Immigration Reform

[markomalley]

I think we ought to allow anybody who wants to enter the country to do so. We ought to hand them $1,000 cash to cover the first few days, give them a SNAP card, a bank account, and a new car so that they can drive to their new house (which we should also provide).

After all, it’s for the common good, right? Basically, if I read the USCCB’s official position on the issue, we need to allow unregulated immigration until our economy is dragged down to the level of El Salvador or Haiti’s economy:

…Only a long-term effort that adjusts economic inequalities between the United States and Mexico will provide Mexican workers with employment opportunities that will allow them to remain at home and to support themselves and their families. The Church has consistently singled out economic inequality between nations as a global disorder that must be addressed…

From, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope (2003)

After all, when we seek to impose poliies for the purpose of achieving “equality”, it generally means a “levelling down” (JPII, Solicitudo Rei Socialis – 1987)

As for me, I’d love to move someplace warmer, like Mexico or Costa RIca.

As for Mexico, I understand that I can’t own property there unless I have a local co-sign the paperwork. I also understand that I can’t have a residence visa unless I can show that I have about $95,000 in the bank. Sadly, that’s not really the case.

Costa Rica is a bit easier (only $60,000), but, well, I can’t work for the first three years I’m there and then only if I’m granted permanent resident status.

I also looked for a while at Malta…they are even more ridiculous.

So I guess I’m not qualified to migrate. Pity.

 

[Coatimundi]

I think we ought to allow anybody who wants to enter the country to do so. We ought to hand them $1,000 cash to cover the first few days, give them a SNAP card, a bank account, and a new car so that they can drive to their new house (which we should also provide).

After all, it’s for the common good, right? Basically, if I read the USCCB’s official position on the issue, we need to allow unregulated immigration until our economy is dragged down to the level of El Salvador or Haiti’s economy:

…Only a long-term effort that adjusts economic inequalities between the United States and Mexico will provide Mexican workers with employment opportunities that will allow them to remain at home and to support themselves and their families. The Church has consistently singled out economic inequality between nations as a global disorder that must be addressed…

From, Strangers No Longer: Together on the Journey of Hope (2003).

I think you have reached an extremely unusual interpretation of the bishops’ pastoral letter. A more reasonable understanding is that the bishops are advocating for economic development in Mexico.

Here is what the pastoral letter says.

1. Only a long-term effort that adjusts economic inequalities between the United States and Mexico will provide Mexican workers with employment opportunities that will allow them to remain at home and to support themselves and their families. The Church has consistently singled out economic inequality between nations as a global disorder that must be addressed.Within the United States-Mexico relationship, we have witnessed the application of economic policies that do not adequately take into account the welfare of individual proprietors who struggle to survive. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has harmed small businesses in Mexico, especially in the rural sector. Both nations should reconsider the impact of economic and trade agreements on persons who work hard at making a living through individual enterprises.
2. The creation of employment opportunities in Mexico would help to reduce poverty and would mitigate the incentive for many migrants to look for employment in the United States. The implementation of economic policies in Mexico that create living-wage jobs is vital, especially for Mexican citizens without advanced skills. Targeted development projects in Mexican municipalities and rural areas that traditionally have had the highest rates of emigration are necessary. Projects and resources particularly should be targeted to the Mexican agricultural sector and small businesses.

Illegal immigrants come to the US seeking a more prosperous life. If economic opportunities exist in Mexico, there will be less interest in becoming an illegal alien. I think this is common sense, and I am not sure why you are opposed to the idea.

 

[markomalley]

I think you have reached an extremely unusual interpretation of the bishops’ pastoral letter. A more reasonable understanding is that the bishops are advocating for economic development in Mexico.

(snip)

Illegal immigrants come to the US seeking a more prosperous life. If economic opportunities exist in Mexico, there will be less interest in becoming an illegal alien. I think this is common sense, and I am not sure why you are opposed to the idea.

Is it really that far off of their intent?

Here’s something else that the USCCB has produced:

Because of the belief that newcomers compete for scarce resources, immigrants and refugees are at times driven away, resented, or despised. Nevertheless, the first principle of Catholic social teaching regarding immigrants is that people have the right to migrate to sustain their lives and the lives of their families. This is based on biblical and ancient Christian teaching that the goods of the earth belong to all people. While the right to private property is defended in Catholic social teaching, individuals do not have the right to use private property without regard for the common good.

Every person has an equal right to receive from the earth what is necessary for life—food, clothing, shelter. Moreover, every person has the right to education, medical care, religion, and the expression of one’s culture. In many places people live in fear, danger, or dehumanizing poverty. Clearly, it is not God’s will that some of his children live in luxury while others have nothing. In Luke’s Gospel, the rich man was condemned for living well while the poor man starved at his doorstep (Lk 16:19-31).

The native does not have superior rights over the immigrant. Before God all are equal; the earth was given by God to all. When a person cannot achieve a meaningful life in his or her own land, that person has the right to move.

From, USCCB: [Catholic Social Teaching On Immigration And The Movement Of Peoples](Catholic Social Teaching On Immigration And The Movement Of Peoples)

Clearly until the US reaches the level of poverty that exists in El Salvador, we have an obligation to allow anybody and everybody to come here and to completely provide for them…according to the USCCB. After all, the native does not have superior rights over the immigrant…and since it is not God’s will that some of his children live in luxury while others have nothing, the only way to solve that is to make sure that all His children have nothing.

 

[pnewton]

There comes a point where a lifeboat cannot take on anymore passengers…

This is an interesting analogy, one that has been used before to analyze situational ethics.

I find the one flaw in this application in that since people bring the resource of labor, they can “expand the lifeboat” by increase in GNP. We never complain that we need to stop drilling for oil based on a lack of refining capability. We simply build more refineries. But then in this, I am much more of an economic conservative than most.

 

[Path_Finder]

St. Louis de Montfort in traveling to seminary did indeed give his good clothes to a beggar on the road and took the rags of the impoverished man to wear for himself. I think few of us could go this far though many of us surely make an effort to be charitable in our acts.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think you have reached an extremely unusual interpretation of the bishops’ pastoral letter. A more reasonable understanding is that the bishops are advocating for economic development in Mexico.

Here is what the pastoral letter says.

1. Only a long-term effort that adjusts economic inequalities between the United States and Mexico will provide Mexican workers with employment opportunities that will allow them to remain at home and to support themselves and their families. The Church has consistently singled out economic inequality between nations as a global disorder that must be addressed.Within the United States-Mexico relationship, we have witnessed the application of economic policies that do not adequately take into account the welfare of individual proprietors who struggle to survive. For example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has harmed small businesses in Mexico, especially in the rural sector. Both nations should reconsider the impact of economic and trade agreements on persons who work hard at making a living through individual enterprises.
2. The creation of employment opportunities in Mexico would help to reduce poverty and would mitigate the incentive for many migrants to look for employment in the United States. The implementation of economic policies in Mexico that create living-wage jobs is vital, especially for Mexican citizens without advanced skills. Targeted development projects in Mexican municipalities and rural areas that traditionally have had the highest rates of emigration are necessary. Projects and resources particularly should be targeted to the Mexican agricultural sector and small businesses.

Illegal immigrants come to the US seeking a more prosperous life. If economic opportunities exist in Mexico, there will be less interest in becoming an illegal alien. I think this is common sense, and I am not sure why you are opposed to the idea.

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Wages in Mexico are about 1/3 what they are here. But so is the cost of living there. Unemployment is lower there than here. Mexico is not “third world”. People there have higher average wages than ANY country in Eastern Europe. It’s about 15th or so in per capit earnings worldwide.

The real advantages to emigration from Mexico are:

1. A generous public welfare system here. It’s not all just 'welfare". Part of it is free schooling with lunches privided, access to free ERs, etc.
2. A favorable currency exchange rate. A lot of immigrants here send money back to the home country. It’s Mexico’s #2 source of foreign currency. A day’s work here will buy more in Mexico than will a day’s work in Mexico. So those wanting to return (and a lot do) or who have dependent relatives in Mexico, are able to “exceed the Joneses” back home.

A lot of the immigration debate is simply romanticization of the issue. There really are people in the world whose situation is so bad we perhaps should be looking at allowing them here for that reason. But Mexico is not one of those places.