The problem is that there is NO legal way for a non-skilled worker from Mexico to enter this country legally. Anti-immigration folks go on and on about stopping illegal immigration, but have opposed any type of comprehensive immigration reform. There is nothing wrong with a government controlling immigration into its country. There is something wrong with not allowing legal immigration and then demonozing those who come to fill jobs we Americans offer them. There is something wrong with breaking up families in order to deport immigrants.
The Bishops have been very clear and have said that they support immigration reform, its just that they justly believe that we should have an humane way for the poor to immigrate here when there are jobs available for them.
Historically, governments have only been able to stop mass migrations of people through very draconian means. I don’t think that is what we want for this country. Right now, there is a surplus of labor in this country. In 10-20 years, due to demographic changes, there will be a shortage.
I agree that there needs to be a better way to deal with the immigration issue.
Two things to consider:
First, an open immigration policy is bad for labor. It artificially increases the supply of unskilled and minimally skilled workers, making it far easier for employers to pay less for everybody.
Yes, you can have union contracts forcing higher wages and yes, you can have government mandates, such as the minimum wage, Davis-Bacon or Walsh-Healy rules, and the like, but those artificialities just cause the costs to be passed directly on to the consumer (which nullifies any benefit of the mandate). The natural way to control wages is to create an environment where there is a balance between the available quantity of the right quality of worker and the demand for that quality of worker. There should
always be a slight shortage of workers.
Ideally, a worker should always be able to find another job. What that does is it allows the worker to guard against abuse for himself. If his employer doesn’t treat him properly, he could move on and find one who will. Employers, knowing this, will be more likely to treat the worker well in order to keep that worker.
A good immigration policy, without regard to where the immigrant comes from, is key to maintaining that balance. An excess balance of workers, whether skilled carpenters from Mexico, engineers from China, programmers from India, or physicians from Pakistan (I think I have all the stereotypes covered, right
), provides an increase of hard-working people who are more than willing to put up with abuse, low wages, and long hours than those who may have been here for generations.
It’s one thing if we have virtually no unemployment. It’s another thing altogether when one has an
18% under or unemployed (not seasonally adjusted) level. (Don’t believe me, look at the U-6 number at the link)
Again, following the teachings of the Church (i.e., promotion of better economic conditions in the migrants’ countries of origin) would provide the ultimate relief from the problems created by immigration in this regard.
The second issue comes into that of the social assistance state (ref Encycl Ltr
Centesimus Annus 48). The State has usurped much of what should be done either by the Church (through the gratuitous sharing of the blessings by the members) or on a far more localized basis. We have, as a society, allowed the political community to grievously abuse this for almost 80 years. This abuse is an occasion for resentment against immigrants (one of the principal strawmen raised by anti-immigrant people is the meme of the anchor baby. They don’t recognize that the problem here is not the anchor baby nor his mother, but the socialist underpinnings that make the anchor baby and his mother so expensive to all of us)
I’m not saying that this does or does not occur. But the issue needs to be addressed is that of the social assistance state, not the natural result of that social assistance state.
Finally, you mention,
In 10-20 years, due to demographic changes, there will be a shortage. The question I have to ask is if the solution is mass immigration or if the solution is a return to the teachings of the Church? Not simply the issue of our society aborting and contracepting itself into oblivion, but the underlying economic issues in society and the materialism/consumerism of the members of society that lead them toward that point.
Like I said in my earlier post, they’ve got it about 50 percent. But they need to teach ALL of the teachings of the Church…not just the half that lines up with a certain political leaning.
