First go see Evan Almighty!  You need to chill out and laugh!

 Secondly then start to really think about immigration: I finally read someone with reason!!! YEA Common Sense... YEA... so I give you Father Jonathan. 
 At the heart of my argument is a criticism of political pundits on both sides of the partisan aisle (mostly conservatives) who have rejected "out of principle" the most recent version of the compromise immigration proposal without offering a just and realistic alternative. They are saying, in effect, that they would prefer to continue with the broken system currently in place. NO...

Out of principle, I must disagree with their reasoning.  YES!

I too have serious reservations about several elements of the bill as it now stands, but my apprehension is moderated by my conviction that legislative compromise is not always equivalent to moral compromise, and sometimes it is the most honorable way forward in a very imperfect system. I don’t buy the ethical argument peddled over the last few weeks by some that offering a realistic path to citizenship (yes, a form of amnesty) to the millions of people who have entered this country illegally is, under our current circumstances, "selling out on our core principles."

Some argue that immigration compromise is not needed because all we need to do is enforce the laws that already exist. They say employers would stop hiring illegals if they knew the consequences of breaking the law were severe. Enforcing the law, they argue, would dry up the incentive (employment) for entering or staying in this country illegally. With similar logic, others argue we should drop all efforts to regularize the legal status of those already here until we fix the problem at the border. Then, and only then, they say, should we focus on what to do with the millions who are on this side of the sealed border.

I don’t think I even need to get into whether these two proposals would be fair and just, because they are not realistic in the partisan world in which we live. Who really thinks such enforcement will happen during this administration, or in any administration in the coming years. Do you think any Congress would allow this to happen?

So what are we going to do? We must do something. We are in a better position today to move forward on immigration reform — as imperfect as the outcome may be — than we have been in many, many years, and arguably, better than in our foreseeable future. Any significant improvement will require legislative compromise, but it doesn’t have to imply moral compromise. Suggesting otherwise, in my opinion, is the result of misguided ethics.

Let me give you another example of the type of moral reasoning I am proposing. I am against abortion of all kinds and under all circumstances, but I think it is acceptable to vote for a bill that allows for abortion under some very specific circumstances, if the bill is going to limit abortions, and if there is no better option. In these cases, one’s object and intention is not approving some abortions, but rather taking a gradual step toward a more perfect legal system. The late and great John Paul II outlined this principle of incremental legislation in his encyclical letter "Evangelium Vitae," no. 73.

Shelving this legislation permanently is tantamount to approving the status quo, where the rule of law is laughed at, our borders are left unsecured, and where millions of people are subject to a two class system and used as economic commodities. I think we can do better than that. God bless, Father Jonathan •E-mail Father Jonathan

 Blessings - Father Jonathan... Amen... process... step by step.