Immigration: I'm out
In 1992, I was a new Christian, trying to figure out how to reconcile several years of liberal ideology with a theology that was frequently in conflict.
One Sunday night, our pastor walked into the auditorium and faced the small group in attendance. I don't recall his exact words any more, but the gist of it was that he wanted ideas on how to help the increasing number of immigrants (mostly Hispanic) who were looking for ways to fit into a new country and coming to the church for help.
At 25, I was probably the youngest person in that auditorium by at least 10 years, and the average age was probably pushing 60 -- so I listened. I listened to the elders of the church (by which I mean the older members, not necessarily the leaders) express their belief that these immigrants should go home. Not to their houses. To their countries.
And I'll never forget the feeling I had -- one of disbelief and anger that these people, many of whom were godly role models to me, were seemingly so unconcerned with the humanity of the immigrants that they viewed them as burdens, as problems, much as I imagine the priest and the Levite viewed the injured man on the road to Jericho.
What specific ideas were generated that night, I don't recall. But thankfully, the pastor, a wise and good man who was instrumental in my faith, steered the conversation away from that tangent to focus on ways the church could help them as people.
Flash forward to 2006. I've been a Christian for almost 15 years. My views have changed. My politics have changed. Illegal immigration, which left my stream of consciousness for more than a decade, is back in the headlines and back in my thoughts. And in some ways, I feel as if I'm right back in that auditorium 14 years ago.
In light of Sept. 11, 2001, I'm unwilling to overlook the crucial security issues inherent in a porous border. I believe in the ideas that immigrants to our country should follow the rules, that they should suffer the consequences if they do not follow the rules, and that they should learn our culture and language (without forcing them to lose the cultural identity that defines their lives).
But we have to find a way to approach this issue with this key fact in mind: these are human beings we're talking about. That's why you can count me out of what seems to be the prevailing "Conservative" (not conservative) position on immigration.
My struggle lies in the rhetoric on this issue. A rhetoric that will settle for nothing less than full deportation of every human being within our borders who can't prove his green card isn't forged.
I want to tread lightly here, because I know that one man's passion can be another man's prejudice. I'm sure that some have read my comments about abortion and written me off as a right-wing religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about people after they leave the womb. I know fairly well what's in my heart, however, so I'm secure in my desire to honor life both before and after birth.
That said, the rhetoric of the extreme anti-immigration forces has such a ring of exclusion, intolerance and arrogance that I can't embrace it (note that I am not saying the people promoting these ideas are exclusive, intolerant or arrogant, only that their rhetoric has that ring). There is no grey area. Either you are illegal or you're not, and if you are, you need to get out of our country.
Well, no. Plenty of people break the law, and receive light penalties because of their offender status or the severity of the crime. This should be no different. Coming illegally to our country is not a capital offense -- they should pay fines and other monetary penalties, and understand that their road to citizenship will be more difficult because of the path they chose. But calling for the mass deportation of 12 million people is not good policy from the perspective of politics or human decency.
As Republican congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, Henry Hyde, and Pete King said recently in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (emphasis mine):
Am I advocating amnesty? According to the rhetoric, yes -- so I fully expect to be labeled as a RINO, a softie, a traitor, whatever. I would argue that these labels only hurt the argument. It might be helpful to look up the definition of "Amnesty." According to Dictionary.com, the definition is: "A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses." And if that's what is being discussed, if there are no penalties, it would be amnesty and would be completely inappropriate. But if immigrants are allowed to stay only by paying a price, both monetarily and punitatively, the amnesty label doesn't stick.
I understand the argument that the penalty for stealing includes giving back what was stolen, which in this case is life in our country, so any penalty should include giving up that right. But again, I don't see that the punishment fits the crime.
So here's the bottom line: Secure the border. Make it easy for employers to check immigration status, and hold them accountable when they don't. Make sure that immigrants who came here legally get first crack at citizenship. For those here illegally, ensure they register with the government, pay back taxes and a fine consistent with breaking the law, and understand what is expected of them. For those who continue to skirt the law, put some teeth into law enforcement so they are no longer welcome in this country.
Are there flaws in my argument? Of course. I'm not saying I have the perfect solution. But I am saying we need to treat these people with the dignity they have earned as children of God. They are not the scum of the earth, any more than any of us are. They were born in a country that does not afford the opportunities found in the United States of America, and we must find a happy medium that honors their efforts and humanity, enforces our laws, and secures our country.
One Sunday night, our pastor walked into the auditorium and faced the small group in attendance. I don't recall his exact words any more, but the gist of it was that he wanted ideas on how to help the increasing number of immigrants (mostly Hispanic) who were looking for ways to fit into a new country and coming to the church for help.
At 25, I was probably the youngest person in that auditorium by at least 10 years, and the average age was probably pushing 60 -- so I listened. I listened to the elders of the church (by which I mean the older members, not necessarily the leaders) express their belief that these immigrants should go home. Not to their houses. To their countries.
And I'll never forget the feeling I had -- one of disbelief and anger that these people, many of whom were godly role models to me, were seemingly so unconcerned with the humanity of the immigrants that they viewed them as burdens, as problems, much as I imagine the priest and the Levite viewed the injured man on the road to Jericho.
What specific ideas were generated that night, I don't recall. But thankfully, the pastor, a wise and good man who was instrumental in my faith, steered the conversation away from that tangent to focus on ways the church could help them as people.
Flash forward to 2006. I've been a Christian for almost 15 years. My views have changed. My politics have changed. Illegal immigration, which left my stream of consciousness for more than a decade, is back in the headlines and back in my thoughts. And in some ways, I feel as if I'm right back in that auditorium 14 years ago.
In light of Sept. 11, 2001, I'm unwilling to overlook the crucial security issues inherent in a porous border. I believe in the ideas that immigrants to our country should follow the rules, that they should suffer the consequences if they do not follow the rules, and that they should learn our culture and language (without forcing them to lose the cultural identity that defines their lives).
But we have to find a way to approach this issue with this key fact in mind: these are human beings we're talking about. That's why you can count me out of what seems to be the prevailing "Conservative" (not conservative) position on immigration.
My struggle lies in the rhetoric on this issue. A rhetoric that will settle for nothing less than full deportation of every human being within our borders who can't prove his green card isn't forged.
I want to tread lightly here, because I know that one man's passion can be another man's prejudice. I'm sure that some have read my comments about abortion and written me off as a right-wing religious zealot who doesn't give a damn about people after they leave the womb. I know fairly well what's in my heart, however, so I'm secure in my desire to honor life both before and after birth.
That said, the rhetoric of the extreme anti-immigration forces has such a ring of exclusion, intolerance and arrogance that I can't embrace it (note that I am not saying the people promoting these ideas are exclusive, intolerant or arrogant, only that their rhetoric has that ring). There is no grey area. Either you are illegal or you're not, and if you are, you need to get out of our country.
Well, no. Plenty of people break the law, and receive light penalties because of their offender status or the severity of the crime. This should be no different. Coming illegally to our country is not a capital offense -- they should pay fines and other monetary penalties, and understand that their road to citizenship will be more difficult because of the path they chose. But calling for the mass deportation of 12 million people is not good policy from the perspective of politics or human decency.
As Republican congressmen Jim Sensenbrenner, Henry Hyde, and Pete King said recently in a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (emphasis mine):
As you should know, during the House debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the bill's penalty for illegal presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, this amendment was unsuccessful, primarily because all but eight of our Democratic colleagues decided to play political games by voting to make all illegal immigrants felons. A felony penalty is neither appropriate nor workable. We remain committed to reducing this penalty and working with you to this end.In other words, a wider perspective on the issue would be helpful.
Am I advocating amnesty? According to the rhetoric, yes -- so I fully expect to be labeled as a RINO, a softie, a traitor, whatever. I would argue that these labels only hurt the argument. It might be helpful to look up the definition of "Amnesty." According to Dictionary.com, the definition is: "A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses." And if that's what is being discussed, if there are no penalties, it would be amnesty and would be completely inappropriate. But if immigrants are allowed to stay only by paying a price, both monetarily and punitatively, the amnesty label doesn't stick.
I understand the argument that the penalty for stealing includes giving back what was stolen, which in this case is life in our country, so any penalty should include giving up that right. But again, I don't see that the punishment fits the crime.
So here's the bottom line: Secure the border. Make it easy for employers to check immigration status, and hold them accountable when they don't. Make sure that immigrants who came here legally get first crack at citizenship. For those here illegally, ensure they register with the government, pay back taxes and a fine consistent with breaking the law, and understand what is expected of them. For those who continue to skirt the law, put some teeth into law enforcement so they are no longer welcome in this country.
Are there flaws in my argument? Of course. I'm not saying I have the perfect solution. But I am saying we need to treat these people with the dignity they have earned as children of God. They are not the scum of the earth, any more than any of us are. They were born in a country that does not afford the opportunities found in the United States of America, and we must find a happy medium that honors their efforts and humanity, enforces our laws, and secures our country.
posted by Ken @ 1:03 PM
1 Comments:
At 4/06/2006 2:59 PM,
Anonymous said…
From a non-emotional point, here is why your statement is still valid:
there are between 10 and 20 million illegal aliens in the country now.
how are we supposed to round up and deport 20 million people?
the last time any nation forcibly moved so many people in a short time, the end of the line came in the form of a giant oven. it is simply not practical.
I believe the best solution is to remove the incentives for people to be hear illegally. The vast majority of these people are here not "to do jobs no one will do" but "to do jobs no one will do FOR THE WAGES OFFERED." If you are here illegally, you aren't going to file a labor complaint when your boss is paying $5/hr cash under the table. Thus, illegals can, and do, take jobs that no American would take FOR $5 AN HOUR.
Now, if we allowed farms, fast food joints, hotels, lawn care services, etc., to hire American teenagers legally (and therefore with a tax deduction) for lower wages, the competition would drive out the illegals.
it would also keep money in American banks, give kids more disposable cash to spend on consumer goods, give kids something to do besides drugs and video games, and cut back on childhood obesity.
and since no one under 18 should be in a position to provide a "living wage" to an entire family, there is really no reason whatsoever to argue that a minimum wage (with accompanying benefits) is in any way necessary.
So I say eliminate all existing labor laws for people under 18, and replace them with some simple protections (no working beyond X hours per day/week, must meet minimum safety standards, etc) to keep kids from being exploited as slave labor.
Then, when illegals are no longer able to enter the job market with an unfair advantage (at least in many of the most common jobs), they will find themselves forced to return home, or else become legitimate residents in order to obtain adult wages and benefits.
Post a Comment
<< Home