Wenski on Immigration
From an interview with John Allen, Miami’s new archbishop had this to say:
“Immigration has always been a part of the history of this country, and more importantly it’s been a part of the history of the Catholic church in this country. I think some of the anti-immigrant feeling that we’re experiencing in this country is just a revival of the Know-Nothing movement of the past, which sometimes was a veiled anti-Catholicism. That makes me even more upset where I hear Catholics spouting anti-immigrant things, because they’ve forgotten their history, and it’s a history that’s maybe only one generation removed from where they are today.”
That might be because the noisiest Catholic voices against immigration are either converts or those who have “over-integrated” into the dominant Protestant culture.
Comments are closed.
It might also be complete nonsense. The anti-immigration sentiment in this country has little-to-nothing to do with religion. It has a lot to do with race/ethnicity (language); and it has a lot to do with the perception that the immmigrants, if and when they obtain the vote will vote Democratic.
Then again it might be about $$$s. Employers get cheap labor, the government gets taxes, the immigrant gets income above their ability to earn in their home country, and the church gets a faithful contributor to the collection basket. If all were required to enter legally, all of this would go away! For shame on all guilty parties.
“… the noisiest Catholic voices against immigration are either converts or those who have “over-integrated” into the dominant Protestant culture.”
Who? Name names. Who are these converts or “protestantized” Catholics that are the “noisiest Catholic voices against immigration”? If you’re going to make the charge, you should probably have some specific folks in mind.
I’m a convert and I’m very immigration friendly, including supporting increased immigration quotas and a pathway to citizenship for undocumented aliens that are already here. James H of Opinionated Catholic is another example of a former Baptist convert to Catholicism who is VERY pro immigration.
But since we’re speaking in generalities, I’ll just say that the loudest anti-immigrant voices that I’ve heard among Catholics tend to come from cradle Catholics, especially those of, for lack of a better term, the “traditionalist” variety. Hardly the sort that would allow themselves to be tainted by protestantism.
It’s painfully clear that you’re not fond of converts, especially those who come from evangelical backgrounds, and that you like to blame them for much of what you see wrong with the Church. But you’re especially all wet on this one.
Jay
Which traditionalists? Name names.
Don’t be so sensitive, Jay – I was not thinking of you or James H! And you’re wrong that I’m not fond of converts – some of the priests I’ve been closest to have been converts to the faith, including the man who probably had the greatest influence on my life. We have some converts here on Vox Nova, and I learn from them all the time.
And I will grant you that opposition to immigration does have some resonance in traditional Catholic circles, though probably more in Europe than in the United States.
But I certainly think that some of the noisiest evangelical converts are bringing a rather unhealthy political baggage and outlook into the Church with them.
I don’t see the evidence that the current anti-immigrant sentiment has anything to do with religion. Can somebody help me out here? What am I missing?
Rodak,
A major element of those against immigration are concerned about the Mexicans, who are seen as outsiders of our culture. Which culture do they come from? A nominal Catholic one. Ours is a nominal Protestant one. Yes, the Mexicans have pre-Catholic influences on theirs, but I would say we have a post-Christian influence on ours. So, it might be a direct anti-religious, but I would think elements of what is disliked is indeed things associated with a Catholic culture. Finally, many Mexicans have found refugees in Catholic Churches. This has led to some anti-Catholic sentiment.
It is my experience that many “traditionalists” are in fact corrupted by Protestant influences, specifically Jansenism. Many traditionalists are in fact converts, but many are not. Many converts do in fact bring Protestant ideas with them, but not all do. Most of these Protestant ideas are in fact bad ideas, but some of them are not.
“Don’t be so sensitive, Jay – I was not thinking of you or James H! And you’re wrong that I’m not fond of converts – some of the priests I’ve been closest to have been converts to the faith, including the man who probably had the greatest influence on my life. We have some converts here on Vox Nova, and I learn from them all the time.”
Fair enough. I withdraw the accusation that you’re not fond of converts. It does seem, however, that evangelical converts seem to bear the brunt of much of your criticism of what is “wrong” with the Church in the U.S.
“Which traditionalists? Name names.”
As I said, “… since we’re speaking in generalities …” But enjoy your little tu quoque game, Henry.
Besides, I think you KNOW full well who I’m talking about; but since you ask (and since I’m generally quite willing to back up my assertions with … you know … actual facts), here are some examples off the top of my head:
Pat Buchanan
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36716
John Zmirak
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8087&Itemid=100
Joe Hargrave (for whom I have much admiration and who I don’t believe for one minute is anti-immigrant, but who has written extensively about his support for Arizona’s recent law)
There. I’ve gone above and beyond in producing actual examples to back up my claim. Now, why don’t you and Morning’s Minion meet your burden of proof and list for me some of those converts and “protestantized” Catholics who are so vocal about the immigration issue, since the generalized assertions about who is responsible for the immigration rancor of which Bishop Wenski speaks originated with this blog post, not with my comment in response thereto.
Jay
Which traditionalists? Name names….
Well for a start…Damian Thompson editor of the Catholic Herald, read his Holy Smoke blog and his garbage on a theology of anti-immigration
I do not regard Buchanan, and certainly not Zmirak, as traditionalist Catholics. Didn’t Henry recently get Zmirak to admit that American Catholics should accept more of the Protestant culture? (Henry can correct me if I am wrong).
Well, with Zmirak, first, I got him to admit his anti-catholic biases, then he writes a post suggesting we should be like “Jesuits in China” in the US, taking on evangelical traditions for ourselves (because Catholic ones are bad).
Henry–
I know that Mexicans tend to be Catholic and that the anti-immigrant sentiment is primarily directed at Hispanics. That said, I don’t find it realistic that the animus against Mexicans has much, if anything, to do with their Catholicism. It has much more to do with nativism, racism, classism, general xenophobia, and partisan politics than religion.
If I had to point to the major impetus, I would point to the anti-tax movement and the perception that “real Americans” are being taxed to house, school, and provide health care for the children of illegal aliens. And then there’s the concept of the “anchor baby.” I think that the feeling among Catholics that there is much anti-Catholic feeling among Protestants today is largely paranoia. Most middle-class Protestants don’t take their own religion seriously enough to give a hoot what you believe.
To move this in a different direction, I think the bishops have a tremendous desire to been seen out front on an issue that is both a Catholic moral concern AND a pastoral concern, given the importance of this issue is to the 1/3 of the American faithful who are Hispanic — an element that is otherwise being pastorally underserved and disaffiliating from the Church in large numbers.
Unfortunately, I think their actions in the health care debate have curtailed their effectiveness and credibility. Conservative Catholics are not following their leadership due to their refusal to excommunicate Pelosi and Stupak and liberal Catholics see them as undependable allies. Groups like Catholics United and LaRaza can do better on their own building Catholic support for immigration reform rather than waiting for the USCCB.
Wenski’s comments again show why the laity are ultimately given God’s charism in discerning the proper solution to this issue.
Hispanic immigrants get most of the attention not because of their catholocism, which no one cares about, but rather because 1) there are millions upon millions of them, and millions more here illegally and 2) they are changing the country in ways that people don’t like. In a less insane age, these would be perfectly normal reactions to such a large scale and sudden change, but instead we have people jabbering about know-nothings and nativism.
Immigration is a numbers game. One immigrant to a country of 1 million is not a big deal. One hundred thousand immigrants to a country of one million is a very big deal. But all anyone can do is babble about racism and xenophobia like insufferable bobbleheads. Mexico, naturally, understands this perfectly and has an immigration policy that makes sense.
The Catholic Church in America was hijacked quickly by ethnic interests, first the Irish, then the Italians, now the Mexicans et al. Hence, enforcing immigration law is like being a Nazi. In a way, this country deserves to be swamped for being so abysmally stupid.
@Rodak,
And I suppose that explains why you frequent the comment boxes of Catholic blogs poking us.
It seems to me, that in the immigration discussion, some very fundamental questions are not being asked or answered. Does a nation state have the right to regulate immigration? Is a nation state morally obligated to accept every person in the world who wants to immigrate?
There are unjust reasons to exclude a specific person, or a specific group of persons, from immigration. But are there no just reasons to regulate immigration in general?
One could make the argument that fortunate nations are morally obligated to share their good fortune with the unfortunate, but is that obligation unconditional and unlimited?
Is the immigration question a question about how many immigrants can be accommodated, or a question about which immigrants can be accommodated?
Opposition to immigration from Mexico could, in some cases, be opposition to immigration in general, with no special malice toward Mexicans. In other cases, it could indeed be malice toward Mexicans, on account of religion, language, culture, or even race. It seems to me that, since a large part of the United States was originally a part of Mexico, and that the “original” inhabitants of these parts were Hispanic, even if not properly “Mexican,” it would be difficult to argue that immigration from Mexico is even “foreign” immigration, in the strictest sense.
It would be naive to think that there are no people who oppose immigration out of malice toward Mexicans. At the same time, it is ungenerous to think that every person who opposes immigration does so out of malice. It is reasonable to suppose that immigration can have economic impacts. Is it intrinsically ungenerous or immoral to fear losing one’s job to cheap imported labor? If so, then is it not also ungenerous or immoral to fear having one’s job exported? Isn’t it the same thing?
It is in immigration rhetoric that one observes the “latte liberal” betrayal of the working class. Businessmen are the biggest beneficiaries of immigrant labor, because it is cheap labor and cheap labor drives out all other kinds of labor. Anyone acquainted with the history of the labor movement knows that. If it is illegal immigrant labor, the businessmen can even get away without paying benefits. One can easily say that immigrants do jobs that natives refuse to do. One can just as easily say that natives refuse to do these jobs because immigrants have driven down the wages for these jobs.
Rockliff,
The state does have the right to limit immigration according to Catholic Social Teaching:
298. Institutions in host countries must keep careful watch to prevent the spread of the temptation to exploit foreign labourers, denying them the same rights enjoyed by nationals, rights that are to be guaranteed to all without discrimination. Regulating immigration according to criteria of equity and balance [643] is one of the indispensable conditions for ensuring that immigrants are integrated into society with the guarantees required by recognition of their human dignity. Immigrants are to be received as persons and helped, together with their families, to become a part of societal life.[644] In this context, the right of reuniting families should be respected and promoted.[645] At the same time, conditions that foster increased work opportunities in people’s place of origin are to be promoted as much as possible.[646]
John McG–
Do you preceive that I’m poking you as a Catholic? I don’t think so. I do my “poking” of you as a political conservative.
This is not to say that as a Protestant I don’t ipso facto have doctrinal differences with Catholics. Those are interesting to discuss and I enjoy the back-and-forth.
It’ classic out-group bias; the Governor of AZ believes majority of illegals are drug smugglers even though the stats. don’t back her up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity_bias
I think the common-thread to anti immigrant sentiment, anti-gay rhetoric, virulent pro-choice beliefs, and of course pro-lifers who believe in killing abortion doctors,- is there is a denial of the “out-groups” humanity. Sure they see them in a biological sense as human, but there is something “not quite right” about them to the point that they don’t belong in our country, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, and should be allowed to live or even given a chance at life.
First, Archbishop Wenski’s quote is accurate and fair. However, knowing bishop Wenski for most of my 30 plus years of existence, I think it is fair to say that this quotation is incomplete of his entire thought on this subject. For some reason everyone wants to dismiss two key words; “some of”.
I believe this whole argument has completely missed the boat. Most everyone is missing a major point. Sure there are plenty of morons on both sides of the political spectrum that spew illogical arguments. Some of these arguments are based in angry racism and others are based in a sort of hippy logic. Either way they are ridiculous.
The point that seems to be repeatedly ignored is the fact laws are meant to be enforced by those paid to enforce them. We can argue racism, intent, language, culture, and so on all we want but that is ultimately irrelevant. The discussion should be on what the law ought to be, not enforcement thereof. I can tell you through first hand experience the current enforcement (or lack thereof) is doing no one any favors.
Native Mexicans are paying outrageous amounts of money to be transported over the border. Coyotes are taking advantage of these Mexicans and putting federal agents and American citizens at risk. Lax enforcement is making kidnapping a profitable industry for Mexican gangs. Cartels are currently regulating traffic across the border more than US authorities. Mexicans are offered discounts if they are willing to transit narcotics with them over the border. This is all due to a lack of enforcement of current US law.
Instead of bickering about the intentions of an ignorant handful we should be having a discussion on responsible immigration law. Personally, I would argue that an open border policy would deplete any chance of Mexico surviving and lead to a modern day Mariel Boatlift of immense proportions. Maybe that’s just me living in Miami in the early ’80′s.
What I do know is that as a Texas resident currently I can’t even take advantage of the best vacation spots this summer because they aren’t safe to travel to. I couldn’t imagine actually living on the border. The rancher that was recently shot and killed in Arizona never attacked the trespassing people despite the fact he was well armed, had up to 500 trespassers on his property per week, and had every right to open fire. This made his life miserable but he still had the kindness to offer food and water to those who needed it. His reward was being shot to death by a coyote who thought he might be a hindrance in the future.
In case someone still can’t tell, my issue is with the coyotes and the politicians that continue to enable them. I love our brothers and sisters from Mexico. But for their protection and ours we need to seal the border and create a system where they can enter the country through clear legal means. Otherwise, we continue to facilitate an industry that is deadly for all near the border.
Re the state on limiting immigration; according to catholic social teaching–which is part of moral theology–the state does have a relative right to limit such immigration; but, on a more basic level, persons and families have the right–indeed, the duty–to provide for themselves in a way that enable human fluorishing. If to do this you have to break the positive law pertaining ro immigration, then you are not breaking the natural law. Immigration should be one of those issues that rallies the right–after all, the Church’s position–pastorally and theologically–places the interests of persons and families prior to the interests of the state. But perhaps these are the wrong sorts of persons and families.
I don’t see that Sean Michael is addressing either the Catholic, or the putative anti-Catholic aspects of the quote upon which this post is based. The right/duty of a sovereign state to control its borders is an issue separate from that.
I have maintained above that the Catholicism of the illegal immigrants has little-to-nothing to do with the anti-immigrant pressure being applied to the situation politically. If they were all Lutherans or Presbyterians, or Methodists, or a mixture of the three, but also Mexicans in the same situation that they are in now as probable Catholics, I don’t think the reaction against them would differ one iota.
The Church of course would have known of such an argument when it formulated its teaching. It has argued in contrast that the common good of the receiving state (which ultimately relates to the good of persons and families of that state) may dictate limits. Given that the Church, in spite of such apparent, though invaild arguments, accepts that immigration may be limited and that illegal immigrants may be deported, I suspect that your opinion regarding natural law continues to be unaccepted.
Sean Michael makes some good points
Phillip, only speaking for myself but I was a little confused about which argument you were referencing.
Rodak, I apologize for not being more clear. I think I agree with you. I made a short reference but I will clarify here; I do not believe most of those wishing for stricter border securtiy are anti-Catholic. I also do not believe that Archbishop Wenski is of that belief.
My argument is that due to self serving politicians the US policy on the US/Mexican border has created chaos. In reality, no politician (pro or anti-Catholic) wants to do what is needed out of fear of the political fall out. Once again, I’m sure there are some anti-Catholic, anti-minority people that make dumb statements. However, those of us living a couple hundred miles north of today’s masacre on the border between two rival Mexican cartels have some real concerns that are not based on bigotry or prejudice.
One more point. As I finished my last post I thought of one more thing to clarify my point. If the only people crossing the border illegaly were nuns and Franciscan Friars no citiizens in border states would really care. Then again, my guess is that you would see greater enforcement by the government against Catholic religious than random Mexicans. Just a thought.
“may” dictate limits–”may” be limited, “may” be deported. Nothing I wrote does not allow for these “mays”. The common good also allows for the relative right to property, but if I have to steal your bread to feed my family, I have not done anything wrong according to the natural law, as ultimately all property is common. Something analogous is at work in immigration. States don’t have the power to pass laws that keep me or my family from performing the duties–or from claiming the rights that follow from these duties–required of me. A strong argument can be made that the majority of immigrants who enter the US Outside the positive law enter precisely out of need. They therefore are doing nothing wrong; our money, our economy, our jobs–are after all not our own on the last analysis.
Matt Weber and others who fear being “swamped” by foreigners:
History shows that immigrant groups in America quickly become thoroughly Americanized. The Irish and Italians who poured into America in the nineteeth century seemed at that time to native-
(Continued:)
born Americans to be as foreign and dangerous as Mexicans seem to some Americans today.
“America is a nation of immigrants”: that’s a cliche perhaps, but it could not be truer, on many levels.
This is not to say that we don’t have problems today with immigration to the US, but only that these problems will pass away as surely as all those brown kids grow up learning English, listening to Lady Gaga, believing what they hear on Fox News, etc.
I for one worry more about America’s bad influence on her immigrants than their bad influence on her.
…you would see greater enforcement by the government against Catholic religious than random Mexicans.
Sean Michael–I was with you up to that point. Other than racism/nativism, the primary reasons for the anti-immigrant sentiment is that undocumented aliens, and their children in particular, are seen as a tax burden and/or as a crime problem, by the general public. Catholic religious would be neither. There would be, therefore, no political issue there.
I’m curious as to your reasoning in making the above statement.
Sorry Rodak. That was a tongue in cheek comment based on experience with Congressional staff. Too many nights in Georgetown and DuPont Circle. Only serious to the point that for the last 20+ years more politicians are anti-religious than pro-border control.
Sean Michael–
Gotcha.