I'm not even sure where to start. Yours is the perfect example of why St. Paul condemns "party spirit" on his list of mortal sins of the flesh in Galatians 5:19-21. The danger, to paraphrase Lady Julia in Brideshead Revisited is in "setting up a rival good to God." In other words, instead of judging good and bad based upon Catholicism, you've done it based upon the tenets of the GOP. And doing so has caused you to act in a way unbecoming to a Catholic.
First, this is the first time any commenter here has accused me of being a "liberal social justice Catholic." While you can't fully be a Catholic without being a "social justice Catholic" (at least to some extent), had you troubled yourself to read any other post on this blog, you'd realize you were flying off half-cocked.
Second, rejecting the Arizona law doesn't mean someone automatically embraces amnesty. Had you troubled yourself to read even this post, you'd see that the argument was about whether there were better ways to meet the state's legitimate interests.
Third, and related to the last point, you can justify any evil by comparing it to some opposite hypothetical evil. Sure, the Arizona bill may be bad, but at least it's not amnesty; sure, amnesty may be bad, but at least it isn't genocide, etc. If the best you can come up with if ad hominem attacks and attacks on straw man positions which no one in the conversation is taking, rethink your views.
Fourth, the people (made in the image of God) who we're talking about are immigrants, not invaders. Here are google’s top definitions of immigrant ("a person who has come to live in a country from some other country") and invader ("soldiers who are invading a country"). Your term is a hyper-charged and completely inaccurate term to attempt to demonize immigrants as enemies rather than those we owe charity.
Fifth, the Biblical injunction to charity isn't premised upon one's legal status in the country, since US law isn’t superior to the Bible. If someone overstays their work visa, we as Catholics don't stop loving them and start treating them as invaders the next day. Every single source you've cited is political, not Biblical, because what you're suggesting is just unchristian.
Sixth, since you're getting all of your news from one party, you've lost all touch with the actual reality of the situations you're talking about. Some things to consider:
- Which Democrats are pushing for amnesty? They've got both houses and the presidency. If they wanted amnesty, they could have gotten it while they had their super-majority (or, you know, still). I challenge you to cite a single Democrat in Congress pushing for immediate amnesty, as you claim.
- Which Democrats or Catholic Bishops are advocating Alinsky’s policies? Can you point to a single example of a Catholic Bishop engaging in Alinsky-style tactics? (I don't mean here simply supporting social justice groups which are hyper-liberal in ways we don't agree with; not every grassroots movement is "Alinsky-style")
- What percentage of immigrants are actually gang members v. productive workers in the economy? I'd cite you here to Julian Simon's ground-breaking 1979 analysis, The Economic Effects of Immigration. In it, he explained that since most immigrants are young, healthy, and unable to apply for social services, they provide an enormous boon to the economy at a low cost (this is, after all, labor unions' arguments against them). Although his study is now 30 years old, the fundamental dynamics are correct. So rather than destroying US culture, it's been incredibly vital. Same goes for US Catholic culture, particularly given the fact that Latin Catholics tend to be more devout than their Anglo counterparts.
And finally, you owe Erin an apology. You were rude and condescending. You need to remember that behind the veil of the Internet are real human beings -- your brothers and sisters in Christ -- and allowing party spirit to lead you to tear into them like this is disgraceful.