The law is not draconian.  It simply allows the state to enforce existing federal law.

[1] I agree - for some, it appears that any restriction on immigration is ‘draconian,’ while ‘immigration reform’ means open borders. 

“The law does not give police any new basis to stop and detain someone. Police may not inquire into immigration status unless they have a “lawful” basis for stopping the person in the first place. And even then, the police officer must have “reasonable suspicion” before attempting to determine whether the person is lawfully present. And that suspicion must be generated by something beyond race and ethnicity… the law expressly says these may not be the sole factors.”

From here.

3, you hit on a critical point.  What is actually meant by “immigration reform”?  As is usual liberals throw undefined terms around in a deliberate strategy of deception.  I think you are correct that what they mean by “immigration reform” is in fact open borders and unrestricted entry into the United States (and new voters who will of course vote Democratic).

Good police work involves profiling. Certain neighborhoods and folks are watched more closely than others.  I hope air marshalls know this. This is pure politics.

I must say, and I do so as a Catholic, that the Bishops are being extremely charitable to those American citizens who are retired or, like myself, nearing full retirement age. Our only hope for retaining any sort of meaningful Social Security benefits worthy of being discussed is that the U.S. will be supplied with a sufficiency of illegal immigrants who will pay into the system under false documentation, and therefore help to sacrificially fund the system for those of us whose U.S. citizenship is legally valid (whether native born or naturalized).

Nothing but good old enlightened self-interest on my part, wouldn’t you say? 

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Perhaps the good bishops should read Romans 13.  The law does not seek to stop immigration.  It seeks to stop ILLEGAL immigration.  Why would the bishops oppose a bill that merely makes enforcement of existing laws more effective?  This one by the Catholic Bishops has me scratching my head.

6. Father Waddill,

As it probably should have all of us scratching our heads. I do recognize that the bill that passed might tend to lead to instances of excessive reaction (too lengthy impounding of vehicles, etc.) for those stopped, particularly for stoppages outside of normal weekday hours. But I, too, wonder if the Bishops are not overreacting. If the practice ends up being needlessly draconian, that will be the time to stand up and object to either specifics of its enforcement, related desirable changes in the text of the law, or both. Too much of an outcry now, before any tyrranical actions have ensued, simply diminishes the future credibility of objectors, if such actions eventually do result from enforcement (proper or improper) of the law.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

As “immigration” goes, the situation is now in quasi-stasis. More importantly, Mexican raw fertility rates have dropped below natural replacement levels—see Wattenberg and others—with the pending result that population pressure from Mexico will collapse.

Unfortunately, the Mexican state is also approaching collapse. They seem to have revolutions every century or so (1810, 1910) and are tottering in our own time. Their oil revenues, formerly 40% of the federal budget, are tanking because Pemex never bothered to take care of its main field, Cantarell. Bien hecho, chabos.

The Mexican question will rather soon become one of refugees, not immigrants.