Park Street Church in Boston and not realize that such places stand for the very freedoms Mr. Cathy is expressing?
Mayor Edwin Lee of San Francisco tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away "and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." California has 59 stores, Mayor Lee, and more are in the works.
Mayor Richard Bloomberg of New York brought some constitutional sense to these outrageous remarks mocking the faith beliefs of Mr. Cathy. He said: "...trampling on the freedom to marry whoever you want is exactly the same as trampling on your freedom to open a store." Although he favors gay marriage, nonetheless, he realizes that basic freedoms are at stake.
New York lawyer Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights, said Bloomberg is right. "Consumers can disagree with a company's corporate political position and decide not to spend money there, but the city cannot regulate speech by denying someone a permit to operate their business just because you disagree with their political beliefs."
Amen. But there is more to the issue than political beliefs. These are deeply held faith beliefs, and those beliefs have various values underpinning them.
Regarding marriage, the question is rather simple: Is marriage of God's origin? Or, is marriage of government origin? We Catholics and many others of similar belief shout loudly that marriage is of God's origin, and we will never stop our efforts to maintain that understanding and practice of marriage in our broader society.
All Catholics, but especially Catholic business leaders, should be in the forefront of efforts to protect all religious liberties and freedoms across our nation. Because as we have just seen, lots of folks out there are eager to punish us for clinging to and expressing our faith beliefs, values, and practices. If government can "punish" a store owner for his faith beliefs and threaten to close his store because of those beliefs, then we are all in big trouble.
We as Catholics need to stand tall, know our faith beliefs, and proclaim those to the whole world in the name of Jesus Christ!
The end of June leading to the 4th of July we Catholics celebrated a "Fortnight for Freedom" to highlight the present dangers to our constitutional religious freedoms, and to point out how the federal government increasingly attempts to restrict those freedoms, as well as to regulate how Churches live out their freedoms.
The latest visible and glaring example of people in government punishing people for holding differing beliefs from government leaders focuses on a chicken sandwich.
Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy has consistently backed "the biblical definition of a family," and his foundation has contributed to groups working to maintain the traditional definition of a marriage--one man and one woman. He later added, "I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage'."
Sounds to me like speech from a son of God and speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to our Constitution.
But three liberal Mayors not only attacked Cathy's beliefs and words, but they threatened to block any Chick-fil-A restaurants from being opened in their cities. Those threats were not veiled.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago stated "Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values," and threatened to make it impossible for Cathy to open any more stores in Chicago. He's probably too late. There are 19 stores across Illinois, and several are on or near college and university campuses.
Mayor Thomas Menino of Boston offered this: "There is no place for discrimination on Boston's Freedom Trail and no place for your company alongside it." Massachusetts has two stores, and I suspect that this outrageous comment will prompt new ones to open. How a Mayor could so violate the true meaning of the historical basis of the Freedom Trail is staggering. The Freedom Trail takes visitors past the many important places in the development of our freedoms as Americans. Can one walk along such locations as the Shaw Memorial or the Park Street Church in Boston and not realize that such places stand for the very freedoms Mr. Cathy is expressing?
Mayor Edwin Lee of San Francisco tweeted: "Closest Chick-fil-A to San Francisco is 40 miles away "and I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer." California has 59 stores, Mayor Lee, and more are in the works.
Mayor Richard Bloomberg of New York brought some constitutional sense to these outrageous remarks mocking the faith beliefs of Mr. Cathy. He said: "...trampling on the freedom to marry whoever you want is exactly the same as trampling on your freedom to open a store." Although he favors gay marriage, nonetheless, he realizes that basic freedoms are at stake.
New York lawyer Richard Socarides, a former Clinton White House adviser on gay rights, said Bloomberg is right. "Consumers can disagree with a company's corporate political position and decide not to spend money there, but the city cannot regulate speech by denying someone a permit to operate their business just because you disagree with their political beliefs."
Amen. But there is more to the issue than political beliefs. These are deeply held faith beliefs, and those beliefs have various values underpinning them.
Regarding marriage, the question is rather simple: Is marriage of God's origin? Or, is marriage of government origin? We Catholics and many others of similar belief shout loudly that marriage is of God's origin, and we will never stop our efforts to maintain that understanding and practice of marriage in our broader society.
All Catholics, but especially Catholic business leaders, should be in the forefront of efforts to protect all religious liberties and freedoms across our nation. Because as we have just seen, lots of folks out there are eager to punish us for clinging to and expressing our faith beliefs, values, and practices. If government can "punish" a store owner for his faith beliefs and threaten to close his store because of those beliefs, then we are all in big trouble.
We as Catholics need to stand tall, know our faith beliefs, and proclaim those to the whole world in the name of Jesus Christ!
Monday, June 25, 2012
IMMIGRANTS STILL AT RISK
Today's ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on four provisions of Arizona's immigration law [S.B. 1070] gives some measure of relief for immigtrants in our country, but still leaves them at risk because one section of 1070 remains in place--at least for now.The three sections of 1070 struck down by the Supreme Court are the folllowing:
Section 3: "makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor"
Section 5(C): "makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State [Arizona]"
Section 6: "authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person 'the officer has probably cause to believe...has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States"
Upheld by the Court is section 2(B): "requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government"
Why should immigrants across the nation still be concerned? Because the very real threat of racial profiling of immigrants remains. The decision leaves enormous discretion in the hands of the law enforcement officers who are making a stop of a person. How is an officer to make a clear and unbiased determination in the Arizona law: "Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 requires state officers to make a 'reasonable attempt...to determine the immigration status' of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if 'reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."
How is "reasonable suspicion" to be interpreted? Color of skin? Primary language? Certain physical features? How long can a person be detained while state officers seek immigration status reports from the Federal Government?
This is at the heart of the challenge to S.B. 1070 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in our Amicus Curiae Brief.
Fortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized these inherent dangers, and has agreed to allow Section 2(B) to go forward while implementation takes place: "This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutinal challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect."
I am hopeful that the Church and various immigration rights organizations will monitor the implementation of this law across Arizona--as well as in other States where the same provision is enacted. Specific examples of the suspicion of racial profiling need to be documented so that any needed preemption and constitutional challenges can take place.
If I were a person of dark skin who spoke another language as my primary language, I would still be fearful of being stopped and detained because of what some might term "reasonable suspicion."
This U.S. Supreme Court decision continues to underline our need for comprehensive immigration reform so that these piecemeal approaches can be avoided, and at long last, all immigrants in our country will be clear about their status and about their options to obtain legal status.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
