The Immigration Debate

A few thoughts on the current immigration debate.  The Church teaches (as I understand it) that persons have a right to emigrate.  But, John Paul II noted that emigration – the uprooting of a person from one culture and placing him in another - is in some sense an evil.  It also teaches that while sovereign nations have the right to control their borders, including denying admission to foreign subjects, this right is not absolute.  The right of the sovereign to restrict immigration is a qualified right, allowing a sovereign to deny the emigrant entrance only if necessary to protect the country and its inhabitants.  For the most part, Catholic teaching on emigration/immigration corresponds to the Law of Nations as it developed through the 19^th Century.

The Church’s teaching is based on its understanding of the universal and particular nature of human existence and the universal destination of goods. The universal - every person has inherent dignity, including the ability to fully develop.  The particular – this dignity manifests itself in particular places at particular times and within particular communities.  The person develops in community and, in turn, has obligations toward that community.  There may be times, however, when flourishing within a community is impossible.  At these times, emigration might be the best option.  Because of the inherent dignity of the person and the universal destination of goods, potential receiving countries have some duty toward potential immigrants, including the duty to receive them, at least when it won’t put too great a burden on the domestic situation.

Although not perfect, we could make an analogy to a family. The family has a particular right to home and land ownership and to use their resources for the flourishing of the family.  But, even the family’s wealth and resources ought to be deployed for the common good of all.  If they have excess (in money, land, or talent), it ought to be deployed for the benefit of larger community.  In the Old Testament, for example, farmer’s were required to leave some crops in field so that they could be gleaned by the poor.

Given this understanding, I would ask a series of questions about our current and proposed immigration policies.

1. Do we need to further restrict immigration to protect our nation (family)?  Or, do we have room in the pool house or out at the ranch for a few more desperate people trying to support their families?
2. Can we accommodate the people who have squatted on our land or in our pool houses?  Even if we didn’t let them in the front door, aren’t we partly responsible for them using the backdoor, enticing them with jobs and then not enforcing our own law, which would punish the employer?
3. Even if it is in some sense just to deport those who line-jumped (this is where the term Sooner came from in the Land Run days), if we don’t have the political will to deport the 11 million or so people who are here unlawfully (and we don’t), should we find ways to bring them out of the shadows and into the mainstream?  Or, should we further marginalize them, allowing them to be exploited because of their undocumented status?
4. Do we, like a wealthy family, have excess riches, which could be used for the common good of the hemisphere or even the world?  Are we deploying those riches in such a way that people in other countries (particularly to our south) have a greater ability to develop and flourish (thereby decreasing the desire or need to emigrate).

If these are some of the right questions, I would tentatively answer as follows. 

1. We should find a way to integrate the current undocumented into our society because they have started to build lives here, our desire for cheap and exploitable labor has contributed to their presence, we don’t have the political will to deport 11 million plus people, and we should minimize the possibility of exploitation.
2. We should get serious about border enforcement – placing most of the burden on the employer (the supplier of employment) and not the worker.  A quarter of a century ago, Fr. Hesburgh said that it was necessary to close the back door on immigration in order to have a healthy front door.  We tried to do that 20 years ago with employer sanctions but for many reasons that has failed.  10 years ago we started penalizing the alien but that hasn’t worked either.
3. We need to rethink the front door policy.  We allow family reunification but there are long waits if you are coming from countries like Mexico. A noncitizen can also immigrate if they have possess the right skills, but this is weighted heavily toward the educated and credentialed.  Do we have room for more at the bottom rung of the economic and skill ladder?  Can we let them in without harming the domestic labor force?  If so, we ought to be more generous in allowing in less skilled workers who may have a greater need to access our resources in order to flourish.
4. We need to make explicit the tie between foreign aid and development and immigration.  A just immigration policy starts with using our excess wealth to help countries develop so that their citizens can develop fully as humans in their own countries and in turn participate in the development of their own culture.

I welcome your thoughts,

Michael