Two views:
The bishops of Arizona, in a pastoral letter dated 12/12
We firmly support humane enforcement of our country’s laws; however, as is the case with other issues, we believe that our immigration laws are outdated and no longer fit the economic realities and security needs of our times. Our nation’s demand for labor and the increasing displacement of farmers and workers in Mexico and Central America call for a new approach to regulating immigration from those countries. Economic globalization trends which allow capital and goods to flow freely across borders require a new approach to managing the flows of migrant workers across our borders. Very few legal avenues are currently available to migrant workers who wish to enter the United States legally.
An estimated 10 million undocumented immigrants currently live in the United States and are making important contributions to our society and our Church. While we do not condone undocumented immigration, we recognize that it would not be feasible to deport all of these immigrants. We must find a way to bring them out of the shadows and incorporate them into society. This will ultimately enhance national security, help stabilize the labor market in the United States, improve the living standards of immigrant communities, and encourage them to become more active participants in our society.
The questions I bring to the subject are not about the flow of capital, the imminence of globalism, or the implications of uncontrolled immigration on the size and cost of the welfare state. They just have to do with what it is to be human.
What does it mean that your first act on entering a country–your first act on that soil–is the breaking of that country’s laws? What does it suggest to you when that country does nothing about your lawbreaking because it cannot, or chooses not to? What does that tell you? Will that make you a better future citizen, or worse? More respecting of the rule of law in your new home, or less?
If you assume or come to believe that that nation will not enforce its own laws for reasons that are essentially cynical, that have to do with the needs of big business or the needs of politicians, will that assumption or belief make you more or less likely to be moved by that country, proud of that country, eager to ally yourself with it emotionally, psychologically and spiritually?
When you don’t earn something or suffer to get it, do you value it less highly? If you value it less highly, will you bother to know it, understand it, study it? Will you bother truly to become part of it? When you are allowed to join a nation for free, as it were, and without the commitment of years of above-board effort, do you experience your joining that country as a blessing or as a successful con? If the latter, what was the first lesson America taught you?
There is some talk below in the comments doubting the demand side of this equation – that there is demand for undocumented workers from employers of all kinds.
Simple question. If there are indeed 11 million illegals in this country – what are they doing? Sitting around enjoying the weather in Northern Indiana?
And if this is not so, why is the entity most supportive of Bush’s style of guest worker program and not enthused about tougher enforcement of deportation-focused immigration laws a "business coalition?"
Although many advocates of immigration-law overhaul insist publicly that they remain united, several business lobbyists and White House allies acknowledged that immigration had split the conservative coalition.
On one side are backers of a "holistic" approach that would balance tougher border security and interior enforcement with a guest worker program providing 11 million undocumented workers with an eventual path to citizenship that would not necessarily require them to move back to their countries of origin. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many businesses back legislative proposals that take this approach.
On the other side are activists who want to crack down on illegal border crossings and workplace violations before considering guest worker programs. Many of these activists also oppose guest worker proposals that let undocumented workers stay in this country, proposals they consider a form of amnesty. Some want to require guest workers to leave the country after several years of working legally in the country, but some back legislation that would force undocumented workers to return home before they could even apply to be a guest worker.
The competing interests have put Bush in a political bind. If he appears soft on border enforcement and undocumented workers, he risks alienating immigration hawks who are part of the Republican political base. If he moves too far to the right, he risks alienating many businesses, Wall Street and Latino voters, whom the party has been courting.
Fr. Shawn…waiting for you to chime in, if you like..
Read Previous Post