May 102010
 

Ah, remember the good old days when it was *Republicans* who were constantly being accused of using religion in politics? Well, welcome to today:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/06/pelosi-urges-catholic-church-play-major-role-immigration-overhaul/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday urged Catholic leaders to “instruct” their parishioners to support immigration reforms, saying clerics should “play a very major role” in supporting Democratic policies.

“The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me and say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I said, ‘I want you to speak about it from the pulpit. I want you to instruct your’ — whatever the communication is,” said Pelosi…

Awesome.

And then there’s this:

The people, some (who) oppose immigration reform, are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels,” she said.

OK, I’m not Catholic. Not even Christian. But I’m reasonably sure that I didn’t read anything about that Jesus feller instructing his flock to go tresspass, steal, and generally wreck other people’s stuff.

“as a practical matter” it’s not possible to tell 12 million illegal immigrants to “go back to wherever you came from or go to jail.” 

Ummm… wrong. here, I’ll demonstrate:

Hey, illegal immigrants? Go back to wherever you came from or go to jail.

See how easy that was?

Washington has been at a loss on how to proceed on new federal policies that could put millions of illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

Hey, I’ve got a suggestion. We already *have* processes in place to put non-Americans on a path to citizenship. My recommendation would be to institute a fairly easy “documented worker” program that takes the fingerprints and DNA of prospective immigrants, puts them on file in the US, and provides for them free transport from wherever they are to wherever they are going in the US… and provides free transport *back* when the time comes. There would need to be a few conditions:

1) They would need to have a documented job waiting for them. This could of course be a “National Agricultural Job Pool” of so-and-so many hundreds of thousands, on up to a specific job at XYZ Corporation.

2) When their job ends, they go home unless they apply through the system for another job.

3) The process to get this documented job begins in their nations capital (such as, say, Mexico City). The prospective migrant worker needs to show up In Person at the “job fair,” run out of the US Embassy. If you do not show up in person, we can’t take your fingerprint & DNA, and thus you can’t get enrolled.

4) There would be a one-year grace period for those in the US illegally, allowing them sufficient time to hightail it to their national capitol and enroll. Those caught by INS illegally in the US after that period would have their fingerprints and DNA put on file, and would *never* be allowed entry into the US again. They would then be transported to the capitol of their home nation. If they are captured within the US a second time, they would be deported to somewhere else. Kandahar, say.

 Posted by at 5:38 pm

  7 Responses to “Church and State”

  1. Are you outta your mind? You have any idea how difficult it will be to get those “shovel ready” votes in November if they actually have to DO something?

  2. Nancy really has a fluid idea of separation of church and state, doesn’t she? She lacks a basic understanding of the State Church — the concept that drove the original Freedom of Religion idea — unless it works for her. I guess stuffing the ballot box is bad only if the Other Side does it.

    No one in government is going to support the idea of a comprehensive “get legal or get out idea.” Right now that would be seen as a move against only the “Mexicans,” which plays right into the “if you don’t agree with me you’re racist” program of Nancy and co. (I’m told illegal Irish are a huge problem in Boston, but no one ever talks about that.)

    Scott, your suggestion is a good one. It’s also too easy: government, since the 60s, has had a pathological need to complicate everything.

  3. Funny, the system you describe is right the one now in use (or, better, in effort to being used) here in Italy. The Opposition comes from: some Christian churches circles; the left and associated labour; Mafia and associated organizations, that want slaves for their controlled business (agriculture and building); some entreprenours organization (covertly) that want cheap labor to compress the wages of Italian and regular immigrants workers due to unfair competition. The second funny thing is that Karl Marx described this same situation at the end of the XIX century in France. Back then, the immigrants were Italians.

  4. An elected official of the state giving direct orders to religious leaders concerning the dissemination of state approved propaganda to citizens. Clearly an establishment state controlled religion. And why would anyone be surprised?

  5. Establishment of state controlled. Spellcheck don’t catch it all.

  6. Control of borders? check.
    Easy enough entry for people willing to work for a living? check.

    Details may need tweaking, but I like the framework. If the major requirements for a work visa are limited to waiting employment, proper registration, and not being on an ‘undesirable’ list, unions are going to fight it tooth and nail.

  7. During an interview, Michael Moore brought up the point that it’s more Christian to have a socialist society than a capitalist one. My response to that would have been if he was so interested in codifying in law Christian precepts that first we should start by banning abortion, arresting homosexuals and jailing pornographers. Then we can move on to re-distributing the wealth.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.