Nebraska’s Bishops Issue Statement on Immigration Reform
Due to recent events in Nebraska, Most. Revs. Elden F. Curtiss, Fabian W. Bruskewitz, and William J. Dendinger have entered into the immigration debate, pointing out the need for the United States to reform its polices in their statement, Immigration: A Call to Be Patient, Hospitable and Active for Reform.
In it, they outline five basic principles which the Church uses to examine the issue of migration.
- All people have the right to live in a stable homeland, with sufficient political, economic and social opportunities available to all, so that all could achieve a fulfilling life for oneself and one’s family where they live.
- When the first is not possible, a person has a right to move elsewhere, to look for a better life. They don’t have an absolute right to go where they want and how they want, but rather, they must have a proper reason to justify where and how they move (migrating because of “economic necessity” is a just cause).
- Sovereign nations have a relative right to regulate their borders for the protection and welfare of their people. The rules they use must be just, and must include a proper understanding of the relationship between nations. “Nations also have an obligation to the universal common good, which extends beyond individual borders. The more powerful economic nations, such as the United States, have a greater level of this obligation, as they manage substantial resources for human needs and strive for greater accommodation of migration flows.”
- Refugees fleeing wars and other forms of unjust persecution should be given sanctuary.
- A migrant, whether or not legal, whether or not their status is document, has rights due to the dignity of the human person, and must be treated accordingly.
The bishops state that the rule of law and its proper enforcement should be a part of the debate, and abuses in the enforcement process should not be used to reject the need for such enforcement itself (but, obviously, explains where reform is needed):
The laws governing immigration, despite deficiencies and questionable enforcement, are directed toward necessary purposes of national security and orderly control of migration. Border integrity is vital to our nation. Moreover, while immigration is predominantly a civil-law jurisdiction, it is a social and legal reality that illegal immigration is often connected to criminal activity, including identity theft and other forms of false representation, trafficking in drugs and human servitude and intentional violations of other laws and ordinances governing rights and privileges.
The bishops think any reform must overcome the either/or perspective which pits those favorable to migrant rights to those of the state. Rather, they think the way forward can only come when they are seen as complementary truths which must be united together, instead of rival truths in a zero-sum game:
The two obligations set forth in the Catechism, when viewed from the perspective of the current national, state and local debates, in which the economic desperation of immigrants is too often pitted against respect for the rule of law, may appear contradictory. We propose they are complementary. Receiving migrants and honoring laws can be a “both/and” rather than an “either/or” policy. This then is the foundation for our vision of the future.
While true, I would like to see more explanation from the bishops as to how they would work the two principles together — what is it, exactly, do they think can be done in reform?
Comments are closed.
It’s a pretty good statement, but I agree with your criticism about its vagueness about solutions. Another thing essentially ignored is the exploitation and abuse of illegals by employers, and the closely related problem of those employers using immigrant labor to squeeze out poor natives who need the same job opportunities.
Finally, the tragic and growing dysfunction in Mexico itself can’t be ignored, either. But, I imagine, it is probably impolitic to bring that sensitive topic up.
Dale,
I thought that they hinted at it when they said, “[...] trafficking in drugs and human servitude and intentional violations of other laws and ordinances governing rights and privileges.” But they could have said more here, indeed, it could have been its own section.
What a common sense statement. I think statements like are very productive.
As what the Bishops envision I expect it is close to the immigration reform proposal that was given two years ago. THey seemed to be very open to that compromise then
I think the vagueness is a virtue of the document, as such documents should avoid forming specific and concrete policy proposals, unless such policies are necessarily entailed by the principles. The bishops have merely restated that these two principles- the legitimacy of immigration policy and the rights of immigrants, should not be pitted one against the other. In upholding these principles and their coherence, a person wonders how this could be realized in the concrete, and such wonder should spur laypeople with the relevant competence and expertise to formulate actual policy
Br. Matthew
I agree there is a place for reminding people of universal principles. However, when it is normally seen that two aspects of CST are contradictory and seen in conflict, at least providing an example where they could come together and show they do not would help. Otherwise, what you will get is when a concrete suggestion is provided, someone or the other will say “you left too much of this out of the equation.” And so the debate does not move forward.
I would tend to agree with Br. Matthew. The bishops aren’t policy wonks, and shouldn’t try to be.
I think the Bishops were pretty good in some areas in tackling the real life legislation
Here is the Louisiana Bishops Statement where they said
A comprehensive immigration reform plan would include:
1. An earned legalization program – allows undocumented workers to earn permanent residency.
2. Worker program – protects foreign-born workers and safeguards against displacement of US workers.
3. Family-based immigration reform – reduces waiting times for family reunification.
4. Restoration of due process protections for immigrants and policies addressing root causes of migration.
* The Catholic Church supports an earned path to citizenship, NOT a handout.
This includes:
1. Undocumented immigrants to pay a fine and application fee.
2. Go through criminal background checks and security screenings.
3. Demonstrate that they have paid taxes.
4. Are learning English.
5. Obtain a visa that could lead to permanent residency.
http://takingbackthesacred.blogspot.com/2008/05/catholic-bishops-of-louisiana-comment.html
I would tend to agree with Br. Matthew. The bishops aren’t policy wonks, and shouldn’t try to be
Exactly
They wouldn’t have to be wonks, however, to suggest possible solutions to consider; they could even do it in such a way as to say “To start things off, look in these areas” without limiting or forcing the outcome to be that way. There is room for specification and not just generalization when dealing with CST.
I think it is important to recognize two levels of discourse when we talk about rights. When we attribute a right universally to a certain kind of entity, e.g., the right of a human being to a just wage or the right of a State to determine who is and who is not a citizen, we are involved in what is called antecedent reasoning. That is, abstracting from individual juridical bodies or persons, we consider the notion of ‘human being’ or a ‘State’ as such, and determine what is required to constitute, preserve, and perfect a human being or State. From such reasoning we come to predicate rights to these things universally and in a non-arbitrary way (i.e., what makes rights to be rights is that they are necessarily bound up with the existence, preservation, and flourishing of the kind of thing they concerned with.) Next, we move from reasoning about such abstract considerations to reasoning about actual concrete people and things in the circumstances in which they find themselves. Rights talk at this level of discourse is different. For instance, if through hard work I have acquired several hundred tons of grain which I store in giant vat in my backyard when suddenly a famine strikes my community, I cannot appeal to my right to private property to justify continuing to store that grain as my neighbors starve. If my community were to seize that grain and distribute it, this would not be an infringement on my rights, because in these circumstances I do not have a right to that grain. We can see, therefore, that rights which are universal when considered antecedently may not be universal or unconditional when considered consequently. What these bishops have clarified is that these two rights, considered antecedently, are not incommensurable in the same way that ‘humans have a right to life’ and ‘States have a right to kill other humans indiscriminately’ would be. However, it is the job of legislators, legal experts, social workers, etc., to consider how particular rights are to be enforced or applied given some particular concrete circumstances. The bishops are appealing to those who work in civil society to ensure that the interests of the State and the interests of those persons attempting to immigrate are justly balanced, but such balance is only possible on the assumption that the good of human persons and the good of States are not necessarily at loggerheads.
That should read ‘States have a right to kill human beings indiscriminately’ and not ‘States have a right to kill other humans indiscriminately’
It would just be helpful if the laity would actually listen to the Bishops so concrete actions can be made, but sadly that is not the case.
It would just be helpful if the laity would actually listen to the Bishops so concrete actions can be made, but sadly that is not the case.
Yeah. I agree that this is usually not the case.
As to the Bishops listening to the Laity I think as reported this Bishop’s statement was made after attemptedconsultation with the laity
See
Nebraska bishops use input from laity to tackle immigration reform
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15124
Katerina
I would agree that the laity needs to listen to the Laity but they need to do likewise because the laity can give some practical advice
I am still astonished that the Catholic Hierarchy put of all people Cardinal Mahony as the spokeman for the Catholic point of view on immigration reform front and center. How blind is that. First his view toward trying to understand the other side and their concerns was about nil. Second he was a PR disaster because of the sex abuse scandal
9 times out of ten people were asking me why they should listen to this Cardinal that in their view had his own problems on other matters
Hopefully next time someone like Cardinal Dinardo from Houston will take a more public voice and be at the front
The immigration problem exists because our national policy towards Mexico has been an unmitigated disaster for the last 40 years.
Let’s address root causes.
We have failed in our neighborly duty to assist Mexico in becoming a self-sufficient nation. We have a special duty and obligation towards Mexico because they are our geographic neighbor.