In the past several weeks there has been increased coverage of immigration in the media, especially as a result of Arizona passing SB 1070, which you may read (all 17 pages of it) at this link, and I’ve heard commentary from more than a few people about a young woman who was denied a scholarship to a school in California when it was discovered that she was living illegally in the country. Now, I know little about this case in California, but I have taken the time to read the law in Arizona, and I’ve heard some of the rhetoric on both sides––not all of it, mind you. At this point, since I’m somewhat resting on my laurels, I thought I would put some thought to this subject, as it hits so close to home for me, having worked with Hispanic immigrants––documented and undocumented––quite a bit.
*Disclaimer: I’m not a politician, I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a social worker, nor an economist, bishop, priest or theologian, but these are my initial thoughts based on what I think, and what I have read that the Church has said as a body and through individual bishops, and what everyone else is saying and doing.
On the first page of SB 1070:
“The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.”
Something to be said about this: to make attrition the public policy? Really? Attrition is defined as reducing something by constant attack… a “war of attrition” is a battle that goes on in which both sides sustain heavy casualties, with the main goal being the “wearing down” of the enemy’s resources. Wars of attrition are associated with “Pyrrhic victories” in which the winning side suffers so heavily that, although they have won, they could not possibly afford another such battle. In other words, the winning side is completely exhausted, destroyed, or otherwise incapacitated.
Anyway, semantics aside: I will speak first to some practical concerns. In most of the situations where I hear people speak negatively about illegal immigration, they tend to say things like “serves them right” or “they’re taking what’s not theirs” or “they’re criminals” or “they have no right to things that they demand” or something along those lines. Now, most of these kinds of comments are what we might call in the biz “demonization” and they serve to do nothing except depersonalize those who are being discussed. I do not know the specifics of the case of the young lady mentioned above, I can’t seem to find any articles about it online, but here’s a likely reality that we need to consider: children are brought into the United States by their parents when their parents immigrate legally or illegally. A child who immigrates to the U.S. with his parents is not responsible for entering the country illegally or legally… he cannot legally or morally be held responsible. Most children of immigrants (legal or illegal) in this country (who are not born here, and thus not citizens) learn English, go to school, etc. and cannot be expected to return to their country of origin and flourish any more than an animal can be returned to the wild after years of captivity [NB: don't carry that analogy too far, I'm not saying they're in captivity]. Said child is, under United States law, entitled to all the same rights as anyone else inhabiting this country, namely, an education. The following is from the Supreme Court’s 1982 overruling of a Texas law barring illegal immigrants from public schools:
“Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”
Personhood. It is true that immigrating to the United States through illegal means, or remaining illegally in the United States beyond legal time periods is breaking a law… but it does not revoke one’s personhood. Persons break immigration laws, not soulless entities, demons, born-criminals, robots or animals.
Anyway, back to the law in Arizona. Here’s, I think, the gist of what the law says, quoted below.
(article 8, lines 20-26, on the very first page):
“For any lawful contact [can you define that?] made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government pursuant to 8 United States Code Section 1373(c).”
There’s more to it and anyone who wants to argue about it should read it first, as the following video from Arizona so cleverly suggests:
At any rate, there’s more to consider here. In all my limited reading of what the Church, in general, has to say about this issue, there’s an overarching concern for the family, and I have seen it personally in the people that I have worked with. Immigration can make or break a family. Many men leave families behind to make money to send home. Others come with their families––a very dangerous task. Others come single and start families in the U.S. Their children become citizens by birth, and are then placed in a precarious situation with undocumented parents. In a lot of small towns in Central America there is a lack of young men––they have all gone north. Not in hopes of getting rich, but in hopes of supporting their families. It’s true, many think that the streets are paved with gold in the U.S., and they are surprised to find that they are not. To a certain extent, our country has exported this image through all the media that is sent throughout the world. Mexico, or many other central American countries are not the lands of opportunity that we think America is known to be. Their governments can often be corrupt, top-heavy with rich officials––there is no lack of wealth in Latin America, it just happens to belong to a select few.
A LOT of the rhetoric out there against illegal immigrants, which supports this idea of attrition through enforcement (which seems to mean: “We’re going to fight until we get all 7-20 million of them deported” because how else will they be squared away with the law, because we’re not going to naturalize them) is built around the evidence of immigrants who have broken other laws. That is, undocumented immigrants who have become criminals. I note an argument between Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly that can be seen on YouTube. Rivera argues that the case of an undocumented man who was driving drunk in Virginia has nothing to do with his immigration status and everything to do with his drunkenness. O’Reilly claims negligence on the part of the authorities for not deporting him before he could have done it in the first place. Whichever side of the argument you find yourself on… take a look and see what you think of these two men and their arguments:
Let me ask a question:
1. If these immigrants never committed any other crimes except entering the country illegally… not a single crime, none, not a one, if that were the case, would you then support amnesty for them?
If you still wouldn’t, then that means the issue is not whether or not they commit crimes, the issue is that they are in the country illegally.
Here’s a hypothetical situation:
You are a United States citizen, living on a farm that you rent from a landowner. You have no more than a third grade education. You have a basic reading level, and your English is not stellar, but you get by enough to squeeze out a living for you, your wife and four young children. You have no electricity, no internet, no running water, no hope that your children will attend high school, let alone college.
You hear, however, from friends, that in Canada, you can get a job, performing the same kind of tasks you do on the farm, or maybe in construction, something manual, and make in an hour what you make in a day. In a year you might have enough money to build an extra bedroom onto your concrete-block house, or to send your child to a private school… but the journey is difficult, you have no money to buy a plane ticket or a bus ticket, you’ll have to hitchhike, walk, jump on trains. While you make the trek, your wife will have to provide for the family. You seem to have no choice though, there’s no money left, and the crops this year are not doing very well. There’s no hope moving to the city, where there is crime, corruption, violence, hunger, filth… you’re better off in the country at least. So you save up some money, pack your bags, and head north to Canada. By the time you get to North Dakota though, a group of thieves have stolen your bags and most of your money. You don’t even have your American passport anymore. There’s no turning back, however… it’s just as dangerous to go back, and you barely escaped Colorado with your life.
You get to the border and reality starts to hit you. This is an almost impossible task, to get across the Canadian wilderness to a decent town without freezing, drowning or getting mauled by a bear. What’s more, how could you have known the laws for getting into Canada? You can barely read, let alone know that you might want to ask someone for legal help. “What’s a consulate? I just want to work hard and make some money.”
You protest: but this isn’t a real situation in the U.S.! But it is in many of these countries where these immigrants come from.
You protest: ignorance is no excuse. Perhaps not. My point is not to defend their actions, but to put things in proper perspective. Many immigrants who come to this country illegally do not know the basic things that we do, they do not understand things we might take for granted.
You protest: should have stayed at home where he at least had a job and his family. This is potentially true, but something like this does not occur to the immigrant in most cases until he has been in the U.S. for some time and realizes the difficulties involved. By then, it is just as hard getting back home as it was coming to the U.S. INS will drop you off at the border––they don’t do door-to-door service.
You protest: immigrants take away American’s jobs. This is an old chestnut. The usual response is: they do jobs that Americans don’t want or won’t do. This is true to a great extent in my experience. Many of the immigrants I work with do things that would never have even occurred to me that I could work in, let alone consider doing for a living. Yet still, does a person not still have a right to work? Does not every human being have a basic right to work? If they cannot find suitable work where they are, do they not have a right to migrate in search of that work? If they are forced to leave their home because of corrupt government policies, do they not have a right to migrate?
All of that aside. I have read the Arizona law. On the face of it, it encapsulates most things that I basically assumed were law already. This may be due to my ignorance, or differences between Arizona laws and laws in other states. I think that human law has value, that it should be upheld, and those who disobey it should be punished reasonably––you’re talking to a guy who usually thinks twice before J-walking. But I also think that it is important to consider all those involved and the ramifications of a punishment like imprisonment or deportation. Will you imprison a whole family who is in the country illegally? With their 6, 7, or 12 year old children? How long, and where will you detain them? What will you tell them that they have done to deserve this? Have you ever been in prison with your whole family? Or will you only imprison the parents? Then what will you do with their children? Is this a punishment that is equal to the crime committed? What exactly is the crime committed by an illegal alien?
Would you have whole families deported? What would you say, “They’re Mexico’s problem now” or “They’re Guatemala’s problem now” just like some said after Katrina: “Houston’s problem now”? Do you really think that immigrants are more inclined to crime and terpitude than American citizens?
Would you really propose deporting an estimated 7 to 20 million people living in this country? An amount of people rivalling the size of New York City? Is this humane? What will happen to them when they arrive at the Mexico border? Who will pay for their deportation?
There are no easy solutions to this real problem. I don’t propose to have any. My main purpose here is to throw some thoughts out on the table for those of my few readers who might disagree with me or the Church on this issue. There are many other factors involved, including scriptural and moral issues such as Christ’s command (Matthew 25) to give shelter to the homeless, and the stranger. Hospitality is a part of what it means to be a Christian. The young man asked Jesus “Who is my neighbor?” and Jesus replied with a parable to demonstrate that even a Samaritan could be neighbor to a Jew.
I don’t pretend to take the moral highground on this issue. I merely want to put my two cents in and offer some of my own thought to this raging debate. I think the key here is to remember that these people are persons, who have lives that affect many other innocent persons. They deserve respect according to their dignity as human persons.
Are these people who seek their right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” truly infringing on our own pursuit? Or is it perhaps more likely that their pursuit coincides with ours? That we have much in common that we might seek out together?
Some links:
The Secret Immigrant Jails of Homeland Security from Casa Juan Diego, Houston Catholic Worker
Immigration Reform Can Wait No Longer, Most Rev. José Gomez, Coadjutor Bishop(-elect) of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Mexicans and Americans Thinking Together (MATT)
Caritas in veritate, Encyclical Letter of His Holiness, Benedict XVI. See especially No. 62 on migration of peoples
This just in… at least in my world.