THE BORDERS ARE SECURE: NOW WHAT??

Every report in recent weeks confirms that at least on our southern border the northern flow of people is down to a trickle.  And it's my hunch that these are primarily folks involved in illegal activities, such as drug trafficking and other illegal activities.

There is virtually no flow of people north for three reasons:  work opportunities in this country are not plentiful, the birth rate in Mexico has dropped from 5.8 babies to 2.3 babies, and Mexico's GDP was 5.6 last year [in comparison to 2.2 for the USA].

Over the past several years many in Congress have stated repeatedly that job number one is to secure our borders, and until that happens, we can't turn our attention to the 11 million undocumented people living here in our midst.

Some have espoused an "attrition through enforcement" policy so that people would voluntarily choose to return to their country of origin.  Through voluntary departure and forced departure, over one million people have left our country in the past year.

I suspect that we have seen pretty much the end of such attrition.  Why?  Because of the remaining 11 million people, virtually all are in "blended families," that is, some members have documents, while others do not.  These families are not going to split up--especially when they know that current family reunification processes means separations of 10 to 15 years--maybe even longer.  Parents do not want to leave their children, and family members do not want to be split up.

We cannot afford to leave these people locked into an undocumented status where there is no path forward towards legal status.  It is not good for our country nor our economy to have so many people living in the shadows of our society.  We need to call them forward and begin an earned process towards legal status [notice that I am not saying "citizenship"].

Our Church has advocated for several years that an earned path towards legal status be put in place requiring among other things:  registering with the federal government, paying any back taxes, paying a fine, learning English, learning USA history, continue to be free of criminal activity, and start paying all employment and other taxes.  That, my friends, is not amnesty--it is an arduous and earned path forward.

Upon registering, such persons would be given a card whereby they could legally be employed in our country and begin paying all related taxes.

Citizenship?  In the coming years when these people have completed all of the above requirements, they would then get in line behind all others around the world who have petitioned to become USA citizens.  This is not amnesty.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney:

     Both of you have an obligation to spell out in detail your vision and plans on how to deal with the 11 million people in our midst who need to be brought out of the shadows.


     Please, no cliches, no rhetorical phrases.  Give us a plan that begins with the positive aspects of our immigrant history, and which has particulars and time-lines.


     Use your moral voice to influence all the members of your own political party, both elected and voters.  Help replace myths with facts.  Help put a human face on our immigrant brothers and sisters.

     Step forward boldly to help change minds, hearts, and our badly broken immigration system.  Help forge a consensus on moving this vast population out from a shadow existence and economy.

Recently I heard a commentator on the radio who was never known for any compassionate view of undocumented peoples in our country.  He finally admitted:  "What we are doing now to deal with the 11 million isn't working.  Let's get this population in a line--any line--that will help us move forward towards an earned legal presence among us."  I was astounded, but he finally figured it out.  Human dignity and our long history favors positive steps, not going backwards with punitive actions.

Please press all Congressional candidates for office, as well as Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, to step forward with a bold and detailed action plan to help end the long-simmering immigration stalemate that is helping no one.



    

IMMIGRATION & U.S. SUPREME COURT

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Arizona v. United  States.  It was my privilege to be present for the entire time of the oral arguments.

The Federal government was suing the State of Arizona because the Federal government reads the U.S. Constitution as giving full authority and competence on immigration issues to the Federal government, not the individual States.

U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, D.C.,
April 25, 2012

The Justices did not seem to be persuaded that one part of the Arizona law violated Federal law:  the inquiry about immigration status after a person has been stopped for another violation of the law, and when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the person might not have legal residency.  It would seem that this section could survive. 

However, questions by the Justices were presuming a quick check with the Federal data bases would be carried out, and that persons would not be held longer than for the original reason for the stop.

The Justices had far more serious questions about other sections of the Arizona law, especially those sections which make it a crime for an undocumented person to seek employment, to fail to register, or to take employment.  One will just have to wait until the Court decision to learn its scope and application for Arizona and for other States.

We must keep in mind that there are other challenges to Arizona's S.B. 1070 in the Federal courts--not on the grounds of the Federal government preempting State involvement in immigration issues, but rather, the great danger of ethnic and racial profiling because of the "reasonable suspicion" of not having legal residential status language.  Since the vast majority of people who will be questioned about their immigration status are dark-skinned or Hispanic, one can just imagine who will be checked.

Chief Justice John Roberts was well aware of this fact and that those issues may eventually come to the Court.  When Solicitor General Donald Verrilli began his oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts intervened at once: 

"Before you get into what the case is about, I'd like to clear up at the outset what it's not about.  No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?  I saw none of that in your brief."

Verrelli responded:  "That's correct."

This issue, however, is surely a major problem with the Arizona law.  Who else will law enforcement officers inquire about their legal residency status if not people of color, those who don't speak English well, and Hispanics?

But the Justices cannot be oblivious to the implications and practical effects of the Arizona law.  In my opinion, they simply must analyze the implications on individuals and their families when they render their final decision.

The Catholic Church will continue to stand with all of our immigrant brothers and sisters, regardless of legal residency, and will continue our efforts to extend earned paths to legal residency for all categories of these people.

MEETING with POPE BENEDICT XVI

The highlight of our Ad Limina Visit was our meeting with our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, on Friday, April 20.

(Photo: CNS/L'Osservatore Romano) April 20, 2012

He received all of the Bishops from the Province of Los Angeles in his private study, and he was most welcoming. We were permitted to bring the five priests from Los Angeles—one working in the Vatican, Msgr. Larry Spiteri; and four doing graduate studies in Rome—Father Thinh Pham, Father Swalomir Szkredka, Father John Montejano, and Father Marco Durazo. They each met the Pope, had a photo taken, and then left the study.
Archbishop José Gomez introduced the Bishops of the Province, and each of us had a few minutes to focus on one aspect of our ministry in California and in our Archdiocese. The various types of ministry were covered by individual Bishops.

My report to the Holy Father centered on the issue of immigration and the current phenomenon of world-wide migration. Some 212 million people are on the move around the world, most of them fleeing various threats and deprivations: wars, terrorism, famine, political unrest, and the search for a place of peace and opportunity for their families.

(Photo: CNS/L'Osservatore Romano) April 20, 2012

I pointed out to the Holy Father that the last major Papal pronouncement on immigration was the Apostolic Constitution by Pope Pius XII, Exsul Familia, issued August 1, 1952—some 60 years ago. That document was issued following the Second World War and while the world was facing enormous displacement of peoples caused by that war.

I suggested to the Pope that it would be very opportune if he would consider issuing a new Papal document on the challenges facing today’s migrants around the world, and on the Church’s response to this phenomenon in our own time. He was most attentive, and asked me directly, “Do you have a proposal”? Fortunately, I had prepared a letter to him on this very issue and gave it to his secretary at our meeting.

I now plan to ask Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the President of the U.S. Bishops Conference, and Archbishop José Gomez, Chairman of the Committee on Migration and Refugees, to add their positive encouragement to our Holy Father as well.

Given the reality of so many immigrants in our country, and the Church’s continuing efforts to offer them various pastoral and spiritual services, it would be truly opportune to have our Holy Father give us an updated document on this most important pastoral work of our Church.

The Church’s deep concern for peoples on the move and for immigrants is a Gospel imperative for us in Jesus’ own words: “For I was a stranger, and you welcomed me”. (Matthew 25:35)

I am writing this blog post while flying home to Los Angeles, having been renewed and refreshed through our Masses at the four major Basilicas of Rome, through our personal time with the Successor of Peter, Pope Benedict, and through our conversations with so many heads of Vatican Offices.

May Saints Peter and Paul continue to inspire our Church and all of the Dioceses of our Region in the person of Jesus and with the fervor of the Holy Spirit !

ROME AD LIMINA VISIT

The Bishops of the Provinces of Los Angeles and San Francisco begin their Ad Limina visit in Rome on April 15.

Every five years all Bishops are required to Rome to pray at the tombs of St. Peter and of St. Paul, to meet with the Pope, and to visit with the major offices of the Holy See. The name, Ad Limina, comes from the Latin expression "Ad Limina Apostolorum," or, "To the Doorposts of the Apostles."

Each day we will celebrate Mass in one of the four major Basilicas of Rome: St. Peter's, St. Paul's Outside the Walls, St. John Lateran, and St. Mary Major. A visit with Pope Benedict XVI is part of the visit.

Although now the retired Archbishop of Los Angeles, the five-year Report to the Holy See covers the time period up to December 31, 2010. During those years I served as the active Archbishop of Los Angeles, and therefore, am responsible for the Report.

During these wonderful days in Rome, your Bishops will be praying for all of you, the faithful People of God in our various Archdioceses and Dioceses.

As of Wednesday evening, we have so far visited the following offices of the Holy See: the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura [the Supreme Court for the Church], the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Congregation for Bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Clergy, the Congregation for Catholic Education, the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization.

At each official visit we discuss in general our five-year Reports, and raise up issues for discussion. The atmosphere and dialogue are faith-filled, and we are able to receive helpful guidance in response to our questions.

This Ad Limina visit brought us to the offices of a new entity of the Holy See--the Pontifical Council for Promoting New Evangelization. Recall that Pope John Paul II had frequently mentioned a "new evangelization" in which each of us would deepen our personal encounter with Jesus Christ, share our faith journeys, and become a more welcoming Church.

With some 22 million inactive Catholics across our country, we need to be proactive in reaching out to them and in inviting them "home" to our Faith Community of Catholics.

A special Synod of Bishops on the New Evangelization will take place beginning this coming October, as well as the launching of The Year of Faith for the Church world-wide. Many new pastoral initiatives will be suggested this year for implementation at the Diocesan and parish levels.

Initiatives will be taken to enliven the faith-lives of our Catholic people, and to help them bring the values and imperatives of Jesus Christ in the Gospels to our daily lives. This is an exciting new chapter in the life of the Church, and I look forward with great eagerness to our new evangelization efforts.

May Saints Peter and Paul continue to intercede for us all!!

NEW IMMIGRATION RULE MAKES SENSE

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has proposed a more streamlined process to assist petitioners for legal residency in a more streamlined fashion.

Currently, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who have accrued a certain period of unlawful presence in the United States are barred from returning to the U.S. for as long as 3 or 10 years if they leave the country.

Immediate relatives can obtain a waiver of the unlawful presence bar if they show that a U.S. citizen spouse or parent will experience extreme hardship if they are required to remain outside the U.S. But in order to obtain the waiver, these individuals must depart the U.S. and wait abroad while the waiver is processed.

As a result, long years of separation keep families divided waiting while the various government processes churn on slowly. This is particularly difficult when very young or very old members of the family are involved in the process.

Under the new proposed process, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens who would need a waiver of unlawful presence in order to obtain an immigrant visa could file a new form form before leaving the U.S. to obtain an immigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate abroad.

All individuals eligible for this streamlined process are still required to depart the U.S. and must meet all legal requirements for issuance of an immigrant visa and admission to the U.S.

Those who claim that this new process is some type of new "amnesty" are plain wrong. This new process is intended to hasten the steps for those family members who are clearly eligible for more rapid consideration of their petition. None of the steps in the process are being waived; rather, all of the elements are moved forward in a more certain way.

I support this new Rule and pray that after the 60 days for public comment it will be in effect.

Some estimates are that one million of the current 11 million unauthorized immigrants may be able to secure a more rapid path to legal residency.

This new process will help bring a large number of our residents out of the shadows and to give them a new future in our midst.

HUNTED IN ALABAMA

The state is driving out its illegal immigrants. Businesses want them back. Meet the men and women in the middle.


An article by Patrick Symmes. Appeared in the February 13, 2012 issue of Newsweek magazine.


The front door is locked on this brown-and-cream mobile home, an aluminum outpost at the end of a pine-tree trailer park beyond Birmingham, Ala. But the back door flaps open in a winter wind. Inside are a bag of red beans, some pet food, and a pair of high heels. Nothing else. Even the beds are gone. "Six people," a neighbor says in Spanish, struggling to recall something from the anonymity of immigrant life. "Men, women, children. The law came in, and one day they just didn't come home."


The law: that would be H.B. 56, Alabama's attempt at the nation's most rigorous crackdown on illegal immigrants. On Sept. 23, 2011, when H.B. 56 came into effect, it cut off all state and local services to the undocumented. No driver's licenses, no registration for cars, no scholarships, no hiring without a document check. Enrolling in one of Alabama's public colleges requires proof of legal residency in the United States. Hiring, renting property to, or simply "harboring" undocumented foreigners is illegal. H.B. 56's one-signature provision--deputizing local police officers to turn traffic stops into deportation proceedings--assumes powers long reserved to the federal government.


The law had its desired effect, sort of. Illegals did flee. Alabama reported a drop in school enrollment, especially in rural areas. This trailer and about 50 like it in a park of 300 were soon evacuated. Immigrants sold their possessions for cash and drove to Florida or California, wherever they felt safer.

But Alabama's crackdown hasn't played out quite as expected. A group of Mexican men unloading a pickup truck explain they fled the state, but after just a month in Florida, they came back. They pointed out an obvious irony: as H.G. 56 scared off some immigrants, others found that jobs were now going begging. And these men had now rented the same trailer for less than they paid in September.

"Alabama's a good place," said 51-year-old construction worker Javier Flores. "There's all types of people."

If Alabama is the GOP's latest front in the war on illegal immigration, then the battle is far from won. The tired and poor, the huddled masses, are still here, yearning to rent cheap and work hard. All the crackdown in Alabama has done is push people deeper into the woodwork. Yet immigrants remain everywhere in Alabama, hiding in plain sight, evading the crackdown with GPS strategies and shared text alerts. Family networks and the surprising kindness of strangers have given them camouflage.

In this tense environment, immigrants drive slowly and stay low. "We couldn't be more hidden," one man says.

In short, the law is immensely popular--and it's not working very well. It has disrupted business in Alabama, and enforcement is proving costly. The state legislature last week began work on modifying the law.

But modify only. "It won't be repealed," says a confident Gov. Robert J. Bentley, a Republican from Tuscaloosa. In one poll, 73 percent of Alabamans supported H.B. 56; Bentley notes that the measure is almost as popular nationally. "I never go on television without getting asked about it," he says.

Bentley, a physician who began working at the state capital in his 20s, calls federal policy a "failure" that requires Alabama to step in and "uphold the state and federal constitutions."

Besides, there's not much percentage in a Republican letting up on the issue. When Newt Gingrich suggested in a November debate that "immigration policy which destroys families" was a bad thing, he walked into a buzz saw of retribution from some conservatives. Last year state legislatures weighed 1,600 bills against illegal immigrants, and passed 300 of them, a populist wave that predates Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party and has a powerful grip on both parties.

Like earlier attempts in Arizona and South Carolina, most of these state immigration laws were blocked by courts; the U.S. Constitution reserved enforcement of the borders to the feds. Alabama H.B. 56 has provoked suits by everyone from the Birmingham Catholic Diocese to the Justice Department.

H.B. 56's very success has stirred moral qualms among Alabamans that could weaken or even undo it. "Jesus Was an Anchor Baby," declared one sign at a recent march on the governor's mansion, and State Sen. Billy Beasley compared H.G. 56 to the racial segregation of Alabama's scarred past. "I know in my heart," told the protesters, "that Jesus Christ would not support what is happening in Alabama."

And then there is an even higher law--supply and demand. Whatever H.B. 56 says, picking tomatoes in Alabama pays about eight times as much as it does in Baja.

Most studies calculate that illegal immigration boosts the American economy. Many immigrants contribute to Social Security without being able to draw on it. But the net gain in jobs is an abstraction compared with Alabama's low wages and stubborn unemployment, which ran more than 9 percent before the bill. Sponsors of H.B. 56 took credit for a subsequent decline to 8.7 percent unemployment, saying legal workers were getting the jobs of departed illegals. But there has been an economic cost, with tomatoes rotting unpicked on the side of Chandler Mountain, and agriculture and the service sector "devastated," according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Even Governor Bentley acknowledges "some pain, in the short term."

Deepak Bhargava, executive director for the Center for Community Change, says Alabama has only itself to blame. For years the state gave "a wink and a nod" to imported labor and "essentially offered an invitation to bring labor in, to work, and to build families. For them now to persecute the same families is the height of hypocrisy."

It's not just about tomatoes, either. Local police jailed a German executive from the Mercedes-Benz plant in Tuscaloosa, and another checkpoint snagged a Japanese worker at Honda's $1.4 billion plant. Both incidents "did grievous harm to Alabama's reputation," Bhargava notes. Governor Bentley has found himself assuring Chinese and other foreign investors that Alabama welcomes not just foreign investment but foreign investors.

Are the toilet cleaners welcome? Carla and Ruben hide behind drawn blinds every night. They are Costa Ricans who ask to be called by new names. The apartment is cozy; their three handsome sons sit patiently on a white sofa. The couple is educated and middle class but got stuck cleaning toilets for cash in an underground economy. They work to provide for their family, they say, but haven't seen their own parents in 16 years.

Survival in Alabama 2.0: one shopping trip a week, to minimize exposure to the police. A carpool to St. Francis Xavier for the 1 p.m. Mass in Spanish. {Parking at the church is easy since H.B. 56; one third of the lot is suddenly free.) When they set out in the morning, they remind their sons--the youngest a U.S. citizen--not to panic if they disappear. Move to your aunt's apartment, the parents say. Stay in school. We'll call you when we land in Costa Rica.

The couple recalls one of the houses they clean weekly. The owner is a "really important" figure in Alabama whom they won't identify. "He speaks against Latinos," Carla notes, "but hires Latinos to clean his house." The man threatened to fire them if they were illegals--then dropped the matter. If H.B. 56 sputters out, it may be because people in Alabama want a clean house more than they want to clean house.

22 NEW CARDINALS

On Saturday, February 18, Pope Benedict XVI created 22 new Cardinals for the service of the Church.

Since Cardinals in the Church wear bright red vestments, both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict have emphasized the symbolism of the bright red color. It is not a color of distinction or privilege, rather, it is a color which designates the willingness to shed one's blood for Jesus Christ and His Church.

The words of our Holy Father in his homily are poignant:

"...the life and the death of Peter the Prince of the Apostles, who for love of Christ gave himself even unto the ultimate sacrifice, will be an example and a helpful witness of faith for the new Cardinals. It is with this meaning that the placing of the red biretta is also to be understood. The new Cardinals are entrusted with the service of love: love for God, love for his Church, an absolute and unconditional love for his brothers and sisters, even unto shedding their blood, if necessary, as expressed in the words of placing the biretta and as indicated by the color of their robes.

Furthermore, they are asked to serve the Church with love and vigor, with the transparency and widom of teachers, with the energy and strength of shepherds, with the fidelity and courage of martyrs. They are to be eminent servants of the Church that finds in Peter the visible foundation of unity."

The Gospel chosen for the Consistory of new Cardinals was Mark 10:35-45, the story about the ambition of James and John--their request to sit at the right and left of Jesus in the Kingdom of God. Our Holy Father stressed to the Cardinals the need to follow the example of Jesus who came, not to be served, but to serve and hand over his life for all.

The words of Pope Benedict:

"Dominion and service, egoism and altruism, possession and gift, self-interest and gratuitousness: these profoundly contrasting approaches confront each other in every age and place. There is no doubt about the path chosen by Jesus: he does not merely indicate it with words to the disciples of then and of today, but he lives it in his own flesh. He explains, in fact, 'For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.' These words shed light upon todays' public Consistory with a particular intensity. They resound in the depths of the soul and represent an invitation and a reminder, a commission and an encouragement especially for you, dear and venerable Brothers who are about to be enrolled in the College of Cardinals."

This is the eighth Consistory of new Cardinals since my own Consistory back in 1991. A similar message has been proclaimed by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI over the years, a message both ancient but ever new.

These words this year provide me a renewed opportuntiy to commit myself with renewed vigor to our Lord Jesus Christ and to His Church, and to offer myself in total service to God's plan of salvation--with a willingness to suffer as did Jesus, and a devotion to the service of others in His name.