Charles Krauthammer has a reputation for being one of the smartest political commentators around.
In a recent column, he argued the case that:
Every sensible immigration policy has two objectives: (1) to regain control of our borders so that it is we who decide who enters, and (2) to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.
He went on to argue that the way to achieve objective (1) is to build a wall, and the grounds on which he argued it–or part of the grounds–were interesting: It’s the compassionate solution.
There are other ways to stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, such as making their lives in this country so difficult that they won’t want to come here anymore, or slapping American citizens who employ them with harsh penalties that actually get enforced, but these would cause human suffering needlessly.
The most human solution, to this line of thought, is to simply build a barrier. No barrier is perfect, but if you make it hard enough to get past then most people won’t try and the tidal wave of illegal aliens coming into this country now will be slowed to a trickle.
And walls don’t hurt people. They don’t cause suffering.
Certainly, if people bang their heads against walls, that’ll hurt, and if the wall is too short and they try climbing it or knocking part of it down or burrowing under it they may hurt themselves, but that is dwarfed by the suffering that would be caused by the alternative ways of diminishing the flood of illegal aliens.
Unless one is committed to the idea that America should willingly absorb an unlimited number of illegal aliens (something Catholic teaching does not require) then it looks like the most merciful way to stem the tide is to simply build a wall (or series of walls, augmented by patrols).
At least it’s the most merciful means that America has within its power to do.
An even more merciful thing would be for the Mexican government to reform itself, end its corruption, stop encouraging illegal immigration to the United States, and open up its economy so that people in Mexico will have economic opportunities at home and won’t feel the need to flee their country.
Those are things that the American government can encourage the Mexican government to do, but they’re not within the American government’s power. It takes two to tango, as they say.
What is within the American government’s power is building a wall, and that is looking like the most merciful thing that we know we will be able to do.
A while back I read a statement issued by some Mexican bishops (not sure if it was the whole conference or not) that patronizingly said America should not build such a wall because, they said, such a wall would not work.
This, of course, was completely disingenuous.
They know that a wall would work, which is why they were advocating against it being built. It wouldn’t stop every single illegal alien from coming into the country, but it doesn’t have to. It only has to hold back the tsunami we’re currently experiencing.
If someone has a better proposal–that can be realistically achieved and isn’t just a pipe dream–for how to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, I’d love to hear it, but for now a wall is looking like the most practical, most merciful thing that I can think of.
If you’d like to make a proposal to address this problem, please do so. It needs to have three qualities:
1. It is more compassionate than building a wall (including more compassionate for Americans, meaning that it doesn’t required them to bear huge costs that are far larger than the cost of building and patrolling a wall).
2. It will actually work.
3. It is something that the U.S. has in its power to do (i.e., it doesn’t depend on what Mexico does, since their government has shown itself to be a bad faith partner in solving this problem).
Please argue why your proposal fits each of these criteria.
Whatever turns out to be the best way stop illegal immigration, we’ve go to do something that is effective. Regardless of what happens to the illegal aliens already in this country–whether they’re given amnesty or not (and I’m virtually certain that they will be)–we simply cannot continue taking ineffective measures at securing our borders, for it will only encourage more illegal immigration.
I’m not convinced… after all, if the English Channel doesn’t keep illegal immigrants out of the UK, why would a wall succeed for the US?
“to find a way to normalize and legalize the situation of the 11 million illegals among us.”
But if you legalize 11 million illegals, then you are telling future illegals that if they come here and stay, eventually they too will become legal.
I realize it won’t be easy to start expelling illegals, but at least we should send some back to send a message.
A physical wall would help, but let’s face it – the only way to curb illegal immigration is to man the wall. The minutemen, for example, were able to dramatically reduce illegals even without a wall to guard just because they were there.
The wall must be combined with harsh policies concerning services available to illegal aliens.
The problem with a wall is it is so symbolically siniser. It makes people think of the Berlin Wall or the wall they just built in Israel. If they do build it, I hope they will not put barbed wire across the top of it. It would look like a prison wall then.
They could make it a replica of the Great Wall of China. Then it would be funtional as well as a tourist attraction everyone would like. :-p
Greg, Dang, and I was rooting for a giant moat! Maybe it’s ’cause the channel doesn’t have alligators.
All these talks about walls, has anyone ever thought of a moat? Sure it would be difficult to keep all those alligators healthy, but it doesn’t have as many connotations as walls.
On a side note I don’t think any administration is going to do anything about immigration any time soon.
Who cares what they would like? If fear can be used as a tool that will save US resources, then use it. Put up barbed wire, electic fence and gargoyles if it will help. We have millions of illegal immigrants with no regard for our law pouring into our country, endangering the US economically and culturally. We should not allow political correctness to dictate policy. Geesh.
The Berlin Wall worked pretty well. The Gaza Wall seems to be working, too.
Well the English Channel analogy isn’t perfect. Build a giant wall around the entire coastline of Great Britian, and you may have something similar in concept.
“We have millions of illegal immigrants with no regard for our law pouring into our country, endangering the US economically and culturally.”
Endangering our culture? I don’t know how our culture of death could be endangered by immigration alone, though I wish it could be.
Actually I kinda like the idea of a wall around America. Shoulda been done years ago.
If Americans found it difficult to go to other countries (along with thier western ideas), then the rest of world wouldn’t be so mad at them!:)
Catholic teaching may not require unlimited immigration, but it would seem a requirement that countries allow *generous* immigration. “Control of our borders” that would amount to reducing immigration to a “trickle” would seem a clear violation of what the church has taught.
More than that, the church wants solidarity among the peoples of the Americas:
“In Santo Domingo, when I first proposed a Special Assembly of the Synod, I remarked that ‘on the threshold of the third Christian millennium and at a time when many walls and ideological barriers have fallen, the Church feels absolutely duty-bound to bring into still deeper spiritual union the peoples who compose this great continent and also, prompted by the religious mission which is proper to the Church, to stir among these peoples a spirit of solidarity.’ I asked that the Special Assembly of the Synod of Bishops reflect on America as a single entity, by reason of all that is common to the peoples of the continent, including their shared Christian identity and their genuine attempt to strengthen the bonds of solidarity and communion between the different forms of the continent’s rich cultural heritage. The decision to speak of ‘America’ in the singular was an attempt to express not only the unity which in some way already exists, but also to point to that closer bond which the peoples of the continent seek and which the Church wishes to foster as part of her own mission, as she works to promote the communion of all in the Lord.”
I would not claim from this that John Paul equates spiritual unity with political unity, but would argue too that when you build a *wall* you are walling out – literally and even more importantly, symbolically and yes, even spritually – the human realiality of your ‘brother in Christ’ on the other side of the wall.
Who can imagine that St. Paul or any of the other evangelists would have argued in any way at all that this or that secular authority should go around building walls to prevent fellow Christians from coming over?
I’ve read a lot about the “FairTax” National Retail Tax Bill that Senator Lender promotes. In essence, the bill would eliminate all federal taxes (including income taxes) and replace these with a 26% sales tax. The details of the tax are too complicated to go into here (visit http://www.fairtaxvolunteer.org/smart/index.html to learn more), but one important aspect is that every legal citizen gets a “prebate” check to offset the 26% tax on food, clothing, and medicine. Should this bill succeed, illegal immigrants will face extraordinarily high prices (too high to justify their current wages). They will have too choices – register as legal immigrants or NOT enter a country with such high daily living costs. It is not less compassionate than the wall because nobody is forcing these high prices on an immigrant since it would be by his/her choice not to become legal (which would solve the high-cost problem). This would not effectively stop the large influx of immigrants, but it would stop the influx of ILLEGAL immigrants and allow for better monitoring of those entering.
Sorry, that quote was from Ecclesia in America by John Paul.
The document is interesting because when it talks of the problems of immigration, the solution JPII has in mind is
” … to spare no effort in developing her [the Church’s]own pastoral strategy among these immigrant people, in order to help them settle in their new land and to foster a welcoming attitude among the local population, in the belief that a mutual openness will bring enrichment to all.”
I would submit that the proper litmus test for immigration reform must also meet this criteria:
“With this in mind, the Synod Fathers recalled that ‘the Church in America must be a vigilant advocate, defending against any unjust restriction the natural right of individual persons to move freely within their own nation and from one nation to another. Attention must be called to the rights of migrants and their families and to respect for their human dignity, even in cases of non-legal immigration.”
We are Catholic, right? What the pope says matters, right? Even if it is not an ‘infallible’ declaration.
Right?
Or is the cafeteria open again? (Hey, look at those donuts over there!)
“If Americans found it difficult to go to other countries (along with their western ideas), then the rest of the world wouldn’t be so mad at them.” By “western ideas” do you mean Freedom? We Americans have certainly exported a lot of that!
A better title for this post might be: “If You Build It, They Will Come–Legally.”
Wry-
How is a wall an unjust restriction on LEGAL immigration?
I agree with Stoodley (which doesn’t happen all too often) about the sinsiter symbolism of the Wall.
Ick. There’s just something unAmerican about it.
WRY,
Would St. Paul restrict illegal immigration? Yes, if he had any sense.
I’m frankly tired of this romanticized notion that Mexicans bring nothing with them but their Catholicism. OK, sure, they’re Catholic. But like so many American Catholics, it’s often in name only. Latin America has, and always did have, a strong affinity for communistic ideas, too. Their leaders bring that with them as well.
Then there’s the added crime from the added poverty, which is not off-set by how hard working many of them are, the language barrier problem, and the general concept of lawlessness that comes with anyone who disregards the laws of another nation because, essentially, they want money.
Is Mexico such a terrible place to live? If so, do we want people who don’t have the courage to change their own country to come into ours? I’m ashamed of the cutlure of death too, I also believe we must treat the immigrants we have here with dignity even if they are illegal. But respect for human dignity doesn’t mean allowing them to break a just law whenever they want our money or our freedoms. Just the opposite, in fact. Respect for their dignity would be teaching them respect for our just laws.
So, while most illegal immigrants are not bad people, they have all done a bad thing, and lets not tell ourselves they didn’t know better. To argue against that, you have to argue against our immigration laws, and that’s a hard sell. Every country has the right to control immigration, and our laws are really not restrictive at all, far less restrictive than Mexico’s.
Wall, moat, barbed wire, border troops armed with tranquilizers, and governmental sanctions against Mexico and any other Latin nation that won’t take serious steps to keep their people from illegally entering America.
Just to throw another point into the ring, but current security requirements (ie, make sure terrorists don’t enter into the country) require that we know who everyone that enters into the country is. That means that we need to prevent people from crossing the border illegally as they do now.
Make one long linear troop base along the border. Also, make a long strip an official firing range. It’s hard and undesirable to sneak past areas that are being used for target practice.
The idea isn’t new. It’s just one item in a long list that politicians don’t have the will to do.
WRY,
When Bishops and Popes get into this discussion, they are offering their prudential judgements. Public policy is an area where we layman have the charism for working out solutions. So, while their opinions are certainly of interest, they are by no means normative. And if they try to make the case that their judgements trump those of laymen in these areas, they have overstepped their teaching authority. So, great as my affection is for JPII and Cardinal Mahoney (well, one out of two ain’t bad!), their opinions on this public policy issue are not going to change my prudential conclusions in this area. Enforce the rule of law!
We can have immigration, even generous immigration – indeed we must have immigration for our own sake – but it must be controlled and LEGAL immigration.
Put the wall up. The sooner the better.
Mexico is an overwhelimingly Catholic country, with a religious minority as its ruling class. The current Mexican president is the first Catholic to hold that position, and the constitution was (or is) anti-clerical. The recent governments have made it a policy to remove peasants from the farms (like 19th century Europe), and now we have large numbers of those peasants coming to the U.S. to — ironically — work on our farms. This displacement from farms to cities is the major impetus for communism and the loss of the Faith.
I find it strange that Mexico ought to have a U.S.-style secular government when it doesn’t have the plurality of religions that we have. Mexico should be looking into reforming its government, and especially its agrarian policy. A country can’t go wrong if it has a prosperous rural peasantry instead of teeming urban slums. His Most Catholic Majesty, who would be concerned more with a good rural life instead of industrialization, could do wonders for his people.
All these talks about walls, has anyone ever thought of a moat?
Yeah, it’s called the Rio Grande – doesn’t work very well. 😉
WRY, It is important to take into consideration what the Bishops and the Pope have to say, even on matters not dealing with faith. That doesn’t mean we are bound to agree with them on such issues. Let us take into account what would follow if the US were to let illegal immigrants in freely and without penalty. Not only would the 11 – 12 million be allowed to stay, but millions more would join them. Following this huge influx of people, the bishops would insist provide each of them with a job at a living wage, for that, too, is their right! Can you imagine the effect on the American economy?
I say build a wall, made of steel, 25 feet high, 20 feet deep and 10 feet wide. Good for the steel manufacturers, good for the construction industry, good for America. Then welcome all immigrants who come in legally!
Wry,
Unfortunately you speak in lofty and abstract terms with apparently no idea of the realities of illegal immigration which is unjust in the extreme to the ordinary American citizen.
When you quote the Pope, you seem to forget that he usually seemed to be talking about immigration as a whole and about those who were refugees or seeking sanctuary.
When he did talk about illegal immigration specifically, in his talk for World Migration day of 1997, he said “illegal migration must be prevented” as well as the criminal activity that accompanies it. He talks about helping the long time illegal and about the possiblity of sending them home.
In 2001, he said the right to immigrate must be regulated. The regulation must take into account the common good of the community which receives them.
In 2004, he said that the FIRST line of a solution is to fix the country of origin. Would that the Mexican bishops would take that approach rather than pandering to the oligarchs.
If you lived in Tucson, Arizona and had relatives right on the border who are Spanish speakers and many of who are of Hispanic descent, you would not be taking the position you do. It is destructive and dangerous. Were you to come visit and see the realities, you would certainly have to re-think your position.
Solution:
Deport known criminals without a hearing.
Close the border
Sanction American exploiter employers
Fix Mexico
All above should be done concommitanly.
Require registration of all illegals within six months.
Those who are caught not registering deport without a hearing.
Set hearings for registrants with compassionate and fair deportation and retention policies becasue we do not want to deport those who are ill or who are true refugees or asylum seekers.
Those who are retained must pay fines and become legal residents, not citizens.
Deprort all new illegal immigrants without hearing, unless they register as refugee or for sanctuary, in which case a hearing should be set.
Believe me that the current crop of illegals from Mexico are in the main opportunists. Ask yourself why it is that the 450,000 people who live just across the border in Nogales,Sonora do not rush the border. Why is it that a huge shopping center is being built down there with Wal Mart and other big retailers? How do McDonalds and Peter Piper Pizza and Sears and Pep Boys and hundreds of other companies stay in business down there if conditions are so bad?
I cannot beg everyone strongly enough to really study this issue. It is not as the bishops and the MSM would paint it. The common good and the future well being of both Mexico, South American and the United States hang in the balance. If we do not handle this question correctly, welcome to leftist America. If Obrador is elected president of Mexico, welcome to really leftist Mexicl.
While we’re at it, no more automatic citizenship for babies born here. One or both of your parents must be naturalized or native-born citizens. And we want to see some proof.
This would end the idea of one person being born here and the rest of the family “reuniting”.
Not to rain on anybody’s parade, but only a very, very tiny minority of illegal immigrants enter this country illegally. Most illegal immigrants become so by overstaying their VISA.
Now please continue in fantasy land and high falutin xenophobia. The Cafetaria serves xenophobes as well.
M.Z. Forrest,
Not to rain on anybody’s parade, but only a very, very tiny minority of illegal immigrants enter this country illegally. Most illegal immigrants become so by overstaying their VISA.
May I ask what your source is for this claim?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
MZ-
Come on.
You remind me of the homosexual activists who claim that anyone who disagrees with them is a “homophobe”.
Wanting a sane, controlled, limited immigration policy is not “xenophobic”. That is a fantasy.
MZ
You do not have the facts it seems.
BP estimates 3,000,000 illegal CROSSERs a year.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-02-22-border-patrol_x.htm
See here.
Known as visa overstays, these visitors make up between a third and a half of the illegal immigrants in this country, according to government reports — between 4 million and 6 million people.
The Palm Beach Post doesn’t sound like the most reputable source, but even ignoring that how does between a third and a half add up to most, with the rest a very, very tiny minority? Closing your eyes and calling others xenophobes won’t make the problem go away. If you do not want to oppose any immigration, then at least think about all the people dieing trying to cross the border illegaly. Disagreeing about the solution is one thing, denying the situation is quite another.
That I understated the extent of illegally crossing, I can certainly be criticized.
You speak as if the burden is on me to establish why immigration should be allowed. I’m not the one seeking to deny the immigrant’s “natural right.” I’m not the one arguing against the bishops collective in this country. And I’m less than impressed with the cafeteria response that the bishops don’t understand.
“There are other ways to stop illegal immigrants from coming to this country, such as making their lives in this country so difficult that they won’t want to come here anymore”
Close, but different, to this is actually what W and his “base” have been doing… at the incredible speed of expanding the gap between the rich and the poor… yes, that sound you hear is the american middle class disappearing.
As for the other 98% of us wage earners, aka “the have not”s, well, life is becoming more and more unbearable that I don’t want to live here any longer…
thus, deterring those who will soon have it better off if they just stay where they are, away from USA, than if they immigrate here.
M.Z. Forrest,
I know I am repeating myself.
Emigration is a right of individuals to leave their country. This right is not license to ignore the immigration laws of the country they are entering. If there is a dire need they should seek asylum from the state, not enter illegally.
Setting immigration laws is the right of the state. We have a duty to treat people with dignity during the process but we are not obliged to take every person that applies.
We need to enforce the laws on the books. Immigrants need to obey those laws and the state has a right to expect that from them. How much motivation to obey laws can a person have after they have broken laws just to enter the country?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
‘Bye, t. Hope you and your fantasies have a nice life.
My thoughts, bill912.
People overseas must laugh to hear Americans complain about their standard of living.
MZ,
I would hope you would agree that the American bishops have lost credibility when it comes to the practical implementation and sometimes even the exposition of the Church’s teaching.
I would also think you would agree that the Bishop’s position on immigration is not a teaching that Catholics loyal to the Magisterium, as am I, cannot disagree with. In fact, if lay people have a certain espertise or knowledge about a matter, the may have a duty to disagree.
The Church’s teaching always considers the common good and justice. Charity is for each of us. WE can and should clothe, feed, arrange medical care and other emergencies in their need. But we also have a duty to follow the just laws of the country in which we live. There can be disagreement over whether the immigration laws are just, but until they are overturned it is reasonable to assume they are and turn the illegal immigrant we have just helped over to the authorities.
If the Pope says we can send illegals back when they threaten the host society, doesn’t he trump the American bishops?
Ann,
I don’t not think one can disagree on this issue, particularly to the depth many have, in good faith. I have yet to hear an argument put forth in this debate that respects the emmigrant’s natural rights. It would be different if the bishops had been inconsistent on this issue, but they have been saying the same thing for over a generation in countless documents. There are no fig leaves from Rome to hide behide either, because Rome has made clear that territory is not an absolute right. I seriously invite Catholics of good faith to heed the bishops and their teachings rather than their own machinations or those of others. I do not say so lightly. Assent doesn’t require support for open borders, whatever that means. One cannot be in assent and support arbitrary and capricious laws that strike at the heart of the family.
MZ-
Immigration is not an “absolute right” any more than territory is an absolute right (whatever that means), except in rather extreme circumstances (abject poverty, political persecution, etc…).
I am not convinced that the bulk of the immigrants now arriving are in a situation where they could be said to have an *automatic* right to emmigrate.
Are things better here? Sure. But, it seems to me to be far more like the California Gold Rush than a case of true economic or political hardship.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that… but it isn’t in the same category as truly needful immigration.
What are these arbitrary and capricious laws of which you speak? People that leave their families to come here illegally do so on their own volition. The U.S. doesn’t seperate families, they do that themselves.
Are you suggesting that the law should be that anyone who makes it to U.S. territory should not only be made a citizen, but should automatically be allowed to bring their family as well?
That is the meaning of the term “open borders”.
M.Z. Forrest,
It would be different if the bishops had been inconsistent on this issue, but they have been saying the same thing for over a generation in countless documents.
It is hard to take you seriously when you admit you just learned that Emigration is a natural right here on Jimmy’s Blog on Mar 10, 2006 8:53:35 AM
Or when you say “Assent doesn’t require support for open borders, whatever that means.”
Because in the same post linked above you stated “I think the wording supports a tighter definition. Particularly I think this is justified considering that the catechism states that immigration is a natural right versus a perogative or indifferent choice. I believe open borders in a country such as ours is not against that policy statement and pretty much affirms it.”
As I have asked you before can you reconcile your statements? You seem pretty quick to label anyone who disagrees with your understanding of the issue but it is hard to follow you argument when it is so inconsistent.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
M.Z. Forrest,
As for guidance from the Popes on the issue I have already quoted these statements.
“Every human being has the right to freedom of movement and of residence with the confines of his own state. When there are just reasons in favor or it, he must be permitted to emigrate to other countries and to take up residence there.” Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, #25
“Equally, the right to emigrate exists. This right, Bl. John XXIII recalls in the Encyclical Mater et Magistra, is based on the universal destination of the goods of this world (cf. nn. 30 and 33). It is obviously the task of Governments to regulate the migratory flows with full respect for the dignity of the persons and for their families’ needs, mindful of the requirements of the host societies.” Message of the Holy Father John Paul II for the 90th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2004 #3
And from the same speech Pope John Paul II gives his suggestion for dealing with the problems of migration.
“As regards immigrants and refugees, building conditions of peace means in practice being seriously committed to safeguarding first of all the right not to emigrate, that is, the right to live in peace and dignity in one’s own country.”
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
MZ,
Here is another fig leaf from JPII.
“The Church recognizes this right in every human person, in its dual aspect of the possibility to leave ones country and the possibility to enter another country to look for better conditions of life. Certainly, the exercise of such a right is to be regulated, because practicing it indiscriminately may do harm and be detrimental to the common good of the community that receives the migrant.” —
It is obvious that the right to immigrate is not absolute. It is a possibility. The harm that is accruing to the United States and its citizens is so fully documented that no one in good faith could deny it.
You talk about natural rights, but there is no right without concommitant responsibilities. Regarding immigrants, the first responsibility would be to respect the laws of the receiving country except under the most extreme circumstance,in which case they should apply for sanctuary or refugee status. In the case of the people south of us, the Pew Center says that 90% of Mexicans coming here leave jobs in Mexico. Yes those jobs pay less, but living costs are less down there.
Another responsibility of the would be immigrant is to be a citizen of their country of origin and try to fix the country.
Regarding striking at the family, people I know who live on the border say that we will have more and more immigration as long as there are people who love money more than the family they left behind who are subject to exploitation and crime and who now have to pay protection money in manless villages.
My patience on this topic wore out two weeks ago, and I’m afraid it is wearing on me.
Innocenio, regarding my discover of the natural right: I never sought in my my life to justify ripping members of the community from their homes. If I had advocated such, someone may have informed me of their rights.
TimJ, an absolute right is one that cannot be mitigated. Would you consider lotteries arbitrary? You can do a quick search and find many stories about the tearing apart of families. Do you believe the woman who called into Rush Limbaugh’s show a week and half ago should be deported? She was brought here illegally when she was 7 and is now in her mid twenties. To give you an idea how arbitrary our laws are, many in the mortgage industry believe that an illegal homeowner will leave the country on their own before they are ever caught and deported.
WRY has amply researched and posted the relevant documents here and elsewhere. The man (or woman) has done yeoman’s work. This the debate is over whether to deport 20 million people or not, I’m assuming that we are treating all illegal immigrants collectively and not individually. Therefore, I don’t care what the individual obligations of immigrants are, because that isn’t being addressed. I don’t care what Mexico does or doesn’t do, because I don’t vote there. I do care about the obligations this country has, and throwing 20 million people is not just.
ann,
I disagree with your basic assumption that our society is threatened by this immigration. On the contrary, I think we are enriched.
I guess that’s the basic dispute, isn’t it? If we all agreed with me, we’d all go for more lenient immigration. If we all agreed with you, then we wouldn’t.
So what to do?
I do not believe the bishops have “lost credibility” over church teaching. They are often criticized for not being “tough enough” on dissidents, but what of that? Is the fact that they are now being “tough” on the application of immigration law mean we should ignore them because we don’t think they were “tough enough” in some other area?
The bishops are our teachers. This is the teaching of the church.
The Acton Institute has a lenghthy review of the immigration issue from an economic and Catholic social teaching perspective. The basic argument is that because regulated immigration from Mexico is a net benefit to the US economy, Catholic social teaching demands that the needs of migrants to find sustinance for themselves and their families be respected:
http://www.acton.org/ppolicy/forum/no6_full.html
No matter how some people feel about the word “amnesty” the current situation will require some sort of practical recognition that large numbers of migrants already in the U.S. will have to remain here.
I don’t know any sensible person advocating the deportation of 20 million people, MZ.
At the same time, a wall on the border would only reduce, not eliminate, the ability to ILLEGALLY emmigrate. It would also make possible at least a semblance of order and regulation of LEGAL immigration.
A wall wasn’t needed to keep out illegal European immigrants, for obvious reasons (like the Atlantic Ocean). Getting here legally was a chore for Europeans, but getting here illegally was worse, and carried the risk of deportation.
If anything, I think we need a more liberal LEGAL immigration policy (accomodating more people) that makes it easier to go through legal channels, while at the same time putting tighter restrictions on illegal immigration.
A wall would be a very reasonable part of that policy.
MZ,
I am as morally certain as I can be, after much experience with and study of the immigration issue, that the current wave of illegal immigration is a huge detriment to both Mexico and its families and the U.S. and its families.
The evidence is out there if you look for it.
Steve,
The Acton Institute tends to libertarianism wrapped in religion.
Interestingly enough, the article you cite makes my points, except it concludes that the illegal is a net benefit, a contention that one’s own research into government statistics will refute.
Just investigate the number of people who have been displaced with illegals, who have fallen onto the poverty rolls and who have no health insurance. The evidence is, is that the illegal is to blame for the most of that and if true negates the conclusion of that article.
The demand by illegals to be treated the same as legals is unjust and unfair to the law abiding citizen and legal immigrant and those who defend them, defend injustice.
May I ask where the figure 20 million came from?
We have all read the statements from the popes and the CCC we should avoid letting this topic “wear” on us to the point where our only argument is name-calling.
Jimmy made a very important point in this
post “If you read the actual Church documents on the subject, they contain important qualifiers that are often dropped out of the discussion when presented by some individuals.
Our society has a legal process for entering and it should be respected and obeyed by those wanting to come into this country.
An open-border policy is not required by Church teaching. Our country is allowed and expected to regulate immigration.
The current problem should be addressed by enforcing the established laws of our country. Those who disagree with our laws or consider them “arbitrary” should work with in the system to have them changed.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
There is one thing we can do. Mexico allows for it’s citizens in the US to vote. I say we star capaigning on behal of candidate that intead of critiscing the US will seek to imitate and end the economic stagantion in Mexico. The 20 million mexicans here will not only vote but contact their folks at home and encourage them to vote acordingly. As long as mexicon insist in exporting their problem to the US we should have the right to actively seek to change their government.
Richard,
Good idea, but the only one who says he will do that that I know of is Obrador, who is favored, but who is a leftist and whose party has ties to Hugo Chavez.
That is my point. He would not be ahead if we took steps to help the capitalist leaning candidate. Obrador is being helped by Cavez we can hel the otehr guy as well as help change the legislature. Even though I am not crazy about Fox’s foreign policy he did try to make some changes but was thuared because the legilature was still majority opossition.
Innocenio,
You, and by all indications Jimmy, seem to want this to be an academic debate. It isn’t. We are talking about 8 to 12 million human beings (gov’t figures, 20 mil is often cited by various groups.) Many of these people have been here for over 5 years. Some of these people weren’t even adults when they illegally emmigrated. You accuse me of name calling, but then you have people like Ann claiming for all practical purposes that these folks have the mark of Satan. Maybe if I heard more advocates for building a wall on our Canadian border, another hot bed of illegal immigration, I could see past the opponents’ racism.
The problem with “qualifiers” is that there is a time and consistency component to justice. If we were to remove every illigal alien in this country that had stayed under a year – assuming no grounds for amnesty – then these qualifiers would be open for debate. That is not our current situation. For the longest time, there has been little interest in enforcing our immigration laws. Who here wants to be the one to give the boot to the young lady who called Rush’s program a week ago? She emigrated here as a child and has been here illegally for almost two decades. I’m not buying the argument that we need fear damnation for calling the laws of the Almighty United States an ass when they are one.
MZ
I do not think that all immigrants have the mark of Satan. That is silly of you to say, especially when I have family members who are Hispanic immigrants, legal ones I might add.
What I will say is that the current crop of illegal immigrants tend to be different from those of years ago, that they tend to be opportunists and don’t want citizenship. They are not beneficial to this country.
Our Canadian border is a “hotbed of illegal immigration”? I’d like to see the evidence for that.
M.Z. Forrest,
I understand your approach to this situation and I appreciate it, I really do. You want to care about every single person involved, as a person not some social class. You also see a sort of nativism among the rest of us, an attitude that has an ugly history in the United States. You may also think it hypocritical for us decendants of immigrants to oppose further immigration (I disagree with that one but will let it slide).
You would do well, though, to recognize that you are looking at the issue through a specific lens that affects and perhaps distorts your view of the situation (as is everyone to some degree). For instance, Canadian immigration realy is a very different reality than Mexican immigration on many levels. Does racism come into play in making that distinction? Probably, among some people, but there are many other legitimate factors.
Also, you seem to be ignoring the first principles of deciding whether an action is moral. First, it must be intrinsically good or morally neutral. It can not violate the natural and for us Catholics Ecclesial laws. The Church teaches that when there is no dire need to immigrate, a nation has the right to limit immigration. Next, the reason for the action must be moral. Limiting immigration to preserve the racial purity of America or because we WANT Mexicans to suffer in poverty would therefore not qualify. Limiting immigration to perserve American culture might, or to help our economy, or to prevent employers from being able to charge people slave wages. Third, there can not be a negative effect to the action that overweighs the positive intention. Here is where your arguments mostly come in. You are creating hardship for some individual people, especially illegals that have already come across the border, if you plan on sending them back. You have not talked much about the issue of simply stoping more from comming in this regard, but still you are preventing a possibly better standard of living for some of these people (though on the other hand these people wanted to get that better standard of living through illegal means).
My point is, please stop acting like limiting immigration is intrinsically evil. Or at least stop acting like that is Catholic doctrine. You will never convince us who know better. Disscussion of the negative effects of more limited immigration, and how they (you seem to think) overweigh the positive effects, and pointing out the personal dimensions of the situation, that is all healthy and appropriate. We need such voices to make balanced, moral decisions in situations as complicated as this.
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_12611.shtml
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_12677.shtml
Build the wall, document the people that are here, deport the ones that refuse to be documented, make it financially prohibitive to let employers exploit illegals.
Follow the laws in the country or kiss the country good bye.
The United States should have invaded Mexico instead of Iraq. We could turn Mexico around, making it a free market, capitalistic country, and we’d be acting in our own hemisphere instead of on the other side of the globe. Mexicans would then stay in their own country instead of invading ours. Mexico is at war with the United States, and doesn’t even need to fire a shot or drop a bomb. The big bomb is “Reconquista” and we are losing the war. Also, in the last century, Catholicism was suppressed and persecuted, so most Mexicans know little or nothing about what it means to be Catholic. To most of them, wearing a medal of Lazarus or owning a statue of Our Lady of Guadalupe is being Catholic. They are not going to be a boon to the Catholic Church in the U.S. And when they get here they won’t get good training in Catholicism anyway, not with the religious education programs pushed by the USCCB in most dioceses. It’s hopeless.
MZ –
Do you oppose a wall? After all, if all we do is build a wall, then we won’t be deporting all of those people, just stopping more people from coming in.
I think a wall is probably a good idea. It’s a little late though. I’d rather see my tax dollars go towards building a wall and policing it than towards a lot of other things. The purpose of the Treasury, as set up by the founding fathers, was to provide for the defense of this nation. I’d say this is what we should be paying taxes for instead of all the other pork barrel projects and hand-outs.