I think its important to recognize the poors needs.
As do I!
As long as one understands that there is grinding poverty among some resident poor, here, that has existed in the form that is called “structural poverty,” often complicated by continuing generations of insufficient education, leading to poor employment prospects. (Which fact then becomes exacerbated if such natives are unfortunate enough to live in cities disporportionately affected by other functionally illiterate people, whose language then dominates the public school classroom, making a foreign language the default language and the native poor out of luck. That is what was discussed on a recent thread on immigration in the Social Justice forum, I believe.)
How would you feel about more restriction on Illegal Immigration with increased donations? Have you thought that by restricting our borders with mexico, and decreasing mexican migration we could increase migration from other places like somalia or ethiopia (places that are much worse than Mexico)?
Well I think in terms of the legal immigration process, the U.S. government tries (not always successfully!) to distribute the needs across nations. #1, however (as others have pointed out on that previous thread) the cumbersome process itself compromises that equitable distribution; #2, there are far more needs, globally, than we can accommodate annually.
However, that does not address the situation from Mexico, because the number of illegals is so great and has not been controlled by the government. Therefore, “restriction” is almost an irrelevant word. Restrictions of illegal immigration are minor & mostly impotent (so far). Further, there is an unholy alliance between businesses here who encourage such illegal migration with their non-verifying employment policies, and our government which refuses to require all States to use e-verify (it’s optional now), and the Mexican government which is the Big Winner in all of this, given that US employment quiets their own restless natives, in that such acquired US employment pumps money back into the Mexican population & economy (from the north) with zero consequences suffered by the filthy rich, corrupt Mexican government & their officials.
,Speaking of, the great injustice is that which occurs below our borders, and which Cries Out to Heaven for correction. The rural Mexican poor, as well as those Mexicans who would have a fighting chance for a middle class existence in Mexico – were it not for the corrupt system down there which restricts that social climbing (limits individual wealth), are only trying themselves to escape injustice. Insofar as we can accommodate those valid universal rights to survival, we should be guided by Jesus’ message and the message of the bishops – as long as by doing so we are not creating another injustice.
I’m actually, by some standards, “soft” on this. Many people believe that even one undocumented immigrant who slips across the border is itself an injustice. I don’t think that from a Christian viewpoint that is supportable, but I also think that those who fool themselves into believing that by supporting illegal immigration they are supporting “justice” need to think again about who is not being proactively offered a place at the table: people living in wretched poverty in Somalia, Rwanda, southeast Asia, Ethiopia, the Caribbean, Indonesia, India, etc., who are geographically not within any kind of easy immigration distance – legal or illegal. Their needs for survival are at least as severe and urgent, and I don’t see any pro-illegal immigration folks retrieving these other populations through initiatives private or public.
(So I’m answering your question indirectly.) In terms of legal immigration, the system needs reform. Those who have been through it (I haven’t) know first-hand how bureuacratic and discouraging it is. If the borders are sealed (big job not easily done) and employers were held accountable for all their looking the other way, we could then at least have an orderly process of absorbing people based on a variety of priorities for them and for us, in which mutual need and benefit would be the guide. Political asylum should always be a priority. Economic opportunity should be accommodated as long as the net benefit – to a particular locality – outweighs any adjustment concerns and does not aggravate the economic situation of the existing poor in that region. Unfortunately, most of the studies so far regarding net economic benefit/loss to the country have been national studies, which are meaningless. Impact is experienced locally for the most part, especially when it comes to the undocumented.
One thing (i.m.o.) that should be a consideration as to where any legal immigrants initially settle should be how that region is already impacted, for that economic class represented by such arrivals. IOW, depending on your situation, you might initially (only) be restricted from settling in a particular economically hard-hit area, (hard-hit by those in the same economic class as yourself), for a temporary period. It makes no sense to compromise your survival from the outset, or that of your new neighbors. Naturally after that short period, your mobility, like everybody else’s, would be unlimited.
