A Brief Remark on Immigration Policy
To my mind, a sensible immigration policy is grounded in the principle of hospitality and effectively balances our obligations to the immigrant and our obligations to our fellow citizens. Immigration presents us with important economic and social challenges, and it would be a mistake to downplay its many consequences, positive and negative; nevertheless, it is also a mistake to treat illegal immigration as if it were a moral evil, to treat those who enter our country illegally as if they have broken a moral law. It may be a crime to cross a border, but it’s generally not immoral. That our laws governing entry into the country are at best based on a prudential assessment of economic and social realities, and not on the moral law per se, a moderation, flexibility, and openness ought to govern our legislation and enforcement. I’m not calling for lawlessness, but a recognition that our immigration laws should be written not only for us, for our good, but for those who come invited and uninvited, for their good, with their interests and needs in mind.
Comments are closed.
“It may be a crime to cross a border, but it’s generally not immoral.”
I agree. The Federal government has dropped the ball on this for far too long, and there is a need for program/policy that can accomodate the illegal immigrants as they are clearly here for opportunities that available to them (compared to the poverty and oppression in their home countries). It is senseless for people to risk their lifes sneaking across the border to fill jobs are economy has for them.
It may be a crime to cross a border, but it’s generally not immoral.
I think that is exactly backwards. It’s not a crime to cross the border illegally. It’s a civil infraction. However, according to my Catholic education, at least, we are all morally bound to obey the law except in a case where the law is unjust. Every country has a right to control its borders, and I can’t see how laws against crossing the US border are unjust. There may be mitigating factors for those who cross the border illegally to better provide for their families, but they are still breaking the law.
Having said that, I am entirely on the side of immigrants who come here to work and make a better life, and I think the hostility to them is not because they broke the law or committed a sin. It’s an irrational hatred, like racism. We should be able to treat everyone in the country decently without resorting to Gestapo tactics (see the new law in Arizona).
It is to the great credit of the Catholic Church that it stands up for illegal immigrants.
The explosion in illegal immigration from Mexico is a direct result of NAFTA. When Mexican agricultural markets were opened to federally subsidized American agribusiness, it destroyed traditional farms across Mexico, resulting in millions of displaced farm workers. Many of those workers found “employment” in drug cartels. Others headed for the border to find work on the farms that had supplanted their own. Now. the same people who want to get tough on illegal immigration are those who promote “free trade” as a non-negotiable economic principle.
nevertheless, it is also a mistake to treat illegal immigration as if it were a moral evil, to treat those who enter our country illegally as if they have broken a moral law. It may be a crime to cross a border, but it’s generally not immoral.
Agreed. Our bishops have spoken out numerous times on the subject of immigration, and every instance I can find, they emphasize compassion in the enforcement of immigration laws, and advise against enactment of immigration laws they believe lack compassion.
My own view is that we need an orderly process for admitting immigrants quickly, and there should be some mechanism for punishing those who refuse to follow the process, I’m just not certain how to make exceptions to allow the truly needy to stay.
We need to get fear out of the equation. There are legit concerns raised, but I suspect they are solvable. These are some that I heard:
* concern that illegal immigrants will take jobs from the citizens on the lowest economic rung leaving them unemployed
* concern that granting amnesty to illegal immigrants will only encourage more illegal crossings
* concern that illegal immigrants are here solely to engage in serious criminal activity
* concern that illegal immigrants will overwhelm social services
To some extent, our bishops have attempted to address these concerns, but I believe more work needs to be done.
Ultimately, I suspect economic development of impoverished regions is essential to allow people to remain in place and not feel as though they have to immigrate to survive. For now at least I agree that crossing the border is illegal, but not in every case immoral.
Kyle,
So, is it your opinion that illegal aliens are not obliged to respect and obey the laws concerning our borders nor to seek to immigrate legally?
The whole question about how to handle the thousands of immigrants in the country now, and how to go forward in handling those wanting to immigrate in the future, is a very, very difficult issue. I myself have no good idea as to what legal structure is best that balances “our obligations to the immigrant and our obligations to our fellow citizens”, as Kyle very correctly describes it.
I would be really interested in hearing from some of the posters here on Vox Nova as to what they think would be the best legal and regulatory structure to address the immigration situation, because I’m at loss myself.
I wonder if any of you folks who get all huffy about “illegal immigrants” have ever seen the film A Day Without a Mexican? Even the people who are moaning about jobs being taken from the “red-blooded” Gringo class wouldn’t be able to buy cheap fruit in the grocery stores without those “illegals,” according to my pesticide-mogul of a brother, who keeps copies of the dvd to hand to his rich white corporate clients when they start belly-aching about the “illegals.” Even many non-Tea Party “conservatives” understand that the way to keep America on top economically and educationally is to keep the borders OPEN. (And it is a fact that, if Americans lived on a population-density scale similar to that of Western Europe, we could put the ENTIRE POPULATION of the continental United States into one or two New England states.We’ve got plenty of space in America.)
It’s time to stop complaining about the “change of cultural complexion” of the United States and realise that one main reason for the success of the country and its popularity among the best and brightest of the Third World is its cultural, religious and ethnic pluralism. Hispanics, in my experience, are decent, warm-hearted, hard-working and fundamentally “conservative” people. They are the salt of the American earth.
It must be pointed out that economic development in Third World countries will also contribute to unemployment in the United States by competing with the U.S. workforce offshore, rather than locally. That said, it would ease the burden on schools and social services in this country, if those now seeking to come here could earn a living at home. There are no easy answers, and there are no fixes that will not involve some sacrifice on the part of those enjoying the benefits of relative prosperity. A Christian nation–or, rather, the Christian element of any nation–should be looking for way to make the necessary sacrifices, rather than for ways to avoid making them.
That opinion isn’t consistent with what I wrote above, Teresa.
Kyle,
If there are no moral laws being broken how are they obligated to follow our civil laws?
Teresa,
Okay, I see now where you’re going. In a sense, every human action is a moral action and involves moral laws of some kind. Every act one commits has consequences for oneself or for others and these have consequences have moral weight to some degree. When I say that crossing a boarder illegally isn’t immoral, I mean that the act itself isn’t, in itself, an evil act. Now it could be an evil act, if, for example, a person illegally entered another country with the intent to cause harm. Taken in itself, though, crossing a border in violation of a civil law isn’t immoral; it might even be the right thing to do. It has a moral aspect, of course, as it has consequences for the one who crosses and for the people residing across the boarder; and here is where we can speak of the immigrant’s obligations to the foreign civil law. His entry will affect others, others to whom he has obligations because he has entered or intends to enter into their world. His respect for the laws of the land should follow from his respect for the people in that land. His respect for those in the land to which he travels doesn’t necessitate, however, that he never violate their civil laws. The immigrant has obligations to others, perhaps to his family, or perhaps only to himself, and he therefore has to weigh his obligations and make the best decision he can.
But, one of our laws is this: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952(INA), which says, “The terms “documented” and “undocumented” refer to whether an arriving alien has the proper records and identification for admission into the U.S. Having the proper records and identification typically requires the alien to possess a valid, unexpired passport and either a visa, border crossing identification card, permanent resident card, or a reentry permit. The INA expressly refuses stowaway aliens entry into the U.S.”
How is it moral or legal for the undocumented worker to violate that U.S. law?
Especially when our Catechism even states that countries have rights to borders:
2241– The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.
Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.
Does that apply to every other country but the United States?
I am not saying that these people are evil but that doesn’t mean that these immigrants unwillingness to follow one certain law in order to enter our country properly isn’t violating both the moral and civil law.
An act can be both morally good, but against the law. There are at least two reasons for this: 1) the law itself may be unjust (in all circumstances or in some circumstances) and 2) the law may not take into account all situations it oversees. Laws are human constructs made to enact justice, but we must never confuse even a just law with justice itself. Sometimes what is truly just falls outside the boundaries of a just law. A family desparate for life’s needs who crosses a national border illegally when that seems their only option hasn’t done anything morally wrong. They’ve broken a law, perhaps even a just law, but they were in their situation justifed in doing so.
What about the criminals and gangs that cross the border? How do we keep them out, keep citizens safe, while applying justice from your perspective to families in need at the same time?
Plus, the idea that the United States allowing immigrants in and helping them does not take care of the primary issue, but only the secondary issue. The primary issue is Mexico and Central America needing infrastructure, jobs and other necessities. And, we can help Mexicans etc. without having our borders porous and allowing immigrants to enter the United States while they’re breaking our laws, causing our crimes rates to rise due to the spillover from Mexico, which is in fact causing mayhem in some areas of the country.
Teresa – I don’t know what your position is on the justification of self-defense or defense of others (perhaps even using violent means), but perhaps a similar logic may apply. The impoverished person is doing what is necessary for them and/or their family to survive. To stay means death – to go means breaking an immigration law. To say this is justified does not justify breaking other laws any more than subduing and restraining an assailant (which may involve breaking laws regarding forceable confinement but is often considered justified) justifies disobeying tax laws.
Ryan- I do understand what you are saying about self-defense and defense of others, But, I do not think it is legitimate for citizens of this country to ignore our laws which could cause lawlessness and have that spread to other states like what is happening in Arizona and other border states today, in order to help immigrants. PLus, there is no actual way a person would have knowledge as to whether immigrants would die or not if they stayed in their home country. But, it is a fact, regardless of the intent of the immigrants, by crossing our borders these immigrants are ignoring at least one of our laws just by crossing over without the correct papers. If they want to come here, then the immigrants should have the correct documentation. Plus, us allowing them to cross over is not solving the core problem, but in fact making the problem worse and aiding in its spreading into our country as well. We need to help immigrants in Mexico and Central America so that we can help them make better lives for themselves there.
Teresa – My point is that self-defense is exactly the same thing. By defending yourself, especially if you use force, you are breaking the law. Just by defending yourself, you commit a crime. Now most people would say that committing that crime in your own defense is justified, but that it does not justify committing other crimes. So to say that breaking immigration laws causes lawlessness is disingenuous.
Heck, we all ignore laws from time to time. I’ve exceeded the speed limit (and I probably will again). Maybe I had a good reason (like getting my wife to the hospital to give birth), in which case my crime would likely be justified. Maybe I didn’t. Maybe a person had a good reason to cross the border and maybe they didn’t.
But this gets back to Kyle’s point that while crossing a border may be illegal, it may not be immoral. Notice that the catechism states the the main responsibilities of governments in regulating immigration are 1)to promote the common good, and 2) to help newcomers fulfill their duties to contribute to society. The catechism does not say that governments are allowed to bar people for any reason they want, or that governments are owed our unconditional obedience. We are required by the church to disobey unjust laws, and in fact the church will willingly and knowing break the law in Arizona as it (I trust) will continue to offer help and support to undocumented immigrants. Does this make the actions of the church in breaking the law immoral?
Killing in self-defense is not a crime, and isn’t immoral either. Murder is a crime. There is huge difference.
“Notice that the catechism states the the main responsibilities of governments in regulating immigration are 1)to promote the common good, and 2) to help newcomers fulfill their duties to contribute to society. The catechism does not say that governments are allowed to bar people for any reason they want, or that governments are owed our unconditional obedience.”
This is a requirement of the government of Mexico or other governments in Central America to their citizens, and not of the government of United States. Having a legal system in which an immigrant enters this country and keeps its own citizens safe is not barring people from entry for any reason.
Plus, did you know that Mexico has even more stringent laws than the one just passed in Arizona?
Why is Mexico allowed to have more stringent immigration laws or even visitation laws than the U.S. and the United States isn’t allowed to enforce the rule of law at the borders in our country?
You are absolutely correct Teresa. The same criticisms levied against the immigration laws of the United States apply equally to the immigration laws of Mexico. The post is about borders and immigration in general. I assume that if this discussion were being held in Mexico, the issue would have been what to do about the poor immigrants from Central America trying to get into Mexico to make a better life.
I specifically didn’t use the example of killing in self-defense, but I’m gratified to see you’ve come to agree with my logic. An action that in one circumstance is immoral (killing a person/breaking an immigration law), becomes a moral action in another circumstance (self-defense/escaping starvation). And I think that’s really the point Kyle was trying to make.
To clarify: I agree that crossing the border is not intrinsically immoral, but it is still immoral to break our laws without sufficient justification.