Strangers No Longer: Immigration Law & Policy in the Light of Religious Values
Fordham University School of Law, New York
Thursday February 24, 2005 | Inter-faith, interdisciplinary scholars’ workshop
Friday February 25, 2005 | Inter-faith, interdisciplinary conference for lawyers, social workers, community activists, clergy, and scholars.
The United States has welcomed more immigrants than any other country – more than 50 million in all – and still admits between 500,000 and 1 million persons a year. That we are “a society of immigrants” is, as President John F. Kennedy put it, “the secret of America: a nation of people with the fresh memory of old traditions who dare to explore new frontiers.”
Yet we also know that our immigration history is not without its shadows. Some of the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” have met not a “golden door” but racism, prejudice, and fear. The domestic and international events that have followed in the wake of the tragedy of September 11th have deeply challenged our identity as a “society of immigrants.”
Each year the Fordham University School of Law Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work sponsors an inter-faith interdisciplinary conference and scholars’ workshop to explore how religious values might shed light on and enrich a particular area of legal practice. Among other questions, Strangers No Longer hopes to consider:
• The ways in which religious values and commitments support and inform efforts to reform immigration law and policy so that they respect human dignity, human rights, and solidarity.
• The extent to which citizens’ religious values and convictions clash with current laws and regulations regarding immigrants and undocumented workers, and the impact of these conflicts on how they think about and relate to the law.
• The ways in which a deeper understanding of religious values and traditions may help to heal increased tensions and division in a post-September 11th world.
• The ways in which religious values can help open the horizons of US immigration law and policy toward a more comprehensive appreciation of the economic and political factors leading to immigration.
If you are interested in presenting a paper at either the conference or the workshop, please submit a two-page proposal describing how you would discuss any of the themes noted above. Please mail or email proposals by SEPTEMBER 15, 2004 to:
Amy Uelmen, Director, Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work
Fordham University School of Law, 140 West 62nd Street
New York, New York 10023 Email: [email protected]
Thursday, June 3, 2004
I am chewing on the line from Greg's response to Father Radcliffe: “To fully achieve the joy and fellowship of full membership in the Catholic Church, we likewise must accept the responsibilities that accompany that affiliation.” Points well taken that an overly indulgent approach to Church teaching risks emptying it of its life-giving challenge – but I wonder if it might help to think about the joy and fellowship of full communion (in every sense of the word) not so much as an achievement – but as a gift? Perhaps the deeper point is that an atmosphere of love may be the most hopeful path for creating an environment in which people are able to fully welcome the challenge of the truth – because in this context, it becomes an encounter with Jesus himself, who does leave one “untroubled and unafraid” – not because of any achievement of one’s own, but because he himself is love. I don’t know if you all have been following John Paul II’s recent repeated exhortations to the US Bishops that the hope for the Church’s renewal is in cultivating a “spirituality of communion” (see, e.g., Zenit.org 5/28/04). His description in Novo Millennio Ineunte n.43 is really quite striking, and I think speaks deeply to the recent debates:
"To make the Church the home and the school of communion: that is the great challenge facing us in the millennium which is now beginning, if we wish to be faithful to God's plan and respond to the world's deepest yearnings. But what does this mean in practice? Here too, our thoughts could run immediately to the action to be undertaken, but that would not be the right impulse to follow. Before making practical plans, we need to promote a spirituality of communion, making it the guiding principle of education wherever individuals and Christians are formed, wherever ministers of the altar, consecrated persons, and pastoral workers are trained, wherever families and communities are being built up. A spirituality of communion indicates above all the heart's contemplation of the mystery of the Trinity dwelling in us, and whose light we must also be able to see shining on the face of the brothers and sisters around us. A spirituality of communion also means an ability to think of our brothers and sisters in faith within the profound unity of the Mystical Body, and therefore as "those who are a part of me". This makes us able to share their joys and sufferings, to sense their desires and attend to their needs, to offer them deep and genuine friendship. A spirituality of communion implies also the ability to see what is positive in others, to welcome it and prize it as a gift from God: not only as a gift for the brother or sister who has received it directly, but also as a "gift for me". A spirituality of communion means, finally, to know how to "make room" for our brothers and sisters, bearing "each other's burdens" (Gal 6:2) and resisting the selfish temptations which constantly beset us and provoke competition, careerism, distrust and jealousy. Let us have no illusions: unless we follow this spiritual path, external structures of communion will serve very little purpose. They would become mechanisms without a soul, "masks" of communion rather than its means of expression and growth."
Perhaps the best model to follow is Mary – who gave Jesus to the world not so much through her own “achievements” as through a radical and complete openness to God’s gifts, God’s plans, God’s grace – and in this she is not only “Mirror of justice” but also “Refuge of sinners” and “Queen of love.”
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
I am currently musing over the finals essays from my Catholic Social Thought & the Law seminar. Asked to identify the “hardest question” that emerged from the course, many students focused on the role of religious values in public / political life, and saw the chief reason for excluding “personal” perspectives is that they tend to heighten tensions and divisions.
There would be much to discuss on this point – but my specific question, as we gear up for a long, hot, pre-election summer, is what your thoughts are on sources within Catholic Social Thought for moving beyond culture war paralysis. As Catholics who care deeply about our legal and political system, what resources do we have that will help us get to the point of both appreciating the need for diverse approaches and the possibility of different prudential judgments in political life, and at the same, offering to public discourse the unique and profound beauty of the Catholic Church’s vision of the human person and social life?
Take, for example, the cultural divide over Gibson’s Passion – what struck me was that both sides (those who see the film as anti-Semitic, and those who just can’t see it) could say – with complete sincerity – “it’s so clear – how can they not see it?” It seems like the hardest part of that debate was getting folks to acknowledge that people really did see the film in very different ways. In case you’re interested, I have just added to my papers “A Passion for Dialogue” – a short essay recently published in Living City (the Focolare’s monthly magazine of religion, culture and inter-faith dialogue) which sets out a few ideas for moving beyond the divide.
Amy
I think some of our cooperation with evil discussion reflects the need for a less abstract more context-driven inquiry. Concretely – and to get some text on the table – the following passages from Evangelium Vitae indicate it would be important to consider 1) what's the alternative (is it more or less restrictive); and 2) what's the personal "scandal" component (eg, how much influence does the person have, and are they on the record as doing all they can against abortion).
From paragraph 73: A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
From paragraph 74: The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.
In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).
To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.
Monday, March 15, 2004
I log onto our blog, and have a few thoughts and some reactions - why can’t I bring myself to really jump in and post? At first I thought it was because up until recently I have been too busy to take the time to sufficiently think out my reactions. But now it’s Spring Break, and I do have some time. Perhaps I am overly cautious… Usually before I publish something I ask at least five or six friends to read it over and react, and then I usually make a heap of changes. The thought of “publishing” onto the anonymous world-wide-web what still feel like random thoughts goes against my cautious grain.
But then, musing a bit more, I realized my hesitation was even deeper than that. Perhaps the specific person to whom my thoughts may be addressed won’t have time for a while to listen - someone else may jump in, and the person to whom my thoughts were originally addressed may get lost in the shuffle. Or maybe my response is based on a misunderstanding of what the other person was trying to say - and the blog feels like an awkward and somewhat too public forum to work towards understanding one another.
And who know how else my approach to the conversation is shaped by the thought that other nameless folks may read our exchange? Then I realized what was bothering me was that it all had a sort of “reality-TV” feel - am I really talking to a specific person, or to an anonymous mass? If an anonymous mass is present, can we really have a conversation without being too self-conscious?
I’m sure I am over-thinking this… but perhaps it is a more feminine reaction to the medium. Before I talk to someone, I want to make sure they are ready to listen, and if not, I’d rather wait. (for this reason, I like personal email - it can wait). I want a personal connection - a chance to apologize if perhaps I wasn’t listening well enough, and ask more questions, get further clarification on your thoughts - all dimensions which seem to require a not-too-public forum. Then, when I publish something for a broader community, I hope what I write reflects an effort to think carefully about the audience and the anticipated questions, the need for further explanations and backgrounds, etc. - a process which strikes me as a very different forum than a personal exchange. So I’m having a lot of trouble with the way the blog medium merges the two.
Please don’t take this as a criticism - I think the blog is a wonderful idea as a way to keep each other informed about scholarship and events - and genuinely do want to understand how this kind of technology can further the conversation and exchange. But I just haven’t yet been able to put together how to use this kind of technology and still maintain a hoped for personal dimension and personal connection.
If anyone can help me with this (or has similar thoughts) I am all ears.
Thanks for listening, Amy
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Fordham Conference on Religious Values and Corporate Decision-Making
An Interfaith Interdisciplinary Conference for Corporate Executives and Counsel Monday February 23, 2004, 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM
Each year Fordham Law School’s Institute on Religion, Law & Lawyer’s Work sponsors a conference to explore how religious values might inform a particular area of legal practice. This year the Institute has teamed up with the Fordham Economics Department and the Graduate School of Business Administration to explore the extent to which religious values may serve as a creative resource to help lawyers and corporate executives to sustain their commitment to professional integrity and social responsibility. Among other questions, it hopes to consider: What may be gained by bringing religious values to bear on corporate decision-making? What may be the concerns and pitfalls? Would current economic models allow room to bring religious values to bear on corporate decision-making? According to current standards of legal and business ethics, are lawyers and other professionals restricted in the ways in which they may bring religious values to bear on corporate decision-making? Are there viable models that illustrate how religious values might be integrated into corporate decision-making?
Of our blog group, speakers include Mark A. Sargent and Amy Uelmen. The keynote will be by Prof. Stefano Zamagni from the University of Bologna Economics Department, a key advisor on Centesimus Annus.
For a brochure and/or more information, contact Amy Uelmen, [email protected]
For online registration visit the Fordham Law School Website http://law.fordham.edu/cle.htm
(Approved for 5.5 CLE credit hours: Non-transitional; 3 ethics and 2.5 professional practice)
