The theological dimension is needed both for interpreting and for solving present day problems in human society.
(John Paul II, Centesimus Annus)
Reading the Signs of the Times
Excerpts from CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING: OUR BEST KEPT SECRET (DeBerri, E. Orbis Books, 2003 Maryknoll, NY)
A foundational conviction underlying Catholic social teaching is that God is at work in human history. This was true in biblical times; it is true today. It is true in places and mong people who have never heard of the gospel or of Jesus Christ. God is at work healing and redeeming human history and inviting all people to participate in that work. Perceiving the historical action of God and discerning God's will are often now referred to as 'reading the signs of the times.'
The term 'signs of the times' in contemporary Catholic social thought is a term based upon Jesus' statement to the Pharisees and Sadduccees in Matthew 16:4: 'You know how to read the face of the sky, but you cannot read the signs of the times.' Pope John XXIII made the first use of the term in modern Catholic Social teaching to refer to the principal characteristics of the age that are emerging from the collective consciousness of the human community in the form of shared understandings and social movements.
The Second Vatican Council embraced the notion, bringing it to the heart of the Church's mission:
the church seeks but a solitary goal: to carry forward the work of Christ Himself under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth, to rescue and not to sit in judgment, to serve and not to be served. To carry out such a task, the church has always had the duty of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in light of the gospel. (Gaudium et Spes)
The 'signs of the times', then, embody and reflect the movement of the Holy Spirit in human history working to bring about the redemption of peoples and the fuller realization of the Reign of God. Interpreting the 'signs of the times' requires prayerful discernment within the Christian community and in dialogue with all people of good will. The criteria for this discernment involve the coherence of the contemporary 'signs of the times' with the gospels, the Christian understanding of human nature and the common good.
_____________________________________________________________
We become aware and conscious of the signs of the times by our knowledge and understanding of contemporary issues that affect human lives both individually and as a society.
Enrique's Journey is an accounting of the "signs of the times". It tells the story of a family caught up in the social phenomenon of immigration and migration at the southern border of the United States.
Nowadays, everyone seems to be talking about the issue of immgration, particularly the situation of undocumented people entering the United States. As a preview to your reading Enrique's Journey post what you're thoughts and opinions are on the issue of immigration. Your entry should be coherent and organized. There is no right answer - it is just a pre-reading activity.
33 comments:
To begin with, we need to recognize that the current debate over immigration is a point on a continuum that has existed in since the beginning of this country. At first it was the German and Irish immigrants who were being vilified by the “Nativists”. Then it was the Southern and Eastern European immigrants from whom many of us descended. The major differences between the new predominately Latino immigrants and the immigrants of the past are not so much economic (many of the 19th century immigrants were in comparable economic situations). The difference is that red tape, waiting periods, and paperwork have increased to the point where a working class immigrant could not possibly hope to enter the country through legal means without some help in filling out paperwork and such. The number of hurdles a new immigrant must jump through has increased exponentially. Just doing a cursory search on the issue produced an interesting page about Ellis Island (http://www.ellisisland.org/genealogy/ellis_island_history.asp) where only 2% of steerage passengers were turned away (largely for health related problems), even though these immigrants certainly would have had comparable difficulty demonstrating English proficiency.
The issue of immigration reform must be approached in a way that separates the often legitimate questions of economic costs from the xenophobic cultural and social qualms that many people hold. Legitimizing fears of "having to press 1 for English" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEJfS1v-fU0 by saying that undocumented workers take American jobs is cowardly and fails to take into account the simple human dignity that all people share. It may well be necessary to talk about the dollars and cents of various immigration plans, but to do so without recognizing that we are talking about men and women who are also created in the image and likeness of God is folly.
While immigration reform is a politically polarizing issue, it is not a two-sided subject when viewed as a “sign of the times” within Catholic Social Teaching. As a note, fair immigration reform does not compromise national security; rather, it deals with individual’s basic human dignity inherent in social justice.
To begin, the fact that immigrants are often referred to as “illegals” (on talk-radio shows, news programs, and, dare I say within our own school) deprives then of this basic human dignity — no person is “illegal.” While his or her actions might have violated a law, the individual retains a sense of value and worth which we, as Catholics, have an obligation to respect. Another typical response to the immigration question includes a notion that “these people” are overrunning our country. Why, an inquisitive mind might ask, are so many people coming to the United States? In short, they could not provide an adequate level of living in their home country and are more than happy to take the most difficult, dangerous, and low paying jobs in the US. They are willing to risk so much (in their travel to the US and atrocious working conditions) to gain what, to us, would seem to be so little. However, for these immigrants, the table scraps of the richest nation in world often provide a better life than they led in their native country.
The above document explains that Christ came to “witness truth…, rescue [us]…, [and] serve…” In terms of immigration reform, Christians have a responsibility carry out Christ’s mission in each of these three areas. First, to “rescue” this population refers to allowing them to share in the bounties of our nation; if we do so, we are rescuing them from their difficult lives in other countries. Second, once they arrive in the United States, we are called to serve them, just as we would any other neighbor (their “legality” is of no consequence… we are called to love and visit the imprisoned, are we not?). Finally, if we “rescue” and “serve” this population, we will follow Christ in “witness[ing] truth.” Since God is always at work in human history (including immigration reform) we must ask ourselves: we striving to be instruments of his work?
Anti-immigration is not a new thing in American history. In the 1800s, the nation was swept by such sentiment in response to the influx of people from various non-Anglo nations, creating things like the infamous Know-Nothing party. Today’s movement began after California and Texas improved their border security a few years ago. Because of that, Central and South Americans began heading towards (and through) the weaker Arizona border. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the number of illegal immigrants in Arizona went from 115,000 in 1996 to almost 500,000 in 2005. In 2004, anti-immigration activists put Proposition 200 on the ballot. It denied “public benefits” to illegal immigrants and required public employees to report anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Though it was widely opposed in Arizona, Proposition 200 passed, 56 to 44 percent.
The passage of Proposition 200 inspired a wave of other legislation across the country aimed at immigrants. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, 570 pieces of legislation dealing with both legal and illegal immigrants were introduced in 2006, and at least 1,562 in 2007. In 2007, immigration bills became law in 46 states, including Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and West Virginia. Those states have very few immigrants. Indeed, this wave of neo-populism is as potent, or more potent, in areas with little or no immigrants as it is in border states and other immigration hubs that truly have an issue.
Which brings me to my point. Anti-immigration sentiment is a result of “deep-seated social and economic anxieties onto an ‘out-group,’” as John B. Judis put it, and it is most often voiced by the social and economic classes most threatened by the recent economic declines. According to an extensive 2003 survey sponsored by Hamilton College, opponents of immigration are particularly concentrated among those who have no more than a high school diploma, make less than $50,000, and live in small towns or rural areas. Those who believe that “immigrants take more from our country than they give” are strongest among men between the ages of 30 and 39 without a college degree, according to a poll conducted in December by Democracy Corps. That section of the population is the most susceptible to losing their jobs or income in economic downturns or through outsourcing.
They are at the lower rungs of blue-collar or white-collar jobs, owners of very small shops or businesses, the heirs of the nineteenth-century Populists, and the descendants of the working-class Democrats who abandoned their party to vote for George Wallace, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. After faring well in the late 1990s, they have begun to see their jobs disappear and their income fall, even as the economy ostensibly began to recover from the 2001 downturn (caused by an event, the attacks of 9/11, which also aided in bringing on and augmenting the modern anti-immigration swell). According to the Economic Policy Institute, people in the second income quintile – the lower middle class – saw their income grow 10.8% from 1995 to 2000, but then shrink by 4.4% from 2000 to 2004.
In part, today’s anti-immigrationism is an exaggerated, virulent, and misdirected response to the economic struggles of the lower middle class. Thanks to the help of people like Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Tom Tancredo, and the small army of conservative talk-radio hosts, that class’s economic struggle was transformed into a cultural one that all conservatives, and a great number of moderates and liberals, can rally around and get fired up about, regardless of economic situation.
Personally, I have no good idea about what we ought to do as a nation and as individual states. It seems to me, though, that many of the people who are the most anti-immigration from an economic standpoint are those who need to meet and get to know an illegal immigrant the most. (Those who oppose such immigration simply because they are afraid of a corruption or dilution of American culture ought to mull over the history of Italians, the Irish, Polish, German, and, well, the list goes on until you get to English…) It seems to me that empathy and sympathy, at the most basic level, ought to be the beginning of our thinking and discussion of illegal immigration.
In my opinion, Americans have positive feelings toward the
immigrants in their own areas and toward the immigrants they know
personally. A 1978 poll about Vietnamese immigrants, When asked, "Thinking now about the Indochinese refugees, the so-called `boat people'; would you favor or oppose the United States relaxing it's immigration policies so that many of these people could come to live in the United States?" 32 percent were in favor, 57 percent were opposed, with 11 percent at no opinion. But when asked, "Would you, yourself, like to see some of these people come to live in this community or not?", 48 percent said "yes," 40 percent said "no," with 13 percent no opinion. There is an interesting split in thought here, with the greater voiced opposition apparently being based upon abstract belief formed by the mass media, and the greater voiced support coming from personal experience with immigrants.
Based on the numbers the majority of the people from 1978 deferred the immigration of these people into the U.S. But when asked personally, they were in favor of letting them into the community.
Today, I think that people are no different than what they were back in 1978. If one takes a moment to look at the facts, immigrants help benifit our nation economicly and spiratually. It seems as if the media likes to hype up the fact that many people are opposed to the immigrants living here but if one asks the people individually the results and statistics are quite different.
The fact is they know that the immigrants help our economy and and move our country foward.
Now I'm not saying that we should just let anyone into our country. We need to make sure that these people are safe and problem-free. After what occured on 9/11 we really need to take a strict role on who exactly comes in and who goes out! But the ones who are already here should just be interrogated to see if they are a threat to society. If not, they shouldnt be deported.
The problem with 'illegals' in America today is how society views them. There have always been undocumented peoples in the United States, the difference between then and now, is how the American public is so blindly leaded by its news channels. Fox and CNN are two of biggest news channels in the world, and their views are the ones being shown and shared to the general public. And what is thier opinion? Simply find the Republican or Democratic response and you have your answer.
People today seem unable to make decisions for themselves, so they merely listen to the news and claim that as their opinion. And quite frankly, they're only seeing a very small samplying (the worst) of immigrants in America today. People are Drawn to bad news, they cant get enough of it, if someones says something poorly, or dare I say.. express their own views, they are torn to pieces by talk show hosts, or made fun of on comedy shows. And what people are shown is the violence of gang activity, drug smuggling, and loss of American jobs to those who are willing to work for less.
Once again, people fail to see the bigger picture. The take this outlook (as distorted as it is) and apply it to all immagrants. But what about the family who is fleeing a depressed county and comes to America in search of a steady job, and a chance to raise their children in a safe neighborhood. Doesnt every parent diserve these things? Doesnt every child deserve to be able to go to a safe school, away from a place where only drugs and gangs offer any kind of escape.
The reading Brother posted makes an excellent point, we need to stop viewing these people as faceless 'illegals', rather view them for what they are, mena dn women just like us, looking for a better life.
Its such a shame that these people choose to enter our country illegally, however what choice do they have? The process of enter this country has become so tedious that it takes years for all the paper work to be completed. Time and money, two things these people have very little of. Is it fair to lump these people who choose our country illegally, with those who do it for the reasons of drugs, violence, and terrorism?
All the questions I have asked are not easily answered, and require must investigation. I conclude with one final question, How we are to live up to our image of that becon of hope extended to all those free peoples seeking a better life for themselves and their families in the 21st century?
Its a good question, and I look forward to debating it in class.
With the largely European immigrant establishment generations separated from their long arduous journeys across borders forgotten, the new generation of immigrants meets a cool reception from the current American population. Further problems arise with the increasing number of bilingual signs, services, and the like encroaching on a traditionally English country. Of course, it is only right on a human level, not even as as a Catholic to see immigrants, whether or not they illegally cross the border, to see them as humans. To address them and treat them as such, but also as people who commit a crime.
Reform comes on our side at the bureaucratic level, the time lapse and paperwork is astronomical, but it does not excuse illegal behavior which mucks up our system and excites national security concerns on behalf of the American public. The process to citizenship rewards the wealthy and the patient, but it is rash to cross the border and demand equal rights to that of a citizen. The legal process, brimming with red tape and complex tortes, needs to be revamped
This dilemma is where responsibility lies on the prospective immigrant, they are not law abiding persons except for that pesky border jump, and they are not yet citizens. This crazy paradigm excites very passionate, and sometimes fervent and vicious responses from fringe ideologues. Social justice comes from addressing this particularly polarizing issue, with humanity and law. Emotions aside, illegal actions should be addressed in an appropriate fashion.
One of Immanuel Kant’s principle theories was deontology, the idea of duty-based ethics. Kant’s moral ethics consisted of the understanding that an action could only be classified as moral provided its foundations lied within the realm of reason. Also, a moral action is an end in itself, not a means to an end; the action is performed because it is right, not because it leads to some intended effect. Thus, morality, according to Kant’s idea of the categorical imperative, is an obligation to do what is intrinsically right, without regard to its effect (which should not become the end with the action as its means).
An application of the Kantian ethic can be to the issue of immigration in the United States. The country has clearly defined laws and restrictions regarding the issue and most of the people who immigrate to the United States follow them and live within its borders legally. However, there are many who have entered the country illegally and many who have lived within the country illegally for years. They are the focus of an issue that has surfaced as a major topic of discussion and argument in the political sphere of the country and many views as to what legal action should be taken against them have been expressed. The obvious question to answer in such a dilemma is: what can and should be done? Some have postulated that all illegal immigrants should be deported as they are a detriment to the structure of American society and economy. Others would be more reasonable; although this country cannot simply let illegal immigration by itself, it should not go to the opposite extreme and remove all undocumented persons as they are not harmful to the social structure and because some have established their homes in the country. This is an ethical dilemma as the United States government is affecting the lives of these people. From the Kantian standpoint (which I see as accurate regarding the issue), it would be unethical to remove illegal immigrants and send them back to their countries of birth. A response to the issue must be intrinsically right as an end itself, not nationalistic and xenophobic.
There are a number of reasons that might compel a man and his family to move to another country. Usually, it is because that country offers better chances for survival and more opportunities for comfortable living. In the case of the United States, the world beacon of democracy and individual freedom, it is not surprising to find one of the most (if not the most) culturally diverse societies. It is also not surprising that so many people, legally and otherwise, are immigrating to the country. They are looking for a better life. And although this may not be a universal generalization, it is for the most part accurate.
The country responds by allowing most people into its borders while trying to enforce its laws against intruders, illegal immigrants. It is because the laws of the nation – obeying the Kantian ethic – respect the individual rights of man because it is right to do so, that so many people wish to live in the United States. Now, enforcement of immigration laws is an obvious necessity as it allows the government to ensure the security of its citizens. But illegal immigrants intent on living the original American dream (not the trite dream of fortune and fame now so prevalent), especially those who have established a family in this country, are not a threat to the well-being of legal citizens. They are not reducing the availability of jobs or professions in the country, they are not any more a social or physical threat than legal inhabitants, and although they should try to become legal citizens and thus benefit more from the laws and rights of the country, they have no less of a right to try to make a living than anyone else. To deny them that basic right is intrinsically wrong. To forcibly remove a family from their home and make them vagrants in a foreign country is precisely the kind of inhuman (and anti-American, given its “land of the free” motto) action that some would advocate for selfish reasons, as if deporting these people somehow makes them more secure from harm or more able to find employment. This type of xenophobic illogic is counter to the ethical foundation upon which this country was built.
Kant’s deontology (or Kantianism) is a moral philosophy that advocates human reason and self-awareness. According to it, it is not the action itself but the intention that makes the behavior moral. But this is self-evident. If I do something right as it will benefit my ulterior motive, I am not being ethical. I am acting on convenience and opportunity. Likewise, to deny a man and his family their home of many years because they are not here legally, all in the name of the well being of the United States and simply because it serves my opportunistic selfishness, is far from moral. Because of this, mass deportation should not be the final consensus of this country in response to the immigration issue. The response of this country should be more methodical and, above all, human. It is the duty of this nation to embrace not barbarism and ignorance but enlightenment and humanity itself by respecting the dignity of each individual.
While the immigration issue remains complex and nuanced and divides many Americans, we must remember that the United States remains a country of immigrants. Often referred to as a cultural melting pot, the United States developed into a superpower because of the creativity of its people. Possessing diverse experiences, immigrants have offered fresh perspectives on our country’s challenges and have provided innovative solutions to problems that we could not solve by ourselves. Moreover, we should view immigrants as an asset rather than as a liability because they can ensure a healthy population growth rate and can expand our workforce and markets, stimulating our economy. For example, the low-skilled workers that many nativists persecute ensure that a Big Mac is not $5 and an orange is not $2. Second, the rhetoric that many conservative ideologues use to describe these people tarnishes the human dignity of immigrants and reflects poorly on the social boundaries that we have set for this debate. The label “illegal immigrant” degrades the dignity of undocumented workers by making them feel less than human. Furthermore, as a Christian family, we should focus on people’s membership in the Church as baptized individuals rather than their legal status. Jesus served the margins of society, poor people, handicapped people, and gentiles; thus, it remains our duty as Christians to serve others, especially marginalized people who cannot help themselves, such as many undocumented workers. Third, although many Americans, including myself, feel cheated when many undocumented workers do not pay their taxes nor have social security withheld from their pay, I believe that we can agree on a realistic compromise that penalizes undocumented workers for illegally living in the United States with a fine, that meets current business needs for low-skilled workers, and that respects the human dignity that we all share. This position acknowledges the fact that it is unreasonable, impractical, and expensive to deport 14 million people. Ultimately, American history, Christian principles of charity, justice, and love, and pragmatism support welcoming treatment of undocumented workers, who can contribute to building a stronger economy, a richer and more understanding culture, and, most importantly, the Kingdom of God on earth.
Unfortunately this is not a black and white issue. On one hand coming to this country illegally is a clear violation of the laws, and in several ways it is worsening the country (the reason ER room costs are outrageous is to pay for the illegal immigrants who get treated and can't pay), so on one side they are a major problem. But on the flip side they are human too and often driven by desperation or a bad situation. It is a very difficult issue morally. Personally, I believe as a Christian we shouldn't deny anyone a better life for themselves whether legal or not. Man's laws are not necessarily God's laws. I think Christians have a moral responsibility to stand up for the powerless. Immigrants are coming to this country trying to survive.
I think that the issue of immigration is an extension of prejudices like racism. While many people claim that they oppose immigration because the undocumented workers are "stealing jobs" or causing crime, many of these people are probably reacting to their fear of different people in their community. I think that the biggest problem surrounding our society's reaction to the immigration issue is the refusal to acknowledge that these immigrants are indeed people and deserve the same respect that we would give to any citizen of the United States. We must also acknowledge that these people come from very difficult situations and that they are in need of help. One thing that does not help our society view these immigrants as people is the divisive presentation of immigration in the media. Both liberals and conservatives on radio shows and in newspaper columns use talking points and relatively meaningless lines like "we cannot give them amnesty" and "all of us are immigrants." While these issues are all points that we need to consider, it encourages the people who read these newspaper columns or listen to talk radio shows to think of illegal immigration as a policy issue and not as a matter of concern that will affect the lives of millions of people. Perhaps, we need to think of two things when we think of immigration. We need to think of the impact of immigration on the economy and domestic policy as separate from the impact that immigration will have on immigrants. Viewing the two issues together will lead to a dehumanization of immigrants, whether those immigrants are documented or undocumented. The issue of immigration is crucial to the future of our nation. The issue must be resolved with a moderate and sensible approach. But the most important part of that approach is that it must give dignity to the immigrants, and do everything to dispel prejudice and racism towards undocumented workers.
Generalizations are easy to make, but i think that the real difficulty is finding actual solutions to this broad problem. Obviously, these solutions must begin with the individual, however, and his willingness and commitment to make a change. In the fifth chapter of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus gives to us an instruction on obeying law. He makes two very important statements. The first is that no one should be working to abolish the laws we hold on earth. In this regard, Jesus shows us that he also obeyed the laws of his time, and i think that it is important that we must do the same. There does need to be in place a stricter policy for immigration, one that can prevent the issue of illegal immigrants. With that said, the next task is to work towards legal admittance in a fair and successful way. I feel that is not the issue that we should be concerned with however. Jesus believes firmly that the law should be adhered to, but what he says next is far more important. The real work to be done is in teaching and initiating beyond what the law stipulates for. Jesus explains that his mission on earth is to fulfill, and to do so in a way that is more influential than that of the lawmaker in teaching. What he is saying is that we should look for ways in which we can teach that will be free from collisions with the law. His message carries a greater meaning. In regards to the immigration issue we must obey the law, but the real work that will be done is to help those legal immigrants who are in need of our help and who are trying to survive and a country of opportunity. Providing help and teaching to these people is a way in which we can carry out the social message of the gospel, but still adhere to our laws in our society.
When viewing the "problem" of illegal immigration, we often think first of the undocumented workers themselves. We think of the fruit pickers in California, or the men cutting grass at a country club, or construction workers. We do not think of corporations--not to sound to radically liberal--yet they are the problems. After all, immigrants come to this country to work. They have for centuries now, and will continue to do so as long as the jobs are present and open. I think that this is our first problem with this issue--we blame the people first, who are merely cogs in an economic system that shamelessly relies on them to keep moving.
My second point is that I don't think most Americans know how hard it is to become a citizen. Yesterday, I took my break at work with a 21 year old who has been in this country for 3 years now. She is originally from Nuremberg, and fell in love with an American soldier, who married her over there, and took her home with him. As soon as they married, the girl began the paperwork and fees for a green card. She was given a spousal visa, good for 2 months. This expired, though, before the government was done processing her green card. From December to March, she could not work, drive, or basically do much of anything. Finally, she went down to the DHS office, months after they said the paperwork would be done, and after paying just under $1000 in fees (related to various forms, paying to have pictures taken--she remembers them telling her to have a picture taken "at a slightly different angle"), she got her green card. She has now begun the process towards becoming a citizen. I mention this story, though, to underscore just how cumbersome the process of being here "legally" is. This girl, being from Germany, is and always was fluent in English (just with a slight accent). She is married to an American citizen. Imagine how hard it must be for someone who speaks no English, and has no real ties to this country, yet knows they have no alternatives in their home country.
And that is my final point. We know why the vast majority of undocumented workers come to this country--to work. They are mostly from Latin America (sorry, Mike Huckabee). If we want to lower the number of undocumented people who come into this country every year, we should do two things. First, we should provide opportunities for these people in their own countries. We had a Marshall Plan after WWII; we could certainly be of assistance to our neighbors in the same (or similar) ways. Second, we should no longer point our fingers at the people as the problem, but at the corporations that illegally hire them.
I was disturbed by reading a recent article in the Post-Gazette, which stated: “The Wild West is a heavily commercialized artery called Bell Road. Mexico is a three hour drive south of here…where the roads collide, one culture grinding against the other.” Writer Joel Achenbach said, “Most of us don’t feel safe on the Phoenix streets without being armed [and] we’re not going to be intimidated by these thugs.” Who are these thugs? Recently, key Senators acknowledged that the nation has 12million “illegal” immigrants. The Hispanic-American population increased by 58% between the 1990 and 2000 census, to become the fastest growing and largest ethnic group in the nation. These “illegal” immigrants are having more of an impact on the economy than ever before through the sheer power of their large numbers.
My personal response to immigration as the “signs of the times” is that God is at work inviting America to do something about this perplexing situation. In Lk. 10:29-37 Jesus Christ taught the parable of the Good Samaritan coming to the aid of the foreigner. He challenged us to become the “Good Samaritans” and come to the aid of the down trodden. In this case, immigrants are the foreigners- in vital need of help, and as “Men of Faith” we are called to come to their aid. Moreover, the Catholic Church holds that, “reforms are necessary in order for our nation’s immigration system to respond to the realities of separated families and labor demands that compel people to immigrate to the United States, whether in an authorized fashion.”
I believe that it is our duty to remain well informed citizens of how those governing our nation intend to find solutions to rectify the immigration policy. It is imperative that as Christians we challenge all forms of discrimination and violence so that we may build relationships and spread the message of the church in light of the ‘signs of the times.’ As a positive response to this, I am proud to note that young men from this very institution have tutored at the diocesan Spanish Center in Upper Oakland. Dell
To keep this simple, I would just like to put two small quotations here that I believe outline our responsibilities with regards to immigrants, not only as religious people but as citizens as well. It is important to remember that only through solidarity do we experience humanity. Our humanity is dependent upon the humanity of others, and thus the way in which each of us treats other human beings.
"Let us not forget: we are a pilgrim church, subject to misunderstanding, to persecution, but a church that walks serene because it bears the force of love."
--Romero
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
--The Statue of Liberty
Immigration is a complex issue that has our country divided. Many shrug questions involving immigration off with answers such as “they took our jobs” and “deport em’ all.” We see these citizens on the boarder of Texas and Mexico buying rifles to gun down immigrants passing through their land, who call themselves freedom fighters (as if their fighting for our country? Thanks, but no thanks). Who knows the total number of men, women, and children buried in the desert who died by a bullet or from hunger and the heat. They all knew the risk at the time of their departure from Mexico, yet still attempted the journey in order to settle in this great nation of America. What do they ask for? Work, in order to provide for their families in Mexico or those brought along. Many seek simple jobs many pass up (debatable topic to many) because of salary an amount of labor involved. It is not as if these people strive to take the position as CEO of a Fortune 500 company (or any other million dollar job, which many Americans dream of), all they ask is for simple work. These immigrants have become the backbone of our economy, and why not let them seek (seek, not hand them) the low wage job while we all greedily seek the high wage jobs. Why not let them seek to make a good life for themselves just as most Americans do. There is no simple answer to this problem of Immigration, because so many factors are involved (everything from jobs, taxes, control of the number of immigrants, immigration enforcement, and the list goes on), and it takes much more thought than that of Redneck Randy who says “deport em’ all”.
The B-I-B-L-E tells us numerous times not to be judgmental of others yet we disobey this creed far too often, especially over matters concerning our worldly community. In the case of immigration, who are we to judge why a particular person wants to come into the States at whatever costs necessary? Only the individual himself can realize and act upon the motives that he may possess, therefore it does no good for legal U.S. citizens to create contrived validations as to why immigrants wish to enter our country. If anything, preconceived notions such as these merely worsen and complicate the situation on hand. The golden rule is also applicable in a situation such as immigration. At the least, to treat those termed illegal as we would like to be treated requires giving them the opportunity to voice their opinions on the matter before rash stereotypes are developed
One of the most fundamental Christian concepts is that of acceptance. During Christ's earthly ministry he was able to have a profound impact upon those who were marginalized. I believe that if we do in fact wish to live in a Christ-like manner, we must have an accepting attitude towards Immigrants. As Duke class of '12 Dr J Nuttt said, we have no right to judge these humans. We should not restrict or penalize an individual for pursuing a better life. Also, from an economic standpoint, it would be very foolish to deport such a significant amount of our lower-class workforce. By doing this our economy would suffer greatly. Whatever way you look at this issue, it should be clear that it is our human duty to allow another individual try to provide for their family.
Immigration has been the topic of many heated debates for decades. Do we let others into our country to take our jobs, eat our food, and live in what could be our homes? Or do we shut the gates on any person who is not a born american citizen? There are pros and cons to each argument, of course.
Take the cons, for instance. If we decide to allow immigrants come over to America, not only do they bring their luggage and families, they bring their culture. They bring their customs, holidays, recpies, and their language. And as the number of immigrants grow, it's only a matter of time before their culture meshes with ours until our own American identity is lost. That image of the All-American hard working girl/boy will be slowly transformed into something else. This loss of a national identity is one of the top 4 reasons people are opposed to immigration.
Another of these are economic costs. The addition of more people means job competition and school/social security expenses. Americans aleady have issues of their own with unemployment and high costs...the last thing we need are foreigners.
But how big of a problem are those cons compared to the pros? Immigration is allowing a family to dream. It's getting them out of a horrible situation into one where they can actually have feasible hope. Yes, change will come with immigration. Directions will be not only in English but in Spanish also. Apple pie might be switched out with a spanish dish for dessert. But America's always been about chances. Chances to make a new start and prosper. In my opinion, immigration is a good thing. It's giving people that chance to prosper and make a better living for themselves. We as Americans have been lucky enough to have been born into this lifestyle...it chose us. We have every oppourtunity we went just handed to us. Immigrants weren't as lucky as us. They weren't born with all of their dreams within their grasp. So to deny them that chance to make something out of their lives? It's just wrong.
Before formulating my post I read briefly through the posts which had already been submitted to the site. Certainly all added valuable pieces of fact and opinion to the debate on immigration reform that has, as several pointed out, been an ongoing issue since isolated groups of homo sapiens journeyed over geographical barriers that separated these populations for a period of time long enough to endow several very significant physical characteristics that have also caused much and hate debate. What I have noticed, however, is that we have all approached this debate from the very narrow view of Western, moral doctrine.
Immediately upon reading these posts I thought of Arturo Escobar’s book Encountering Development: the making and unmaking of the Third World as well as his reasoning on the subject of development. First, I believe it is essential to examine why the Latin American people, as well as other Third World countries which annually send thousands to the United States, view themselves as “underdeveloped” and how they must “un-underdevelop” themselves by subjecting their societies to the Western politicians and “experts”. I believe it was Joe who states that we need a kind of Marshall Plan for these countries. This I believe is not the solution. This I believe, as well as Escobar, is the precise problem. We view these cultures and societies as “problems and backward”; not “organized” in such a way that matches Western categories (Escobar, 6). Last year in the seminar we discussed this type of societal domination with Edward Said and his concept of Orientalism. Orientalism is the form of Western domination over the Orient, “dealing with it by making statements about it, authorizing views of it, describing it, by teaching it, settling it, ruling over it” (Escobar, 7). Western ideology and categories have settled the world in the name of Christianity in order to pacify its native populations, assimilating them into the noble culture. In other words, it was the West who established the fact that these populations were lacking, impoverished, and “backward”. It is for this reason that we now see hundreds of millions of these same people now reaching toward our shores as the solution to the “problems” with which we saddled their ancestors.
Timothy Mitchell revealed another interesting mechanism that is at work in the Western representations of these societies. Mitchell states that Western categories organized the world into a picture, “in the model of world exhibitions of the last century” (Escobar, 8). Without getting too much into the model he simply states that by creating such a picture, formed through Western categories, we have been about to observe the world “from a position that is invisible and set apart” (Mitchell, 28). This as a result dictates that the Third World “and its peoples exist “out there”, to be known through theories and to be intervened upon from the outside” (Escobar, 9). We have created a world that legitimates existence by being a part of this minority which has become invisible from the physical picture. Despite our apparent absence from the model, our presence can be felt as an abstract goal, something millions have waged their lives on to be a part of.
Our “moral obligations” and Catholic “duties” to liberate these people from ignorance and bring them into “civilized” life is what has gotten us into the mess which now exists. We have to stop telling ourselves that Western ideals are the barometer for the rest of the world. Brian Woll in his English presentation today discussed August Wilson’s ideas of African American separatism. It is very much along the same vein that I arrive at a reasonable point of progression for the alternative to the Third World. I believe that we need a separation of cultures within the new transnational society. This will enable Latin Americans as well as other Third World peoples to “have a greater autonomy over how they are represented and how they construct their own social and cultural models in ways not so mediated by a Western episteme and historicily” (Escobar, 53).
In response to the current political struggle, I believe that those who have been afflicted by Western ideals and are willing to risk their lives to attain a piece of this culture, should be protected by the moral ideals which they themselves apparently embrace.
Immigration is a difficult issue to examine because it is something that applies to all of us on a personal level. At one point in time or another, some of our relatives were viewed as immigrants to this country. However, after a few assimilating generations, we see ourselves as natives to this country. This begs the question; how many degrees of separation are required before someone can be seen as a true "American?" The answer is that there is no set limit. Before anyone tries to examine immigrants as outsiders, they must remember the same situations that their ancestors faced only a few, short decades ago.
With this in mind, it is easy to take pity on those who, like our past relatives, have chosen to come to this country in search of the freedom it promises. These people should not be turned away by cold hearts and selfish thoughts. They should be shown the generosity that this land is known for. They should be embraced with open arms, but that does not mean that one can ignore the law.
While it may seem wrong, the law is still the law. At no point does faith condone the abandonment of the laws of country. It may seem here that faith is contradicting itself. After all, how can one follow the law of loving one's neighbor if it violates the law of admitting an illegal immigrant to this country? The answer lies in politics. If we could perhaps change the law, and make it more accepting of immigrants, then we would not have this problem. Perhaps if we allowed them to live in this country for two years or so without having to pay taxes before they had to become a citizen, or maybe eliminating a few of the paper-work barriers to becoming a citizen. These few steps would cause a huge break through that would end up pleasing both parties. But as things stand, there can be no right answer to this dilemma. For one cannot serve two masters: God and State.
Aristotle tells us that virtue lies in the middle. Keeping his opinion in mind, let's look at immigration from a realistic standpoint.
After twenty-two posts, I think we have established that immigrants are people, people have human rights, and therefore, immigrants have human rights. We have also explained that Catholic Social Teaching instructs us to treat immigrants justly, as human beings. Good, let it be duly noted. With that, let's look at the issue of immigration, not simply spew idealistic human rights rhetoric.
It is nonsensical to believe we should deport 12 million illegal immigrants because of the perception that they are committing crime. Contrary to this widespread belief, "Researchers have concluded that immigrants commit proportionately no more than and possibly even fewer crimes than native-born citizens" (Center for Immigration Studies). Because of blown out of proportion media coverage any time an illegal ( and yes, one can call an immigrant who resides in the United States in violation of our laws illegal) commits a crime, many Americans feel that all immigrants will commit crime.
Next, we should address the argument that immigrants are taking American jobs. Yes, there are instances where an illegal immigrant takes a job from a United States citizen. However, the country's economy could suffer without illegal immigrants. Taking 12 million people, legal or illegal, out of the work force has consequences.
At the same time, it is also nonsensical to promote unbridled immigration. Over 12 million people are here illegally and that does present practical problems. First, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are doing everything they can to get into the United States through Mexico and Canada (Deseret News). National security should not be disregarded simply because immigrants have human rights. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
Second, the thought that 12 million people are here illegally, earning a non-taxed income and enjoying taxpayer services, gives incentives for more illegal immigration. If we want this to happen, change the law. If not, fix the problem.
Finally, here is what I believe we should do. First, develop a system that allows the 12 million people that currently reside here illegally to become citizens. If someone wants to live in the United States, they should become documented and should pay taxes.
Second, secure the borders, build a wall. "Can't be done? Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful in keeping out potential infiltrators who are far more determined than mere immigrants. Nor have very many North Koreans crossed into South Korea in the past 50 years. Of course it will be ugly. So are the concrete barriers to keep truck bombs from driving into the White House. But sometimes necessity trumps aesthetics. And don't tell me that this is our Berlin Wall. When you build a wall to keep people in, that's a prison. When you build a wall to keep people out, that's an expression of sovereignty. The fence around your house is a perfectly legitimate expression of your desire to control who comes into your house to eat, sleep and use the facilities. It imprisons no one" (Charles Krauthammer).
Finally, focus on restructuring the process to become a United States citizen. Right now, a working class immigrant cannot easily enter the country. Fixing this problem is not simple but over time, is possible.
It is astounding to me that America is referred to as the “Land of the Free”. Since it’s inception, it is my opinion that the United States has erroneously fabricated this desirable image of freedom with unlimited possibilities for the rest of the world to covet. Referring to matters of immigration within the United States, I find the notion of “freedom” an unfathomable depiction of our country. This image of “freedom” is sheer propaganda when considering the stringent laws and bindings preventing immigrants from entering the United States. On one hand, we relentlessly promote our country’s stand on “freedom” and “equality” to the rest of the world. Yet, interestingly enough, we often deny access, “freedom to enter”, if you will, to individuals from other countries attempting to gain a better life for themselves and their families. Would one consider the notion of “freedom” within the United States then authentic or hypocritical?
I am not dismissing the fact that there are potential dangers and dilemmas when dealing with immigration issues; the most important being national security, followed closely by labor competitions and disputes. All I am trying to say is we must understand the hypocrisy behind the United States conviction when referencing to the concept of freedom.
There is no middle ground in this argument. Either we, as a country, create a reasonable, yet safe, and viable access for immigrants desiring to enter into the United States (immigrants who believe that America is, by far, the best country in the world and thus would make a positive contribution to this great country); or we change our identity and implement strict laws eradicating the immigration system altogether.
While I have already posted once, I feel that it is my "moral obligation" to respond to some of the posts that have followed mine. Specifically, Alex Stacy's piece, while obviously well-researched and cited, makes several troubling suggestions.
First, the notion that we ought not to view the issue of immigration through a Western prism is quite off-base. We are part of this tradition, as Lasallians, Catholics, Christians, and Americans, as are the immigrants from Latin America (the Southern Hemisphere is part of the Western tradition).
Second, this comment begins to unravel as it discusses "underdevelopment" and "un-underdevelopment." It suggests that Latin American populations "view themselves as underdeveloped"; no, I think it is safe to say that many of these countries are underdeveloped, with large portions of their populations living in abject material poverty (see lack of resources, malnutrition, illness, etc.). It is not that that they "view" themselves as underdeveloped, they realize their situation (for what other reason would they emigrate from their homelands?!)
The suggestion that we, as Catholics seeking to practice social justice, are attempting to "civilize" Latin American peoples is inherently flawed. Since when is providing material charity and works of social justice (all of which are mandated in the Scriptures, see: Biblical Justice Worksheet)equivalent to forcing our views on them?
Finally, this comment offers the opinion that our "moral obligations " and "Christian 'duties'" involve removing these populations from our notion of "ignorance." To begin, the quotation marks around obligations and duties are incorrectly used; these moral standards are nonnegotiable, they are inherent to our beliefs as Catholics and American citizens. Justice does not seek to remove so-called "ignorance"; it attempts to provide for the marginalized, vulnerable, and oppressed and, in the end, alter the decrepit social structures which perpetuate the suffering of the Anawim.
Momma always says, "the more the merrier!"...
I do agree with kevin though, people have always been resistant to unrecognizeable faces, let alone any change or shift in our own lives-- God forbid.
And yes, (I even roll my eyes when I say it), but in an unselfish world, none of this would be an issue. Almost every single person's life on this earth is driven by selfishness. Whether it be reserved, disguised, unbridled, "justified", etc., we all share in a certain selfishness, all on different levels, that inhibits a full embracement of God's will for us-- I guess that's why we are called human. Even so, while I am somewhat aware of the intricacy and responsibilities of our government, and the problems the Mexican government poses to the growing population of immigrants in America, I cannot get past some people's outrght opposition to those who seek a better life; people who do not ask for the luxuries we all enjoy, but merely enough food and shelter to satisfy one of God's children.
And yes, yes, we are a country obviously built on a basis of immigration, and through all our ancestors effort and contribution, we have become the unified nation we are today.
For this current issue, that is besides the point. So, where do we begin? I'm gonna go ahead and start the rally for a UW-- a united world, woot.
I don't know, I just find it hard to reject people that have already been trying to assimilate into our society without much of a problem posing to us. We are the problem. I can't stop from being preachy, but I can't begin to say I am the model to fall behind-- Me first. The only contraversy is in our own economic situation.
Boo, everything gets more complicated as you get older.
The world is not fair, but it most certainly can try to be.
In response to BrYan (sorry about the misspelling in previous posts) I absolutely admire your fortitude on such "nonnegotiable" issues as "moral obligations". You are infact a beautiful mind when it comes to spouting off such "obligations". However "miguided" you feel I am, I am so glad to see you have supported your points with precisely the rhetoric I take issue with in my post. Let's just start at the beginning as a take a bite from some soy sauced up rice:
Ok, your first point asserts that we must, since we are from a Western tradition, view the world from this narrow viewpoint. I first see no warrants to this dry claim other than the astute observation that we do live in the "West" and that we are Catholics and LaSallians etc. I also take issue with the statement that Latin Americans are too. Why? Because the Catholic Church staked its claim to the land during the colonial period? What has informed your diagnosis of THIER situation. Because governments from the North are able to toy with the governence of these areas with a phone call, Latin Americans are now woven into the ideology of the West? Explain to me please in a post which I am sure will follow, why we must view the immigration issue from one vane. Oh my that's right, because the West's influence (and by West I include the Vatican) has been so prosperous in these areas!...wait...
Second, apparently my line of thinking "unraveled" with the underdeveloped portion of the post. Let me first begin by applauding you on diagnosing the "Third World's" "problems" for them. "I think it is safe to say they are in fact underdeveloped". Why? What does it mean to be underdeveloped? Oh but of course they must be since they do not dress, live and eat like us. How foolish of these people to live in such "primitive" positions. Next you say they live in "abject poverty". I would like you to define and extraplate on this point a little further than "lack of resources". Are not resources used to make something? (AHHH the marginal benefit = the marignal...whoa get out of my head CS. ) And if Latin America does not have the resources to make what we deem a "developed" nation should make then therefore they clearly are not one of the "developed". As you point out my comment further unravels because after all "why would they emigrate from thier homelands!?" This, however, furthers my point. It is very much (to use a Western example) like the gold rushes of our nation's history. The men and womyn from the northern cities did not know what it is that they were going West for, other than what had been printed on the panphlets which were circulated through the poorer districts. The Latin Americans have been told, with such regularity, that they "are in fact underdeveloped" and thier only means to "provide" for their families is to blindly travel north.
In response to paragraph number 3 (p 1 introduction p 2 main argument...whoa theses flashbacks are killing me) how is this NOT forcing "civilization" on them after everything I have articulated from above. If we have established that you view them as "underdeveloped" and the lives they lead now in "abject poverty" then of course what "material charity" and "social justice" entail is a molding of these societies into the form the west wants them to reside in, mooting all independent culture. Once again, how are we not trying to "civilize" them?
In response to your "Finally", once again narrow narrow narrow. Simply becuase you are told there is one truth, one set of morals and beliefs, does that in fact make it the case? Do you not everyday laugh at Bush's stupid comments on foreign policy that say basically there is only one way the world can function and that is the way the Big Tex wants it to be? Also, you keep saying youre not trying to remove their "ignorance" and yet you continue saying, they are "underdeveloped", in "abject poverty", and so on. is this life style not ignorance? Are thier lives not "backward and unWestern"? Is the job of social justice not as you said to strip the "structures" keeping them in such places? The only way to this "end" is to become developed and rid yourself of disgusting native practices. How are they not in "ignorance"?
On the middle east, we always hear the saying, "how would you like it if a foreign country came into the United States and made you completely change your way of life?" This issue begs the same question. Why is it that we are more qualified to run these people's lives than they are? Because we have universities and colleges where they study and research on such issues. Because a healthy life is living to 85 having 4 kids, a wife of your same race, and a job until youre 65? In the response I would specifically like you respond to this as well as the above, Bry Guy.
The simple truth is that regardless of one's opinion, a constructed wall or partisan bills that demand the deportation of illegal immigrants are not a solution to the problem. Not even in the short term. When one is motivated enough, hopping a fence or wading the Rio Grande is minute to the rewards beyond. Instead, putting ethics aside, a proactive result to solve the situation is to invest money in Latin America, especially in Southern Mexico and its neighboring countries, where the majority of illegal immigrants are originally located.
Personally, I am appalled to see the pundits and politicians that refer to these individuals simply as a statistic. Regardless of their economic impact, a human is not simply a number that can be crunched a thousand different ways. Far too often people take this issue from a defensive position ("My job is in jeopardy because of these immigrants," etc.) and not in a proactive measure.
In response to Alex’s second post…
First, thank you for responding and continuing the dialogue.
You take issue with my rhetoric and I apologize for my use of it. You first brought up the issue of development and underdevelopment and I attempted to use your terminology in my response. Apparently I did not convey my thoughts using your words, so I will use my own…
Developed or undeveloped, the Latin American nations whose citizens flee to the United States do not offer sufficient opportunities for their residents to provide for their families. I have read most of the book, so I am at a bit of an advantage, but it becomes apparent that Enrique, his family, and his neighbors lack or struggle to provide the basic necessities of life. The book tells of families limited to one meal a day, if that. These meals are meager as well (let’s just say that they would not suffice at Central or anywhere else in the US). Homes are constructed of flimsy boards, corrugated tin, and loose sheets of fabric; they are easily ruined by a severe storm. Employment is scare, especially for middle-aged women (those who need the jobs most); what work does exist pays poorly and offers difficult hours and conditions. Thus, it is from the inability of parents to provide basic necessities for their families that immigrants flood the United States. Contrary to your point, Latin American immigrants know exactly what they are going to the United States for — work that pays much better than back home, which will allow them to send money to their families. This money, in turn, will allow the families to acquire the basic necessities which could not be provided for with work in his or her native country. Latin American do not leave because they are told that they are underdeveloped; rather they leave because they believe that their families, especially their children, will be better off if they work in the US and send money back. If you want any evidence, please see p.20 of Enrique’s journey, which tells of a conversation between Lourdes and Enrique. “’Why do you want to be there [the US]?’” he [Enrique] demands. ‘It’s all gone to raise you’ [Lourdes replies]” Notice that she did not respond “I want to be in the US because Western Society has informed me that we are underdeveloped and I do not wish to live in such a circumstance.” Think about it…
i like this dialogue. perhaps such prodding discussions should be open to the class...just a thought. Rather than typing because im actually not in the mood what so ever, we'll just talk, as we have a habit of doing, later. i will just add though that you seem to be simplifying the concepts i have been throwing out there for the sake of your argument and i really dont feel like going into detail but obviously no blue eyed, blonde haired, 6'2'' 190 lb knight of shining westernism went to lourdes and said "YOU ARE UNDEVELOPED NOW FOLLOW ME!" haha. i have as well read a majority of the book and see where you are coming from yet within my argument there are answers to such contentions. mercy. unnerve. unsettle. unhouse. haha.
Post a Comment