Turlock reverend: Catholics must speak up against deportations | Opinion

Catholics must speak up on deportations

“Commentary: Donald Trump wants to deport migrants to South Sudan. What awaits them isn’t pretty,” (modbee.com, July 12)

Many Catholics and politicians expressed intense outrage over the closure of churches during the pandemic, viewing it as a direct assault on their right to worship and an infringement on religious liberty. Meanwhile, countless immigrants are afraid to attend mass due to fears of deportation, which similarly obstructs their right to worship and undermines their religious freedom.

Recognizing this fear, Bishop Alberto Rojas of the Diocese of San Bernardino has granted Catholics a dispensation from the obligation to attend Sunday mass. It is disheartening to see that these Catholics and politicians remain silent about the very real fears faced by migrants when attending mass, indicating that their commitment to defending religious liberty is selective and only arises when it serves their interests.

Their silence suggests their indifference to the indiscriminate deportation of immigrants, something the church stands firmly against. The recent tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump allocates $150 billion for immigration enforcement and includes an additional 10,000 immigration agents. This development raises concerns that conditions for immigrants may deteriorate further.

Bishop Myron Cotta states: “Our immigration problem will not be solved by an open border or by mass deportations, but by comprehensive immigration reform.”

Rev. Misael Avila

Turlock

Mercy toward immigrants

“Commentary: Donald Trump wants to deport migrants to South Sudan. What awaits them isn’t pretty,” (modbee.com, July 12)

Two opinions about immigration justice ignore one factor to determine justice: One side believes justice exists when consequences apply to law breakers, while the other side believes it is okay to break the law if lawbreakers are trying to improve their life. One form of justice recognizes consequences for breaking laws. Another form of justice allows exceptions. But both ignore the fact that the law is enforced by the Executive Branch.

President Joe Biden did not enforce immigration law. His administration welcomed immigrants who broke the law. So should we now retroactively apply consequences to immigrants who broke immigration law after they were invited to do so? As a nation, we must consider the circumstances that welcomed those who broke the law.

It is time to be merciful toward immigrants who entered illegally at a time when they were welcomed.

Illegal immigrants who have broken more laws after taking up residence in the U.S. should face consequences; but those who entered illegally when welcomed and are now obeying the laws we live by are deserving of mercy and an opportunity to legally become citizens.

Richard Tassinari

Waterford

Keep Diablo open

“Keeping Diablo Canyon open could come with hidden costs | Opinion,” (modbee.com, July 9)

Linda Parks’ claim that keeping Diablo Canyon running will cost $8 billion is misleading. The total cost of operating the plant for five more years doesn’t correspond to ratepayers losing that amount of money, given that the sources used in Diablo’s place would not be free.

Renewables plus storage alternatives would have a similar cost, and would not have the grid reliability benefit that Diablo would provide. The offshore wind project that is being proposed for the area, as a partial replacement for Diablo, would cost much more, per megawatt-hour, than keeping Diablo open,

The decision to keep Diablo until 2030 has already been made. The question is whether it should stay open until 2045, when the extended federal license ends. The cost of operating from 2030 to 2045 will be very low.

Most of the $8 billion is for capital expenditures that are required to allow operation until 2030. This is a no-brainer. Extending to 2045 will reduce power costs, bolster grid reliability, reduce air pollution and reduce CO2 emissions.

James Hopf

Tracy

Protect animal welfare

“Trump’s latest attack on California could leave him with egg on his face | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, July 11)

I appreciate this stand against the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn California’s animal welfare laws. The Biden administration already gave it a try, backing the pork industry in its suit before the U.S. Supreme Court. Let’s hope the current administration is equally unsuccessful.

Let’s also hope that animal advocates on both sides of the aisle let legislators know how closely we are watching them.

Karen Dawn

Animal advocacy nonprofit director