LETTERS

LETTERS
September/October 2006

---

IT IS REGRETABLE

The article on immigration ["Be Thankful They're Not Moslems," June Faith] is so convoluted and irrelevant, it would be a nightmare to try to respond. Some questions do come to mind, however.

Since when has being a Catholic become an eligibility requirement for someone to migrate legally to our country? Why is it the responsibility of the United States to work for economic justice for Mexico, a sovereign nation? Have we been authorized to meddle in Mexico's internal affairs? How is that President Vicente Fox -- the leader who must surely accept some responsibility for the plight of his people -- gets off unscathed? Mexico has natural wealth resources (gas/oil/minerals), certainly enough to develop a viable and self-sustaining economy. Why don't the Mexican people, who supposedly have the voting power, rise up and demand changes? Demand reforms in their economy? U.S. corporations provide jobs for the people in Mexico in keeping with the laws and the economy in place. If they are so onerous, why does Mexico permit them to remain? There are boundaries marked geographically for every nation in the world, boundaries internationally agreed upon. Should the United States unilaterally dispense with its boundaries to accommodate -- who?

It is regrettable that some in the religious community have mounted a propaganda in the name of justice. For them, justice is little more than a synonym for socialism -- an economic system that has never brought justice with it, nor freedom, nor welfare for the disenfranchised in other parts of the world. In their zeal to show their compassion, they impose rights and obligations where none exist, neglecting the exhortation that he who does not enter by the door but climbs in some other way is a thief and a robber. That is the issue that needs to be resolved -- permitting entrance by the door.

The immigration issue is not an "either-or;" it is a matter of self-preservation, ironically to permit legalized immigration to this country, to become part of this remarkable, most desirable freedom and opportunity afforded to its citizenry. It is not a welcoming mat to be trampled, not an invitation to partake of what the land has to offer without ever bringing yourself to call it your own. It is frankly irresponsible to demand that a nation of some 300 million adapt itself to immigrants -- legal and illegal -- who demand their own language in the marketplace, in government documents and election ballots, and who demand their own culture in our institutions.

To my Catholic brethren I offer a comment made by a university Catholic theological authority on social teaching. He once asked, "why do religious groups feel they have to be partisan to be effective. In many religious circles, it is more important to have the correct opinion about the Sandinistas than an article of the creed."

He noted too that much talk about human rights assumes rights and obligations that don't square with Christian teachings. He illustrated with an incident in one of his classes: "I had a student say to me that he thought the two great commandments about loving God and loving one's neighbor should be formulated this way: you have a right to be loved by God and a right to be loved by your neighbor."

There you have it ... even God didn't get it right.

Over the centuries, Americans have given their blood to preserve freedom and have generously shared their resources at home and whenever called upon to do so when needs arise elsewhere. How is it self-appointed adjudicators seem never to recognize the sacrifices and generosity? How is it they are always engaged in taking the splinters out of everyone's eyes but their own?

'Twould seem they are unable to attach themselves to the dictum, none of us is perfect; or that no nation is immune to an economic system that leaves its people in poverty.

Olga Kaczorowski,
San Mateo

Editor replies: Reading Mrs. (Miss) Kaczorowski's letter, I was left wondering if it was written by someone who had read Mr. Storck's article. No where did Mr. Storck call for anything like socialism, or lay the blame for illegal immigration solely on the United States, or exonerate the Mexican government, or say that being Catholic should be an eligibility requirement for citizenship. He certainly did not say that the United States is authorized to meddle in Mexico's internal affairs. The article did touch on the fact that meddling by not only American but European and Japanese corporations in Mexico's economy is occurring -- but far from giving approval for more meddling on the part of the United States, the article called for rectifying current practices. That the United States, in particular, has been meddling in Mexico's internal affairs since at least the days of Don Porfirio Díaz in the late nineteenth century is an historical fact. And the effects of NAFTA and International Monetary Fund policies on Latin American countries have been devastating on the economies of the South. And lest I be accused of having a beam in my own eye, let me add, that Latin American, North American, European, and Asian nations are together responsible for the problems south of the border.

TOP