Monday, December 12, 2011
LETTER OF THE HISPANIC/LATINO BISHOPS TO IMMIGRANTS - CARTA DE LOS OBISPOS HISPANOS/LATINOS A LOS INMIGRANTES
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Take action NOW to oppose E-Verify

From Justice for Immigrants:
Some in Congress are now calling for the mandatory expansion of E-Verify – a largely voluntary program which allows employers to electronically verify workers’ employment eligibility with Government databases. Only 250,000 some employers use the system today; some in Congress want to make its use mandatory by all 6 million U.S. employers.
The problem is that unless E-Verify's expansion is undertaken in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, it will hurt U.S. workers and our already weakened economy. Unless Congress legalizes unauthorized immigrants, mandatory E-Verify will begin with a handicap of 8 million unauthorized workers who will be driven further into the underground economy, hurting both the U.S. economy and workers by decreasing federal tax revenue by more than $17.3 billion over ten years, creating an unequal workplace, and lowering labor standards for all workers.
And, because of well-documented flaws in the government databases upon which it relies, E-Verify does not detect over half of the undocumented workers entered in the system, yet results in false positives for hundreds of thousands of American workers.
For these reasons, we urge you to let your senators and representatives know that unless and until the E-Verify program is improved and undertaken in the context of comprehensive immigration reform, you oppose its expansion and mandatory implementation.Take Action NOW: Contact your Senators and Representative by e-mail, phone, FAX or U.S. Mail:
- Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121
- Or go to the Justice for Immigrants web site here, and send an e-mail to your representatives automatically.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
You better get born someplace else
Pennsylvania's HB 474 was sent on to the State Government committee in March. It would authorize " the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to join the Interstate Compact on Birth Certificates Issued to Aliens Not Subject to United States Jurisdiction; providing for the form of the compact; and imposing additional powers and duties on the Governor, the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Compact." The Interstate Compact seeks to deny privileges of U.S. citizenship to the U.S.‐born children of unauthorized immigrants. Because citizenship is within the purview of the federal government, and not the states, the proponents hope that doing so will ultimately trigger a Supreme Court review of the 14th Amendment.
The U. S. conference of Catholic Bishops opposes the repeal of birthright citizenship.
They state, through their Justice for Immigrants campaign, that: "were birthright citizenship repealed, unauthorized immigration would not be significantly deterred. Instead, the numbers of unauthorized immigrants in the United States would increase dramatically – from the current 11 million to anywhere from 16 to 24 million or more – and there would be thousands of U.S.‐born children who would be rendered stateless – without citizenship – and unauthorized in the United States. These children – who have done nothing wrong by being born in the United States to unauthorized immigrant parents – would be punished by relegating them to second or third‐class members of U.S. society. And, it would place an undue burden on all Americans, eliminating easy proof of citizenship status through birth certificates, and replacing it with an onerous process of having to trace one’s family heritage and produce documentation of blood relations." (Emphasis is mine.)
Sponsors of HB 474 are: Reps. Scott Boyd, Paul Clymer, Jim Cox, Tom Creighton, Matt Gabler, Richard Geist, Adam Harris, Rob Kauffman, Jerry Knowles, Daryl Metcalfe, Ron Miller, Thomas Murt, Bernie O'Neill, Jeffrey Pyle, Kathy Rapp, Todd Rock, Curt Schroder and RoseMarie Swanger. (Cox, Gabler, Kauffman, Knowles and Metcalfe are all members of the State Government committee.)
Please contact them and oppose the Compact or any other measures to repeal birthright citizenship.
-----
I've been thinking a lot about the way we will accept a person's labor without valuing or accepting the person doing the work. It seems to me that this really the heart of the desire to repeal birthright citizenship -- now, and back when the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment reversed Dred Scott v. Sandford (the 1857 decision in which the Supreme Court held that U.S.‐born persons of African descent were not citizens, thereby denying citizenship to slaves and freemen).
And because I've been thinking about this, I've been running into all manner of art that speaks to some aspect of "you can till my fields (wash my laundry, tend my lawn, cook my food) but you can't be born here or think to belong."
So, here is one, "Moving On Song: Go, Move, Shift," performed by Chris Wood, Karine Polwart and the MacColl brothers (my thanks to Terri Windling's the Drawing Board blog for introducing me to it). Written to reflect the treatment of Roma (Gypsies) and Travellers in Great Britain and Europe, it's words are distressingly apt to our discussions of birthright citizenship: "The work’s all done, it’s time that you were moving on … now you better get born someplace else."
Send me your links to poems, stories, music, visual art, etc. that speak in a special way to the efforts to repeal birthright citizenship or other issues surrounding the current immigration debate -- if I like them, I'll post them.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
You can't kill a dream
On Dec. 4, 2000, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly proclaimed December 18 International Migrants Day. The day began as a commemoration of the 10-year anniversary of the adoption of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant workers and the Members of their Families.On Dec. 18, 2010 the U.S. Senate voted no to cloture on the DREAM Act, which would have provided a path to citizenship for young persons who were brought to the United States by their parents as children or infants.
A terribly ironic coincidence of dates.
After the DREAM Act defeat, supporters of the bill said they would continue to push for it. Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, one of the sponsors, said Latinos would remember in the elections in 2012 how senators had voted.
In a letter to senators before the vote, Archbishop Jose H. Gomez, coadjutor archbishop of Los Angeles and chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Migration, said: "The DREAM Act would provide thousands of deserving young persons who desire to become Americans a fair opportunity to do so. This would not only benefit them, but our country as well. It is the right thing to do, for them and for our nation."
The U.S. Catholic Bishops have supported passage of the DREAM Act for years. The Church's National Migration Week -- which has as its theme Renewing Hope, Seeking Justice -- is slated to be held Jan. 2-8 in parishes and dioceses around the country. It seems like the ideal time for Catholics heeding Pope Benedict XVI's focus on migrant families in his 2011 World Day of Migrants and Refugees message to gather for prayer vigils and in solidarity with the young people whose dreams were delayed and deferred (but hopefully not destroyed) by Saturday's vote.
Many thanks, by the way, to both Senators Casey and Specter who voted yes to the DREAM Act.
g of dreams that flower only after a long fallow season ....In an appeal born of shameless self-promotion, and of support for a small but worthy Catholic literary magazine, I'd like to draw your attention to the latest issue of Dappled Things, which contains my "Poem with a line from the Desert Fathers." The issue includes fiction, essays, poetry and artwork with a Catholic focus and is quite handsomely produced. It is also -- perhaps fittingly -- a bit countercultural in that the issue cannot be ordered as an epub, only in print. The web site is www.dappledthings.org. Go, browse the back issues (some of those have online links, go figure) -- much of the material is engaging and speaks directly to the Catholic imagination. Hey, maybe you'll discover the next J.R.R. Tolkien among the pages ....
Monday, November 29, 2010
An editorial worth reading
Also, look to the Dec. 2 issue of the CS&T for Mar Muñoz-Visoso's column, which is an open letter to Congress appealing for passage of the DREAM Act. Muñoz-Visoso is the assistant director of media relations at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The bishops have been very vocal in their support for passage of the DREAM Act. Click here to go to the bishops' Justice for Immigrants page.
"Contrary to the claims of opponents, the Dream Act would neither forgive illegal behavior nor open the floodgates to previously illegal immigrants. The "crimes" were committed by their parents. We don't deny citizenship to the children of murderers, rapists and white collar criminals. Why deny it to the children of border-crossers and people who overstay visas? Advocates estimate perhaps 800,000 immigrants could benefit from the Dream Act, but they couldn't, in turn, sponsor distant relatives, and even their parents would have to return to their native countries and wait 10 years before they could legally return.
Even critics of immigration reform agree the U.S. needs immigrants, both to support an aging population and to bring the energy, ambition and entrepreneurial spirit that have enriched America for centuries. The young people targeted by the Dream Act are the kind of immigrants Americans say they want: They speak our language, have demonstrated achievement, want to improve themselves and are already loyal to the country they think of as home.
The Dream Act isn't just about helping young people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a country and without a future. It's about opening the door of citizenship to young people America needs."
Friday, November 12, 2010
You may say that we're DREAMers
Wednesday, Nov. 17
7:30 - 8:30 p.m.
Barton Hall Classrooms, Room 109, at Temple University
The DREAM Act is bipartisan legislation that would legalize the status of thousands of undocumented youth in the United States. The bill would apply to students in both public and private schools, including Catholic schools. Young persons would become eligible for permanent legal status upon completion of two years of college or two years of honorable service in the military. Approximately 65,000 youth per year would benefit from the DREAM Act.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops supports the DREAM Act:
"On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I write to express our support for S. 729, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act). This legislation would make a difference in the lives of undocumented youth who were brought to the United States by their parents and now, because of their lack of legal status, face obstacles to their future. By removing such barriers, the DREAM Act permits immigrant students to pursue a promising future through college education or military service."
-- USCCB letter to legislators, April 6, 2009
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Catholic bishops announce nationwide action alert, postcard campaign in support of comprehensive immigration reform

Yesterday afternoon:
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- As the Catholic Church observed NationalRead the full story by Patricia Zapor of Catholic News Service: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1000047.htm
Migration Week Jan. 3-9, support for legislative efforts took the
forefront amid various other steps to bring attention to the concerns
of migrants and refugees.
In a teleconference Jan. 6, Bishop John C. Wester of Salt Lake
City, chairman of the bishops' Committee on Migration, described
severalsteps being undertaken by the U.S. bishops, including a new Web site,
a nationwide action alert and a previously announced postcard campaign
toencourage members of Congress to support comprehensive reform. The Web
site is a revamped version of www.justiceforimmigrants.org.
"The American public, including the Catholic and other faith
communities, want a humane and comprehensive solution to the problems
which beset our immigration system, and they want Congress to address
this issue," Bishop Wester said.
(...)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
In the news: Gutierrez, Menendez and Ramirez

Three news items of note:
1. Yesterday, congressman Luis Gutierrez (Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus task force on immigration) along with a coalition of Asian American, African American, Latino and Anglo congressmen and women, introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIR ASAP).
Read the New York Times report: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/us/politics/16immig.html
2. Three Catholic bishops who head committees on Migration, Domestic Policy and Pro-life Activities, sent a letter to senators urging support of the Menendez Amendment in Health Care Reform. Proposed by Rep. Robert Menendez, the amendment would give states the option to lift the five-year waiting period for legal immigrants to obtain Medicaid coverage. Download and read the statement in PDF format: http://www.usccb.org/healthcare/legalfiveyears.pdf.
3. Indictments were unsealed yesterday against three police officers in Shenandoah, Pa. including the chief -- thanks in large part to Gov. Ed Rendell -- on obstruction of justice and other charges in connection with the beating death of Luis Ramirez, an undocumented Mexican immigrant, in July 2008. Read the terrific blog report the Southern Poverty Law Center put together: http://bit.ly/8mm9A1
Friday, November 13, 2009
Take action: Health care legislation and immigrants
Dear Senator:
I write to ask that you include immigrants in any health-care legislation considered by the U.S. Senate.
Specifically, I ask that you support permitting undocumented immigrants to use their own money to purchase health-care coverage in the new health-care exchange. Allowing their participation would help control the costs of health-care to all Americans, since immigrants are generally younger and healthier than U.S. citizens and do not access health-care at the same rate as U.S. citizens. To proactively prohibit these immigrants from purchasing health-care for their families is mean-spirited and contrary to the general public health.
I also ask that you support lifting the five-year ban on legal immigrants accessing Medicaid. Legal immigrants, who work and pay taxes, should be able to benefit from the programs they help pay for. Many poor legal immigrants cannot afford health-care on their own, even with the aid of subsidies, because of co-payments and deductibles that are required. For many of them, Medicaid is their only true option.
Senator, it is important that health-care coverage is available to all, including immigrants, so that our communities are healthier and everyone shares in the responsibility of controlling health-care costs.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
If you don't have your senators' contact information, please use the "contact Congress" button on the sidebar of my blog.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Who’s counting?
And a growing community it is.
Pennsylvania is one of 16 states with at least a half-million Hispanic residents, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. (The others are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington.)
The estimated Hispanic population of the United States as of July 1, 2008 is 46.9 million, making people of Hispanic origin the largest ethnic or race minority in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Hispanics are 15 percent of the nation’s total population.
And to these totals you can add the 4 million residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (which is included in the U.S. Census report’s “national summary” data, but not in its “national totals”).
The Hispanic population in the U.S. is younger than the population as a whole. Hispanics comprise 22 percent of children younger than 18 in the nation, 25 percent of children younger than 5. The U. S. Census Bureau projects that by July 1, 2050, the Hispanic population of the United States will reach 132.8 million, and be 30 percent of the nation’s total population.
There were 1.6 million Hispanic-owned businesses in 2002, and the rate of growth of these businesses between the census of 1997 and 2002 was 31 percent. The national average rate of growth for all businesses during the same time period was 10 percent. Hispanic owned businesses generated revenues of $222 billion in 2002, according to census sources, up 19 percent from 1997.
Still, if you read my blog, or other Latino blogs, you already know that the violence, hate and animosity toward Latinos has increased markedly in recent years. The FBI reported a 35 percent increase in hate crimes against Latinos from 2003 to 2006 and a 3.3 percent increase in 2007 alone. Certain communities (Suffolk, N.Y., for example) have become something like hunting grounds where gangs of ruffians target their Latino neighbors for death, and juries and elected officials look the other way. Mainstream Latino advocacy organizations such as the NCLR have been vilified, and the first Latina Supreme Court justice was lampooned with openly racist caricatures during the period preceding her confirmation.
The vitriol in the immigration reform debate has contributed greatly to anti-Latino sentiment.
It is faulty logic to presume that all immigrants are Latino and all Latinos are immigrants, but nativists and commentators with nativist sympathies have reinforced this spurious syllogism. Ongoing air time devoted to the “invasion of America” (commentator Pat Buchanan) by hordes of “primitives” and “women with mustaches” (radio host Jay Severin) who are “changing the complexion of America” (Bill O’Reilly) and are “invaders” and carriers of “leprosy and tuberculosis” (Lou Dobbs) has had its effect on people’s ideas about Latinos and immigrants.
Even those who don’t wholeheartedly buy into anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric express irritation at Spanish-language phone options, or celebrations and parades wherein flags of Latin American countries are flown alongside the U.S. flag. Would the same level of irritation be manifest if the language option were German, say, or Polish? Do the St. Patrick’s and Columbus Day parades with their Irish and Italian flags proudly flown generate the same animus? Clearly not.
Much of current anti-immigrant rhetoric centers around the differences between new waves of immigration and historic ones – but the differences are largely myth.
Earlier immigrant groups also initially settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their own languages, went to church at personal parishes where Mass was celebrated in their native languages and set up businesses that not only served their fellow immigrants but contributed to the growth of the U.S. economy. They eventually learned English, became naturalized citizens, gave birth to U. S. citizens and grew to be integral to the weave of contemporary America.
It has been said that new immigrants don’t want to learn English, yet demand for English as a Second Language classes for adult learners far exceeds supply. With classes or without, more than 75 percent of current immigrants learn to speak English proficiently within 10 years of emigrating.
We’ve also heard that the new immigrants, unlike their predecessors, don’t want to become citizens. But according to U.S. Census Bureau and Bureaus of Citizenship and Immigration Services data, more than 33 percent of immigrants become naturalized citizens. This, of course, can’t begin to reflect the number of immigrants who might want to become citizens if a path to legal residency and citizenship were open to them.
The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born stands at 11.5 percent currently. In the early 20th century, it stood at 15 percent. Immigrants in those days also dealt with anti-immigrant fears about the number of them coming to America, and the same derogatory attitudes about people “without papers” -- the genesis of at least one ethnic slur.
Myth has it that most immigrants today are undocumented. But the Immigration and Naturalization Services statistical yearbook records that 75 percent of current immigrants have legal permanent visas. And they pay U.S. taxes – between $90 and $140 billion a year. (Even undocumented immigrants pay taxes – as evidenced by the Social Security Administration’s “suspense file” -- taxes that cannot be matched to workers’ names and social security numbers -- which drew $20 billion between 1990 and 1998.)
Current immigrants, like their predecessors, contribute to the U.S. economy through their consumer spending and through the income generated by the businesses they set up. According to the Cato Institute and the Inter-American Development Bank, consumer spending of immigrant households and business contribute $162 billion in tax revenue to U.S. federal, state and local governments.
And Alan Greenspan, while he headed the Federal Reserve, pointed out that 70 percent of immigrants arrive to the U.S, in prime working years. As part of our workforce they will contribute $500 billion toward our social security system over the next 20 years.
An enduring myth about current immigrants is that they emigrate to receive public benefits. There is data from the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Urban Institute that shows that immigrant tax payments total $20 to $30 billion more than the amount of government services they receive.
Recent surveys have shown that new immigrants are actually much healthier than longtime immigrants (who in turn are healthier than native citizens). Which is lucky because legal immigrants are restricted from accessing any public health benefits for the first five years of their residence in the United States. Undocumented immigrants are precluded from accessing any public benefits at all.
It is hard to believe that any of us want to see our fellow human beings ill and suffering and barred from receiving any medical treatment; just as it is hard to believe any of us want to see people dying while trying to be reunited with their families, or while trying to escape violence or poverty. And yet, existing health care legislation and immigration policies compound these problems while offering no solutions.
Fortunately, we are heirs to a system of governance that permits us to challenge standing legislation. We can pass better laws. Laws that create a path to citizenship for people who desperately want to be here. Laws that ensure that U.S. citizen children aren’t separated from their undocumented parents. Laws that reflect compassion for our brothers and sisters in need, and that open to hope rather than a wall.
In the year I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve shown you signs that read “Hispanics keep out” and “Speak English.” I’ve posted videos that portray immigrants the same way blacks were depicted in early minstrel shows, and have referenced news about a teen who endured ethnic taunts while being dragged with a noose around his neck. I’ve written about a young man who was snatched right off a train platform on the basis of his Spanish accent, and linked you to horrifying stories about hate-crimes against Ecuadorian and Mexican immigrants in this and adjoining states.
But I’ve also written about people who stand for more and better.
Peter Pedemonti and his cohorts at the Catholic Worker house and in the New Sanctuary Movement in Philadelphia who believe they are “entertaining angels” when they welcome the stranger.
Msgr. Hugh Shields. Anna Vega, Tim O’Connell, Sister Lorena and countless other unnamed religious folk and laypeople who believe we are all one family under God and so extend to immigrants the love we usually reserve for blood family.
Robert Nix, who journeyed to Shenendoah, Pa. after Luis Ramirez was killed to publicly urge community reconciliation.
I’ve pointed you to El Diario/La Prensa, which reports stories about immigrants and Latinos the mainstream media doesn’t even venture to cover.
And I’ve quoted the words of the U.S. Bishops, including our own Cardinal Justin Rigali, who have consistently sought to remind us that, in the words of Christ, “whoever receives the one I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”
Going into my second year of writing this, I’m not sure what effect, if any, blogs can have in our thinking about issues as complex as immigration or the upswing in anti-Latino sentiment in the nation. Particularly blogs like this one, with a small readership that, in all likelihood, already recognizes popular immigration myths for what they are and finds the words of the nativists and anti-immigrant commentators as repugnant as I do.
But I have to think it’s worth it.
There are local voices here that are too quiet to be heard in the nasty national debate. There are voices of local immigrants, and the voices of local people of faith who walk with them. There are voices of those who have overcome unbearable hardship and the voices of those who have taken up their advocacy. Not all of those voices are in the blog posts – some are in the comments, both public and private, made in response to the posts.
And despite the bad news and bad feelings I sometimes point to in my posts, it is the wonder and awe of knowing there are good people out there -- willing to protect and love and do for their fellow human beings -- that really keeps me writing.