The Rhode Island Catholic newspaper offers an editorial called "Rabid response to Bishops is chilling" (link). They discuss the backlash to the U.S. Catholic Church's hierarchy strong support to illegal activity, including RI Bishop Thomas Tobin's suggestion that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents should be able to have a conscientious objector option before doing raids.

However, rather than engaging the perfectly valid arguments of their opponents, they've chosen to engage in a strawman argument and also to smear their opponents:

Vile comments in letters and vicious attack e-mails have not stopped Bishop Thomas J. Tobin from speaking out against immigration enforcement raids... This latest foray by the U.S. Bishops into the national debate on immigration will most likely result in a rather “uncivilized” response by many who oppose not only their position but also that they dare speak out at all. The usual suspects, as Bishop Tobin so sadly discovered, who utter racist and offensive broadsides against immigrants, Hispanics, Bishops and the Catholic Church will shout the loudest and with the most venom. They rail against immigrants with such savagery that their commentaries are not fit for publication. However, other, more measured responses from anti-immigrant groups often maintain that Catholic Bishops should not speak about the issue of immigration, claiming it is a violation of the separation of church and state...

I'm sure they've received a lot of hate mail. However, I'm sure they've also received a large number of "measured" responses. Oddly enough, all are not fit for publication. And, separation of church and state is certainly one argument, but not the only "measured" one from opponents.

So, here's a challenge to the Rhode Island Catholic, based on this post. Let's see if they can take on this argument without resorting to logical fallacies:

1. The "comprehensive immigration reform" that the Bishops support will send the message that we don't respect our immigration laws and we don't expect anyone else to either. Despite what it's called, it will be seen around the world as an amnesty.
2. That will lead to more illegal immigration, and from many other countries besides Mexico.
3. That will lead to more people trying to cross the desert. Aside from putting pressure on Mexico - something that generally doesn't work or our leaders are too squeamish and corrupt to try - there's very little we can do about Mexicans flocking to their northern border and people from other countries coming to Mexico in order to attempt a crossing.
4. More people trying to cross the desert will lead to more people dying along the way.
5. The borders will be even less "secure" after reform and the enforcement provisions of "reform" will be largely ignored because those pushing reform have always fought attempts to secure our borders, and they will have even more power after reform from which to fight attempts to secure the borders.

Contact their editor and suggest they try their hand at a logical counterargument to the above: mobrien *at* thericatholic.com