Thursday, October 30, 2014

Wrong Messages: The Case of Luz Robles and Her Campaign's Illegal Immigrant Staffer

The Luz Robles' campaign has an illegal immigrant as a member of its team.  

Angelica Rodriguez is an illegal immigrant who, as a child, was either brought into the U.S. illegally or overstayed a visa and has been granted a temporary amnesty under the Obama administration's dubious Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy.  

She is also a member of the Luz Robles congressional campaign team.  

I am sure that the campaign will claim that the status conferred through DACA and its accompanying work authorization mean that everything is on the up and up regarding this individual working for the campaign.  

In the world of the Obama administration, this will be seen as accurate.

But, there are two strong negative messages that the Robles campaign is sending by their actions.  

Let me begin by saying that I am not criticizing or attacking Ms. Rodriguez on a personal level.  

The focus of this post is on the two main implicit negative messages created by the Luz Robles campaign by having Ms. Rodriguez as part of their team.   

Angelica Rodriguez, an illegal immigrant, is a paid member of the Luz Robles campaign team. 

On the campaign financing and expenditure reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission, the Robles campaign has made a number of disbursements to Ms. Rodriguez.  These disbursements are:

$1000.00 on 10/17/13 (wages)
$1000.00 on 12/17/13 (wages)
$1000.00 on 5/22/14 (wages)
$1000.00 on 6/18/14 (wages)
$1000.00 on 7/11/14 (salary expense)
$1000.00 on 8/12/14 (salary expense)
$500.00 on 9/2/14 (salary expense)
$500.00 on 9/16/14 (salary expense)
$84.55 on 9/17/14 (reimbursement)
$1000.00 on 10/2/14 (salary expense)
$92.02 on 10/2/02 (salary expense/staff salary)

As you can see, the Luz Robles campaign has paid Ms. Rodriguez $8092.02 (through October 15, 2014) for her work for the campaign. [1] 

What role does Ms. Rodriguez have in the campaign?

On Ms. Rodriguez' public LinkedIn profile, she tells us that she is a "Campaign Manager/Personal Assistant" for the Robles campaign and that she has worked for the campaign from September 2013 to the present. [2]

Another interesting item on the profile is that she mentions her affiliation with the Salt Lake Dream Team.  

She also gives us a very significant bit of information by telling us that she was a volunteer for the Utah State Senator Luz Robles reelection campaign in 2012. The dates she lists, June 2012 - October 2012, are very significant in terms of the DACA program. As far as I can tell, the DACA program was announced on June 15, 2012 and began accepting applications on August 15, 2012. If these dates are accurate, that means that Ms. Rodriguez was active as a volunteer for the 2012 Robles for Utah Senate campaign prior to having even the veneer of legality through the DACA program. 

Who is Angelica Rodriguez?

Angelica Rodriguez is a Dreamer (see Note 1) - a person who, as a child, was either brought to the U.S. illegally or overstayed a visa.

A sympathetic 2013 KUER article tells us:
"Angelica Rodriguez came to Utah just before her sixth birthday from the Mexican state of Veracruz. By the time she was a teenager, her dream was to serve in the US armed forces. She says she wanted to help and protect people, especially during natural disasters." [3]
Ms. Rodriguez is also a graduate of the University of Utah.  

She is a dedicated, hard-working, intelligent, and probably a very pleasant individual.

She is also the kind of person the amnesty movement has been lurking behind as they use emotional appeals to sell us amnesty.  

Ms. Rodriguez has herself been an activist - most notably in conjunction with the Salt Lake Dream Team for whom she served as president until recently. 

For example, in 2013, the group sought to influence Senator Hatch to intervene on behalf of the Canenguez family:
“Senator Hatch is our main target, “ said Angie Rodriguez, another member of the Salt Lake Dream Team. To win a private bill for the Canenguez family, the group must persuade a member of Congress to present it on the floor. He’s the only representative in Utah with an even mildly pro-immigration platform, and he’s known for having a soft spot for families.
“We are first asking the ‘proper way,’ setting up meetings and such,” Rodriguez continued. “But knowing politicians, it will take a little persuading before any decisions are made,” she added, as the rest of the group giggled." [4]
I am not sure what she meant by "a little persuading" - but I assume it means something different in Salt Lake City than it does in, say, Chicago.

Ms. Rodriguez could be the poster child for the Dreamer movement.  

A big part of the problem in the debates about illegal immigration, however, is precisely the use of such sympathetic individuals and families as fronts for the amnesty movement to hide behind.  Such use tends to mislead the public by too narrowly focusing the range of issues to be considered as we seek good public policy.  

Even so, it is hard to hide the negative messages lurking in the DACA project of the Obama administration.  .  

The Robles campaign implicitly exemplifies at least two of these negative messages through its hiring of a DACA Dreamer.  

The first of these negative messages relates to the illegality of Obama's DACA program.

Wrong message #1: The Robles campaign's actions implicitly give a stamp of approval to President Obama's abuse of power in creating the DACA temporary amnesty for Dreamers.

The DACA project is an unconstitutional one.  

In his commentary on a lawsuit filed against the Obama administration's DACA policy by a group of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, W.D. Reasoner, stated:
"Many people (myself among them) believe that the program is both unconstitutional, because it infringes on the lawmaking prerogative unique to Congress under the separation of powers, and illegal, because it is not an act of prosecutorial discretion, but rather an abuse of discretion." [5]
Apparently, President Obama agreed with this perspective - at least prior to his "discovery" of a newfound presidential power to ignore Congress and our laws.
In an article about the DACA policy, Mark Krikorian tells us:
"The president knows what he’s doing is unconstitutional. We don’t have to read his mind to know this — he’s said it repeatedly. In July of last year, he told the National Council of La Raza, “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions.” In September he told some journalists:
"I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true." [6]
The judge hearing the lawsuit by the ICE officers dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds. However, he also had this to say about the challenge to the DACA policy:
"On July 31, 2013, Judge O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas dismissed the case of Crane v. Napolitano on a jurisdictional issue. In doing so, the Court for the second time found that the challenged Obama Administration policies are unconstitutional. “[T]he Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim challenging the Directive and Morton Memorandum as contrary to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act…”  [7]
The implicit message being sent by the Luz Robles campaign, in having a DACA beneficiary work for them, is one of tacit approval of the actions of President Obama in usurping the legislative powers of the Congress in creating the DACA policy.  

This is a rather odd thing to be doing by someone who wants to be a member of the very legislative body that Obama so readily casts aside when it suits his political agenda.
One would think that a candidate for Congress would very strongly and clearly resist presidential encroachments that diminish the constitutional role and power of the Congress.  

But, that's not the only wrong message being sent by the Robles campaign.

Wrong message #2: The Robles campaign sends the wrong message to those contemplating entering or remaining in the U.S. illegally - especially to those thinking of sending their children.

During the spring and summer of this year, the southern border was scene to thousands of young people from Central America arriving and turning themselves in to Border Patrol agents.  This became known as the "border surge."  This surge had its beginnings with the Obama administration's public statements about backing off immigration enforcement for most illegal immigrants - particularly children.  

John Sexton, for example, tells us:
"President Obama's executive actions on immigration did not begin with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in mid-2012. It began in 2011 with his announcement of "prosecutorial discretion" on deportations. A few months later the border patrol noted the first uptick in unaccompanied children at the border." [8]
An Investor's Business Daily editorial concluded:
"...The border surge is mainly a rational response to a U.S. government that refuses to enforce its own border, offering a variety of incentives to lawbreakers — and a huge business opportunity for Central American smuggling gangs, which are drumming up new markets well beyond the traditional Mexican one." [9]
DACA itself seems to be a strong motivator of the recent border surge. Sexton again:
"There has been an ongoing argument in the public sphere over whether or not President Obama's executive action known as DACA is responsible for the current surge of unaccompanied children at the border. GOP members have claimed it is a contributing factor and some note that the June 15, 2012 announcement seems to coincide with the sharpest uptick in children arriving from Central America."
A number of other commentators and politicians have also linked DACA to the recent surge.  

Even the Obama administration links the surge to the DACA policy.  Mr. Sexton, in a follow-up to his earlier article:
"Contrary to denials by many in the media, the Obama administration had repeatedly connected the current crisis of unaccompanied children on the border to the President's executive actions on immigration, in particular Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)." [10]
By hiring an illegal immigrant beneficiary of the questionable DACA policy, the Luz Robles campaign is implicitly incentivizing those who wish to come here illegally.

Many children have been sent illegally into the United States believing that they will be permitted to stay.  The DACA  policy is one major reason for this belief.  

Hiring a DACA recipient affirms the idea that the violation of immigration laws will be set aside when children are involved.    

This is the wrong message to send to those who are contemplating illegal entry into the United States or overstaying a visa.  

George Soros, the Ford Foundation, and United We Dream.

Going back to Ms. Rodriguez' LinkedIn profile we find another curious item.   She lists herself as an "Affiliate Lead" for United We Dream.  Her information may or may not be current, so I will focus on the group itself rather than on her affiliation with it.  What is the United We Dream group?

From the United We Dream website:
"United We Dream is the largest immigrant youth-led organization in the nation. Our powerful nonpartisan network is made up of over 100,000 immigrant youth and allies and 55 affiliate organizations in 26 states. We organize and advocate for the dignity and fair treatment of immigrant youth and families, regardless of immigration status." [11]
One of those affiliated organizations is the Salt Lake Dream Team. [12]

United We Dream describes their mission, in part, as:
"We believe we can build power by organizing at the local, regional, and national levels and aim to provide tools and resources to support our leaders and member organizations, as well as create meaningful alliances with other advocacy organizations." [11]
What do they mean by building "power"?  What will it be used for?  

Perhaps they have in mind something like this:
"With the midterm elections less than a week away, immigration activists are reminding President Obama that they still expect him to enact unilateral executive amnesty before the end of the year.
“We won’t take anymore excuses” Cristina Jimenez, the managing director of the pro-amnesty group United We Dream told reporters on a Wednesday conference call." [13]
Ms. Jimenez goes on to propose this:
"We expect [Obama] to be unapologetic and bold abut his actions on any administrative package. He must be inclusive and he must be broad to protect as many people as possible from our community. It is his legal authority and any package of administrative reform must include our parents,” Jimenez said, adding there there is “there is no excuse.”
Or perhaps they mean pressuring politicians by agitating at campaign events - like some Dreamers did recently at an event for North Carolina Senator Hagan:
"Viridiana Martinez, with the North Carolina DREAM Team, an organization of undocumented youth, was part of the group who showed up at the event and caused the disruption. She said before the event someone with the campaign asked to see their shirts and signs. Some activists were let in to the baseball field where the event was being held but those with the signs were not allowed in.
But once the event started, those outside the fence began chanting and interrupting Hagan. Eventually, the activists inside walked over, grabbed the signs, and went up on stage where aides halfheartedly tried to stop them." [14]
The United We Dream organization has had good success - so developing "power" must be working for them. From an article posted on their website:
"The organization lobbied the White House and played a key role in getting deferred action put in place. Over 420,000 children brought illegally to the United States have so far gotten temporary work permits. Their work didn’t go unnoticed. One of the biggest national immigration funders, the Open Society Foundations has given them $800,000 in grants to date." [15]
Money from the Open Society Foundations?  That would be George Soros money. [16]  

Soros isn't the only one in on promoting United We Dream.  A 2011 discussion in New York City for interested funders titled, "How DREAM Leaders Are Building a New Immigration Movement," was co-sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the Open Society Foundations along with Philanthropy Unbound.  According to a notice for the event:
"Join us for an interactive discussion with DREAM leaders about how they successfully built a new movement for change and succeeded in affecting local and national policy, changing the discourse on immigration, and empowering a new generation of youth leaders." [17]
The meeting was held at the Ford Foundation in New York City.  The Ford Foundation has also put its money where its mouth is and approved a grant to United We Dream in 2013 for $2,350,000.  The grant is:
"For the Own the Dream Campaign to implement the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy, for the 11 Million Dreams Campaign for immigration reform, and to build capacity and strengthen advocacy" [18]
Interesting, isn't it?

George Soros and Ford Foundation money pouring into an amnesty front group pushing for President Obama to massively expand his abuse of power and create an "executive" amnesty for millions.  . 

If they succeed, what will have been accomplished? 

Conclusion:  The Robles Campaign and the Dreamer Nightmare.

President Obama, and those who see nothing wrong with him pushing Congress aside in order to accomplish his political goals, will be emboldened in the abuse of power and the attack on our constitutional separation of powers.  

Additionally, millions in foreign nations we be given the implicit message that we are not serious, and may never be, about enforcing our immigration laws and should immigrate at will into our nation - regardless of our laws.

These two tacit negative messages are being promoted by the Dreamers and by those groups promoting Obama's executive amnesty.  

They are the same two implicit messages that are being sent by the Robles campaign through their hiring of a DACA Dreamer to work for their campaign.  

What is really being promoted for our nation is not a dream, i.e., a pleasant goal that is as yet unrealized, but a nightmare.

The presidential abuse of power, constituting an attack on our constitutional order, coupled with essentially telling the world we will look the other way regardless of who enters or remains illegally is a prescription for greatly multiplying all problems currently stemming from illegal immigration.  

What we need, before any discussion of any exceptions for anyone who is here illegally, is effective enforcement.  

No immigration law will control illegal immigration unless it is accompanied by effective enforcement.  

The government needs to establish effective enforcement in order to restore respect for our laws and allow for reasoned immigration policies now and in the future.

For additional information about Utah State Senator Luz Robles, please see the two links below:



[Note 1] - The term "Dreamer" occurs in articles as either "DREAMer" or as "Dreamer."  I will primarily use the "Dreamer" form in this post.  A Dreamer is someone who would have been granted amnesty had the DREAM Act passed and been signed into law. 

Thursday, October 9, 2014

Luz Robles' New Hubby Was Honored by Mexico in 2011

Juan Carlos Escamilla, Luz Robles' new husband, was awarded the prestigious "Ohtli" award in 2011.  

What is the Ohtli?

It is an award granted by the Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (IME) through the Mexican consular network in the United States.

The IME, as you may recall, is the branch of the Mexican Foreign Ministry that coordinates the activities of the Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME) - the advisory board that Luz Robles served on from 2006-2008.

From the IME website description of the award, we have the following:

"One of the objectives of the Institute of Mexicans in the Exterior (IME) is to strengthen relations with the Mexican community and those of Mexican origin residing outside of our country. To this end we have put into operation a great variety of projects that have allowed us to strengthen the links of Mexico with her diaspora."

("Uno de los objetivos del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (IME) es fortalecer las relaciones con la comunidad mexicana y de origen mexicano residente fuera de nuestro país. Con este fin se han puesto en operación una gran variedad de proyectos que nos han permitido estrechar los lazos de México con su diáspora.")

The IME description of this prestigious award also tells us:

"This award is given, to individuals who have dedicated most of their life and professional activity, to "open a path" abroad, so that the younger generations of Mexicans who have followed them, find a path relatively easier to walk."

("Este reconocimiento se otorga, a personas que han dedicado la mayor parte de su vida y actividad profesional, a “abrir brecha” en el extranjero, para que las generaciones más jóvenes de mexicanos y mexicanas que los han seguido, encuentren un camino relativamente más fácil de andar.")

Generally speaking, each consular area is permitted to award one Ohtli per year.  

The IME page describing the Ohtli award is at:

The newsletter ("Informe") of the CCIME also carried a story about Mr. Escamilla's Ohtli (see page six at the link below):

Some photos of Mr. Escamilla receiving the award are at:

How did Mr. Escamilla feel about receiving the award?

According to an article in the Yuma Sun about the event, Mr. Escamilla had this to say:

“I would like to thank the Mexican Consulate in Yuma and the consulate’s Institute of Mexicans in the Exterior for this profound honor,” Escamilla said in a prepared statement. “As mayor it is my most solemn obligation to serving others. It makes me so proud to be among those who have received this distinction and recognition in the past."

He also added this:

“I will accept this award on behalf of all the Hispanics who work tremendously in improving the lives of others. It has not been easy to persevere in the mission of preserving our Hispanic cultural heritage, our rights as Latinos, but we will continue to strive and be successful to achieve the place we deserve in the United States. Our history shows that if we work together, we can accomplish great things.”

The Yuma Sun article is available at:

It seems rather strange for elected officials in America to be receiving awards from a foreign nation for serving, in some sense, the interests of that nation.  

Mr. Escamilla, at the time he received this award, was the mayor of San Luis, Arizona.  

He is currently a member of the Arizona House of Representatives.  

Mexico, through its IME website, has stated that one of its goals is "to strengthen the links of Mexico with her diaspora."  The Ohtli award should be seen in that light - as a propaganda tool of the Mexican government to strengthen ties between itself and those of Mexican heritage in the United States.  

It is hard to fault the sincere efforts of well-meaning people who seek to better the lives of others.  I am not criticizing such efforts by Mr. Escamilla.

However, the ethnocentric politics being promoted in America by Mexico should be carefully examined and Mexico should be politely, but firmly, told to mind its own business.  

Thursday, October 2, 2014

Key Luz Robles Campaign Contact a Former Candidate for the Mexican Legislature

One of the most interesting aspects of Luz Robles' association with Mexico's Consejo Consultivo del Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior (CCIME) was her strange presence at the April 2009 CCIME meeting in Mexico.

This was after having taken office as a Utah State Senator.

Much more information about why she may have been at this meeting can be found at:

Germán Trejo was also there.

Who is Germán Trejo?

He is a long-term associate of Luz Robles, having served with her on the CCIME from 2006-2008 and worked with her on the same commission for much of that time. His associated campaign consulting company, G&T Consulting, was also a campaign consultant for her 2008 Utah State Senate campaign. Her reports for her current campaign indicate that Trejo associated campaign companies are a key component of her campaign.

From the article linked above:
Germán Trejo has a close relationship with Luz Robles - they both served on the same CCIME commission (political affairs) for a time. Germán Trejo, you may recall, was also a significant advisor to Luz Robles' state senate campaign - contributing $6,000.00 in in-kind contributions pre-convention in 2008.
In that earlier post, I suggested that one reason Luz Robles may have been in Mexico was to help with an effort to push the major Mexican political parties to create a law mandating a quota of migrant candidates. Other proposals for migrant representation were also circulating among certain immigrant leaders in the U.S. with the goal of achieving immigrant representation in the Mexican legislature.

A Trejo associated campaign company, Battleground Solutions, has this quote from Luz Robles featured prominently on their website:
Every candidate needs consultants that know what they are doing and know how to achieve the ultimate goal of winning.
Battleground Solutions’ professionalism and determination are felt throughout the staff by always meeting their goals. German Trejo is a great strategist. He is able to vision the necessary process to get to the goal.
He is very detailed oriented and is always thinking ahead. His communication skills allow him to keep a team apprised of the processes that are needed in order to achieve the goals the campaign has set forth whether they be short or long term goals.

From the website,, the following is found at the bottom of the "about" page:
In 2009, Trejo ran for Congress in Mexico as an “Immigrant Congressional” candidate (Diputado Migrante), under Mexico’s proportional representation system. Trejo’s candidacy received wide media coverage in Mexico. As a candidate, Trejo exposed the lack of political rights provided by Mexico’s top electoral institutions and political parties to Mexican ex-pats. As a result of these issues raised by Germán Trejo’s campaign, the Human Rights Commission in Mexico issued an official recommendation to the Mexican Government and Mexican political parties to stop violating the political rights of Mexicans living abroad.
In other words, at some point during the 2009 Mexican legislative electoral time-frame, Germán Trejo was himself a candidate for the Mexican Chamber of Deputies (similar to the U.S. House of Representatives).

Why is this significant?

A fair question to ask of Luz Robles is how close she is to Germán Trejo and how compatible are her views to his when it comes to immigrants and illegal aliens in the United States having political representation in a foreign legislature.

Can one legitimately be dedicated to serving the United States while holding the view that a large segment of the population should also be represented in a foreign nation?

Would pursuing political rights in Mexico for immigrants living in the United States serve to help assimilate immigrants to America or serve to make that process much more difficult and conflicted?

Imagine a voting block of immigrants, both legal and illegal, pursuing their political agenda in Mexico of pushing Mexico to advance their agenda in the United States while pushing the United States to cater to their political power.

In broader terms, it seems to be the perfect wedge to attack the sovereignty of the United States in favor of transnational rights and the globalist goal of creating supranational governing structures.

For more information about Luz Robles and the CCIME, please see the links below:

Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Luz Robles' Fizzling Campaign Theme

Thursday night, 9/25/14, Utah State Senator Luz Robles will debate Representative Chris Stewart.

The question is: will she continue her early campaign theme of trying to paint Stewart as an extremist or will she adopt a different tactic?

Her campaign website (, for example, quotes her as saying:

"I think my record speaks for itself in the Legislature. I’m very much in the middle. I focus on issues of veterans, immigration and education that are pertinent to all Americans."

The website then quotes former Utah State Democratic Party Chair (and current state senator), Jim Dabakis:

"Voters, will come to see Stewart as an extremist who doesn't really share Utah values."

Ms. Robles apparently wants us to see her as one of us, as just a regular person, fighting to make Utah and the United States better by removing the extremist, Chris Stewart, from office.

The extremist theme was also used several times in early campaign emails.

For example, in a 10/30/13 email, the campaign threw in these two gems:

"The only way we can see real change is to replace extremists in Congress like Chris Stewart."

"We must have the resources to combat the special interests that support extremists like my opponent who recklessly shut down the government."

A bit later in the year (12/28/13), the campaign threw this into an email:

"Going into the New Year, we must prove that we can keep this pace up in the face of these outside interests and extremists that support our opponent’s Tea Party agenda."

The new year (1/23/14) brought a couple more slams to reinforce the theme:

"My opponent is completely out of touch with what Utahns and the 2nd Congressional District believe are most important."

"We cannot afford 2 more years of an extremist Congressman that supported the government shutdown, cost Utahns over $300M and is completely disconnected from the State and the hard working people of the 2nd Congressional District."

To be honest, I have not seen any Robles campaign emails since March, so I don't know if Ms. Robles has continued with this extremist theme since then or not.

But, if the tone of statements about Mia Love on the Utah State Democratic Party Facebook page is any indication, the theme of labeling opponents as extremists may be a more widespread strategy of the Democrats than the representation of a single campaign's conscious decision to flay an opponent with misleading labels.

It will be interesting, therefore, to see the debate and how Ms. Robles characterizes Rep. Stewart's views and record.

In any event, the move to characterize Rep. Stewart as an extremist appears to be fizzling and a non-starter as we head into the final weeks of the campaign.  

Wednesday, May 7, 2014

A New Book Sheds Light on the Lack of Need for Foreign STEM Workers:

A new book, Falling Behind? Boom, Bust & the Global Race for Scientific Talent by Michael Teitelbaum,  gives us "essential background information regarding our policies about high-tech migrants," according to David North.

Mr. North, writing about the book in a brief review at, also noted:
"The author politely dismisses the claims that there are widespread shortages of STEM workers, but notes with care the strenuous efforts of various interest groups (including Silicon Valley, immigration lawyers, many universities, and the Chamber of Commerce) to make the opposite point. Unfortunately, those voices of authority (and moneyed interests) carried the day on issue after issue..."
Mark Zuckerberg, of Facebook fame, has been busy spending millions trying to bring about a cheap-labor bonanza for Silicon Valley.  Perhaps someone should send him a copy of the book.  Unfortunately, I doubt he would read it - as he clearly has hitched his horse to the moneyed interests and against the American worker.  

Friday, April 18, 2014

Religion, Contention and the Open Mind in the Immigration Debate:

When religion enters into the immigration debate, it can at times become rather contentious.

Jerry Kammer at has written:

"I came to work at the Center for Immigration Studies because I wanted to respond to those who try to shut down the discussion by claiming that those who want to limit immigration are motivated not by legitimate concerns but by bigotry, racism, nativism, and anti-immigrant hostility.

"I want to be part of a well-informed discussion of the complexity and moral ambiguity of the issues involved in shaping immigration policy. I think people on both sides of the debate should take note of this admonition from Jonathan Haidt:
[I]f you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, then you're asking for trouble. This, I believe, is the fundamental blind spot of the left. It explains why liberal reforms so often backfire and why communist revolutions usually end up in despotism. It is the reason I believe that liberalism – which has done so much to bring about freedom and equal opportunity – is not sufficient as a governing philosophy. It tends to overreach, change too many things too quickly, and reduce the stock of moral capital inadvertently. Conversely, while conservatives do a better job of preserving moral capital, they often fail to notice certain classes of victims, fail to limit the predations of certain powerful interests, and fail to see the need to change or update institutions as times change.
"In order to have this discussion, each side must be willing to open our ears and our eyes to the other..."

The article by Kammer is available at:

Jerry Kammer on Religion in the Immigration Debate:

Jerry Kammer published a series of articles about the religious aspect of the illegal immigration debate at recently (see "A Catholic's Dissent from the Bishops' Immigration Policy, Pt. 2").
Below is a citation from the second in his series:

"Yale law professor and immigration scholar Peter Schuck offered this concise explanation in his essay in the 1985 book Clamor at the Gates:
Having ordained an activist welfare state that increasingly defines liberty in terms of positive, government-created legal entitlements to at least a minimum level of individual security and well-being, the nation cannot possibly extend these ever-expanding claims against itself to mankind in general. Instead, it must restrict its primary concerns to those for whom it has undertaken a special political responsibility of protection and nourishment, most particularly those who reside within its territorial jurisdiction. Even this more limited task becomes impossible if masses of destitute people, many ill-equipped to live and work in a postindustrial society, may acquire legally enforceable claims against it merely by reaching its borders.
"I think Father Groody and the Catholic bishops should understand that U.S. immigration policy, like the U.S. Constitution, is not a suicide pact. If they believe, as I do, that we have great responsibilities to assist our society's most vulnerable members, they should not insist on policies that would overwhelm our capacity to fulfill those duties. If they persist in that delusion, they should not be surprised that they will continue to lose credibility among those who dissent from their version of Catholic social teaching."

Part one of the series is at:

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Another View of the Religious Aspect of the Immigration Debate:

"In 1986, as Congress used the commission's recommendations as the framework for Immigration Reform and Control Act, Hesburgh wrote:
I undertook my role as commission chairman by asking: Why should immigration be a problem? Why not let down the barriers and let people move freely? After our two years of study, the question answered itself. It is not enough to sympathize with the aspirations and plight of illegal aliens. We also must consider the consequences of not controlling our borders. What about the aspirations of Americans who must compete for jobs and whose wages and work standards are depressed by the presence of illegal aliens?
Concerns like these receive little or no attention at conferences like the one at Notre Dame. That is my criticism, both of the conference and of the bishops. I believe this lack of interest in – or even awareness of – the concerns of those on the other side of the debate is part of the reason for the current legislative stalemate."