Mediaboss Marketing

In the lead-up to the 2020 elections, the Journalists Resource team is combing through the Democratic presidential candidates platforms and reporting what the research says about their policy proposals. We want to encourage deep coverage of these proposals and do our part to help deterhorse race journalism, which research suggests can lead to inaccurate reporting and an uninformed electorate. Were focusing on proposals that have a reasonable chance of becoming policy, and for us that means at least 3 of the 5top-polling candidates say they intend to tackle the issue. Here we look at research on criminalizing unauthorized U.S. border crossing.

Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Elizabeth Warren, Andrew Yang

Amid calls for immigration reform, some presidential candidates have taken aim at a previously obscure provision within federal law known as Section 1325, which makes it a crime to cross the U.S. border without going through controlled inspection areas. While research provides mixed evidence that the law has discouraged unauthorized immigration, studies document a range of negative consequences for migrants and their children, many of whom were born in the U.S. and are, therefore, citizens.

When Congress adopted Section 1325 in 1929, improper entry by alien became a federal misdemeanor punishable by fine and up to six months in prison for the first offense. A subsequent violation is a felony that carries a possible prison sentence of up to two years.

Most of the top-polling Democratic presidential candidates have said they want to decriminalize improper border crossing. On the other hand, three Democratic candidates Michael Bennet, Joe Biden and John Delaney support keeping Section 1325 on the books. Amy Klobuchar said at an event held at The Washington Post last year that she opposes eliminating border crossing penalties, the Post reported.

Its unclear what position, if any, candidates Michael Bloomberg, Tulsi Gabbard and Deval Patrick have taken on the issue.

Since the law took effect, the federal government has gone through phases of relaxed and aggressive enforcement. Prosecutions of illegal entry rose sharply under President George W. Bush in 2005 and became even more common during President Barack Obamas tenure, according to Syracuse Universitys Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a research center that tracks cases and activity within U.S. immigration courts.

Journalist Roque Planas, who covers immigration for HuffPost, reported last year that, Although the law criminalizing illegal entry was first passed in 1929, the Justice Department only began prioritizing those cases in 2005, as a way to funnel migrants into federal jails in areas that lacked bed space for those detained in the civil system. By the time Barack Obama took office in 2009, immigration prosecutions had skyrocketed to the point that they had overtaken half the federal criminal docket. They continued to take up half the federal criminal caseload through his presidency.

Prosecutions have further increased under President Donald Trump. Section 1325 became the basis for his zero-tolerance immigration policy, announced in 2018 and used to justify separating immigrant children from adult family members who had been charged with violating the law.

The number of improper entry cases filed in U.S. Attorneys Office districts along the southwestern border more than doubled from about 27,000 in fiscal year 2017 to about 62,000 in fiscal year 2018, according to a report the U.S. Government Accountability Office released in December 2019.

The U.S. is not alone in treating unauthorized border crossing as a crime. More than 120 other countries impose criminal sanctions for unauthorized entry, according to an August 2019 report from the Law Library of Congress. In France, for example, individuals who are caught entering the country without permission face spending a year in prison if convicted, the report explains. Meanwhile, in Malaysia, entering the country without a valid entry permit or pass could result in a five-year prison sentence and receiving a whipping of not more than six strokes.

The number of immigrants living in the U.S. without permission has fallen since its peak of 12.2 million in 2007, the Pew Research Center estimates. There were an estimated 10.5 million people living here without authorization in 2017, about 5 million from Mexico, Pew reported in 2019. Almost 2 million were from Central America.

Many of the immigrants who are not supposed to be in the U.S. have called it home for years. About two-thirds of the adults who were living here without authorization in 2017 had been in the country more than a decade, according to Pew.

The U.S., however, removes hundreds of thousands of immigrants a year, a significant portion of whom have prior criminal convictions, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year 2018, the federal government removed 337,287 immigrants, including 149,440 with prior convictions, according to a DHS report published this month. The report does not indicate how many of these individuals had been in the U.S. without authorization. It also does not offer details about the crimes for which they were convicted, including where they were committed.

Of those removed in 2018, 74% of immigrants from South America, 89% of immigrants from Oceania and 43% of immigrants from North America had criminal backgrounds.

The American public appears to have mixed feelings about immigration. While a Gallup poll conducted in June 2019 found that 57% of respondents think immigrants have improved food, music and the arts and 43% believe they have made the economy better, 42% said immigrants have had a negative impact on taxes and the crime situation. More than 60% of Americans who participated in a different Gallup poll in 2006 said unauthorized immigration should be a crime.

When a nationally representative sample of registered voters was asked about illegal immigration in July 2019, 41% said immigrants who cross the border without permission should be subject to criminal prosecution. Thirty-two percent of those who participated in that online poll, from The Hill newspaper and market research and consulting firm HarrisX, said illegal border crossing should carry civil fines, and 27% of respondents were unsure whether either approach is the correct one.

In 2015, the DHS Office of the Inspector General released a report that questions the effectiveness of a federal initiative known as Streamline, which targets individuals who enter the countrys southwestern border without permission and refers them to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.

Operation Streamline, the precursor to the Streamline initiative, was launched in 2005 to deter improper entry and end the Border Patrols longstanding practice of apprehending individuals who were not supposed to be in the U.S. and then releasing them into surrounding U.S. communities until their cases could be heard by an immigration court. Under Streamline, which covers a larger geographical region than Operation Streamline, migrants convicted of illegal border crossing are processed for removal after serving their sentences.

The Border Patrol had claimed that Streamline was a more effective way to curb illegal entry than simply returning migrants to the other side of the border. According to the agencys data, immigrants who had been criminally prosecuted were less likely to try again to cross the border between ports of entry

In fiscal year 2012, for example, 10.3% of immigrants who were criminally prosecuted and removed from the U.S. tried to cross the border again, according to the Inspector Generals report. The following year, 9.26% did. When immigrants who did not have authorization to be here were simply returned to the other side of the border and released, 27.06% tried to cross again in fiscal year 2012, and 28.61% did in fiscal year 2013.

In its report, the Inspector Generals office pointed out that the Border Patrols data did not offer a complete picture because it did not take into account an immigrants attempts to enter the country over multiple years. By the Border Patrols metric, the authors of the report write, an alien attempting to cross the border at the end of a fiscal year and making a second attempt at the beginning of the next fiscal year would not be considered a recidivist.

A study published in 2015 in the Journal on Migration and Human Security also raises questions about whether criminalizing border crossings discourages illegal entry. For the study, researchers examined data gathered during survey interviews with more than 1,100 adult migrants who had been recently returned to Mexico after entering or attempting to enter the U.S. without permission. Researchers discovered that imposing criminal sanctions on illegal entry did not dissuade migrants from making plans to try again. Those who had been prosecuted and returned to Mexico were as likely to say they intended to try again in the future as migrants who were not prosecuted prior to removal.

The researchers write that migrants who have family in the U.S. and consider it home are willing to endure physical hardships and criminal penalties to return. The idea that the cost of migration can be too great, the danger too perilous, and the punishments too harsh to keep people from reuniting with their loved ones needs to be rejected, the researchers write.

A newer study that relies on data from the same survey finds that Mexican migrants who were prosecuted for illegal entry were 47% less likely to say they intended to try again within the next week than migrants who were not prosecuted before their removal. However, the deterrent effect appears to be short-lived, especially among migrants with strong ties to the U.S., the researchers explain in their paper, which appeared in the International Migration Review in 2018.

In fact, despite the threat of a criminal charge, 55% of all the Mexican migrants surveyed said they planned to try to cross again in the future, and another 22% were undecided.

But a 2019 working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that sanctions, including criminal sanctions, imposed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection between 2008 and 2012 did discourage unlawful entry among a group of Mexican nationals. The authors used fingerprint data to track male migrants aged 16 to 50 years old who had been apprehended six or fewer times while attempting to enter the U.S. without permission. The researchers looked at whether these migrants were less likely to try again after facing one or more sanctions.

They found that exposure to penalties reduced the 18-month re-apprehension rate for males by 4.6 to 6.1 percentage points.

While there is conflicting evidence that criminal penalties discourage unauthorized immigration, a growing body of research highlights the negative consequences of criminalizing border crossing for migrants and their families.

In What Part of Illegal Dont You Understand? The Social Consequences of Criminalizing Unauthorized Mexican Migrants in the United States, Daniel E. Martnez of the University of Arizona and Jeremy Slack of the University of Texas at El Paso examine the harms of holding migrants in the same prisons where violent offenders and individuals convicted of human and drug smuggling are serving time.

There, they are exposed to illicit social networks such as drug trafficking organizations and prison gangs, Martnez and Slack write in the journal Social & Legal Studies in 2013.

Policies that systematically criminalize and incarcerate people at high rates, such as Operation Streamline, are exposing economic migrants to criminal networks and certain norms and values that they may have otherwise never been exposed to, they write. They add that prosecuting improper border crossing might deter some migrants from coming to the U.S. while also funneling other migrants into the previously unfamiliar and violent world of drugs and crime.

Numerous studies over the years have documented the hardships faced by many migrant children, including poverty, poor health, inadequate housing and a constant fear that one or more family members will be suddenly deported. In U.S. Immigration Policy and Immigrant Childrens Well-Being: The Impact of Policy Shifts, published in 2011 in the Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, researchers explain how the federal governments more aggressive stance against illegal entry has made childrens lives more difficult.

Workplace raids leave hundreds of children without one or both of their parents within minutes, as undocumented workers are immediately detained, the authors write. Detention in immigration facilities and deportation to Mexico results in significant family disruption. The disruption of undocumented families, when parents are separated from their children, results in increased symptoms of mental health problems among children.

Migrants who are in the U.S. without permission are particularly vulnerable to violence and exploitation, partly because they are afraid to call the police or draw attention to themselves, asserts a study published in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science in 2012. This lack of protection from the criminal justice system makes immigrants particularly attractive targets for victimization, the researchers explain.

Multiple studies find that the federal governments aggressive enforcement practices and the news medias coverage of it have helped shape immigrants views of themselves and how others see them.

Deisy Del Real of the University of Southern California explains in Immigration and Health that many Americans conflate Mexican origin with undocumented immigrant. She conducted in-depth interviews with 52 young adults in California who were either Mexican American or immigrants who came to the U.S. from Mexico without permission. She found that almost all of them had experienced social rejection and discrimination when others assumed they were unauthorized or discovered they were.

In the resulting paper, published in 2019, Del Real notes that one young woman told her that strangers, children, and coworkers regularly reminded her that undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. are as valuable as trash. Del Real concludes that so-called Mexican illegality stigma is especially harmful for undocumented young adults because it deteriorates their self-regard, sense of control over their lives, and financial stability that can disrupt their transitions into parenthood and the workforce.

When Joanna Dreby of the University at Albany, State University of New York interviewed 110 children of Mexican immigrants living in Ohio and New Jersey, she learned that they also associated immigration with illegality, regardless of their familys legal status.

With news programs highlighting the worst case scenarios of families caught up in enforcement politics, children in Mexican immigrant families believe that all immigrant families are at risk, Dreby writes in a paper published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in 2012. Misunderstandings about immigration and their immigrant heritage are perhaps the most devastating effect of the threat of deportability on children and childrens identity.

Why Border Enforcement BackfiredDouglas S. Massey, Jorge Durand and Karen A. Pren. American Journal of Sociology, 2016.

The gist: The authors show how border militarization affected the behavior of unauthorized migrants and border outcomes to transform undocumented Mexican migration from a circular flow of male workers going to three states into an 11 million person population of settled families living in 50 states.

Remittances: Background and Issues for CongressMartin A. Weiss. Report from the Congressional Research Service, Updated 2019.

The gist: This report focuses on remittances, transfers of money and capital sent by migrants and foreign immigrant communities to their home country The United States is the destination for the most international migrants and is by far the largest source of global remittances.

Unauthorized Aliens in the United States: Policy DiscussionAndorra Bruno, Report from the Congressional Research Service, 2014.

The gist: How to address the unauthorized immigrant population remains a key point of disagreement in discussions about immigration reform legislation. It remains to be seen in the current environment if agreement can be reached on the unauthorized immigrant issue whether on a legalization-focused strategy that involves establishing new adjustment of status mechanisms and/or amending current law, or on a primarily departure-based approach, or on some combination of the two.

Leisy J. Abrego, professor in Chicana/o studies, UCLA.

Mathew Coleman, professor of geography, The Ohio State University.

Deisy Del Real, postdoctoral fellow, University of Southern California.

Joanna Dreby, associate professor of sociology, University at Albany, State University of New York.

Daniel E. Martnez, assistant professor of sociology, University of Arizona.

Ricardo D. Martnez-Schuldt, assistant professor of sociology, University of Notre Dame.

Douglas S. Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Princeton University.

Cecilia Menjvar, Foundation Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas.

Victor Romero, professor of law, Penn State Law.

Jeremy Slack, assistant professor of geography, University of Texas, El Paso.

Maria-Elena Young, research scientist, UCLA Center for Health Policy Research.

See more here:
Decriminalizing unauthorized border crossing: What the research says - Journalist's Resource

NASHUA The question on everyones mind is, Did Deval Patrick enter the race too late?

The former two-term Massachusetts governor, who joined the Democratic primary field in mid-November, spoke one-on-one with The Telegraph on Jan. 22, and dismissed the notion that he is too late for the party.

It may not be a question of when, but rather why hes entered the race.

I noticed with Democrats, we tend to focus on the how and not the why, he said. Ive been worried since 2016. I had, perhaps, a nave hope that gravity of the office would impose itself on (President Donald Trump) and he wouldnt be quite as bad. But in fact, hes worse.

Patrick said that many voters find it distressing to see Trump at the helm.

Increasingly, like many others, I have felt that the democracy wouldnt survive another four years, he said. But to me, its not just the process of order of our democracy. Its the character of the country, that we would permit this. I dont believe that all the people who voted for Trump are haters. I think its a mistake to talk about them that way. Theres just a lot of folks who feel unseen and unheard.

Patrick has been polling at close to 0%. But the resilient candidate recognizes the talent pool of Democrats seeking the nomination, and still sees a path for himself.

Patricks plan has been to integrate smaller groups not just the large crowds and connect with voters in more intimate settings, such as the one on Wednesday afternoon at the Unitarian Church in Nashua.

This is about how we see ourselves as a community, he said. People are feeling unseen and unheard in a lot of places right now. But if we could speak to that, not only would it be a winning message, but it would actually be an opportunity to unite us. And in some ways, reinvent us, which we do in this country every once in a while.

Patrick said hes spoken with other Democratic candidates. The campaign staff who lead their candidate often needle the man or woman, saying they need to be this, or they need to be that. Patrick said hes only talking about who he is.

I said, I can do this,' he said. I got encouragement from a lot of people, including some of other people who are in the race now. But I feel that message is still missing. That approach, not just in politicking but the governing is still missing. And at the risk of rupturing some relationships I had, I decided to get in anyway.

Trump supporters are known for their passion. So, when asked if he can convince Trump supporters to reconsider their vote, Patrick made note that much of the frustration that Trump supporters have is carefully cultivated.

Frankly, the notion that the president, any president, would undertake to govern only the people who voted for him or her, is deeply troubling, Patrick said. And deeply disabling of our democracy. But to be clear, I dont see people in categories.

Patrick said he would talk to anybody. Anybody.

There are more unenrolled independents in Massachusetts than there are registered Democrats and Republicans combined, he continued. People arent buying 100% of what either party is selling. But its their government, too. Its their civic life.

Patrick recalled an episode in Newmarket, where a young man asked him about his interest in banning assault rifles. He was a U.S. Marine and learned how to take care of his weapon.

Its a weapon of war and it belongs on the battlefield, not in neighborhoods, Patrick said. Whats next, do you want a tank? And someone later pointed out that even Marines cant even walk around with their M-16s on the base. But I wasnt trying to belittle him. It turns out, that he was there on red flag laws, closing gun show loopholes, national registration, background checks.

Patrick said that he and the young man reached a commonality, something that Patrick strives for his approach to campaigning. He also said he recognizes his appeal, how ever small or large, that he has from those voters who appreciate his time governing the Commonwealth.

Its been nice, he said. Ive met folks who live in southern New Hampshire and work in Massachusetts, he said. Ive met a bunch of folks who have retired here from Massachusetts. Campaigning is a grind, but its a wonder.

Later, Patrick spoke to members and visitors of the Unitarian Universal Church on Lowell Street in Nashua. Topics included immigration.

What I hate about politics, is that we treat these things as if you cant have one without the other, he said. These are false choices. You cant immigration reform without having open borders. An ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agency that is demilitarized and that is behaving in a way that doesnt demean and dehumanize people in order to enforce the law, is absolutely essential. And I think we do need comprehensive immigration reform, which includes bringing 11 million out of the shadows and into mainstream life.

Patrick said the current administration wants the issues, not the solution.

Continued here:
Former Mass. Gov. Patrick: 'It's about the character of the country' | News, Sports, Jobs - Cabinet.com

The new Coronavirus out of China could turn into a pandemic. Thom Hartmann wonders what that would mean for the United States as one of the only countries in the developed world without a national healthcare structure. Americans could face the worst of it. How prepared are we?

The Thom Hartmann Program covers diverse topics including immigration reform, government intrusion, privacy, foreign policy, and domestic issues.

More people listen to or watch the TH program than any other progressive talk show in the world! Join them.

The Thom Hartmann Program is on Free Speech TV every weekday from 12-3 pm EST.

Missed an episode? Check out TH on FSTV VOD anytime or visit the show page for the latest clips.

#FreeSpeechTV is one of the last standing national, independent news networks committed to advancing progressive social change.

#FSTV is available on Dish, DirectTV, AppleTV, Roku, Sling, and online at freespeech.org.

China Coronavirus Healthcare Pandemic The Thom Hartmann Program Thom Hartmann Program Universal Healthare

See more here:
Coronavirus: The Virus That Can Become a Pandemic - Free Speech TV

HOLLAND Each year, a local organization recognizes high school members for accomplishments as students and community members.

The Boys & Girls Club of Greater Holland honors one local student for excellence in academic success, good character and citizenship and healthy lifestyles. The group will announce its 2020 Youth of the Year during a ceremony from 6:30-8 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 27, at Midtown Center, 96 W. 15th St. in Holland.

The nominees for the award are Conner McBride, Esli Mendoza, Fredy Rincon Perez, Ebony Roach, Julissa Salcedo and Janelly Vazquez. All six nominees are students at West Ottawa High School.

Youth of the Year is a national program by Boys & Girls Club. High school members of local chapters are nominated for achievements in the clubs core program areas. After nomination, students write essays, give speeches and are interviewed by community members and judges.

This year marks the 25th anniversary for Youth of the Year. Boys & Girls Club of Greater Holland will celebrate the anniversary and alumni during the Feb. 27 presentation.

During the ceremony, the nominees will read their speeches in front of friends, family and community members before the announcement of the Youth of the Year winner.

The local winner of Youth of the Year will compete for a statewide honor and has the potential to make regional and/or national competitions as well.

Last month, West Ottawa Public Schools posted short bios about each finalist on its Facebook page.

McBride is a junior at WOHS and is a member of the schools marching band. In the future, he would like to work as an accountant or a teacher.

Mendoza, a senior, participates in book club, art club, West Ottawa Renaissance, Raise Your Voice, Student Senate, National Art Honor Society, Pals, Links, Student Advisory Council and Path Finders.

Perez, a junior, participates in Spanish Club and baseball at WOHS. He is an aspiring architect.

Roach is also a junior at WOHS. She participates in National Honors Society, West Ottawa Renaissance, Chamber Orchestra and helping with school musicals.

Salcedo is the youngest nominee this year as a freshman. She has been a Boys & Girls Club member for six years and hopes to one day work in the criminal justice system.

Vasquez is a junior who would like to work in immigration reform in the future. Currently, she is involved with debate club, Links, and the Student Leadership Group at WOHS.

Contact reporter Mitchell Boatman at mboatman@hollandsentinel.com. Follow him on Twitter @SentinelMitch.

Originally posted here:
Youth of the Year to be named next month - HollandSentinel.com

A Lonsdale pastor has apologized after remarks he made about Muslim immigration and Islam being the greatest threat in the world sparked controversy.

My homily on immigration contained words that were hurtful to Muslims. Im sorry for this, said Father Nick VanDenBroeke, pastor of Immaculate Conception in Lonsdale, in a Jan. 29 statement. I realize now that my comments were not fully reflective of the Catholic Churchs teaching on Islam.

In a homily Father VanDenBroeke gave Jan. 5, the feast of the Epiphany and, in Minnesota, Immigration Sunday, he acknowledged the complexity of immigration as a political issue and that the Bible challenges Catholics to welcome strangers.

Father Nick VanDenBroeke

He said that the U.S. should welcome people who are suffering and in need into the country, and noted that the U.S. has reached a 40-year low in the number of refugees it accepts at a time when the displacement of people has never been greater due to war and poverty. He also spoke in support of a path of citizenship for dreamers, or young people who were brought into the county illegally as young people, as well as other undocumented immigrants who are already in the country.

We need to look at the facts that there are a lot of hurting people around the world, and we need to help them,he said in the 15-minute homily. Our Catholic faith challenges us to say, What are we doing to reach out and help? Its so easy for us to sit back and be comfortable Americans who simply dont care.

Then he said that immigrants religion and worldview should be taken into consideration when the country decides whom to admit.

Both as Americans and as Christians, we do not need to pretend that everyone who seeks to enter America should be treated the same, he said. I believe its essential to consider the religion and worldview of the immigrants and refugees. More specifically, we should not be allowing large numbers of Muslims asylum or immigration into our country. Islam is the greatest threat in the world, both to Christianity and to America.

He continued: Of course there are peaceful Muslims, absolutely, but the religion as a religion, and an ideology and a worldview, it is contrary to Christ and to America. I am not saying we hate Muslims. I am absolutely not saying that. They are people created out of love by God just as each one of us is. But while we certainly do not hate them as people, we must oppose their religion and worldview. And if we want to protect our great country not only as a Christian nation, but also as the land of the free, then we must oppose the immigration of Muslims. Thats an example of keeping bad ideas out of the country that we have the right to do as a sovereign nation.

A recording of the homily was posted on Immaculate Conceptions website. It drew the attention of City Pages, the Twin Cities alternative newsweekly, which posted a story to its website Jan. 29. The Minnesota chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations called for the Minnesota Catholic Conference to repudiate his comments.

In aJan. 29 statement, Archbishop Bernard Hebda said he spoke with Father VanDenBroeke about the homily and he has expressed sorrow for his words and an openness to seeing more clearly the Churchs position on our relationship with Islam.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is clear, Archbishop Hebda said, pointing to several sources. As Pope Benedict XVI noted, The Catholic Church, in fidelity to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, looks with esteem to Muslims, who worship God above all by prayer, almsgiving and fasting, revere Jesus as a prophet while not acknowledging his divinity, and honor Mary, his Virgin Mother. He called upon the Church to persist in esteem for Muslims, who worship God who is one, living and subsistent; merciful and almighty, the creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to humanity.

Continuing to quote Pope Benedict XVI, he said, If all of us who believe in God desire to promote reconciliation, justice and peace, we must work together to banish every form of discrimination, intolerance and religious fundamentalism.

That continues to be our teaching today, Archbishop Hebda said. Pope Francis has echoed Pope Benedict, stating that it is important to intensify the dialogue between Catholics and Islam. He has emphasized the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslim, and the need for it to be enhanced. He has called for all Christians and Muslims to be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Archbishop Hebda said that he is grateful for the many examples of friendship that have been offered by the Muslim community in our region and we are committed to strengthening the relationship between the two communities.

While the Catholic Church and Islam have had a fraught relationship historically, contemporary Church teaching has repeatedly expressed esteem for Muslim people.

The 1965 Second Vatican Council document Nostra Aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, states the Church has high regard for the Muslims.

The document notes that in history, many quarrels and dissensions have arisen between Christians and Muslims.

However, The sacred Council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all men, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.

It says the Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any discrimination against people or any harassment of them on the basis of their race, color, condition in life or religion.

Other Church documents and Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have spoken positively of Islam and Muslims and their desire that they and Christians share mutual respect.

Minnesotas Catholic bishops declared the first Sunday in January Immigration Sunday in 2009. In 2012, they released a joint statement calling for federal immigration reform.

Catholic teaching also recognizes the sovereignty of nations to secure their borders and make decisions about the identity and number of immigrants they allow into their countries, stated that document, Unlocking the Gates of our Hearts.

Our government has the duty to consider immigrations impact on the domestic economy and our national security, they stated. Yet, we must always make sure that we are not exaggerating these concerns in ways that deny the basic humanitarian needs of good people seeking refuge in our country.

Tags: Father Nick VanDenBroeke, Immigration, Islam, Muslim, Nostra Aetate, VanDenBroeke

Category: Local News

Originally posted here:
Lonsdale pastor apologizes for 'words that were hurtful to Muslims' - The Catholic Spirit