We'll now begin with the analysis of the MCC's flyer, so I'd suggest that you have the pdf open in another window as we go through this. Since this will be rather long, I'll put a jump break before it starts. At the end, I will suggest another action step that we can take in the wake of any future "efforts" on behalf of the DREAM Act.
First, by way of background, most are aware that state and community colleges are funded, in part, by the tax dollars paid by residents of that locality. Thus, the University of Maryland is funded by state tax dollars. Montgomery College is funded in part by tax dollars received from residents of Montgomery County. That is why residents are offered discounted rates - because the residents have already paid tax dollars to support those educational institutions. I may be incorrect on this point, but I do believe these institutions also receive Federal monies - which of course would come out of Federal income taxes paid by all US taxpayers.
With that said, I am not terribly impressed to hear that the illegal aliens would have to be taxpayers for a grand total of only three years. They most likely would have been paying all taxes, including Federal, for that long, too. They simply would not have been paying into the system as long as any other legal taxpayer - including those from other states. I'm also not exactly certain just how an illegal alien would pay taxes, since presumably they would not have valid Social Security numbers: that is, taxpayer numbers. If anyone knows the answer to that, please advise. I think that answers Point 5 of the flyer.
Let's jump to Point 3 of the MCC flyer. It says, "our starting point in deciding how society should treat an individual is not their legal status, but rather their human dignity." Well, that's fine - but cannot the same be said about anyone, from the dangerous rapist to the unborn child in the womb?
It goes on to rehearse the history of European immigration during the last two centuries, a rehearsal that takes the opportunity to take a pot-shot at the current immigration process. I'm sure it is problematic, but right now it is what it is. There is no excuse for circumventing the process, anymore than there would have been excuse for our ancestors circumventing the process of their day. Whether or not any of them did many years ago has no bearing on today's situation, for the wrongdoings (real or imagined) of our ancestors offer no justification for the wrong-doing of today's illegal aliens. I will say this though. While they came with hope for a brighter future, they did not come with expectations of governmental handouts. By and large, they didn't receive them.
I'd like to step back to that first sentence that speaks of how society should treat individuals. Here we see an all-too-common error of the progressives that have infiltrated the church hierarchy and its social justice arms. The words "government" and "society" are not interchangeable, but the progressive elements treat them as such, totally disregarding the principle of subsidiarity as set forth by Pope Leo XIII and expounded upon by Blessed John Paul II.
Let's move on to Point 4. The real answer to that question is "yes". Notice how they try to dance around the issue by:
- Attempting a reply in the negative and throwing in a bunch of points not addressed in the DREAM Act
- Using the word "harshly" in a thinly-veiled attempt to villify opponents of the DREAM Act (Shame on you MCC! You ain't gettin' away with this! Naughty, naughty!)
Let's look at Point 6. If you needed some comic relief in this discussion, here it is. The answer to this question should be a straight "yes" or a straight "no", with reasons to follow. Nowhere in all that verbal tap dance of an answer do I see either of those two simple words! On second thought, maybe it's not so much "comic relief" as it is an insult to the intelligence of every Catholic reading it.
With all the convoluted gobbly-goop that they call an answer, they really do admit that they know damned well that the DREAM Act is unconstitutional on its face - Supreme Court dereliction of duty notwithstanding. But in all fairness, disregard for the US Constitution has been going on for some time now - and such disregard is a bi-partisan failure.
Point 7 should really be reworded, since "Maryland" is really the taxpaying citizen in Maryland. So Maryland citizens, the question, if it is to be an honest question, should really be "Can you afford this new law?" How many of you are finding it harder to make ends meet? How many of us have seen our cost of living rise? How many of us will now struggle to put our own children through college? In October, the MD legislature will meet to discuss redistricting. Governor O'Malley, who blithely signed the DREAM Act, stated that this session could discuss tax increases to meet the $1 billion budget deficit. Can we afford this new law? NO!
My personal opinion of the DREAM Act should be obvious by now. Of course that is how I will vote. Unlike the progressives who control the various Catholic Conferences like puppeteers control their puppets, I do acknowledge that other good faithful Catholics can have different opinions on this matter in all good conscience and sincerety. To that end, I protest this DREAM Act push as an unjustified impingement upon the consciences of good Catholics. Better to reserve such stance for issues involving intrinsic evils such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.
ACTIONS WE CAN TAKE
While the bulletin insert was relatively innocuous, we can be certain that there will be additional "educational efforts" between now and November 2012. So what can we do?
- I remind you of the Defend Life article from yesterday's post. Pass it around, particularly if you want to counter-act the insert. You might do the same with this blog post.
- If you hear "passage of the DREAM Act" as an intention of the Prayers of the Faithful, you can refrain from the "amen". Moreover, you could utter the word "no" if the response is "amen". If the response is "Lord hear our prayer", you might say the word "anathema". To borrow well-known slogan from former First Lady Nancy Reagan, we can call this action a "just say no" campaign! You will need to listen closely at Mass and be prepared. I don't think we'll have any warning in the future.
- If you are so unfortunate to sit through a brain-washing attempt disguised as a homily, you do not want to do anything to add further insult to Holy Mass. Make sure to address the matter afterwards with the homilist. Do so in front of others; remember, abuse of Holy Mass is not a private matter so it shouldn't be handled in a hush-hush manner.
- Please advise, via the comments, of any developments in your parishes, making sure to give date, place, details etc so that we can remedy the matter if possible.
- If anyone gets scuttlebut of any hierarchal efforts, please advise so that we can all prepare.