One of the people who commented on my post on Why Latinos (and African-Americans) have concerns about their fellow Evangelicals asked me, “First of all, Fr. Ernesto – now would be a great time for a positive statement of your ideal immigration policy.” Since that request did not have to do with the request yesterday, I delayed it until today. So, what is my idea of an immigration policy?
You can read the full text of what I consider as a reasonable orthodox Christian approach to immigration on the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It is called, “Stranger No Longer.” I highly recommend it. It is the joint statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop and the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano. It takes you through the Old and New Testament and on into Holy Tradition and how that is interpreted by the bishops today. If you are Roman Catholic and conservative you need to read this statement and take it seriously. I understand that those who are Protestant among the readers of this blog do not have a tradition of Church authority, but it is an important statement for both Roman Catholic and Orthodox.
On the Orthodox side, His Eminence DEMETRIOS of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese delivered an address several years ago on the challenge of pluralism in the USA. It was titled The Orthodox Churches in a Pluralistic World. That is not as directly pointed towards immigration but gives some additional thoughts on pluralism in the USA.
But, both of those statements lay out general guidelines rather than exact statements. Why is this? Because the role of the Church is to lay down guideposts and road markers, but not necessarily to define exact wordings of particular laws. The answer to abortion on demand is a simple and emphatic, “NO!” But even then, the particular wording is left to the State and the political process. I do have personal opinions on how some of it ought to be implemented, but I think it wiser to first lay out the general framework within which I function.
Read it all. Some early thoughts:
1) Zero about the responsibility of immigrants. Absolutely nothing about “respect the US culture”, “learn the language”, “don’t march down the street with Mexican flags”. Zilch.
2) #35 says that “all the goods of the earth belong to all the people”. Wow. That eliminates all private property up to and including my toothbrush. In fact, it would seem to decriminalize burglary, since my stuff is your stuff. Crazy.
3) I’m glad they also criticized Mexico’s rather draconian immigration laws.
4) It pays lip service to our right to control our borders(#30, 36), but seems to actually believe this only in cases of potential terrorism. No economic reasons are countenanced.
5) It seems to ignore economics entirely, except as noted in 4. Interesting, blind even. Back in the 1950’s there was “Operation Wetback”, a big roundup and deportation. Biggest result was increase in wages for native-born Hispanics. Read somewhere that meatpacking wages fell from $20 to $10 over 20 years due to influx of illegals, thus converting it into a “job Americans won’t do”. Except they did it before. So, economically biggest losers from big immigration, illegal or not, are low-skilled workers, ironically disproportionately Hispanic. Winners are immigrants themselves, and employers paying lower wages. Bishops don’t seem interested in plight of dispossessed native workers.
6) I agree that NAFTA was a mistake.
7) #92 actually disputes our right to arrest and deport criminal aliens. Makes you realize the lip service paid to our right to secure our borders really was hollow.
8) #81 is a crock. The footnote’s tally of complaints is meaningless. I suspect most of them were from wily veterans of the crossing who know, like al Qaeda does, that an abuse complaint is likely to keep you in the country. I interpret the stats to mean that 90% were baseless.
9) Their advocacy of amnesty will only whet the appetites of those still in Mexico, as it did in 1986. Surveys suggest that 50 million Mexicans want to come here. Presumably the bishops don’t care, but the country would drown in low-skilled workers, kids with zero command of English, TB, etc. Of course, the silver lining would be that we would no longer be one of those rich nations who bear special responsibility for taking in migrants.
10) All the talk of family separation gives me gas. When one member gets deported, separation is a choice. The entire family is welcome in Mexico; if some choose to stay here, OK, but don’t blame the US.
11) #11 documents the horrible discrimination in US immigration policy against non-Mexicans and non-Hispanics generally.
12) #40 condemns attitudes of cultural superiority. Excuse me, but there is only one thing which makes the US rich and Mexico poor, or which differentiates the US and Argentina, which had equivalent GDP’s in 1890: culture, especially political and economic culture. I reject the bishops’ cultural levelling.
Have at me, Father.
that smiley was some sort of accident. Should be 8)
did it again.
Actually, it is a pleasure to have you respond like this. You are one of the few people who actually follows through and reads one of my links, and makes a point by point comment of the areas of disagreement. Will you give me a day or two to respond? This is Tuesday night and I have a couple of busy days coming up (you know mid-week hospital visits, Bible Studies, etc.). Plus, I usually plan blog posts a little in advance.
Look forward to the conversation. Great blog.