JULIANO ARCHIVES

..............................................................................................................................................
Raids reveal plight of children, detainees
May 30, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents have been “high-fiving” each other for the success of a raid at the Agriprocessors Inc. Plant in Postville, Iowa. The United States attorney for Northern Iowa who oversaw the operation called it an “astonishing success.” About 270 unauthorized immigrants were sentenced to five months in prison for working at the plant with no documents. More pats on the back.
ICE agents have been busy making raids and arrests in San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
    Meanwhile, in Postville, a nun at a local Catholic church reported many children were sleeping in the pews, fearing more raids. She said most of these children are not going to school. They are traumatized and fearful. Any high-fives here? Any pats on the back?
    The principal of a school near the site of one of the raided apartment complexes, said “agents shone flashlights in the children’s faces. Parents were handcuffed in front of their kids. The next day 40 of the students were too frightened to show up for class, while others arrived in tears.”
    “They left behind them a trail of fear.”
    So, who are the real victims of these raids? The National Council of La Raza reports approximately five million children in the U.S. live with an undocumented immigrant parent. The vast majority of these children are U.S. citizens.
    The Urban Institute researchers found for every two immigrants detained, one child is left behind as a result of worksite raids.
    Pro-immigrant social agencies throughout the country and in Jackson as well, have been racing against the clock to work with immigrant parents in securing care for their children if they should be apprehended in a raid.
La Raza and other organizations have written the Department of Homeland Security citing them:
    – for their failure to provide access to telephones for parents so they could notify family members to provide for children.
    – for not considering hardship on children by placing parents in detention facilities out of state.
    – for detaining nursing mothers, resulting in infants being forcibly weaned from breast milk.
    To their credit, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Subcommittee on Workforce Protection held a hearing on May 20, on “The Implications of Immigrant Enforcement on America’s Children.” Let us hope after hearing from many of the organizations like La Raza, the House of Representatives will come up with a just, compassionate formula in reference to these raids.
    Interestingly enough, La Raza is not calling for an end of enforcement, rather it states “the U.S. can and should enforce its immigration laws. As with any set of laws, the nation should enforce them wisely and well.”
    Our specific concern has been for the well-being of the children but what about all those immigrants who are being detained in jails or detention centers? What is happening to them?
    According to two staff writers for the Washington Post, Dana Priest and Amy Goldstein, our detention centers are best described as a “System of Neglect.” In their first article the journalists cite the death of a young man as “a single tragedy in a larger story of life, death and often shabby medical care within an unseen network of special prisons for foreign detainees across the country. Some 33,000 people are crammed into these overcrowded compounds on a given day, waiting to be deported or for a judge to let them stay here.”
    Though not all of these detainees are undocumented immigrants arrested in raids, all of them are deserving of the respect and dignity accorded human beings. But the care they are receiving is “slow care, poor care and no care.” Surely, this does not reflect positively on our country and what it stands for and what the church teaches.
    The journalists, Priest and Goldstein, also discovered the U.S. government has injected hundreds of foreigners it has deported with dangerous psychotropic drugs against their will to keep them sedated during a trip back to their home country.
    According to government rules such sedation can only be used on those with severe mental illness or those so aggressive they are a peril to themselves or others. The writers found files indicating the government often ignored its own rules. This is a disgrace for our country!
    Of course, these raids are politically motivated; nevertheless, they are causing real harm to children as well as other people who are authorized to be in the U.S. Some immigrants have gotten the message they are not wanted here and have returned to their home countries. Others have fled to other places in the U.S. It is not likely that 12 million immigrants will leave the U.S. But the suffering will continue.
    The best resolution to this problem of illegal immigration is a complete overhaul of our immigration system. The visa system needs to be changed to accommodate all the unskilled workers who wish to work here in jobs for which natives are over-qualified.
    The visa system for family members is harsh in requiring years before families can be re-united. And the guest-worker program which is now close to slavery needs a complete overhaul.
    We Christians must let our legislators in Washington know a just, humane, compassionate immigration system is necessary.
Remember and save the children!
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

 

Laws must enforce justice with compassion
May 9, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     They buried “Moses” a few weeks ago. Charlton Heston was laid to rest like any other man after establishing an acting reputation as the quintessential Biblical hero of the Old Testament. Who can forget the movie in which the rugged, imposing figure of an enraged     Moses crashed the tablets of the Ten Commandments on the rocks below Mt. Sinai?
His people were making a mockery of God, a God whose thunderous voice permeated his being and the tablets of stone with the sacred commandments for his people and for all of humankind that would follow through the ages.
    The Ten Commandments still hold a place of honor for Christians who follow the Christ. And even though Jesus Christ encapsulated his message with two brief commandments, we continue to steep ourselves in innumerable laws covering it seems any and all situations in life.
    How else can we control the chaos that results from wanton human behavior. We have devised laws that shape our religion, our politics, our economics, our social behavior.
    But we have been less than consistent in enforcing certain laws such as the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Such sanctions were weakly employed and as a result illegal immigration continued and increased.
    So, now, after years of benefiting from the labor and presence of immigrants in the United States; after Congress failed to reform the immigration system, states and municipalities are making their own laws to curb illegal immigration. And they are doing it with a vengeance.
    Our own state of Mississippi joined some other states and passed a stringent law that would punish the worker immigrant much more than the employer who hired him.
    These workers are not criminals or terrorists. They are hard-working, tax-paying people who are contributing to the economic and social well-being of the community where they live. But they have broken our laws so they must be punished.
    No matter our immigration system makes it nearly impossible for these immigrant workers to come here legally; no matter they are coming to work and not to wreak havoc on our people and our community; no matter the former permissive attitude at the border almost “encouraged” them to ignore the law; no matter that nearly half of these workers entered legally and then overstayed.
    The law must be respected and obeyed. Yet, how is it our government can allow Secretary Chertoff to waive and “break” 30 laws protecting the environment, endangered species, migratory birds, the bald eagle, farms, deserts, forests, and Native American graves to continue building a border fence that is already being breached by drug traffickers and illegal crossers.
    So, how do we decide which laws can be ignored and which ones should be obeyed? All of us were invited guests to watch baseball “heroes” testify before Congress on their alleged participation in breaking the “rules” regarding the use of steroids.
    All of the implicated players were granted amnesty. Have we heard that word before? Amnesty! In facing criticism about the amnesty ruling, baseball commissioner Bud Selig hastened to assure critics that it was not amnesty.
    “I want our players to do public service and our clubs to do public service.” Our players will also educate young players about the dangers of steroid use. They will also pay or contribute $200,000 in fines.
    The Immigration Reform Bill that Congress bungled in June of 2007 called for undocumented immigrants to pay hefty fines and back taxes, to learn English and civics, and then to go to the back of the line to apply for a visa that would allow them to wait almost 13 years for citizenship. And the restrictionists still called it amnesty! If only the immigrants could disguise themselves with baseball caps!
    Let me be clear. Laws, good laws should be respected and observed. But let me repeat what Bishop Michael Jackels of Kansas City, Mo., had to say about laws. “. . . a law does not have unquestionable authority just because it is enacted.
    “Laws are subject to higher principles such as respect for the dignity of the human person. When a law does not flow from this fundamental respect – when it is inhumane, or does not serve the common good – people have a moral responsibility to change it, not to worsen its effect . . . a law can also be judged bad and in need of reform when it enforces justice not tempered by compassion.”
    In recent days our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the bishops (and us) to continue “to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrow and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home.”
    It seems to me the best way we can help immigrants flourish in their new home” is to demand our legislators in Washington take seriously the need to reform our immigration system humanely and justly.
    This strong message must also be conveyed to our presidential candidates. Comprehensive immigration reform is right up there in urgency with the economy and health insurance. The lives and human dignity of millions of people demand our care and concern so “they can flourish in their new home”
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Guest worker program close to modern-day slavery
April 25 , 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
    “I am a man. Dignity.” These words were written on placards held in the hands of many of the 100 Indian guest workers leading a protest on the steps of the Mississippi capitol on March 20. These workers made Jackson one of their stops in their march to Washington, D.C., where they hope to meet with members of Congress to ask for changes in the guest worker program.
    These workers walked out of their jobs at Signal International in Pascagoula claiming Signal had made fraudulent promises to them when they hired them for jobs in the H2B guest worker program.
    The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC) in Montgomery, Ala., and the New Orleans Workers Center have helped them to file a class action lawsuit against Signal.
    I find it interesting their placards did not call for better wages but rather that Signal recognizes they are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Our Catholic bishops have been drumming that very message in their Campaign for Justice.
    At the center of this dispute is the guest worker program which is part of our immigration system. Let’s take a look at the program prompting this protest.
    The SLPC has this to say about the H2B current system: These workers are not treated like ‘guests.’ Rather, they are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guest workers do not enjoy the fundamental protection of a competitive labor market … the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who ‘import’ them. If guest workers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation.
    In fact, Rep. Charles Rangel (D, New York ) is quoted as saying, “This guest worker program is the closest thing I’ve ever seen to slavery.”
    Keep in mind these workers are brought in legally, with temporary visas that stipulate the time of their stay in the U.S. The law center outlines the abuses of the program on guestworkers who they say are: routinely cheated out of wages, forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs, held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents, forced to live in squalid conditions, and denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.
    One of the Indian workers at the protest previously mentioned told the press “we were like pigs in a cage.”
    And to add to the caged feeling the men say they were forced to pay $1,050 a month to live in crowded company housing in isolated, fenced labor camps where as many as 24 men shared a trailer with only two toilets. And when they tried to find their own housing they were told they would still have the rent deducted from their pay.
    These workers from India who SPLC says paid recruiters $20,000 for travel, visa and other fees were told by these recruiters they would get good jobs, green cards and permanent U.S. residency. And for an extra $1,500 per person they could bring their families to live in the U.S.
    Many of these recruiters all are said to make a hefty profit carrying on their business. They know how to appeal to desperate men and women who see their work as a way out of poverty for their families. What often happens is they end up with more debt than earned wages and their dream turns into a nightmare.
    The experience of these Indian workers is certainly not an isolated incident. Abuses associated with the guest worker program are well-known and are documented by lawyers and law firms like the Southern Poverty Law Center. You can access their website for more specific information about the abuses in the system.
    What can the ordinary person do? Let me repeat what the law center recommends: the H2 guest worker program is fundamentally flawed. Because guestworkers are tied to a single employer and have little or no ability to enforce their rights, they are routinely exploited.
    The guest worker program should not be expanded or used as a model for immigration reform. If the program is permitted to continue it should be radically altered to address the vast disparity in power between guest workers and employers.
    I feel certain we Catholics would not want to support a program that treats people like slaves. We often feel powerless to remedy a bad situation but in this case we can voice our support for immigration reform including the radical improvement of a guestworker segment of the immigration system. We must let our legislators know how we feel about eradicating “slavery” from the immigration system.
    Our efforts to support just, humane reform of this program as well as the entire immigration system will go a long way in ensuring that the worth and dignity of all workers will be assured.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Do immigrants take jobs from native workers?
April 11 , 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     I did a double-take last week when that advertisement appeared on TV declaring illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans. I wondered who was responsible for airing this message which is a popular myth perpetuated by individuals and organizations espousing anti-immigrant propaganda.
     I learned from a reliable source the sponsoring organization is the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which was designated a hate group last year by the Southern Poverty Law Center located in Montgomery, Ala.
     FAIR along with many misinformed people has bought into the popular myth that undocumented immigrants take jobs away from Americans which leads to the suppression of wages for all workers. Is this true?
     The answer is a strong NO and a weak YES!
     In researching this topic I found the most authoritative source to be the Council of Economic Advisers which gave an annual report to the president entitled, “Immigration’s Economic Impact of June 20, 2007.”
     First, the council makes a strong point that “immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15 percent of all workers and an even larger share of certain occupations like construction, food services and health care.”
     More importantly, they state U.S. natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
Two other experts, Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri concluded in their study that “immigration since 1990 has boosted the average wage of natives by between 0.7 percent and 1.8 percent.” Fully 90 percent of the U.S. native-born workers are estimated to have gained from immigration.
     But, wait a minute, restrictionists might say. “We have plenty of young Mississippi men and women who can’t compete with undocumented immigrants in getting jobs.”
     And the council and other experts would agree there are “small negative effects of immigrants on the wages of low-skilled natives.” That effect can range anywhere from 1 percent to 2 percent. The council further states, “The difficulties faced by high school dropouts are a serious policy concern, but it is safe to conclude that immigration is not a central cause of those difficulties, nor is reducing immigration a well-targeted way to help these low-wage natives.”
     Can we assume many of the low-skilled Mississippi workers are people who did not finish high school? Why are undocumented immigrants able to get jobs that our native workers cannot get? I’d like to look a little more deeply into this topic by considering the Triple M Factors: Motivation, Money and Mobility.
     Motivation. My experience is that most undocumented immigrants are highly motivated and will take the most distasteful jobs to earn whatever wages are offered. They traditionally work hard and are very reliable, a trait valued by their employer who may exploit them at will.
     I am not sure the average person who has not finished high school for whatever reason will readily take a job that is considered the “pits” without the promise of a decent paycheck. These low-skilled jobs could include back-breaking work picking fruits and vegetables, cutting up chicken parts, tacking-on shingles in hot or frigid weather; all jobs requiring a work-ethic that younger workers may not yet have acquired.
     Money. It is well-known immigrants are often exploited by the unscrupulous employer who will pay less than minimum wage and get by with it. He knows the undocumented worker seldom has any legal recourse to complain. Still, the immigrant will work for a paltry wage because it is still a lot more than he could get in his native country.
     For low-skilled workers, money is the key to their success. As Americans they will only work for a decent living wage whereas the immigrant will work for less. They are correct in making their complaints and rights known to their bosses who prefer to deal with the docile, politically impotent immigrant. Thus, because they can’t compete with the immigrant they will end up with no job at all.
     It is germane to mention here that our Mississippi legislators rejected a bill calling for a task force to study the economic contribution of immigrants in reducing poverty in Mississippi. Such valuable information could shed light on our current topic.
     Mobility. This is one area where the immigrant has the advantage over the native worker. Most immigrants are very mobile. Most have not set deep roots in one place so they can pick up and leave to seek greener pastures.
     Native workers are just the opposite. They usually have family and friends that will keep them tied down to one area. Moving can be a traumatic event for them. And so they find themselves without a job and without many options.
     For now we can conclude from the previously cited experts that immigration labor provides many positive benefits to our society along with some negative consequences on low-skilled native workers.
     We should be able to resolve these inequalities without oppressing either group. Our new Mississippi law which is designed to prevent new undocumented immigrants from seeking employment in the state will only serve to pit the immigrant against the low-skilled worker.
     Only comprehensive immigration reform which is just and humane can begin to resolve this contentious situation which is really the domain of our legislators in Congress. Reform is also the major focus of the Catholic bishops’ “Justice for Immigrants Campaign.” They urge all Catholics to join them in this important endeavor.
     (For more information check out www.justiceforimmigrants.org)
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Fewer Americans available for unskilled jobs
March 28 , 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     We Americans form lines rather easily in the grocery store, department stores, the theater and, above all these days, at the airport. Some of us will even camp out for days at certain sites to get tickets to the Super Bowl or to get a good seat for the Rose Parade or for that matter, we had Mississippians who spent hours waiting for good seating to hear Presidential Candidate Barack Obama speak.
     Because “getting in line” is so second-nature for us, there are those who chide undocumented immigrants for not “getting in line” to get that precious visa. “Why can’t they get in line and wait like everybody else does? Even if it takes a lot of time?”
     The easy answer is: There is no line!
     In fact, Jane Guskin and David Wilson, authors of “The Politics of Immigration” state rather succinctly “the rules are made to keep immigrants out.” Now, that doesn’t seem to reflect what most of us believe about our country which welcomes the “tired and poor and the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These words from the base of the Statue of Liberty most of our immigrant relatives couldn’t even read.
     So, let’s look at this immigration system that is so hard to negotiate. Let’s try to understand why most of these undocumented people can’t get a visa.
     Most of the undocumented come here to work. There are many categories of immigration law but for now we will only look at the employment-based visa system and the visas available for each year.
      Persons of extraordinary ability in the arts and sciences, education, business or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers; multinational executives and managers. 40,000 visas
      Persons holding advanced degrees or persons with exceptional abilities in the arts, sciences, or business. 40,000 visas
      Certain ministers, religious workers, former U.S. government employees. 10,000 visas
      Persons who invest $500,000 to $3 million in a job-creating enterprise and employ at least 10 U.S. workers. 10,000 visas
      Skilled workers with at least 2 years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees.
40,000 visas
     Other workers who are capable of performing unskilled labor. 5,000 visas
Most of the undocumented fall into this last category. Five thousand visas don’t begin to satisfy the demand for unskilled laborers in the U.S. It is estimated 500,000 undocumented come into the U.S. each year and most of them find work within a few months or less. The demand for their labor exists but the visas do not.
     For those few people who are able to make application for this visa, the waiting time can be seven to 10 years. For young workers desperate to support a family, the waiting time is beyond reason. They will risk their lives to enter the U.S. illegally.
     You might say Americans can fill this demand for workers. What kind of work are we talking about? We’re talking about construction, food manufacturing, food services and textiles. The majority of these jobs are filled by native-born workers but their numbers are diminishing.
     Consider that in 1960 approximately 50 percent of the workforce did not have high school diplomas. Today that number is 12 percent. This means fewer Americans will be available for these unskilled jobs.
     It is estimated by the Labor Department that 48 percent of all job openings between 2002 and 2012 are expected to be held by workers who have a high school diploma or less education. With our diminishing labor force unavailable for these unskilled jobs, who will fill the gap? Common sense tells us the unskilled immigrants coming into the country will provide the labor force we will need.
     So, let me repeat the two main points of this column: 1) The U.S. Immigration system is set up to prevent low-skilled immigrants from entering the U.S. legally with a visa which is contrary to our own best interests. 2) We need the labor of these immigrants as the supply of our native-born workers in low-skilled jobs is diminishing.
     Should our main concern as Christians be that these people have broken the immigration law, therefore, they deserve to be punished? Or should our response be that
our laws are designed to encourage the immigrant to break the rules which are unjust to begin with. Therefore, they need to be changed!
     This Easter season reminds us of how laws can be manipulated to punish the innocent. The Pharisees often accused Jesus of breaking their laws about observing the Sabbath.      His crucifixion demonstrated that even good, well-intentioned people can be duped by vindictive leaders and a gullible crowd for assenting to evil actions without considering the truth.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Hospitality state turns hostile
March 14 , 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
      The Mississippi Legislature just missed a golden opportunity to set an example of statesmanship and leadership to this nation. Instead of exemplifying the hospitality of the South (and of our own Mississippi, the Hospitality State) they are joining the “mobs” of restrictionists and righteous enforcers who are calling for the punishment and ultimate ejection of all undocumented immigrants from the state of Mississippi.
     In other words, they are going after those “illegals” who have entered our country without proper papers by passing the horrendous Senate Bill 2988. (As of this writing the bill is awaiting the signature of the governor.)
If our Legislature had exercised true leadership in this matter, they could have done a number of things:
     1) They could have placed their energy in targeting the real culprit in illegal immigration – the immigration system of the United States.
     2) They could have realized the real “victims” of the system are the immigrants themselves who are unable to access visas allowing them to enter the U.S. legally.
     3) They could have called on Congress to take seriously the mandate to reform this immigration system as soon as a new administration is in place.
     4) They could have urged ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to place a moratorium on all raids and subsequent arrests until the federal government reforms the immigration system.
     In their haste to satisfy certain constituents and party bosses, the legislators did not think through all the consequences resulting from this bill. For instance, SB 2988 requires employers to verify the immigration status of their employees by using the E-verify system of the federal government.
     But did the legislators do any investigation about this system? If they had, they would have discovered that the E-verify system “has been repeatedly demonstrated to fail American workers and employers alike . . . it will lead to erroneous firings, discrimination, and exploitation of millions of workers, including U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.”
     This, of course, means lawsuits will pile up waiting for court dates. And that means money will be involved. Can the state afford to pay off lawsuits that will inevitably arise?      Where will the money come from?
     Often, in all the talk about illegal immigration one hears the contention if there were no jobs waiting for the immigrants, there would not be any immigrants here. It is a well-known fact the vast majority of immigrants come to the U.S. to work, not to terrorize the populace or get involved with gangs. So, the rationale is the employers would be penalized for providing employment for the unqualified immigrant.
     Apparently, the legislators did not spend a lot of time figuring out how to punish the employers. According to the bill, any employer violating its provisions would be subject to the cancellation of any state or public contract which would result in their ineligibility for any state contracts for three years. Does that sound like a tough penalty?
     They can walk away and come back in a few years. Right?
     But the poor immigrant does not get off so easily. He or she will be found guilty of a felony. Upon conviction they are subject to incarceration of not less than a year and not more than five years and with a fine of not less than $1,000 and not more than $10,000.
     But, did our legislators think that through? Is Mississippi prepared to imprison 100 or 1,000 or more immigrants? Our prison system is already over-burdened and under-funded.      Can it accommodate hundreds more? And even if deportation is employed, that takes money, too. Do we assume that the Department of Homeland Security foots the bill? We are heading into a financial quagmire.
     There is another consideration that bothers me. I remember hearing Gov. Haley Barbour recognize and praise the dedicated labor of hundreds of immigrants on the coast during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I’m sure there are lots of people on the coast who would acknowledge the positive influence of immigrants in the clean-up and restoration of the coast. Gratitude is expressed in many ways but this bill is a slap in the face.
     Now, consider another scenario. Suppose our legislators had decided to grant temporary work permits to all immigrants who wished to remain in Mississippi to work.      Suppose they offered these permits for a fee of $500 along with the stipulation that the immigrants divulge their real identities and submit any fraudulent documents they might be using.
     These permits would be valid for as long as it takes Congress to reform our immigration system including granting legal permanent residence to all undocumented residents. What would your reaction be?
     Would you be incensed at the audacity of the legislators for not punishing the undocumented immigrants as they deserve? Today’s gospel reading at Mass recounts the story of the woman caught in adultery. Is there a message Jesus is trying to convey to us who hold stones in our hands ready to inflict punishment? Let’s really pray about this one.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Take `hate’ language out of immigration debate
February 29, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
    “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never harm me.” Remember that old saying which my brothers and I used as kids to taunt our opposition in a spat? But I didn’t believe what I said because words did harm us.
    When our playmates called us Italians “whops” or “dagos” we knew those were fighting words and we inevitably ended up in a fight. We didn’t really know what the words meant but we knew they were saying something really bad about us. And it hurt!
    And words are still hurting people. Our society has become a little more sensitized to word usage so that certain offensive words of the past are seldom heard in educated company. We don’t often hear “kike,” “spic,” and “kraut” in polite company.
    Even words like cripple, retarded and dumb are not heard as frequently as they used to be. But we have a way of using perfectly good words, which in themselves are not offensive, and using them in such a way that they become offensive.
    Lately “illegal” has become one of those code words which is offensive to a growing number of people. And when it is joined with “alien,” then it really hits the heights of offensive language. Former Mississippi Rep. Erik Fleming comments it is “the new buzzword used … to strike fear in the hearts of many Americans … it is a term used to dehumanize the millions of immigrants who have not properly received documentation to reside or work in the United States.”
    And by using these words that objectify human beings we may find it easier to treat them as things and less human.
    Some weeks ago a rally was held at the Capitol to support the anti-immigrant movement in our Legislature. The newspaper picture clearly showed the participants wearing “STOP ILLEGALS” stickers. We all know what they mean by “illegals.” The buzzword has caught on and will be the code word people use to demonize the unauthorized immigrants.
    But of even greater importance is the statement made by Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant who addressed the group. And I quote from the newspaper article written by Leah Rupp, “We have to get a handle on this, or eventually it is going to collapse the nation.”
    In one letter to the editor in The Clarion Ledger (2-22-08) a person called immigrants “a cancer on the state and the nation.” Another (2-24-08) declared “the vast majority of Mississippians detest the unwelcome illegal immigrants.”
    That is the type of language that Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), would classify as “hate” language. She decries the use of code words that label immigrants and Latinos as a threat to the American way of life. She lists four categories of code words and rhetoric that:
    – refer to immigrants as “an army of invaders” or an “invading force,”
    – associate immigrants with animals and refer to them as “massive horde” or “swarm,”
    – accuse immigrants of bringing crime and disease to America including leprosy, tuberculosis, malaria and gang warfare,
    – revive the conspiracy theory that Mexico wants to take back lands in the southwestern part of the United States.
    This is the leader of the largest national Hispanic civil rights group who has publicly chastised the personalities of cable news for spreading this type of hate language. She mentions people I’m sure most of us have heard from time to time spouting their messages of hate on their newscasts: Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck and Pat Buchanan.
    “The immigration issue deserves serious debate and serious solutions,” she has declared. “We cannot have this debate as long as hate has the floor.”
Murguia and NCLR are waging a “Wave of Hope Campaign” to educate Americans about the wave of hate speech and the growing rise of violence against Latinos.
    Certainly, this is not the first time “hate language” has been used to malign a people or group. Such language has been used (and is still being used) to describe African Americans, Jews, Italians, Germans and Muslims to mention a few.
    At this moment in our history it is the unauthorized immigrants and Latinos who are the objects of venomous language in print and on the airwaves of radio and TV.
    As long as hate permeates the discussion of immigration, it’s not likely we can debate the issue in rational terms. As Catholics we have an obligation to seek and speak the truth using peaceful words and ideas. We should examine our own speech about immigrants and make the changes necessary.
    Do we use offensive terms for immigrants? Do we listen to and subscribe to the hate language used by news personalities on radio or TV, the ones listed above by Murguia and our local newscasters? Do we let our friends and family know that we do not approve of such hateful rhetoric?
    Can we be opposed to illegal immigration without using offensive, hateful language? Do we have the fortitude to call the TV network to voice our opposition to such programming?
    Perhaps, during this Lent, we need to ponder deeply the words of St. Paul when he says to the Romans (12:21) “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Are some human lives more sacred than others?
February 15, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
    A friend who came to visit remarked that a billboard on I-55 carried a powerful message that must impress motorists zipping by. I agreed. Every time I see it I’m inclined to reflect on the message. The billboard features Sister Dorothea Sondgeroth from St. Dominic’s hospital reminding us “Every human life is sacred.”
    Lately the message has been giving me much food for thought as I am perusing the pamphlet put out by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) entitled, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” All parishes in Mississippi will be exposed to a synopsis of its message in the course of this election year.
    The bishops remind us it is their obligation “to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with the truth, so they can make sound moral choices in addressing political challenges.”
    At the heart of the church’s teaching is the respect it has for the dignity of every human person. Whatever poses a direct threat to human life, such as abortion, euthanasia, human cloning are intrinsically evil and must always be opposed. But these evils are not the only threat to the life and dignity of the human person.
    “Racism, unjust war, the use of torture, the death penalty, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from a lack of food, of health care, of education, of an unjust immigration policy are also evils that we Catholics cannot ignore.
    These are not optional concerns that can be dismissed. As the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains: “A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.”
    Many Catholics consider their involvement against abortion as their good work. And they should be proud of what they have accomplished. But they do not see their need to get involved with other issues which are not compelling.
    But I find certain passages from the bishops’ pamphlet compelling: “We are one human family, whatever our national, racial, ethnic, economic, and ideological differences. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, wherever they may be.”
    Yet, those called “illegal aliens” don’t seem to fall under this category. They are treated as pariahs because in fleeing from abject poverty, they were desperate enough to cross U.S. borders without a visa which was impossible to secure within reasonable time limits.
    Any parent willing to sacrifice life and limb for his children can understand the dilemma facing the poor and powerless. (Though not all who crossed over illegally fit into this category. More than 40 percent of the undocumented overstayed their visas.)
    Instead, so many of our Christian voices are raised in righteous indignation because they broke “our law.” They must be punished. Instead of seeking to understand why our immigration system cannot accommodate these people seeking to do jobs that are certainly available to them once they reach this country, some of our leaders in Washington turned a deaf ear, a blind eye, and a hard heart to the situation and capitulated to the “patriots” whose slogan is “no amnesty!”
    Every human life is sacred. And our faith calls on us to treat the poor and vulnerable among us with a preferential love. That is no easy task.
    But apparently that does not apply to our undocumented immigrant brothers and sisters to judge by the type of bills that are being submitted in the Legislature.
Just this past week a good number of bills were submitted targeting the “illegals.”
    They communicate the message that we don’t like you. We don’t want you here. We want you to leave Mississippi.
    Here’s a summary of some of these bills: (If you wish to check on the number and/or authors of these bills go to the Mississippi Legislature website.)
    Both SB 2037 and HB 420 would prohibit “illegals” from working on any public works project.
    HB 486 even goes further and would make it a felony for anyone or a business to hire an “illegal.”
    Both HB 298 & 350 and SB 2279 would deny public benefits to “illegals.” (In reality undocumented immigrants are not eligible for public benefits but their citizen children may be.)
    Senate bills 2823 & 2824 would make it a crime to harbor, assist or transport “illegals.” Just think of all the church workers who could become “criminals” under these bills.     However, another SB 3034 would exempt religious organizations from crime.
SB 2827 would limit worker’s comp benefits for “illegals” to medical expenses. It would deny families death benefits.
    HB 399 & 400 deal with the English language. Anyone seeking a license from a public agency or seeking public benefits must speak and understand English and be a citizen. HB 538 calls for all public and private documents to be in English.
    Of course, these bills must go through the legislative process. Join me in praying that our legislators will be enlightened by the Holy Spirit so they can realize that punitive legislative action will not solve the immigration problem.
    Only an authentic reform of our immigration system can begin to resolve the situation.     And emblazoned on the walls of the legislative chambers should be these words: Every human life is sacred . . . including undocumented immigrants.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Cowboys & Indians: Did you
hear about big round-up?
February 1, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     I remember as a child growing up in the West how we kids played cowboys and Indians a lot. Of course, we learned from the movies that Indians were always the enemy. They were the ones who raided the settlers and ravaged their lands and people.
     We had no idea of the truth of our American history. We didn’t learn until many years later that those Indians were more often the victims of the palefaces than they were the “bad guys.” Some of those old memories surfaced on Saturday, Jan. 19, when I read how the “special task force apprehended 160 ‘illegal’ immigrants along a stretch of I-20.”
     The article stated the agents were stopping vehicles involved in smuggling.
     One has to presume they were referring to the smuggling of drugs and/or immigrants.      According to the report no drugs were found but agents seized $7,052 from one driver.      The apprehended immigrants were sent to a federal detention center in Oakdale, La.
     Not much was said about the immigrants aboard. Were there men and women? Were children present? Were they afraid? Did someone communicate what was happening and why? Were their apprehenders respectful or did they feel like cattle being hauled to slaughter?
     So, chalk one up for the cowboys! But is this reason to rejoice that at last we are beginning to solve the problem of illegal immigration? Hardly.
     Since May 2005 this column has been communicating a basic message from the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Justice for Immigrants Campaign: the current immigration system is badly in need of reform and a comprehensive approach to fixing it is required. A piecemeal approach of raids and deportations, of punitive state and local laws, of verbal assaults and hateful rhetoric will not help to alleviate the situation.
     It seems a very powerful, influential minority in our country managed to scuttle the Senate’s attempt to pass the comprehensive reform bill in June 2006.
     Though the bill was far from ideal in solving the problems it did offer a good beginning.      But the righteous enforcers took up their “No Amnesty” battle cry (which in reality is a misuse of the word “amnesty” as defined in reputable circles) and stoked the fears and apprehensions of enough senators that the bill went down in defeat. Reform of the system was place on the shelf indefinitely.
     Notice I said “minority.” If you listen to the talk shows and people like Lou Dobbs, you’d get the impression the American people are strongly anti-immigrant. But that does not seem to be the case.
     For the past two years the mainstream press has been testing public opinion about the immigration situation. Over and over, the public has expressed support for solutions that go beyond deportation and enforcement-only and include a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants under certain conditions like paying fines and back taxes, learning English and no criminal record.
     Here is a sampling of those favoring such a plan for undocumented immigrants:
     – 59 percent in a Gallup/ USA Today poll in March 2007;
     – 67 percent in a Fox News poll in June 2007;
     – 58 percent in an ABC News poll in September 2007;
     – 51 percent in a Washington Post/ABC News poll in October/November 2007.
     It would seem the “silent majority” is not heard above the clamor of the vocal minority because they do not express themselves in a way that they can be heard.
     Then there is the spectacle of the presidential candidates trying to dodge a bullet in addressing the immigration issue. It would seem to me the vocal enforcers have made their presence known in the audiences of the debates and forums. It’s no wonder that those currying their favor will speak out strongly for enforcement while manifesting no sympathy for the undocumented.
     While some Democrats may favor a more humane approach to immigration they are loathe to state it publicly for fear of losing ground with their supporters. They are in a precarious position.
     As a spokesperson for the bishops’ Justice for Immigrants Campaign, Cardinal John Mahony has written to the candidates to express his disappointment at the tone of the presidential campaign as it relates to immigration.
     “I am deeply disturbed that, to date, the discussion on immigration has failed to significantly focus upon policy solutions to illegal immigration…. As a public leader and presidential candidate, you have the responsibility not only to respond to the views and needs of Americans, but also to outline a vision for the future of our country.
     “The vision emerging from the presidential campaign paints an America that is no longer open to the vitality of newcomers and to the contributions they make to our communities . . . I ask that as the presidential campaign moves forward, you show leadership on the issue of immigration.”
     We Catholics need to look honestly at our own attitudes and ideas about immigration.      Are we standing on the roadside cheering on the border patrol as they arrest the “illegal” immigrants?
     Are we applauding politicians who vow to rid our cities and state of these “illegals”? Are we among those who would prevent immigrant children from enrolling in our schools? Are we lukewarm supporters of the bishops’ Justice for Immigrants Campaign?
     If we are, then may God enlighten and strengthen us to become staunch advocates of justice and peace.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Anti-immigration legislation backfires on states
January 18, 2008
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
    Congress’s failure to pass some semblance of immigration reform legislation in May 2006 has fueled states and local governments to pass a bevy of anti-immigration legislation fueled by fear, anger, confusion and plain ignorance.
     Making and passing legislation to ban businesses from hiring undocumented immigrants is one thing but enforcing the law and accepting the “benefits” is another thing altogether.
     Last summer Colorado passed laws which require state identification for government services and which allow police to check suspects’ immigration status. Since then immigrants are fleeing Colorado. This would seem to mean that the laws are accomplishing their goals of ridding the state of the undocumented.
     But, crops are rotting in the fields with no one to pick them. The construction industry and other businesses that rely on low-skilled labor are experiencing a labor shortage.
     And to top it off, Colorado has discovered there really are jobs Americans won’t do. In Pueblo desperate farmers are offering up to $9.60 an hour for pickers, well in excess of the federal minimum wage and more than they paid migrants in the past. But there are few takers!
    To add to Colorado’s woes, 12 large agribusinesses have acknowledged they have moved operations to Mexico where they employ more than 11,000 workers. American farm economists say thousands of middle-class jobs supporting agriculture are being lost in the United States.
     Tar Heel, N.C., is another example of a crackdown on immigrant labor gone wrong. In November 2006, Smithfield Foods, a giant slaughterhouse, lost 1,100 Latino workers. Smithfield replaced them with American workers but the turnover rate is high. At least 60 percent of the new workers quit within 90 days of being hired. Even with decent wages the new workers lacked the skills and found the work oppressive.
     Riverside, N.J., had passed legislation to prevent anyone from renting to an illegal immigrant. But with the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Legal bills began to pile up straining the already tight budget.
     The town had spent $82,000 defending their ordinance but suddenly many people who favored the original legislation began to have second thoughts. The mayor said, “A lot of people did not look three years out.” So, the town rescinded the ordinance.
     In the past two years, more than 30 towns nationwide have enacted laws intended to address problems attributed to illegal immigration from overcrowded housing and schools to overextended police forces. But these towns did not anticipate the emergence of lawsuits and the participation of federal judges.
     In June a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a housing ordinance in Farmers Branch, Texas. Other townships such as Valley Park, Mo., and Hazelton, Pa., had enacted anti-immigrant legislation which was struck down by judges.
     The Texas legislature responded to Washington’s inability to pass immigration legislation by passing bills that would restrict birthright citizenship; bar migrants from getting state benefits such as health care and education; make it illegal for them to get business permits; and even taxing them for sending money south of the border.
     A major issue of contention in Texas, and other states as well, is that the federal government allows immigrants to receive emergency medical care and education. Many Texans felt the financial burden falls unfairly upon the Texas taxpayer. Thus the legislature passed laws to penalize the immigrant as a financial burden to the state.
     Few Texans were prepared to receive a startling report released by the Texas Comptroller’s office which found undocumented immigrants generated more taxes and other revenue than the state spends on them. The report went on to state that in 2005 undocumented immigrants contributed $1.58 billion to the state’s economy while the state spent $1.16 billion in services to them. Thus, undocumented immigrants exceeded what was spent on services to them by $424.7 million.
     As we all know, in 2006 our then-State Auditor Phil Bryant revealed his study that immigrants cost the state of Mississippi $25 million each year but as far as I know he did not bother to find out what contributions immigrants make to the economy of the state.
     Before large companies or government agencies plan to make significant changes they first make an assessment of the possible consequences of such changes.
     Before our Legislature begins its annual assault on immigrants in our state by submitting anti-immigrant bills, I strongly suggest they, along with the governor, appoint a commission to do a study on Mississippi’s immigrants to determine who they are, where they live and work and what their social and economic impact is on our state.
     Mississippi may discover as Texas did that the immigrant population contributes more to the economy of the state than it takes back in services.
     Let’s not seek to pass new laws of an anti-immigrant nature which may blow-up in our faces.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Catholic immigration principles
call for justice, compassion
December 14, 2007
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
      Respect for the human person has always been a basic teaching of the church. For that reason the church has protected human life from its inception to its natural death. In defending this dignity the church has condemned abortion, euthanasia and the destruction of human embryos.
     Thus the church recognizes and respects the basic dignity of the immigrant regardless of his legal status in society. This is the basis of the Justice for Immigrants Campaign. Naturally, it would seem those immigrants who come here legally (that is, they come with visas and are looked upon favorably) should enjoy the benefits of the American dream.      However, that is not always the case. Let’s look at the current guest worker program.
The bishops call for a temporary worker program that is just and humane.
     Under the current system, called the H-2 program, employers brought about 121,000 guest workers into the United States in 2005, about 12,000 for agricultural work and another 89,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural industries.
     According to a report released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “These workers …are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guest workers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market – the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who “import them.” If guest workers complain about abuse, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation . . . Government enforcement of their rights is almost non-existent.” In fact, the law center entitles this report, “Close To Slavery.”
     I was appalled to read of the inhumane, unjust treatment many of these “guest workers” endured at the hands of some of their American employers. These are people who “played by the rules” as we so often hear, but their treatment did not abide by the rules.
     Certainly the current guest-worker program needs radical change.
The bishops also call for a broad-based legalization program for those in the country without proper immigration documentation.
     I can hear the voices of the righteous enforcers already. No amnesty under any conditions! We can certainly go on forever, it seems, arguing among ourselves about this issue. But we do have to face the reality that millions of people are not going to be deported. I think we can agree on that.
     And, even though thousands have been deported or are leaving the U.S. by choice, it would take many, many years before the majority would be gone. And in the meantime, we have thousands still coming in, in spite of border fences and our increased number of border agents.
     Yes, let’s arrest and deport the gangs, the criminals, the smugglers and the drug undesirables! But it seems to me common sense would dictate we establish an “earned legalization program” that is achievable and verifiable for those who have lived and worked here for years; for those who have contributed to our society.
     Not only does common sense dictate such a move but our Catholic tradition of compassion and justice should move us to seek such a basic humanitarian solution.
The idea is to bring the 12 million or more (or even less for that matter) out of the shadows of society and offer them legal status. In return, these immigrants must learn English, pay fines and past taxes, work for several years before earning the right to permanent legal status.
     In the reform legislation that failed this past summer, immigrants would have had to work and comply with regulations about eight to13 years before they were eligible for citizenship. This is not amnesty.
     The church also teaches the right to asylum must never be denied when peoples’ lives are truly threatened in their homeland.
     We are now experiencing that certain Iraqi people who have collaborated with the U.S. in many different ways especially in providing translation services are asking us for asylum. Our country is providing such asylum.
     Pope John Paul II advocated for asylum seekers when he supported their right to be reunited with their families and the right to a dignified occupation and a just wage.
We Catholics should be proud of our church’s leadership in social justice issues throughout the world. But we should especially be proud of our American bishops who have taken leadership in the immigration issues of our day that affect our nation.
     Based on the life and teachings of Jesus, the church’s teaching has provided the basis for the development of these basic principles regarding the right to migrate for those exercising their God-given human rights.
     We Catholics should be proud to live and abide by these principles.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

 

Let’s review Catholic principles of immigration
November 30, 2007
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
      When the issue of “illegal immigration” moves onto the agenda for the presidential candidates to discuss, then it's time for us to review some of the major principles of immigration reform from the Catholic viewpoint as demonstrated through the bishops’ Justice for Immigrants campaign.
     1) Persons have a right to migrate to support themselves and their families.
The church recognizes all the goods of the earth belong to all people. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate their rights.
     -- The North American Free Trade Agreement has harmed small businesses in Mexico, especially in the rural sector where nearly 1.3 million jobs in corn farming have been lost. Manufacturing jobs did increase for Mexico but unfortunately some of those jobs have since been outsourced to other countries. The U.S. has experienced similar problems.
     2) Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders.
More powerful nations should provide ways to accommodate the right of persons to migrate. They have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows.
     -- Cardinal Roger Mahony declares that, “Current policy fails to account for the fact that in many ways our economy encourages the flow of illegal immigration into the country and is dependent on their labor.”
     Though most bishops support securing the U.S. borders, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., opposed building a fence. “It would send the wrong signal to our peaceful neighbor to the south, Mexico, as well as the international community. Securing our borders must “protect human dignity and protect human life.”
     -- The bishops do not advocate for open borders.
     3) The human dignity and human rights of undocumented immigrants should be respected.
     Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected. Often they are subject to punitive laws and harsh treatment from enforcement officers from both receiving and transit countries. Government policies that respect the basic human rights of the undocumented are necessary.
     4) The bishops’ call for comprehensive immigration reform that addresses the root causes of migration, provides opportunities for undocumented immigrants to earn citizenship, and reduces the time families must wait to be reunited.
     -- Many people of good faith who oppose citizenship for undocumented immigrants argue that the “rule of law” must be honored and that anyone who breaks the law should not be given its protection. Church leaders would agree that we are a nation built on a system of laws. Even if the most powerful citizen breaks the law, he or she is accountable to it. This is the basis of our democracy.
     -- But the bishops also remind us that laws are created and administered in the pursuit of justice. Any law that does not serve justice violates basic human dignity and human rights. “No taxation without representation” was our nation's first battle cry.
     -- In the view of church leadership and many others, our current immigration laws are, in a word, unjust. We gladly accept the toil and taxes of the immigrant work force to fill our economic needs, but we look the other way when they are exploited in the workplace, die in the desert or are arrested for providing “nanny” and cleaning services at desirable addresses. When convenient politically, we scapegoat the immigrant without acknowledging our complicity. (Cardinal Mahony from Los Angeles archdiocese.)
     l Our immigration laws perpetuate this reality. Of the nearly 500 thousand who enter into the U.S. unauthorized (or overstay visas) nearly 90 percent obtain jobs within six months, but there are only 5,000 immigrant visas available. Obviously, the jobs are there for these thousands of immigrants but the visas are not.
     This is a disordered, unjust system which demands reform.
     This information is presented to our readers so they will understand the church's stand on this important issue of immigration. It is not intended to cause guilt feelings among those of good faith, though guilt can sometimes prod us to do what is good and desirable like urging our senators and representatives in Washington to get serious about immigration reform. We will continue this review in the next scheduled column.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

Anti-immigrant laws abound in states, counties
November 16, 2007
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     “Where do you get off demanding services, rights and mandatory citizenship? Who invited you? You cry for your rights? You have none.”
     These harsh words, spoken by a participant to a large crowd of Hispanic residents in an all-night forum in Prince William County, Virginia, illustrated the frustration and anger felt by so many as the board deliberated on measures to restrict county services to undocumented immigrants. The measure would also require police to check immigration status of anyone accused of breaking the law.
     After a long and heated discussion, the board unanimously voted to accept the measures. A despondent Hispanic resident exclaimed, “They didn’t hear what people said today. Why did they waste our time?”
     This scenario which occurred in October 2007 is typical of many such events occurring in the United States since the Senate failed to pass the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill in June 2006.
     In July 2006, Hazelton, Pa., started the ball rolling with anti-immigrant legislation which prohibited the employment and harboring of undocumented immigrants and restricted rental housing to lawful permanent residents.
     This ordinance was struck down by James Munley, a federal district court judge who ruled the ordinance violated the Constitution’s supremacy clause which says the federal government regulates immigration.
     More importantly, the judge also stated: “We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter the country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of a single illegal act . . . . the genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public…Since the      Constitution protects even the disfavored the ordinances cannot be enforced.”
     Obviously, the words of this judge were not heeded by a large number of states and cities who continued their assault on immigrants.
     No fewer than 1,404 pieces of immigration-related legislation were introduced in legislatures during the first half of 2007, with 182 bills becoming law in 43 states.
     Perhaps it could be said the state of Oklahoma recently passed one of the most egregious laws which bars undocumented immigrants from getting jobs and state benefits.      It would make it a felony to harbor or transport them.
     Opposition to this law was quick and emphatic. Parishioners from a predominantly Hispanic Sacred Heart Catholic Church signed 1100 pledges of resistance which they presented to Gov. Brad Henry.
     The director of advocacy and legal services for Catholic Charities, Richard Klinge, informed the governor that the church will continue to serve the needs of the poor.
     Not all Virginia counties have enacted anti-immigration legislation. Montgomery County is providing services to help undocumented immigrants learn English and to find work so they may be self-sufficient and contribute to the community.
     Frederick County commissioners voted recently not to pursue punitive measures against their immigrants. No doubt they reacted to what is happening in Prince William where business at the strip mall has slowed dramatically. Many of the Latinos who left Prince William moved to other counties or to other states. Not many returned to their home countries as expected.
     In Oklahoma, Mike Means, executive director of the Oklahoma State Home Builders, reported “in major metro areas we are seeing people leave based on the perception this state doesn’t want them here. Now we’re looking at a labor shortage. I’ve got builders who are being forced to slow down jobs because they don’t have the crews . . . .      Countering the argument that with immigrants leaving, American workers will get jobs at a higher wage, Means said builders are already paying $15 to $20 an hour for labor in a state of low employment. It would lead to a net loss of jobs as some businesses are forced to close, particularly if other states allow less stringent hiring practices.”
     I am concerned with all the negative legislation surfacing throughout the country, immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, are being characterized as criminals, as people who have no rights.
     Judge Munley made it clear I thought that immigrants without authorization are not stripped of their rights. We as a society or as individuals must not undermine the basic dignity or God-given rights of any human person.
     Immigrants are hearing the same drumbeat over and over: Go home, you are not welcome here. As compassionate responders, we Catholics should be among those who can contribute toward a friendly, Christian community where all of God’s children are welcomed and respected.
     After all, we are all members of the Body of Christ.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

Righteous enforcers helped stop immigration reform
11/09/07
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     I marvel at all the people who are providing assistance to the victims of the California fires. I call these folks compassionate responders. They seem to come from all over the country to help in any way they can.
     On Oct. 28 the immigrant cause could have used an army of compassionate responders to influence the Senate to pass a resolution to consider the Dream Act, a bill which would have provided a path to legalization and citizenship for students who were brought here by their parents who are undocumented.
     Though, indeed, there were many compassionate responders who supported the cause of these students and who tried to influence their senators to support the resolution, it did not pass and the Dream Act will have to wait until some other future time.
     There is a segment of people out there who are very dedicated to opposing any type of amnesty however it is packaged. Advocates stressed the fact these students were not responsible for being undocumented because they were brought over when they were children. The choice was not theirs; therefore, they should not be punished for the “sins” of their parents.
     These anti-amnesty people I call “righteous enforcers.” They want the laws enforced regardless of circumstances of the people involved.
     These righteous enforcers were significantly involved in stopping the Immigration reform bill in June of this year. They flooded the Senate with phone calls and faxes to senators who waffled in their support for reform. They strongly imparted their anti-amnesty stance to their own senators and any who seemed unsure of their stance.
     They put their money where their mouths are by supporting their organizations and the websites they use to propagate their anti-immigration philosophy. Of course, they do not consider themselves as anti-immigration; rather they consider immigration as a threat to their ideal of what America should be.
     They have leaders who keep them well-informed about all issues which impact immigration. They know their legislators and where they stand on issues. They are an educated group that can speak on immigration issues. They are a force to be reckoned with.
     I am familiar with two of these groups (for there are many): Numbers USA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
     Of course, there are many pro-immigration websites which approach immigration in a similar manner, that is, they spend time to inform and educate about immigration issues and provide direction as to the advocacy necessary to promote legislation favorable to immigrants in general and those who are undocumented in particular.
     Where does a Catholic turn to be involved in these important social justice issues of our time? This is a delicate subject because many Catholics are realizing the stance taken by the bishops’ Justice for Immigrants does not always coincide with their political views or even on some moral issues.
     For instance, many Catholics believe obeying laws is of prime importance so they have a struggle accepting the fact the Gospels show us a Jesus who often placed the welfare of individuals above the Jewish laws of the day. Jesus was a compassionate responder.
     Numerous times Jesus was criticized by Jewish leaders for breaking the Sabbath laws. For example in Luke 13:10-17, Jesus healed a woman crippled for 18 years. He healed her but the synagogue official derided him for doing so because it was the Sabbath. Jesus responded by stating that she, a daughter of Jerusalem, was more important than the donkey they would rescue if it fell into a pit on a Sabbath.
     In Mark 2:23-25, Jesus and his disciples were picking ears of corn and eating it.
     The Pharisees criticized him again for breaking the Sabbath rules. Jesus responded by saying the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, again reiterating his position people are more important than rules.
     But we know that Jesus was not advocating the elimination of laws in general. When he intervened to save the woman caught in adultery, John 8:3-11, Jesus saved her from a terrible death but he did chide her to sin no more or, in other words, to keep the commandment.
     Righteous enforcers are more concerned about keeping the laws rather than changing unjust or unreasonable laws to benefit the people. The reform bill of June 2006 would have granted legalization to millions of undocumented people after they paid fines, learned English and civics, worked for a number of years and then went to the back of the line. And it would have provided a means for future immigrants to enter the United States legally.
     But still the enforcers would have none of it.
     So, taking a stand for reform to benefit undocumented immigrants may place you at risk of being criticized for not following the political philosophy of one of the politicians you support. Deviating from the party line may bring its own repercussions later. It takes courage to face your friends and neighbors and take a different stand from theirs.
     You may even be called a “bleeding heart liberal!” Horrors! As a Christian I would prefer that to “righteous enforcer.”
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

Immigration issues liven up campaign
10/26/07
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     I did a double-take the other night when I saw John Arthur Eaves’ newest campaign ad. I discovered our governor, Haley Barbour, supports amnesty for illegal aliens and even supports giving the “illegal” population drivers’ licenses!
     I must admit that I do remember reading that article in La Noticia when Barbour in his first campaign promised to make drivers licenses available to undocumented immigrants. At first, I was elated but it didn’t take me long to realize it was all part of the game of politics.
     If Barbour really meant what he said about licenses he could have exerted his considerable influence on his Republican colleagues in the Legislature to pass the license bills that floundered in the years following his election.
     But the governor did take the bait from his opponent’s ad by stating his views on a popular radio station. I did not hear what the governor said but I did get some information on the Internet in which the governor has pledged to control the borders, fight identity theft and to enlist employers to enforce federal and state laws regarding the employment of illegal aliens.
     I would expect the governor to toe the party line when it comes to immigration. After all, the Republican Party has opposed immigration reform and has expressed its approval of securing the borders by building fences and posting the National Guard to prevent anyone from crossing over the borders without inspection or a visa.
     But right now, my concern is why John Arthur Eaves, a self-proclaimed Bible-toting Christian, is emphasizing illegal immigration as a major issue when it is so inflammatory and divisive. When the ad mentions “amnesty” it’s like throwing a Molotov cocktail into a crowd and then running away to hide. He should know this issue incites the emotions and feelings of voters all over the state and, indeed, the nation.
     It is an issue that can bring out the worst sentiments of the human heart and psyche. It is a complex, human issue. It is one on which everyone has an opinion. And, for the most part, it is an issue on which most people are poorly informed.
     This is an issue that keeps stoking the fires of racism and xenophobia, which are still very much alive in our city, state and country. Several incidents in the news lately would verify this statement.
     So, am I saying that it should not be brought up as a campaign issue? No, that is not what I am saying. This is what I’d like to say.
     This is an issue which demands the best leadership we can muster.
     It demands that leaders become informed about all aspects of the issue starting with understanding the reasons why people are willing to leave their homelands to risk their lives to work in a non-welcoming country that more often than not exploits them for their cheap labor. Leaders should be well-informed about the pros and cons of NAFTA and its effects on Mexican laborers, especially farmers, and the role the U.S. farmers play in dominating the corn market.
     We need leaders who can remind the American public they are beneficiaries of the hard work of immigrants who work in the agriculture industry. Many of the fruits and vegetables that grace our tables year-round are available because some farm worker, often an immigrant, bends his back to pick the crops.
     A recent study by the American Farm Bureau Federation indicated cutting off illegal immigrant labor could cost U.S. agriculture up to $9 billion in productive losses, a cost that inevitably would be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
     We need leaders who can speak to the whole truth. Candidate for Lt. Governor Phil Bryant informed us last year he did a study in which he found the state spends $25 million a year on health care, education and prison costs for illegal immigrants. But Mr. Bryant did not do a study on what immigrants contribute to the Mississippi economy. He only gave us a part of the picture.
     It was reported recently in the Business Section of the Clarion Ledger that Hispanic businesses brought in $213 million in revenue. Mr. Bryant’s office has access to information from which he could extrapolate some idea of how immigrants are contributing to the economy of our state or our city. Wouldn’t that be more fair than to imply that immigrants are a financial burden on the state and its taxpayers?
     We need leaders who not only carry a Bible but who can call attention to scripture passages in which we Christians are admonished to care for the immigrant because we believe every person is created in God’s image. In the Old Testament, God calls upon his people to care for the alien because of their own alien experience.
     “So, you, too, must befriend the alien, for you were once aliens yourselves in the land of Egypt.” ( Deut. 10:17-19) In the New Testament the image of the migrant is grounded in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. In his own life and work, Jesus identified himself with newcomers and with other marginalized persons in a special way:
     “I was a stranger and you welcomed me.” ( Mt 25:35)
     Of course, I do not expect Mr. Eaves to be spouting Scripture in his ads but I would expect him to avoid making the immigrant the scapegoat of our society’s problems.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     Several times this summer I had the opportunity to spend some time in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport waiting to continue my flight. I am always gratified to see the number of young people with Spanish surnames working in the terminal. Several were flight attendants; some manned the information booths for flustered passengers; others provided quick and efficient service at the fast-food restaurants. Oftentimes I heard these young people respond to passengers’ needs in Spanish and English, a real asset in this era of bilingualism.
     I offer these comments as I ponder the fate of a segment of our society who do not have the opportunity to pursue the “American dream” because they were brought here by their parents who were undocumented and passed that dubious political condition on to their children.
     For the most part these children are being educated in American schools. Many of them are undistinguishable from their classmates in typical American teenage behavior. Many have achieved excellence in their studies and are hoping to take that next step into the world of unlimited opportunity in the job market.
     But they will discover that such a world does not exist for them. They will meet obstacles because they are not citizens; they do not possess a Social Security card and they cannot legally drive an automobile. They are considered “illegals” whose opportunities lead them to dead-end jobs and harassment.
     And they are undocumented through no fault of their own.
But there is some hope for these young people. Sen. Robert Durbin from Illinois has submitted a bill called the Dream Act which was a part of the failed Immigration Reform Bill the Senate rejected in June. This bill will allow students who entered the country at age 15 or younger and who have lived in the United States for at least five years with unblemished records to apply for legal status for six years even though their parents entered the country illegally.
     During this six-year grace period students must spend at least two years enrolled in a four-year or community college or serve in a branch of the U.S. military.
     If they satisfy all these conditions while staying out of trouble, they would qualify to become legal permanent residents.
     The New York Times recently featured the case of Carlos, a young man from Venezuela whose parents brought him to the United States when he was two. Even though his father entered with a temporary visa he was unable to gain legal residence. Carlos attempted to enter the military after he graduated from high school but learned being a legal resident is a requirement for the military. He could not apply for scholarships or tuition rates for in-state students because he was not legal.
     Even though Carlos has basic skills in engineering he has found it difficult to apply for a decent job without a Social Security card or a driver’s license. Carlos is an ideal candidate for the Dream Act along with thousands just like him in similar circumstances.
     The Dream Act has found favor with both parties in the Senate. Sen. Robert Lugar, R-Ind., has joined in sponsoring this bill. They had originally submitted it as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill last week but Senate Majority Leader      Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced the Dream Act would be tabled until mid-November.
     This delay provides ample time for people of good will and common sense to contact their senators and urge them to support this bill with their YES votes.
     Since we Americans are always concerned about what we will get from supporting such a bill, we can outline the following benefits:
     1. Students who graduate from high school and college will contribute positive impacts on the economy through increased tax revenues and reduced government expenses. For example, the RAND Company has estimated an immigrant who graduates from college will pay about $5,300 more in taxes and cost less than $3,000 in criminal justice and welfare expenses.
     2. The increased number of graduates from high school and college will greatly increase their fiscal benefits through spending and investments.
     3. Freeing thousands of young immigrants to join the legal workforce would help business fill crucial labor needs. According to the Urban Institute 360,000 undocumented immigrants would be immediately eligible for the six-year conditional status thus adding much-needed teachers, nurses, military recruits and other professionals to the workforce.      An educated young population would contribute to our society in many ways.
     4. It will help to decrease the dropout rate of immigrant students.
     5. It will help to reward character since the students will achieve through their own talent and hard work.
     And, perhaps, of more importance, it is the right and moral thing to do. What’s that old query made popular a few years ago . . . what would Jesus do? I think we Catholics know what Jesus would do. The real question is, what would we do? And will we do it?
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)

 

 

Climate of fear shadows immigrant
August 31, 2007
By Sr. Jean Juliano, DC
     The Bush administration has shifted from its pro-immigration reform stance to a strong enforcement mode using Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff as its spokesperson.
     On Aug. 10 Chertoff declared that among measures to be taken the most controversial will be regulations regarding “no match” letters sent to employers. “No match” occurs when the Social Security number provided by a worker fails to match a number in the Social Security database.
     In the past there were usually no consequences for the employer or the worker but a new regulation gives employers three months to either dismiss the worker or verify his legal status. Employers could be fined up to $10,000 per each worker.
     This regulation in particular will strongly enhance a “climate of fear” that has plagued the community of undocumented workers for years. They received a strong message in June that they were not welcome in this country when Congress failed to pass the Immigration Reform Bill.
     We will see many workers shifting from one workplace to another to escape the “no match” crusade. More families will be uprooted. More children will be losing valuable classroom education when their families move from place to place seeking a safe haven for work and living.
     And, perhaps, some will decide that rather than live a life under constant surveillance, they will return to their original homes, if such places still exist. Of course, that is the prime goal of any of the “new” regulations … to make life so unbearable in the United States that they will move anywhere to escape such harassment.
     But this “climate of fear” is a two-edged sword. American businesses will suffer dire consequences as well when their workforces are depleted.
     For example:
     It is estimated that 70 percent of California’s $32 billion agriculture industry workers are in the country illegally. Farmers in Fresno vented their worst-case scenarios if they lose a large percentage of their workers: Fruits and vegetables will go unpicked; thousands of dairy cows will die; legal workers in packinghouses will be laid off; foreign competitors will take over American grocery shelves. Other businesses will suffer as out-of-work farm workers stop spending money.
     Apple growers in New York are looking forward to a vintage crop this year but three billion apples must be picked by hand and there is no local labor supply of workers who will pick these apples for six weeks in the fall.
     The state of Colorado, anticipating their own shortfall for labor, may try to implement their own guest worker program working directly with Mexico.
     This “climate of fear” recently engulfed Newark, N.J., where some “illegal” immigrants were reportedly involved in some terrible murders of college-aged students. Cynthia Tucker whose column appears in the Clarion Ledger regularly called for those guilty of such heinous crimes to be deported. I agree that anyone, immigrant or not, guilty of such crimes, should be punished according to the law.
     It is believed that those who committed these crimes are members of the gang MS-13 originating in El Salvador. It must be emphasized these gangs contribute to a ‘‘climate of fear’’ by intimidating anyone who would dare report their activities. It is no wonder that the ordinary person, immigrant or not, would hesitate to become an informant.
     My point is that immigrant communities usually do not support these gangs but neither are they quick to provide the authorities with information. The immigrant is caught in the middle. He cannot trust the gangs or the police.
     Recently in Jackson, some undocumented immigrants living in a trailer park were allegedly involved in a kidnapping and murder. Again, if such individuals are found guilty according to law then they should be held accountable for their crime.
     As the government implements its enforcement measures which will create more fear among our immigrant communities (legal and undocumented), it is my hope that Catholics will not be players in contributing to this “climate of fear.”
     When a friend or neighbor makes derogatory remarks about “those illegals” who live in the trailer parks, what will be our response? When we encounter people in the store who “obviously appear to be foreign,” will we turn our heads or will we offer a friendly smile?
     Even the smallest gesture can spread either a climate of fear or a climate of peace.
(Sister Jean Juliano, DC, works with the diocesan Office of Hispanic Ministry as a legislative advocate.)