Illegal immigration: Myths vs. Facts

[SoCalRC]

How about this instead: work to improve the lot of folks in countries that are the source for illegal immigration. Work for social justice there. But once a person is legally here, then don’t exploit them. (i.e., do what the Church teaches).

That sounds almost correct to me, just remove the word “legally”. US Legal Status has no bearing on the inalienable rights of the human person as spelled out by the Church.

In other words, we have no right to exploit anyone.

Further, legal status and exploitation are not morally equivelent. Those being exploited are principally being driven by basic human need. In other words, they are violating secular law because of the pursuit of a basic right to life.

Remember, the Catechism is a summary of Catholic teaching, the footnotes and references are there for futher study and a more complete understanding of the teaching. Look at how Pope John Paul II relates the Second Vatican Council teaching as a “right to life” obligation direction on the laity in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI:

"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI #38 (emphasis missing from original)

The original is here, and the emphasis is worth noting:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

Refusing Christian obligation because of legal status would seem to be idolatry (CCC 2113), since it presumes that government status is a suitable judgement and reflection of spiritual status, an evaluation reserved for God.

But even if the intent was not to assign divine powers to the state, we have an obligation to the truth. CCC 2477 and 2478 instruct us about the moral dangers in rash judgement regarding the morality of other’s acts.

 

[markomalley]

That sounds almost correct to me, just remove the word “legally”. US Legal Status has no bearing on the inalienable rights of the human person as spelled out by the Church.

In other words, we have no right to exploit anyone.

Further, legal status and exploitation are not morally equivelent. Those being exploited are principally being driven by basic human need. In other words, they are violating secular law because of the pursuit of a basic right to life.

Remember, the Catechism is a summary of Catholic teaching, the footnotes and references are there for futher study and a more complete understanding of the teaching. Look at how Pope John Paul II relates the Second Vatican Council teaching as a “right to life” obligation direction on the laity in CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI:

The original is here, and the emphasis is worth noting:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

Refusing Christian obligation because of legal status would seem to be idolatry (CCC 2113), since it presumes that government status is a suitable judgement and reflection of spiritual status, an evaluation reserved for God.

But even if the intent was not to assign divine powers to the state, we have an obligation to the truth. CCC 2477 and 2478 instruct us about the moral dangers in rash judgement regarding the morality of other’s acts.

The only reason why I mention ‘legal’ versus ‘illegal’ is that a person here '‘illegally’ is here at his own peril…the State does have the legitimate duty to enforce its immigration laws, after all. As to the rest, I believe the bulk of my earlier post(s) demonstrate that we already agree. Without polemics.

 

[jman507]

The one thing that seems strange to me is that there is a desire to make the social “safety nets” stronger and stronger. There seems to be a tendency to want to have more programs to support the poor, while at the same time we are bringing in more poor.

If it is our Christian obligation to help them, I would suppose that would really mean that even if they are a drain on our resources we take that drain, otherwise it would seem useless to talk of an obligation to help out someone who is benefiting us, that is really no credit to anyone in a Christian context.

What are we going to do when you have people who’ve been in the US for some time, and are in the same need as those who use the social “safety nets?” From the looks of it, Social Security and Medicare are huge liabilities in the coming years, I am sure we can add to people who need payouts, but if solvency becomes an issue what then? Do nothing until a collapse happens?

I would say there is also a principle of ‘if you cannot take care of yourself, who can you take care of?’ If the US has to start eating it’s infrastructure to help people out, it won’t take long to waste away. Certainly immigrants can help out, but there is no denying there is a certain point in time when enough people can ruin the system. I doubt the US could handle a billion poor immigrants. That may seem like an unreasonable number, but I would say it would prove that there is a breaking point to go along with an optimum point.

 

[markomalley]

The one thing that seems strange to me is that there is a desire to make the social “safety nets” stronger and stronger. There seems to be a tendency to want to have more programs to support the poor, while at the same time we are bringing in more poor.

If it is our Christian obligation to help them, I would suppose that would really mean that even if they are a drain on our resources we take that drain, otherwise it would seem useless to talk of an obligation to help out someone who is benefiting us, that is really no credit to anyone in a Christian context.

What are we going to do when you have people who’ve been in the US for some time, and are in the same need as those who use the social “safety nets?” From the looks of it, Social Security and Medicare are huge liabilities in the coming years, I am sure we can add to people who need payouts, but if solvency becomes an issue what then? Do nothing until a collapse happens?

I would say there is also a principle of ‘if you cannot take care of yourself, who can you take care of?’ If the US has to start eating it’s infrastructure to help people out, it won’t take long to waste away. Certainly immigrants can help out, but there is no denying there is a certain point in time when enough people can ruin the system. I doubt the US could handle a billion poor immigrants. That may seem like an unreasonable number, but I would say it would prove that there is a breaking point to go along with an optimum point.

In the context of government assistance to the poor and/or the immigrant, there is also the principle of subsidiarity that must be considered when we talk about the ‘social safety net.’ Our consistent violation of that principle has resulted in the dehumanization of the people that our society has tried to ‘help,’ the formulation of an entitlement mentality among a huge amount of the populace, and increasing resentment by all. If you look at the ‘news article’ (note the quotes) posted by the OP, you’ll see that two out of the five of the bullet points cited deal with immigrants’ impact on the ‘social safety net’ (whether those bullets are accurate is another issue…the fact that they are in the first place is what I’m commenting on). If we were not such a socialist country, that wouldn’t be an issue.

However, your assertion, “If it is our Christian obligation to help them, I would suppose that would really mean that even if they are a drain on our resources we take that drain, otherwise it would seem useless to talk of an obligation to help out someone who is benefiting us, that is really no credit to anyone in a Christian context.” is something that applies to us as individuals, not to something mandated by the state. And is something that we can take on voluntarily, not at the point of a gun. I believe that we are all called to share our plurality with those less fortunate, not to all drive ourselves to poverty. Taking on a *voluntary *poverty (such as how the Little Sisters of the Poor have done) is one thing…being *forced *to do it by the jack-booted enforcers of the IRS is another thing altogether.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Markomalley,

My response to your comments directed at me in posts #19 and #20 is that illegals are not paid slave wages. They are unskilled and paid wages accordingly. They are most likely receive the same “take home” pay that a legal would, but the employer isn’t paying any benefits which include FICA and unemployment taxes. Benefits are a huge chunk of change.

 

[SoCalRC]

The one thing that seems strange to me is that there is a desire to make the social “safety nets” stronger and stronger. There seems to be a tendency to want to have more programs to support the poor, while at the same time we are bringing in more poor.

I’m not sure what you base that perception on. For the last 30 years, the overall trend has been towards diminishing resources for the poor and diverting ever more resources to the rich.

Look at taxation. Under the current administration we have cut taxes about $270B. $90B of that went to the 99th percentile in income, another $90B went to the 90-98th percentile, and the remaining $90B went to everyone else (IE, the vast majority of Americans).

But lets look at what happened over the same interval. Economic growth was almost entirely driven by consumer spending and increases in productiving - the folks receiving the least incentive. Corporate profits hit record highs, but median family income shrank and poverty, particularly among children rose.

What makes the last particularly concerning is that national debt nearly doubled, but job creation failed to keep pace with population growth. So we have a cycle of large numbers of citizens starting in poverty, having no jobs to grow into, and a credit card they inherited from their elders in a maxed out condition.

With pro-inflation policies coming to roost, the Fed is sincerely hampered in what it can do to stimulate growth. That is, you can only cut interest rates so far before you turn disturbing inflation into the runaway type. This is at the same time that private capitol is incredibly tight because so many institutions have made themselves borderline insolvent in the sub-prime ponzi scheme.

If you think in simplest economic terms, policies that directly attack fiscal mobility would seem to discourage immigration, illegal and otherwise. But the situation is more complicated. With so many US policies putting pressure on the middle class, you have a good sized chunk of people desperately trying to hold on to what they have and find a way to provide their children a similiar lifestyle.

This has a double effect of both making them directly or independantly dependant on cheap exploited labor (if both parents work 2 jobs each to send Jr. to college, then baby needs a nanny - or, at least, the whole family needs a cheap food supply) and making them more xenophobic. Taking on the ‘big’ people who are actually benefiting seems impossible, so we tend to focus on the people below us socio-economically, since they seem to more immediately threaten us.

In a world where health care is potentially more expensive than a house - which lots of Americans can’t afford, and median income is shrinking, some substantial ‘nets’ would seem essential to just keep civil order. But the more appropriate long term solution is to follow the Church’s advice and have society pursue a socially just economy.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Look at taxation. Under the current administration we have cut taxes about $270B. $90B of that went to the 99th percentile in income, another $90B went to the 90-98th percentile, and the remaining $90B went to everyone else (IE, the vast majority of Americans).

I hear that all the time on CNN, but when I prepare the tax returns of millionaires I don’t see it. Many of the tax deductions that you and I take for granted are phased out for people with incomes of less than $500k. These people can’t take such basic deductions for their each of their children.

Now if you want to talk about capital gains, this poor person is going to benefit greatly in 2007 and 2008. Stock that I’ve held for 30 years at a basis of less than $10 share went private at $70 share. A good bit of it will go to the Church.

 

[jman507]

In a world where health care is potentially more expensive than a house - which lots of Americans can’t afford, and median income is shrinking, some substantial ‘nets’ would seem essential to just keep civil order. But the more appropriate long term solution is to follow the Church’s advice and have society pursue a socially just economy.

I guess when it comes to wanting stronger safety net programs, if anything your comment proves the point. (Granted you could also say their is a desire to question the prudence that idea, given my post.)

So really what are you talking about? Our social obligation to any influx of the poor or the need for stronger safety net programs? Do you think if we brought in a billion poor people, economically we could both make those programs stronger as well as cover more people? Certianly I will give you, the safety net programs may have decreased. What about the concern that people who fall under the rules of needing payouts may be trending towards an increase? If people are living longer and more people are going to need care, is the capacity of people who can pay in going to outstrip those who can pay-out?

The way I see it the safety nets, as well as the influx of reliance on cheap labor is going to be a double whammy. The rich have their money and they can be helped out by the cheap labor. If you put too much pressure on them, then they can just move out. If more and more move their capital out of the country, what can you do. At the same time once things go bad economically their buying power is going to amount to less and less.

At the same time by relying more and more on the govenrment providing care, your going to be at the mercy of what the government can do. As people live long and long, and quite possibly they lifetime net productivity as an aggragate drops, how are you going to cover everyone’s needs? If we are all in it together, if the overall trend is down, we are all going to get less services.

My proposal would be to be care of how much your going to rely on the government for these programs, be careful of how many people are let into the country (given the benefits and liablities, the country cannot afford to sink itself ecnomically), and becareful that you spend your money effeciently. Certainly corperations are peddling a lot of stuff, some great and some unneeded. The question is this purchase worth the debt or the loss of savings? If those are able can take care of themselves, then we don’t have to waste money in these safety net programs that ought to be spent on those that need it. If you put yourself into a position to have to rely on large corporations or government, you better hope there is a Moses out there to lead you on the Exodus.

 

[Dee_Geils]

I have been an illegal migrant to a country - not immigrant, as I wasn’t planning to stay long. I know a lot of people who have illegally stayed in countries, but they weren’t immigrating, they were merely trying to earn a little money that they couldn’t make at home, before returning with a little nest egg to make ends meet back where they belong. Nobody I know wants to try to permanently immigrate illegally, because you’d always be afraid and looking over your shoulder.

I don’t know much about the situation in America, but let me tell you about what’s going on with illegals (and legal migrant workers) in Korea. My boyfriend is a legal migrant worker. He came here to earn money to save for his daughters’ college tuitions and to pay his grandmother’s hospital fees. He works 10 hours a day six days a week, and often longer. If he refuses overtime, his boss threatens to pull his visa sponsorship. When he arrived, his contract said 10 hours a day five days a week, and housing and meals provided. He was put in a shipping container (unheated, in the winter) to share with three other guys. “Meals” were rice and broth. When he complained to immigration officials, he was told there was nothing they could do. He gets paid about $800 a month. His Korean colleagues, for the same work, get paid $1500. In the Philippines, where my BF is from, he’d earn $300, if he could get a job at all.

My BF’s friend is an illegal migrant. He makes $900 a month, and knows that if he has a problem, he can run away because he’s already illegal and has nothing left to lose. He can also threaten to report his company for hiring illegally, so they take better care of him. He has a wife and family at home in the Philippines, so he’s not staying forever. He’s illegal here because he’s better able to protect his rights this way. The truth is, it takes months or years to get a visa, and then when you get it you have no recourse available when what you agreed on isn’t what you get.

People wouldn’t immigrate illegally if the rules took better care of foreign workers. The truth is, there will always be imbalances in labour supply and demand. If the government committed to making sure foreign employees were treated equitably, and had reasonable temporary migration procedures, there would be fewer problems.

 

[Dee_Geils]

When workers … any kind of work being done … are willing to work under the wage scales, for green, cash, untrackable-folding-money … IT BRINGS DOWN THE WAGE SCALE. Fair wages for a man’s labor is an old Jewish rule …

I have very dear, close family members who do “work that American’s won’t do” … my family has owned truck-farms and wheat farms … and they had to work from sun up until dark … they did not or do not receive any government assistance … because they are adult, American born, law abiding American tax payers.

How does letting others break laws here in this country benefit the law abiding tax payers? How does our generousity (or penny pinching) make life better in Mexico or China or West Africa?

 

[bootleggersouth]

The immigrants are here to fill the ‘masculinity vacuum’ in American culture created by our opulent sensibilities, sense of fragility, and nihilistic conditioning. The societal conditioning exerted by mass marketing, Hollywood, and certain political orientations is much to blame for this. They have done much to neuter the human herd in their desire to build a more manageable beast. To be very simple about it, we don’t have the guts to do our own dirty work.

 

[Wirraway]

The immigrants are here to fill the ‘masculinity vacuum’ in American culture created by our opulent sensibilities, sense of fragility, and nihilistic conditioning. The societal conditioning exerted by mass marketing, Hollywood, and certain political orientations is much to blame for this. They have done much to neuter the human herd in their desire to build a more manageable beast. To be very simple about it, we don’t have the guts to do our own dirty work.

so who is this “They”?

 

[bootleggersouth]

so who is this “They”?

Those who would organize humankind according to materialistic, rather than spiritualistic, concern. I am not against organization, nor do I believe the malevolent among the organizers can be defined by race, ethnicity, or religion. To be somewhat clinical about the whole affair, I suspect the dilemma is left brain (materially oriented) versus right brain (spiritually oriented).

 

[Wirraway]

Those who would organize humankind according to materialistic, rather than spiritualistic, concern. I am not against organization, nor do I believe the malevolent among the organizers can be defined by race, ethnicity, or religion. To be somewhat clinical about the whole affair, I suspect the dilemma is left brain (materially oriented) versus right brain (spiritually oriented).

I just don’t want to do yardwork when its 110F. I’d rather pay someone else to do it. does that make me less masculine?

 

[TobarMhoire]

OK, so we are a nation of the Children or Grandchildren or (etc.) of immigrants. The overwhelming majority of us are descended from mirgrants. Except, that is, for the twelve percent of us who, according to your statistic, are migrants.

It is an historic fact that 65,000,000 have immigrated to America in its history and all Americans except Native Americans (American Indians) are descended of immigrants from other lands.

Illegal immigration is essentialy the creation of the US government and the US economy.

#1 The USA has established artificially low immigration quotas for Mexico and Latin America; Canada a very small an prosperous country has the same quota (100,000) as Mexido. As far as I know this quota has not been changed in the last 43 years.
So due to unilateral USA policy we have created an illegal immigrant problem.
#2 Our free enterprise economy is a magnet for workers many of whom are just seeking a livelihood. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. We want oodles of cheap workers but we don’t want to pay any of the long term consequences.
#3 Illegal immigration is a social,political and national security problem. We need to treat people humanely and of course protect our borders. It is not an easy question but I am certain of one thing -many of the immigrants are orphans of empire and the children are innocent of what Mexico and the USA and other states have done and not done. We must treat them with dignity and respect and with some hospitality. Criminals and terrorists must be dealt with and expunged but the average laborer or farm worker from Guanajuato is not a dangerous “Criminal Alien”; they are just unlucky they didn’t come here from Puerto Rico or pre 1923.

PAX VOBISCUM