Debunking Cardinal O’Malley’s Position on Illegal Immigration

In the wake of President Donald Trump’s two recent Executive Orders to limit immigration from terror-associated countries, last week Cardinal Sean O’Malley sent a letter to parishes underscoring the church’s support for immigrants and refugees. The previous week, on Feb 2, he convened a private meeting of top politicians and Muslim l
eaders at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross to express solidarity with Muslims. BCI thinks it’s high time for Cardinal O’Malley to quit making emotional arguments and accept facts and reality.

He said, “Although many Americans are frustrated by a broken immigration system and others are fearful of the threat of terrorism…I believe that most people in this country recognize that we are a nation of immigrants and that we have an established history of assimilating people of different languages, religions, ethnicities into the magnificent mosaic that is America.”

We have a history of doing this–when the people want or wanted to adopt the core values of America, which was founded as a Christian nation. What should be done for immigrants whose intentions are evil?  Cardinal O’Malley implies we should just let them all in anyway.  He needs to look at the facts.

• According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 72 terrorists have come to the U.S. from the countries covered in the Trump travel ban since 9/11.
• In 2016, the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest released a report on individuals convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases since 9/11 were foreign-born
• 2,996 Americans were killed by Radical Islamists in the 9/11 attacks.
• Since 9/11, an additional 145 Americans have been killed in 50 separate acts of deadly Islamic terror or Islam-related honor killing in the United States.  They are described in detail in this article and inventoried in this article.  Hundreds of mass murder plots have been thwarted or botched.
• Illegal immigrants pose a danger on the roads: About 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance or even the ability to read road signs written in English, The New York Times reported. In Arizona, 63 percent of cited drivers have no license, no insurance, and no registration for the vehicle, and 97 percent of them are illegal aliens. According to this article, of the 188,380 deportations of illegal aliens in one recent year, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses, primarily driving under the influence. Rep. Steve King of Iowa has estimated that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day.
• Many immigrants entering the country illegally have a criminal record in the U.S.: In 2010, the Border Patrol reported that 212,000 illegals were caught in the Tucson, Ariz., sector alone, and as many as 30 percent of them already had a criminal record in the U.S.
• Many illegal alien convicts have been arrested multiple times: A Government Accountability Office study of 55,000 illegal aliens found that they were arrested at least 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per alien. About one-quarter of them had 11 or more arrests.
• In this recent piece by a former Muslim refugee, “Trump’s Immigration Ban Was Clumsy But He’s Right About Radical Islam” the author cites Pew research data in support of the ban.  “In a survey of Muslims who believe Sharia law should be official national law in their country, three-quarters of Pakistanis and almost half of Bangladeshis and Iraqis think that those, like me, who leave Islam should suffer the death penalty. More than 80 percent of Muslims in Pakistan and around two-thirds of Muslims in Bangladesh and Iraq regard Sharia law as the revealed word of God. Only tiny fractions would be comfortable if their daughters married Christians. Only a minority regards honor killings of women as “never justified.” More than a quarter of Bangladeshi Muslims, 13 percent of Pakistani Muslims and 7 percent of Iraqi Muslims think suicide bombings in defense of Islam are often or sometimes justified.
  

  People with views such as these pose a threat to us all, not because those who hold them will all turn to terrorism. Most will not. But such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

Pewsitter has written an open letter to the USCCB on Immigration with 5 questions for bishops who support illegal immigration, including the following:

• Does the leader of a country have the right to prudentially limit immigration to that country?
• If so, is it not Mr. Trump’s duty as President of the U.S. to make a prudential judgment as to what is an appropriate restriction? If, as Cardinal DiNardo and Archbishop Gomez have specifically noted, we must “screen vigilantly for infiltrators who would do us harm”, what about his order is problematic, and upon what moral reasoning?
• Another frequently condemned item is the building of a wall on the southern border. An explanation of why such a wall is immoral would be helpful. The doors of our churches have locks, some of them have fences around them, and even part of the Vatican has walls. Jesus spoke of thieves coming in the night, and of the owner who would have taken precautions against housebreaking. Is the building of any wall on the border of any country morally wrong, or merely prudentially ill-advised?
• During the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century, millions of immigrants came to the United States via Ellis Island. At this time, American immigration restrictions were very tight: immigrants were subjected to health inspections, questions about their beliefs, and their job prospects; some went before a board to answer more detailed questions, while others were held in detention, or quarantine. Would the bishops disagree with imposing such requirements on today’s immigrants?

Cardinal O’Malley, how would you respond to these questions and the factual data?  Just let everyone in because it feels good to be nice guys?