Bloody Hands.

Consistent with their strong Christian values, the good sisters of the Benedictine Sisters of Virginia pray that the tragic death of Sister Denise Mosier does not become "politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda".

In a statement from August 3, 2010, the nuns ask that we "re-focus [our] attention on the consequences of drinking and driving, and on Christ’s command to forgive."

Of course, it is right and proper that we do that.

However, in two articles [Nun's death rallies anti-immigration forces and Forgiven enough] it is implied that by receiving the nun's forgiveness the young, illegal immigrant responsible for the death of Sister Mosier should escape deportation. There is nothing in the nuns' statement that would suggest that Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano, 23, should not "experience the consequences of his decisions through our justice system."

One women is dead and two more are in critical condition because of Martinelly-Montano's decision to get behind the wheel of an automobile after drinking heavily.

As Corey Stewart, chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors points out, there is certainly more than enough blame to go around. Stewart issued a statement saying that President Barack Obama, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and members of Congress "all have blood on their hands."

If convicted, this will not be Martinelly-Montano's first drunken driving conviction. There have been two before - one in 2007 and another in 2008. Had the authorities deported Martinelly-Montano after his first conviction (as they should have; he is here illegally, after all) Sister Mosier would be alive today.

Martinelly-Montano's family may very well believe that "He had a bad drinking problem, but he's a good man," but that belief really changes nothing. According to a Washington Post article,

"The family entered the United States illegally in 1996, when their oldest son was 8, they said, and spent more than a decade as undocumented immigrants. In 2007, the parents, their daughter and their oldest son got work permits from the Department of Homeland Security, they said, even though they had been in the country illegally. Anthony Guerrieri, a spokesman for the temporary employment agency that hired Martinelly-Montano in April, said in an e-mail that the suspect 'successfully cleared the . . . employment verification process and upon hire, was eligible for employment in the U.S.' "

The system is broken and innocent people are suffering and dying because of government officials bowing down to goddess of political correctness.

Bishops Praise Court Injunction on Arizona Law.

Four Roman Catholic Bishops, from dioceses in states bordering Mexico, have issued a joint statement praising U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton's temporary injunction of certain portions of Arizona's recently enacted immigration law (SB 1070).

The four signatories of the letter are - (pictured, from top to bottom) Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico,Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix,Auxiliary Bishop Eduardo Nevares of Phoenix and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, Arizona.

The letter begins;

"We, the Roman Catholic Bishops in Arizona, commend Judge Susan Bolton for enjoining some of the more problematic provisions of SB 1070."

I have to ask the four Bishops, just what exactly are the more problematic provisions of SB 1070? That question is not addressed in their letter.The law gives Arizona's law enforcement officers the authority to enforce Federal statutes already on the books - which are, sadly, not being enforced by the Federal authorities. What portions of the law, I dare ask, are contrary to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

They write;

"As bishops in our respective dioceses, we know that in practically every parish there are families that have been living with the fear and anxiety generated by SB 1070 that they might be torn apart. The situation of these families might be that one parent is a citizen and that the other is not in our country legally. Or, the situation might be that some children in the family are citizens and that a brother or sister is not here legally."

Ironically, this follows a few sentences later;

"Illegal immigration is bad for our nation. It is not good for us to not know who is entering our country."

If, as they say, illegal immigration is bad for the nation, why aren't we allowed to enforce our immigration laws? I understand that some families may be "living with fear and the anxiety" of the possibility of some family members being deported but, we're talking about people who have thumbed their noses at the legal immigration process and now we are expected to continue to look the other way.

You suggest a process for persons who have entered our country illegally to pursue legal status. This process, you assure us, must not be amnesty. It isn't amnesty, we're told, if there are "proportionate consequences".

What are these "proportionate consequences"?

Paying fines, learning English, and going to the "back of the line" to seek citizenship.

How does one determine the proper amount for a fine? Will it be as high as the fees that legal immigrants must pay for visas, change of status applications, applications for permanent residency and the application for citizenship? Many of these illegal aliens entered the country illegally because they could not afford to pay for the initial applications. Many would now be "living with the fear and anxiety generated by" the inability to pay the fine. Are they then to be deported or will they be given another "free pass"?

"Our nation needs a program that would allow needed workers to enter the country legally. This program must include protection of worker rights."

In these days of 10% (and higher) unemployment rates, do we really need an influx of more immigrants willing to work for substandard wages?

"The tragic consequences of the failure of our nation's political leadership to enact reform of our immigration system have included the deaths of thousands of people.
Migrants -- women, men, children in desperate circumstances -- have died trying to enter our country. U.S. citizens have died because of crimes committed by drug smugglers, people smugglers and weapons smugglers."

Sorry, but no; the tragic consequences you mention are not the result of our political leadership's failure to enact reform of our immigration system - they are rather the result of our political leadership's failure to enforce the laws we already have.

To read the Bishop's letter as published on the zenit.org website go to Bishops on Injunction of Parts of Arizona Law.

Forty Days in the Desert.

Since June 13 of this year, a group has gathered at the corner of Roeser Road and Central Avenue in Phoenix, Arizona to pray the Rosary as part of a campaign called "Forty Days in the Desert".

According to the website arizona1070families.com, the purpose of the Rosary is to "develop a solution for the Arizona and National Immigration Debate".

Unfortunately, it seems as if these people are praying that the Blessed Mother will support them in their law breaking. Their "solution" would be for those now classified as illegals be granted amnesty. One need only read the notes on the group's Facebook page to see what solutions suit them.

In the notes for July,11 the 29th day of the Rosary, there is this regarding Arizona's governor Jan Brewer,
"Governor Brewer, please do not let your legacy be the extreme end of the immigration debate. You have the momentum to use your words and your actions to help shape immigration on a national level. Immigration reform must not be used to punish families. Please, do not let people remember you as the Anti-Mexican Governor; we know you are better than all this rhetoric."

So, enforcing Federal Immigration law is "the extreme end of the immigration debate". Brewer is called "the Anti-Mexican Governor" because she is against illegal immigration. It goes on "we know you are better than all this rhetoric". Sadly, if anyone is spouting rhetoric, it's the "Forty Days in the Desert" group.

The recurring theme of the group's postings is "FAMILIES MUST NEVER BE SEPARATED. Not by policy, politics or punishment!"
These families are separated because someone in the family choose to break U.S. immigration law by entering the country illegally. I wonder why this very same group hasn't prayed that the Mexican government improve the lives of it's citizens so they each person living in that country can take care of his or her family in the country of their birth. It appears that it is the policy of the Mexican government to get as many people as possible into the United States by whatever means necessary. That is the "easiest" solution for that government, though it can hardly be called the best solution for the people of Mexico or the United States.

Shirley Tan

Normally, when reading a news report brings questions to mind, further research on the particular subject of the news report can bring about an enlightenment of sorts - questions are answered.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the case with the story of Shirley Tan and Jay Mercado. It was in the video posted below that I first learned of the lesbian couple. Both women were born in Philippines; Mercado is a U.S. citizen -Tan is not. As it turns out, Tan faces the very real possibility of deportation.

After watching the video ( found on restorefairness.org) I did a Google search on the couple and came upon an article in the Huffington Post and Tan's June 3, 2009 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. These two sources left me with more questions than answers.

The couple met and subsequently fell in love after Tan was brought to the United States by her father on a tourist visa more than twenty years ago. As Tan tells her story, she returned to Philippines after her visa expired and continued her "relationship" with Mercado via long distance phone calls.

At some point, Tan reentered the U.S.; eventually applying for asylum in 1995. Although Mercado was an American citizen, being lesbian, she could not petition Tan on a fiancee or marriage visa.
According to Tan, she was unaware that her application had been denied and that a deportation letter was sent in 2002 until her arrest in January, 2009.

Due to the efforts of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Tan's deportation has been put on hold until 2011.

According to Tan's testimony, she and Mercado have been in this relationship for 23 years. Tan gave birth to twins 12 years ago.....no mention in the testimony as to the identity of the boys' father; obviously, it isn't her partner. Under what circumstances did Tan become pregnant? This may not seem relevant to her immigration status, but I bring this up because of parts of her testimony before the Senate.

In order to come across as simply a typical, loving family, Tan mentioned the family's involvement in their local parish, Good Shepard Catholic Church in Pacifica, California. Tan, also, makes mention of the fact that she is an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in her church. This is the question I have after reading Tan's account; how can a woman in an active lesbian relationship (the two were "married" in California) - particularly one who became pregnant in a most un-Catholic way - become an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

No doubt, Tan and Mercado will continue to use Progressives, such as Feinstein, to bypass the law and remain in the U.S.. She may escape deportation from this country though I cannot understand how she can continue to avoid "deportation" from the Catholic Church.

Two Moms Fight to Stay Together from Breakthrough on Vimeo.

Archbishop Charles Chaput on Immigration.

As a devout Catholic, I find that, whatever the issue, Denver's archbishop, Charles Chaput usually finds the most sensible solution to any particular problem or controversy. Reading his May 05, 2010 column in the Denver Catholic Register, I believe the Archbishop hits the proverbial nail on the head regarding illegal immigration.

In the above mentioned column, Chaput makes three salient observations;

"First, illegal immigration is wrong and dangerous for everyone involved. There’s nothing “good” about people risking their lives for the mere purpose of entering the United States. There’s nothing “good” about our nation not knowing who crosses our borders and why they’re here, especially in an age of terrorism, drugs and organized violent crime. There’s nothing “good” about people living in the shadows; or families being separated; or decent people being deported and having to start their lives all over again, sometimes in a country that they no longer—or never did—know.

Second, the new Arizona law, despite its flaws, does unintentionally accomplish one good thing. Thanks to Arizona, the urgency of immigration reform and the human issues that underlie it—deported breadwinners; divided families; the anxiety of children who grew up here but do not have citizenship—once again have moved to the front burner of our national discussions. Our current immigration system is now obviously broken. Congress needs to act.

Third, no credible immigration reform will occur if the effort becomes an exercise in partisan maneuvering. Both of our major political parties got our country into our current immigration mess. Both parties bear responsibility for fixing it. Neither will solve it alone. Unfortunately, the recent national health-care debate compromised public confidence in some of our key federal lawmakers. Having pushed through a deeply flawed national health-care bill in the face of serious concerns and widespread public displeasure, Congress now faces an equally hard task with an equally volatile issue. This will require a transparency, patience, spirit of compromise and bipartisanship rarely seen in Washington in the best of seasons, and too often completely missing in the recent health-care debate."

All of us, Catholic and non-Catholic as well, can learn quite a bit from the Archbishop's measured approach. Unfortunately, our country lacks a political leader with similar wisdom.