Some Church Leaders Are Wrong On Immigration

As a practicing Catholic, albeit not as devout as I'd like to be, I've written several columns defending the Church embroiled in the priest scandals. Now it's with a heavy heart that I have to write one in opposition to what many of its clergy are championing: the plight of the illegal immigrant. I can certainly understand that many are simply following the words of Jesus Christ who said, "Whatsoever you do unto the least of these my brethren, you do unto me." However, advocating for those who enter the country illegally and exploit the services paid for by taxpayers is nothing short of enabling theft, and I doubt that Jesus would be supporting this misguided path.

Church leaders assembled in New York recently at Fordham University to join in protesting the Arizona immigration law, which apparently they'd never read. The forum was called "Immigration Reform: A Moral Imperative."

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles told the audience, "With the stroke of her pen, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer not only signed into law the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited and useless legislation, her action has helped to reinvigorate the comprehensive immigration reform movement."

The cardinal is a leading advocate among U.S. bishops for immigration reform and is making the liberal media's error of confusing opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to legal immigration. The Arizona bill is enforcing what's already a much harsher unenforced federal law and is only doing that because of the negative impact of illegals on that state, which includes murder and kidnapping.

Of course, we need reform that will enable easier access to immigrants, but before that can be done, measures must be taken to stop the hemorrhaging at the borders that's endangering our citizens.

Immediately after the Arizona bill was signed, Mexican officials were issuing warnings that are long overdue against trying to enter that state illegally. Politicians are exploiting this issue to push for amnesty, which will generate more voters for their party, and Hispanics will be the fall guys in the eyes of many native-born Americans and legal immigrants who went through the arduous process of naturalization.

At the forum, Cardinal Mahony said that the Arizona law's passage was due to a climate of fear in a time of tension and turmoil in our society. I ask you, cardinal: Who's responsible for that?

President Obama immediately went on a campaign to incite hostility against Arizona by saying that if you're an Hispanic-American in Arizona and take your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed. How stupid does he think we are? If he'd read the law, he'd have known that the only reason a law officer would ask for your papers is if you'd gone to that ice cream parlor to rob it.

Throughout the Fordham forum, Cardinal Mahony and others repeatedly spoke of immigration rather than illegal immigration. There's a huge difference between the two terms and the biggest distinction must be to recognize that most Americans favor the former but are not racists if they oppose the latter. The anti-illegal rhetoric may be ratcheting up because it resonates with those suffering in this poor economy.

While the government gets bigger, taxes go higher and spending on programs - that the average working-class person is ineligible for - grows.

I receive many angry e-mails from readers suffering from the bad economy who are increasingly resentful of the inequities they face on a daily basis. One noteworthy missive compared the differences between a Joe Legal and a Joe Illegal. While the Joe Legal had a decent salary, he paid for his taxes and medical insurance, rent, food, and other expenses. Joe Illegal earns a lower salary - under the table - pays no taxes, receives free medical and dental coverage from state and local clinics, has no documented income so is eligible for food stamps and welfare, gets a rent subsidy and his children get free lunches and English as a Second Language after-school programs. Finally, Joe Illegal gets the same fire and police protection but only Joe Legal pays for them. Guess who ends up richer?

I have a tough time responding to the anger in these e-mails because I can't refute the truth in them. I have young neighbors who are struggling but don't qualify for government assistance because they don't know how to "work the system" as well as those that they suspect are illegal, and New York City is a "sanctuary city" that protects illegals.

Religious organizations have always provided for the neediest, but they've traditionally been able to do so through the generosity of their congregations not from government entitlements funded by taxpayers.

As a poor child in the barrios growing up, I benefited from the charity of the nuns at St. Cecilia's parish who gave us extra food and clothing. This beneficence kept us off the welfare rolls, but it appears that many in the Church today are instead providing assistance for illegals to obtain public benefits, seriously straining the system. Guess why St. Vincent's Hospital went bankrupt?

In addition, not much attention has been paid to Americans who've been victimized by the undocumented through marriage. I received a communication from an ex-NYPD officer who'd married an illegal immigrant from Honduras and thought it was a happy marriage until she took off with their two children. He learned that she'd married fraudulently twice before and was supposed to be deported. Her defense, he said, was being funded by Catholic Charities. Meanwhile, he'd gone bankrupt trying to get his children back. I learned that his tragic case is hardly unusual. There's even a Web site dealing with these kinds of victims that alleges that this is a national security problem as well (immigrationfraudvictims.us).

The Fordham forum participants called for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to support a challenge to the "draconian" Arizona law, but perhaps they should first answer the questions posed by Phyllis Chesler on pajamasmedia.com:

"Can America afford to absorb and fund the integration of an untold number of immigrants, especially during an economic recession or depression? Can America afford to follow Europe's example and allow immigrants, either legal or illegal, to work for minimum or sub-standard wages while American-born laborers remain unemployed? Can America afford to follow Europe's example and allow the legal or illegal immigration of those who do not wish to integrate, who will not or who cannot become self-supporting, and who must rely on public funding?"

Here's another one for the bishops to consider. Do you care at all for Joe Legal? That's the real moral imperative.

Alicia Colon resides in New York City and can be reached at aliciav.colon@gmail.com and at www.aliciacolon.com