More Conservative than Catholic?
June 29, 2007, 11:21 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
The appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court started a sidebar debate about five Catholics on the Court and how that commonality would affect their decisions. Given the end-of-term decisions, that now seems a moot point.
Margaret,
I’m not sure I undersatnd your point about mootness … are you suggesting that a good Catholic would have reached a different decision in the school desegregation cases and therefore Roberts, Alito, etc., are guided more by their conservative ideology than their Catholic faith? But prominent Catholics from Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to George Weigel and Sam Brownback (as well as the current quintumvirate–my own word, I believe–of justices fall within so many variations of political persuasions that your headline and query are practically insulting. Last time I checked, God never spake one way or the other on either the merits or demerits of indiviudal affirmative action plans, local racial balancing methods, or other such worldy issues … nor do I remember Jesus saying to let the little children come to him, but that those from historically or numerically underrepresented groups should come forward first. Or is someone going to suggest that white, middle class children soley by virtue of their race and economic status somehow fall under the definition of “the first” who need to “be last”?
I think that the majority decision, written by Roberts, was not in tune with the notions of social justice in Catholicism as also have been a number of decsions in the past few days decided by 5-4 votes.
On affirmative action and school plans involving race, it’s always good to hear the perspective one brings to the issue – the vast majority of voices supporting such plans are from affected minorities.
Of course, we also want to limit worker rights, limit whistleblower protection and affirm the powerful in general -something I think a bit distant from the way Our Lord told us to live.
Indeed, ideology seems to trump belief in the this new Supreme Court that the right so long desired.
Is there one–and only one–interpretation of social justice? Is anything declared a “worker right” so sacrosanct that a good Catholic can only lockstep endorse it? Is discriminating against anyone solely or primarily because of that person’s race acceptable under Catholic tradition so long as that person belongs to certain races and not others? Or can Catholics disagree on any of these issues without having their religious credentials questioned? Remember that on the partial birth abortion decision the majority was accused of letting their Catholic values trump the sancity of legal precedence–especially in the specious cartoon that depicted the justices all wearing miters.
Much of the discussion on the impact of five Catholic justices was centered on whether they would do something “Catholic,” and overthrow Roe. That remains to be seen, though I doubt they will. Those Catholics who voted for a “conservative” president (who would appoint conservatice judges) for that reason are likely to be disappointed.
In the meantime, will the five overthrow rules and regulations governing inter-state commerce, education, the environment, executive power, habeas corpus, etc?, in other words, more or less, stamping the Court with a conservative seal–albeit by judicial activism.
OF COURSE they will stamp the court with a conservative seal … that’s what they believe in … that’s why conservatives of all kinds (they’re not a monolithic bloc) voted for Bush (to overturn Roe and for other issues as well). But what in the world does inter-state commerce have to do with the justices’ Catholicism?
I made this point over at Vox Nova and was taken to task by Rick Garnett on Mirror of Justice. I noted simple that this court is friendly toward business and corporations. The Court has already issued a dozen rulings this term that limit damages and make it harder for people to sue corporations. Prof. Garnett responded: “The suggestion that a willingness to sustain plaintiffs’ lawsuits, or uphold huge damages awards, is a marker of fidelity to Catholicism, seems pretty unappealing to me; don’t we need to know *something* about the merits of the disputes?”
But I think it’s far too easy to focus too much on the procedural details of each case and ignore the general trends. Nowhere is this true than in the recent spate of death penalty cases (http://www.vox-nova.com/2007/06/catholc-justices-vote-wrong-way-again.html). One decision made it easier for prosecutors to exclude people who express reservations about the death penalty from capital juries. No problem, said the Catholic 5. Another case revolved around whether or not a prisoner who would not let his defense attorney present mitigating evidence during his original trial could change his mind and get a new hearing. No way, they said. Yes, it is far too easy to let these guys off the hook on technical and procedural grounds. Should they not be at least trying to “err on ths side of life”?
And let’s not forget the Hamden decision, which threw out Bush’s military commissions on the grounds that their structures and procedures violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions (especially Common Article 3 which states that detainees shall not suffer torture or outrages upon personal dignity.) As noted by legal expert Marty Lederman, the most significant finding of this ruling was that the Geneva conventions applied to Al Qaeda suspects. And yet– Scalia dissented. Thomas dissented. Alito dissented. Roberts recused himself. And lately, Scalia defends fictional character Jack Bauer, whose trade-mark is torturing people.
I sometimes wonder if these guys leave their Catholicism at home. We hear a lot about pro-abortion Democrats who have pretty much zero power to directly influence abortion rates. Nobody can say that about the Supreme Court. Why are they not being taken to task?
So, in conclusion, for all those good pro-life people who cheered when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to the Court– I recommend the song that ended the Sopranos franchise: Don’t Stop Believing…
Just a brief note ” all actions in the political sphere that effect the common good are matters of 0Catholic) siocial justice. I refer some of the bloggers here to Fr. Bryan Hehir’s work on the Common Good -good reading indeed.
Let’s bump Vox Nova one more time, for good measure:
http://www.vox-nova.com
Thank you for starting this topic. The Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court appear to be more conservative than they are Catholic. The Court supports a law against the horrific practice of partial birth abortion, but then goes out of its way to reverse two Supreme Court precedents and a Federal judge’s error to prevent a prisoner from appealing his sentence of death. The Catholic Justices tell women in difficult situations they must protect their babies, but when they themselves could act to would allow a prisoner to have access to additional review of a sentence that Gospel of Life says should be rare and must be carefully considered, they fail to act.
They have the five votes to overturn Rae. So what is stopping them? If they don’t do it they are hypocrites, right?
I mean ditto to Mornings Minions question. Why aren’t they being taken to task?
Robert Reid:
Of course, Catholic teaching and its social justice tradition do not dictate the content of laws regulating inter-state commerce, or education, or zoning laws, etc.
Catholic teaching has, however, supported the idea of robust government intervention in maintaining a balance between competing groups in a society, especially the rich and the not-so-rich and the poor. Sometimes that requires government regulations on a range of issues; that range and those regulations are, of course, up to legislators, etc.
As I remember by U.S. history the inter-state commerce clause is the basis for a range of laws that allow federal, rather than state, regulation of say food safety, or trucking regulations, or work safety regulations.
The Bush administration through appointments and budgeting has whittled away at these–and it appears that the Roberts’ Court is joining in.
More Conservative than Catholic?
The Five are probably all “fine” church-going, rule-abiding Catholics, but as above, are they any better than John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc., who have come under episcopal scrutiny, and who defend themselves with the mantra that their “personal” religious beliefs cannot dictate their legislative votes? So to the justices: Should their personal religious belief, or the teachings of their church dictate their judicial decisions? It would seem not.
My concern is that non-Catholics opposed to the jurisprudence of the “Catholic 5″ will make the mistaken assumption that this bloc of Catholic jurists is somehow representative of the Church, its beliefs, and its social teaching as a whole. I doubt the five justices think that, but anti-Catholic elements in society might think so.
Elements (plural) is right. Our fellow Americans in every political direction are anti-Catholic (or perhaps more kindly–feaful of us). The center and left in the case of the “5″ because of opposition to Roe; the right because of Catholicism’s option for the poor, pro-immigration views, etc.
They (our fellow Americans) miss the differences that exist within the U.S. Catholic community, differences based not so much on theology or tradition (though there may be that), but on personal history, economics, and dare I say it–class!
John McGreevey posted sometime back an article on the wealth of anglo Catholics. The article had its flaws, but it also had its point–white Catholics are among the wealthiest of Americans. No surprise that without serious reflection and intelligent leadership, many “white” Catholics are strongly pulled by the economic and political interests of their peers, rather than the teachings of their Church. I think we’d have to say that goes for liberals as well as conservatives.
“As I remember by U.S. history the inter-state commerce clause is the basis for a range of laws that allow federal, rather than state, regulation of say food safety, or trucking regulations, or work safety regulations. The Bush administration through appointments and budgeting has whittled away at these–and it appears that the Roberts’ Court is joining in. ”
What makes you think that Roberts and Alito have been “whittl[ing] away” at the Interstate Commerce Clause?
MM: “So, in conclusion, for all those good pro-life people who cheered when Bush appointed Roberts and Alito to the Court– I recommend the song that ended the Sopranos franchise: Don’t Stop Believing..”
What’s this supposed to mean? Are you suggesting skepticism that Roberts and Alito would vote against Roe in the appropriate case? Why? They already voted to allow the federal government to regulate partial birth abortion, remember.
This discussion demonstrates why the justice’s Catholicism is completely irrelevant. What distinguishes Scalia et. al. is that they tend to base their decisions on what the law says rather than what they believe a particular outcome should be.
The death penalty cases are a great example. Whether we like it or not, the death penalty is permitted in most US jurisdictions. This was a decision arrived at through legitimate democratic processes. The way to change it is through those same processes, not by having judges impose their personal views on the matter.
Progressives want to have their cake and eat it too. The Church must not “impose” its will on individual politicians by reminding them what the Church teaches on abortion, but it is all right for judges to impose their views, and in fact as Catholics are some how required to do so, when those views comport with their own.
Stuart Buck:
The decision earlier this week to overturn regulations that prohibited manufacturers from setting minimum retail prices–I thought that fell under the “penumbra” of the interstate commerce clause. I could be mistaken. Do you know?
I do know. The Leegin case had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause or anything else about the Constitution. It involved the interpretation of section 1 of the Sherman Act (specifically, whether vertical price maintenance should be per se unlawful or whether it should be judged according to the “rule of reason,” which would makes something unlawful only where the circumstances are anticompetitive).
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-480.ZO.html
Mr Buck, thank you for the clarification. Does the Sherman anti-trust act fall under the interestate commerce, etc? If not, then we will have to wait to see how far they will go.
Yes, the Sherman Act was passed under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. And section 1 itself says that it applies to actions “in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.”
But the authority of Congress to pass the Sherman Act was absolutely not in question in the recent case. And given the jurisdictional element (i.e., the Act itself only applies to interstate commerce in the first place), I don’t think any Justice on the Court would question Congress’s authority here.
Stuart:
What I mean is that pro-lifers embarced Roberts and Alito for one reason only, abortion, and instead they are getting a full-throttled right-wing agenda. As for Roe, I do remember that Roberts stated very clearly that Roe was decided law. I can only conclude that he’s either a liar or useless for the pro-life cause.
That’s a very cynical way of putting it. A more realistic view would be that Roberts was simply stating a fact, i.e., that Roe is “settled law” — and it is, at this point. That says nothing about whether Roberts would overturn Roe in an appropriate case. What did you expect Roberts to say? “Yes, I hate Roe and I’ll return the abortion issue to the states the first chance I’ll get”? We’d still be in the middle of a Democratic filibuster if that had been his approach to this issue.
Morning’s Minion:
As I see it, in this Term’s “big ticket” cases, the Court, among other things, and in addition to a swath of unremarked, unanimous decisions, (a) ruled against the Administration and concluded that Massachusetts has standing to demand the EPA act on global warming; (b) stopped four Texas death sentences (it also, to my regret, got wrong a case involving the death-qualification of jurors from Washington); (c) upheld a duly enacted, widely popular ban on a particular abortion procedure; (d) allowed schools officials to censor a student’s speech that, the Court thought (incorrectly, probably) glorified drug use, while making clear that political and religious expression are protected; (d) refused to extent the (wrongly decided) Flast v. Cohen precedent regarding taxpayer standing; (e) invalidated a particular provision — one that many, many civil libertarians opposed — of the McCain-Feingold bill; and (f) limited the ability of school boards to pursue racial balance in schools through school-assignment policies that rely entirely on individual students’ race.
I’m happy to agree that reasonable people, reasonably informed of the relevant precedents and constitutional provisions, can and do disagree about these decisions. But, I am not able to see how these and other cases indicate, or suggest, anything like a “full-throttled right-wing agenda”? In terms of their (to quote E.J. Dionne’s recent piece) “radical” character, do any of these opinions even come close — in aim or effect or underlying theoretical moves– to, say, Mapp, Miranda, Roe, or Furman? The school-assignment case seems the most far-reaching but, it seems to me, it is at least plausibly regarded as an application of Justice O’Connor’s views (which might have been wrong) about strict scrutiny and racial classifications.
I probably wouldn’t mind a few “radical” decisions from this Court. But, in my view, none of these fits the bill.
Sean, you say, “Progressives want to have their cake and eat it too. The Church must not ‘impose’ its will on individual politicians by reminding them what the Church teaches on abortion, but it is all right for judges to impose their views, and in fact as Catholics are some how required to do so, when those views comport with their own.” This got me wondering exactly what should be expected of a Catholic justice on the Supreme Court. It seems clear to me that the “conservative” Catholic point of view is one of disdain for a senator or member of congress or presidential candidate who claims to be “personally opposed to abortion” but nevertheless supports a “woman’s right to choose” (as the formula goes).
Is it the “conservative” Catholic point of view that it is acceptable for Catholic Supreme Court justices to set aside their personal moral convictions and “base their decisions on what the law says rather than what they believe a particular outcome should be”? Are Catholic members of the legislative and executive branch bound to oppose abortion while Catholic members of the judiciary get to say, “I think it’s wrong, but it’s settled law”? And if so, why can’t members of congress say, “I think it’s wrong, but on this issue, I’m not voting my own personal views. I’m representing the people who voted for me”?
Could Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas ever do anything in their official capacities that was well within the bounds of mainstream jurisprudence but would nevertheless put them in a position where they might be denied communion? If they have a clear opportunity to overturn Roe v Wade and don’t do so (deciding it was wrongly decided but is settled law), will they be materially cooperating in abortion? To what extent can they do their jobs as an intellectual exercise (this is what the constitution says, this is the precedent, this is how the statute reads, and by the rules of the game, we’ve no choice but to make an odious ruling with morally objectionable outcomes)?
What Morning Minion and David Nickol point out has not been answered. Stuart, forget about the confirmation process. Now they are confirmed. They won’t be the first ones who lied while being confirmed or campaigning.
I want Roe vs Rae ruled on by this court. They will never do it. The real reason is that most Republican women will vote democrat and the Republicans will lose many seats. This is why it is a fraud issue.
You have the votes. There is no possibility of a philibuster. Bring it on and let your conscience be your guide. Put up or shut up.
Margaret Stenfels:
Perhaps when you discuss “Catholic teaching” and its social justice tradition” you should qualify it with “liberal” or some other modifier instead of just saying “Catholic” which on its own somehow implies that this is the one and only acceptable posiiton for a Catholic in good standing to hold. There are plenty of conservative Catholics who do not agree with the posiitons you discuss–and certainly support for the federal government over state and local jurisdictions is hardly a litmus test for entrance into heaven; indeed, one can easily show that many of the supposedly beneficial social welfare programs of the past were actually quite disruptive to families and individuals and thus hardly the hallmarks of good government. If you don’t like hearing that pro-choice people like Kerry are not good catholics, it is a little childish of you to simply turn around and bicker (conservative: Kerry’s a bad Catholic … liberal: no, Scalia’s a bad Catholic … ) that Supreme Court justices who don’t uphold arcane aspects of the interstate commerce clause are somehow suspect in their faith. Let’s just follow the rules of full disclosure and identify liberal and conservative views for what they are …
It seems to me that the principal thrust of Margaret Steinfels’ initial comment regarding the actions of the Catholic justices on the Supreme Court relates to the possible conflict between political ideology and Catholic moral teachings. In this regard, there is a thoughtful analysis of the Court’s reasoning on the school racial balancing case written by Abigail Thernstrom , Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in today”s Wall Street Journal. She does a good job of laying out the moral ambiguities inherent in this case.
In another decision last week-this time by the U.S. Senate-the immigration bill was killed. And here there is no moral ambiguity. This was a piece of legislation aimed at doing the morally correct thing. Yet a sizeable number of Catholic Senators, succumbing to plain and simple bigotry voted against it.
As reported by the Washington Post,these are the Catholic Senators who voted to kill the bill: Tom Harkins, Mary Landrieu, Claire McCaskill, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Susan Collins, Pete Domenici, Lisa Murkowski, John Sununu, David Viter and George Voinovich.
Charles Ladner’s statement that there was “no moral ambiguity” over the recent immigration bill would be laughable if it weren’t so insidious. So there is no moral ambiguity in attempting to pass legislation that many reasonable, caring people think would have done absolutely nothing (because very, very, very few people who reached this country illegally were actually going to pay their fine, leave the US to return to a home country they might not have seen in 10 or more years, and then ‘get in line’ to return legally … it just wasn’t going to happen. Yet Ladner says that it is immoral to oppose such a bill? Likewise, he says it is immoral to NOT reward those who break the law, jump ahead of the line, and thumb their noses at both the US government and its laws and at those foolish people (and perhaps immoral peoploe, since they want no part in what Mr. Ladner says is NOT morally ambiguous) who actually are trying to follow the law and enter this country legally. Again, those who bemaon the fact that pro-choice Catholic politicians are called bad Catholics seem hell-bent (all puns fully intended) to excommunicate the conservative Catholics who disagree with their versions of morality. Hypocrisy, it seems, is a most bipartisan, ecumenical thing.
Robert :
It seems to me a pro-choice Catholic politician is clearly at odds with the Church, and since being pro-choice is very closely associated in American politics with being liberal, it seems to me the Church has clearly spoken against one aspect of contemporary American liberalism. Is there nothing in the moral and social teachings of the Church that is a critique of any aspect of contemporary American conservatism?
I always think of this passage from the Declaration on Procured Abortion: ”
On the contrary, it is the task of law to pursue a reform of
society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with
the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be
possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome
worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried
mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate
children and reasonable arrangements for adoption — a
whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will
always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to
abortion.
It doesn’t exactly sound like a plank in the platform of the Republican party. Are there no teachings of the Church that American Catholic conservatives are bound to heed and say, “Well, because of the teachings of my Church, I can’t go along with my fellow (non-Catholic) conservative colleagues on this issue?”
Ms Steinfels: “The Five are probably all “fine” church-going, rule-abiding Catholics, but as above, are they any better than John Kerry, Dick Durbin, etc., … who defend themselves with the mantra that their “personal” religious beliefs cannot dictate their legislative votes? So to the justices: Should their personal religious belief, or the teachings of their church dictate their judicial decisions? It would seem not.”
Not necessarily. Kerry and Durbin are lawmakers. The Five are judges. Therein lies a world of difference.
For better or worse, the requirements imposed on a legislator by the Church cannot be the same as those applicable to someone acting in a judicial capacity.
The Chuch may chide a Catholic lawmaker who fails to follow the Church’s teaching on some legislative matter. The only thing the Church can legitimately ask of a judge, however, is that she either interpret the law in accordance with the best judicial practice or resign if unable to do so in good conscience. In no case can a judge be required by the Church to usurp the prerogatives of the legislature.
In the real world, of course, judges are often good at finding a passable line of legal reasoning that gets them to their preferred outcome.
David:
In all honesty, NO American Catholic–liberal or conservative–should ever state that the teachings of his church influenced his decision–not if he wants to remain in office very long. The strain of anti-catholicism in this country still runs deep (I would not be surprised if the John Kerry-abortion- comunion stories hurt Kerry not because of the abortion aspects but because it reminded people that he is a catholic … ) … Such semantics aside, while the church has spoken out quite clearly on issues such as abortion–which is a stark, clearly delineated issue–the social problems in a society are not as clear. For example, does giving someone welfare help that person or hurt them? Does letting child A attend the school of his choice while denying child B the opportunity to attend the same school largely because of child B’s race help society because child A’s father or grandfather was denied the right to attend that same school because of his race … or does it hurt society? There is no clear answer and there are certainly anecdotal reasons on both sides of these issues to either support or oppose such social spending or social engineering. In the end, I suppose, the person’s intent is what matters: if the justice opposes a certain liberal social justice program because he truly believes it discriminates unfairly, or causes more harm than good, or is so poorly legislated that it violates the law (which is what the justices swear to uphold), then he has acted in good conscience. And what could be more catholic than that?
Robert
As to the immigration bill, you are perfectly correct, it had many flaws. For instance, it failed to address the problem of family reunification. Nevertheless, it was a good start.
You expressed some objections to the bill. One of these was your opinion that it would never work because the “illegal” would never pay the fine, return to their home country and then get in line to enter legally. Good point, but you may have missed the provision of the bill that requires employers to verify through a new electronic identification program the status of the employee. Employers who hire “illegals” would be subject to a fine of $20,000 for each person and jail time for repeat offenders. This would completely dry up the demand for undocumented workers, so the “illegal” would have no choice but to reapply for admission under the new law. Moreover, contrary to your suggestion that people who are here for “10 or more years” would never go back to theie country of origion and get in line this is simply an irrelevant point because the readmission requirement applied only to those here for less than 5 years. People here for more than 5 years could remain, continue working and apply for citizenship after having first paid at least $3250 in fine and fees.
Your second point had to do with the actual entry into the country illegally, and of course you are correct, this represents a violation of our laws. But perhaps you were not aware of the fine to be imposed upon such people as a penalty prior to their applying for citixenship.
Now as to the question of morality, the real issue is our exploitation of their labor. These “illegals” come to the United States in search of work, but with no bargaining power . Consequently , they will work for wages far below the prevailing wage for the specific industry and location. You and I and all Americans recieve significant benefits from this low cost labor. If you do the math, you will find that even after taking into account the increased cost of public services for these people, The average benefit received by each of the 130 million taxpayers in the United States is approximately $400.00 a year. This an average value, some of us receive much higher benefits and some less. Nevertheless we all gain by the exploitation of the “illegal”, and if my memory serves me, Catholic teachings regarding social justice do not look favorably upon such behavior .
Therefor, when we can correct the matter, it seems to me that we are under a serious obligation to do so. Hence, my opinion that voting to kill the immigration bill was morally questionable.
Charles
Although you raise some interesting rebuttals to my points they are all based on an assumption (which I believe to be a faulty assumption) that this time … finally … and for the first time … we really, really, really mean it when we say we’re going to enforce our borders and immigration laws … I would argue that at the very least that is an assumtpion that deserves serious skepticism and needs to be proven. Thus, all your points about fines, fees, and leaving/returning, etc.–while accurate descriptions of the legislation–were unlikely to actually be enfroced based on the entire recent history of illegal immigration.
More importantly, I absolutely reject any suggestion that I benefit from illegal activity which I strongly oppose and do not knowingly participate in at all. Your $400 figure is pure demagoguery, on par with the old Svoet claims that people who received their eductaion, health care, housing, employment, etc., from the Party were ungratfeul to then criticize its escesses. I receive NOTHINg from illegal immigration that I would not gladly forgo if it were clearly identified (i.e., hamburger A cost $2 because ti was cooked and served by illegal aliens while hamburger B costs $5 because it was cooked and served by American citizens … give me that option and i will gladly pay the extra amount but until that is possible do not bluster on about how we all gain from them )
As for those who entered this country illegally, they put themselves in this position rather than trying to improve things in their own countries, they snuck ahead of the line and thumbed their noses at those foolish enough to actually try to enter the US legally … any explotation they suffer is the result of their own actions, no different than someone who chooses to participate in a dangerous activity and gets hurt.
Finally, sealing the borders, protecting the borders, enforcing tough laws–these are also ways of correcting the matter and will do more to end the problems you discuss than granting amnesty–which we simply encourage more illegals to try to come in for the amnesty of 2015 or 2020 or whenever the issue next arises..
That should read: ” … on par with the old Soviet claims …” Passionate responses sometimes run faster than fingertips!
Robert
Think about it. There are about 12 million “illegals” in this country. A conservative estimate would be that they produce not less than 6 million man/years of labor. They work for about $5.00 per hour less than the prevailing wage. ( This is an inference, but you can check the basis for it in the Statistical Abstract of the United States) . The $5.00 per hour differential times a 2000 hour work year is $10,000. This amount (i.e. $10,000) times 6 million man/years equals $60 billion. Divide the $60 billion by 130 million taxpayers and you get $461. This is the amount that each taxpayer including you and I, benefits by the exploitation of the labor of the “illegals”. It is exploitation because these people have no bargaining power in their own country where they are helpless in the face of a corrupt oligarchy, while this country their “illegal” status effectively abnegates any capacity they might have to negotiate better wages.
So, protestations to the contrary, you really do benefit. Your food is cheaper. Your trash removal is cheaper. Construction costs are less. If you live in home owners community, condiminium, or rental, your monthly fees are less. The list goes on and on. Nearly all the unpleasant jobs that undergird our comfortable quality of life are performed by the “illegal” labor pool.
It therefor seems clear that we have an obligation to these people which the immigration bill correctly addressed.The first obligation is to regularize the status of those people from whose labor we benefit. The second obligation is to control the rate of future immigration. The proposed bill was a political compromise that would have achieved both of these objectives. The Senators who killed the bill before it had a chance to go through the full legislative process responded to an ugly campaign of pure bigotry and, I believe put themselves in a morally questionable position.
Charles:
We have absolutely NO obligation to the illegals anymore than people have an obligation to give money to the windshield wiper guys (the homeless men who step up to cars, wash off the windshield, and then expect money in return). You cannot have an involuntary obligation to someone whom you do not want here and who is doing something you don’t want him to do … anything else is absurd. Moreover, we do not need the illegals. In some of the agricultural counties in California where there are the highest levels of illegal immigration there are also incredibly high levels of unemployment and/or welfare reciepients (this was reported in the Christian Science Monitor, as I recall) … thus, we need to work on a way to make the unemployed US citizens take those jobs rather than making the illegals into US citizens. Liekwise, in one Florida or Georgia town that cracked down on illegal immigration, the end result was an influx of Laotian or Cambodian legal immigrants, some of whom came from cold Minnesota and ended up enjoying the warmer climate much better because it was more like their previous homes … again, the supposedly essential illegal immigrants were not necessary at all. Finally, you toss out phrases such as “pure bigotry” to descirbe the campaign against illegal immigration amnesty–how about some real-life examples to back it up? And they’d better be examples that apply to just about everyone who was opposed to the bill since you call it “pure bogotry”, leaving open no room for reasonable disagreement with you holier-than-thou own opinions.
If we did not need the illegals they would not come because they would find no jobs. There may be a few examples to the contrary but needed they are.. It is clearly a matter os supply and demand. For that reason it is not necessarily a generous act to support immigration.
Bill:
You mistake “want” for “need” … certainly plenty of unscrupulous employers “want” there to be plenty of illegal immigrants whom they can exploit by paying less … it saves them money on their payroll. But the nation as a whole does not “need” the illegal labor, not when there are plenty of US citizens who can do the work. We simply need to make sure that they don’t have the option of collecting unemployment or welfare (as in those California counties I mentioned) rather than doing this work. Or like the Southeast Asian legal immigrants we need to help them relocate to where these jobs are. That makes much more sense than rewarding people who have already broken our laws by making them citizens (which wouldn’t happen anyway for the reasons I mentioned above–no sizable number of illegal aliens is actually going to pay a fine, leave the US, and then get in line legally … that’s a fantasy … and various immigranst interviewed by the media during the debate over the immigration bill originally were quite candid that they had no plans to follow its provisions … why should they when they knew it wouldn’t be enforced?)