From Principle to Policy: Navigating the Moral Terrain of Immigration Reform
If there is one debate in American politics where an “alternative political conversation” is most needed, it is the debate over immigration reform. Perhaps because we are a nation of immigrants, perhaps because the debate connects with so many other sensitive policy issues, or perhaps because of deeply-felt but poorly-articulated fears concerning those who are different, the rhetoric that opponents level at each other—and at immigrants themselves—has been the opposite of what anyone would call Christian. Indeed, our lack of progress on the issue can be explained to a great extent by the way we talk about it.
Christians in particular should be troubled by this, whatever their positions might be on the various issues at stake. Remarkably, however, there exists considerable agreement when it comes to identifying underlying moral principles. Here, I suggest three, though no doubt there are more:
- First, states have the authority—and indeed the responsibility—to police their borders. As no country can admit simply everyone who wants to enter, states need to make decisions concerning the number of immigrants they can accept. Moreover, states need to be concerned about cross-border criminal activity, including human trafficking.
- Second, the desire of persons to migrate when they cannot find employment or other opportunities in their home country is legitimate, and even praiseworthy. While migration may not be possible in all cases, states everywhere have a responsibility to facilitate migration flows, both for the sake of the countries involved and for the migrants themselves.
- Third, the responsibility of states to do justice extends to all: citizens and non-citizens, legal and illegal residents alike. Justice may not mean treating everyone alike, but it will require the recognition that all persons have dignity, and that this dignity comes not from the possession of a passport. Any number of implications may follow from this, but chief among them are responsibilities concerning hospitality and respect.
Now we can agree on the principles that should be brought to bear on a situation, and yet disagree as to where a reasonable balance of these principles might lead. It’s entirely possible for people of good will to disagree with each other, for good reasons. As I seek a balance of these principles, I can describe at least three possible conclusions:
- Refugees have a special status in immigration policy. Our commitment to justice for all implies that the right to asylum for those who suffer intolerable oppression cannot be denied.
- A commitment to the rule of law implies that it is appropriate for governments to set limits on numbers of immigrants that can be admitted. Moreover, when it does set limits, it is appropriate and responsible to enforce those laws, even through deportation if necessary and appropriate.
- One result of our unwillingness to establish a comprehensive immigration policy has been a backlog of millions of undocumented residents, here partly because of failures to enforce the law at the border and at the places that hire them. Our commitment to justice and our recognition of the legitimate desire of persons to improve their situations means that we share responsibility. Even if it were possible to deport all those who are undocumented, it would wrong to do so.
From here we can begin to develop policy guidelines. For example:
- While the distinction is often overlooked in popular political rhetoric, the situations of legal and illegal immigrants are so different that they require different treatments in terms of policy. A debate over the precise number of immigrants admitted to the US, for example, is an entirely different topic than the debate over amnesty for those here illegally. Similarly, popular frustration with undocumented residents gaining access to public services should not lead to restrictions on such services for immigrants who are here legally.
- The state’s interest in protecting the weak as part of its justice mandate requires that it take special steps to protect the most vulnerable. For that reason, children of illegal immigrants require special protection. Something like the DREAM act is likely to be an important step in this regard.
- For those undocumented who have long been here, working and contributing to society, we should establish the opportunity for legalization and citizenship. Theirs is not the preferred path, and indeed we should endeavor to close it for others, but our unwillingness to enforce our own laws, our failure to facilitate migration for those who most seek it, and their demonstrated willingness to participate in American society all suggest in favor of moving in this direction.
These points together do not come close to a program for comprehensive reform. But my hope is that as we disagree on these policy points, or as we see to contribute others, our policy disagreements might not be seen to indicate disagreement “all the way down”. Immigration is indeed an issue where vital moral principles are at stake: let’s continue to affirm those basic principles while we debate the policy solutions.
As a practicing Christian, the grandson of an immigrant, and a person who has spent a fair amount of time living abroad myself, I feel particularly sensitive to this issue. If one takes the Bible seriously, the directions to the people of Israel to welcome and care for the strangers in their midst cannot be ignored. I do not for a moment feel that America (or any other modern state) is or can be a "Christian nation" and I have said (in print) that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the John 3:16 of American civil religion, but the experience of Israel can give us pointers as to how we as Christians should conduct ourselves. I see the contribution that immigrants make to our society and we should welcome them and endeavor to make them feel at home. Having been a "stranger" myself in some other countries, I greatly appreciate those who welcomed me and facilitated my efforts to find a place. The level of selfishness and hostility to the newcomers who are not "like us" manifested by all too many American Christians I find appalling. We should be ministering to these people, not rejecting them and trying to drive them out. I am sure readers will object to my comments by saying we have to protect our borders, prevent them from taking our hard-earned jobs, and any effort to do otherwise is "amnesty." But could we not do better by finding ways to integrate those who are here through such measures as the Dream Act and providing opportunities for them to learn English and find work. It is amazing how many jobs they are willing to do that "native" Americans don't want to do. My plea is that we show Christian love to the new people instead of the negativistic nativism that is currently so prevalent in our land. We as Christians need to model a better way rather than be knee-jerk adherent to a nativistic status quo.
As a practicing Christian, the grandson of an immigrant, and a person who has spent a fair amount of time living abroad myself, I feel particularly sensitive to this issue. If one takes the Bible seriously, the directions to the people of Israel to welcome and care for the strangers in their midst cannot be ignored. I do not for a moment feel that America (or any other modern state) is or can be a "Christian nation" and I have said (in print) that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the John 3:16 of American civil religion, but the experience of Israel can give us pointers as to how we as Christians should conduct ourselves. I see the contribution that immigrants make to our society and we should welcome them and endeavor to make them feel at home. Having been a "stranger" myself in some other countries, I greatly appreciate those who welcomed me and facilitated my efforts to find a place. The level of selfishness and hostility to the newcomers who are not "like us" manifested by all too many American Christians I find appalling. We should be ministering to these people, not rejecting them and trying to drive them out. I am sure readers will object to my comments by saying we have to protect our borders, prevent them from taking our hard-earned jobs, and any effort to do otherwise is "amnesty." But could we not do better by finding ways to integrate those who are here through such measures as the Dream Act and providing opportunities for them to learn English and find work. It is amazing how many jobs they are willing to do that "native" Americans don't want to do. My plea is that we show Christian love to the new people instead of the negativistic nativism that is currently so prevalent in our land. We as Christians need to model a better way rather than be knee-jerk adherent to a nativistic status quo.
As a practicing Christian, the grandson of an immigrant, and a person who has spent a fair amount of time living abroad myself, I feel particularly sensitive to this issue. If one takes the Bible seriously, the directions to the people of Israel to welcome and care for the strangers in their midst cannot be ignored. I do not for a moment feel that America (or any other modern state) is or can be a "Christian nation" and I have said (in print) that 2 Chronicles 7:14 is the John 3:16 of American civil religion, but the experience of Israel can give us pointers as to how we as Christians should conduct ourselves. I see the contribution that immigrants make to our society and we should welcome them and endeavor to make them feel at home. Having been a "stranger" myself in some other countries, I greatly appreciate those who welcomed me and facilitated my efforts to find a place. The level of selfishness and hostility to the newcomers who are not "like us" manifested by all too many American Christians I find appalling. We should be ministering to these people, not rejecting them and trying to drive them out. I am sure readers will object to my comments by saying we have to protect our borders, prevent them from taking our hard-earned jobs, and any effort to do otherwise is "amnesty." But could we not do better by finding ways to integrate those who are here through such measures as the Dream Act and providing opportunities for them to learn English and find work. It is amazing how many jobs they are willing to do that "native" Americans don't want to do. My plea is that we show Christian love to the new people instead of the negativistic nativism that is currently so prevalent in our land. We as Christians need to model a better way rather than be knee-jerk adherent to a nativistic status quo.
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your comment, and my apologies for taking a week to respond—it’s a busy time of the semester for me.
I think we are in agreement. Much of the difficulty in this issue is less political than it is cultural. Nativism, fear of those who appear different, and a preoccupation with our own comfort have resulted in attitudes and behaviors that are, frankly, contrary to what the Bible teaches concerning how neighbors are to treat each other.
Of course, the political and legal questions remain. Those who are undocumented, those immigrants who commit crimes, and those who traffic in human beings are all examples of people who present challenges to which our political and legal systems must somehow respond. But I agree with you that even these difficult questions would be a lot easier if Christians could model a better way. I was pleased that a number of participants in this “Alternate Political Conversation” provided some suggestions along these lines.
Thanks,
Paul
I love Mr. Brink’s quote: “[O]ur lack of progress on the issue can be explained to a great extent by the way we talk about it.” I wish I had said that.
Let’s follow Mr. Brink’s example and talk about foundational immigration principles. Foundations are immovable. Concepts trumped by other values are not foundational.
Perceptions of “justice” are too different to be foundational. Mr. Brink’s justice allows for disparate treatment but recognizes dignity. My justice requires equal protection with dignity as a collateral issue. Calls for “justice,” then, offer little help in creating immigration policy.
Mr. Brink builds nothing on the foundation of “desire to migrate.” To him, this desire “may not be possible.” Any number of unmentioned values override it. A firmer migration foundation might echo Pope John Paul II’s charge to fathers to support their families, a duty to cross borders if necessary to do so, and an obligation for countries to allow such migration. [Cited in Bishop A. Taylor’s article, “I Was A Stranger and You Welcomed Me.” (2008) Little Rock: Arkansas Catholic.]
The solid foundation in Mr. Brink’s article is border security. It is the only one he builds on. In his article, this value never gets trumped, but constricts other values such as kindness and responsibility. Protecting children, for example, springs not from a foundation of human rights, but requires a measured response like the DREAM Act so as not to compromise national safety.
I am not willing for border security to be the foundation for immigration reform. The correlation between immigration and danger to America is too low. It requires sacrificing concepts that I consider more foundational.
I prefer a foundation that begins with God as the highest authority. On top of this are those inalienable Creator-endowed rights and duties which prompted the formation of our country, like the father’s right and duty to his family. Next comes our Constitution. Statutes, to be a valid part of immigration policy, must submit to the constraints of these three layers. This foundation will not support laws that disadvantages one group to privilege another. Upon this foundation, no one may order citizens to impose sanctions on unpopular groups.
I love Mr. Brink’s quote: “[O]ur lack of progress on the issue can be explained to a great extent by the way we talk about it.” I wish I had said that.
Let’s follow Mr. Brink’s example and talk about foundational immigration principles. Foundations are immovable. Concepts trumped by other values are not foundational.
Perceptions of “justice” are too different to be foundational. Mr. Brink’s justice allows for disparate treatment but recognizes dignity. My justice requires equal protection with dignity as a collateral issue. Calls for “justice,” then, offer little help in creating immigration policy.
Mr. Brink builds nothing on the foundation of “desire to migrate.” To him, this desire “may not be possible.” Any number of unmentioned values override it. A firmer migration foundation might echo Pope John Paul II’s charge to fathers to support their families, a duty to cross borders if necessary to do so, and an obligation for countries to allow such migration. [Cited in Bishop A. Taylor’s article, “I Was A Stranger and You Welcomed Me.” (2008) Little Rock: Arkansas Catholic.]
The solid foundation in Mr. Brink’s article is border security. It is the only one he builds on. In his article, this value never gets trumped, but constricts other values such as kindness and responsibility. Protecting children, for example, springs not from a foundation of human rights, but requires a measured response like the DREAM Act so as not to compromise national safety.
I am not willing for border security to be the foundation for immigration reform. The correlation between immigration and danger to America is too low. It requires sacrificing concepts that I consider more foundational.
I prefer a foundation that begins with God as the highest authority. On top of this are those inalienable Creator-endowed rights and duties which prompted the formation of our country, like the father’s right and duty to his family. Next comes our Constitution. Statutes, to be a valid part of immigration policy, must submit to the constraints of these three layers. This foundation will not support laws that disadvantages one group to privilege another. Upon this foundation, no one may order citizens to impose sanctions on unpopular groups.
I love Mr. Brink’s quote: “[O]ur lack of progress on the issue can be explained to a great extent by the way we talk about it.” I wish I had said that.
Let’s follow Mr. Brink’s example and talk about foundational immigration principles. Foundations are immovable. Concepts trumped by other values are not foundational.
Perceptions of “justice” are too different to be foundational. Mr. Brink’s justice allows for disparate treatment but recognizes dignity. My justice requires equal protection with dignity as a collateral issue. Calls for “justice,” then, offer little help in creating immigration policy.
Mr. Brink builds nothing on the foundation of “desire to migrate.” To him, this desire “may not be possible.” Any number of unmentioned values override it. A firmer migration foundation might echo Pope John Paul II’s charge to fathers to support their families, a duty to cross borders if necessary to do so, and an obligation for countries to allow such migration. [Cited in Bishop A. Taylor’s article, “I Was A Stranger and You Welcomed Me.” (2008) Little Rock: Arkansas Catholic.]
The solid foundation in Mr. Brink’s article is border security. It is the only one he builds on. In his article, this value never gets trumped, but constricts other values such as kindness and responsibility. Protecting children, for example, springs not from a foundation of human rights, but requires a measured response like the DREAM Act so as not to compromise national safety.
I am not willing for border security to be the foundation for immigration reform. The correlation between immigration and danger to America is too low. It requires sacrificing concepts that I consider more foundational.
I prefer a foundation that begins with God as the highest authority. On top of this are those inalienable Creator-endowed rights and duties which prompted the formation of our country, like the father’s right and duty to his family. Next comes our Constitution. Statutes, to be a valid part of immigration policy, must submit to the constraints of these three layers. This foundation will not support laws that disadvantages one group to privilege another. Upon this foundation, no one may order citizens to impose sanctions on unpopular groups.
Donald-
One thing I find striking about your comment is the suggestion that perceptions of justice are too different to be foundational. In contrast, my own position depends on a high view of justice. So I wonder if a bit more explanation on my part might help us.
For me, justice and the requirements of justice are central to the discussion, and the fact that people disagree on justice, as on anything else that’s important, should not discourage us from emphasizing its centrality. Justice is so much more than border security, but includes the other obligations you raise: to children, to neighbors who wish to immigrate, and to parents seeking to provide for their families. It’s an architectonic virtue. The three moral principles with which I began my contribution are aspects or elements of justice upon which I think there is likely to be wide agreement.
While we all have a responsibility to be just, the state has a distinctive responsibility in this regard, which is why I emphasize the role of the state so much. As it carries out this responsibility, the state will continually find itself balancing these justice principles with one another, seeking to develop guidelines for policy. So it’s not that one principle “trumps” another, but rather that they are weighed differently at different times and in different situations. So, for example, the state will on principle see the desire to migrate as legitimate, but we should expect that as it makes policy, it will place limits on the number of immigrants permitted, as other legitimate obligations also come into play. It’s perfectly normal, and probably healthy, that people disagree on these weights and on the conclusions to which they give rise.
Note that nothing in this account should in principle lead us toward a more restrictive or less restrictive immigration policy. Indeed, I rather suspect that when it came down to details, you and I would agree much more than we disagree. What I’m trying to outline is a way to get there.
Donald-
One thing I find striking about your comment is the suggestion that perceptions of justice are too different to be foundational. In contrast, my own position depends on a high view of justice. So I wonder if a bit more explanation on my part might help us.
For me, justice and the requirements of justice are central to the discussion, and the fact that people disagree on justice, as on anything else that’s important, should not discourage us from emphasizing its centrality. Justice is so much more than border security, but includes the other obligations you raise: to children, to neighbors who wish to immigrate, and to parents seeking to provide for their families. It’s an architectonic virtue. The three moral principles with which I began my contribution are aspects or elements of justice upon which I think there is likely to be wide agreement.
While we all have a responsibility to be just, the state has a distinctive responsibility in this regard, which is why I emphasize the role of the state so much. As it carries out this responsibility, the state will continually find itself balancing these justice principles with one another, seeking to develop guidelines for policy. So it’s not that one principle “trumps” another, but rather that they are weighed differently at different times and in different situations. So, for example, the state will on principle see the desire to migrate as legitimate, but we should expect that as it makes policy, it will place limits on the number of immigrants permitted, as other legitimate obligations also come into play. It’s perfectly normal, and probably healthy, that people disagree on these weights and on the conclusions to which they give rise.
Note that nothing in this account should in principle lead us toward a more restrictive or less restrictive immigration policy. Indeed, I rather suspect that when it came down to details, you and I would agree much more than we disagree. What I’m trying to outline is a way to get there.
Donald-
One thing I find striking about your comment is the suggestion that perceptions of justice are too different to be foundational. In contrast, my own position depends on a high view of justice. So I wonder if a bit more explanation on my part might help us.
For me, justice and the requirements of justice are central to the discussion, and the fact that people disagree on justice, as on anything else that’s important, should not discourage us from emphasizing its centrality. Justice is so much more than border security, but includes the other obligations you raise: to children, to neighbors who wish to immigrate, and to parents seeking to provide for their families. It’s an architectonic virtue. The three moral principles with which I began my contribution are aspects or elements of justice upon which I think there is likely to be wide agreement.
While we all have a responsibility to be just, the state has a distinctive responsibility in this regard, which is why I emphasize the role of the state so much. As it carries out this responsibility, the state will continually find itself balancing these justice principles with one another, seeking to develop guidelines for policy. So it’s not that one principle “trumps” another, but rather that they are weighed differently at different times and in different situations. So, for example, the state will on principle see the desire to migrate as legitimate, but we should expect that as it makes policy, it will place limits on the number of immigrants permitted, as other legitimate obligations also come into play. It’s perfectly normal, and probably healthy, that people disagree on these weights and on the conclusions to which they give rise.
Note that nothing in this account should in principle lead us toward a more restrictive or less restrictive immigration policy. Indeed, I rather suspect that when it came down to details, you and I would agree much more than we disagree. What I’m trying to outline is a way to get there.
Paul,
What a pleasure dialoging with intelligent, caring people. Thank you.
JUSTICE is the blindfolded lady holding a balance. Her logic goes:
In dealings between A and B, A is shortchanged.
X levels the balance for A.
Therefore, we should do X.
Unfortunately, people tamper with this logic.
People define “shortchanged” unequally. “A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear” [Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229 (1957)]. But American Christians bear such laws against undocumented immigrants. Although we shortchange no one when we compete for jobs, we shout “crime” when others do it. We want the blindfolded lady to peek.
People don’t acknowledge harm done to others. If governments removed our jobs, we would feel shortchanged. When we want governments to redefine “shortchanged” by “balancing these justice principles with one another,” we ask the blindfolded lady to slip her thumb onto the scale.
People disagree about what levels the scale. After claiming that undocumented immigrants shortchange us, we accept unlimited additional advantages to our side of the scale. It is “a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense” [Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002)]. In contrast, in my state a four-time drunk driver loses his driver’s license for four years [Ark. Code § 5-65-104], while a teenage girl loses her driver’s license and freedom to work for life for having a father suspected of having violated an immigration law.
Finally, people reject the logical conclusion of justice. By claiming that justice is tied to foundational values that “are weighed differently at different times and in different situations” the logical conclusion changes to “maybe we should do X or maybe not.”
Paul, I don’t mind you making utilitarian arguments that greater good comes from denying X to shortchanged groups. Just let’s not call the end result “justice.” Lady Justice won’t comment about how many immigrants to let in, but she would remove every excessive sanction we have placed on this group in order to drive them away.
See how different our concepts of justice are!
Paul,
What a pleasure dialoging with intelligent, caring people. Thank you.
JUSTICE is the blindfolded lady holding a balance. Her logic goes:
In dealings between A and B, A is shortchanged.
X levels the balance for A.
Therefore, we should do X.
Unfortunately, people tamper with this logic.
People define “shortchanged” unequally. “A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear” [Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229 (1957)]. But American Christians bear such laws against undocumented immigrants. Although we shortchange no one when we compete for jobs, we shout “crime” when others do it. We want the blindfolded lady to peek.
People don’t acknowledge harm done to others. If governments removed our jobs, we would feel shortchanged. When we want governments to redefine “shortchanged” by “balancing these justice principles with one another,” we ask the blindfolded lady to slip her thumb onto the scale.
People disagree about what levels the scale. After claiming that undocumented immigrants shortchange us, we accept unlimited additional advantages to our side of the scale. It is “a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense” [Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002)]. In contrast, in my state a four-time drunk driver loses his driver’s license for four years [Ark. Code § 5-65-104], while a teenage girl loses her driver’s license and freedom to work for life for having a father suspected of having violated an immigration law.
Finally, people reject the logical conclusion of justice. By claiming that justice is tied to foundational values that “are weighed differently at different times and in different situations” the logical conclusion changes to “maybe we should do X or maybe not.”
Paul, I don’t mind you making utilitarian arguments that greater good comes from denying X to shortchanged groups. Just let’s not call the end result “justice.” Lady Justice won’t comment about how many immigrants to let in, but she would remove every excessive sanction we have placed on this group in order to drive them away.
See how different our concepts of justice are!
Paul,
What a pleasure dialoging with intelligent, caring people. Thank you.
JUSTICE is the blindfolded lady holding a balance. Her logic goes:
In dealings between A and B, A is shortchanged.
X levels the balance for A.
Therefore, we should do X.
Unfortunately, people tamper with this logic.
People define “shortchanged” unequally. “A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for that community to bear” [Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229 (1957)]. But American Christians bear such laws against undocumented immigrants. Although we shortchange no one when we compete for jobs, we shout “crime” when others do it. We want the blindfolded lady to peek.
People don’t acknowledge harm done to others. If governments removed our jobs, we would feel shortchanged. When we want governments to redefine “shortchanged” by “balancing these justice principles with one another,” we ask the blindfolded lady to slip her thumb onto the scale.
People disagree about what levels the scale. After claiming that undocumented immigrants shortchange us, we accept unlimited additional advantages to our side of the scale. It is “a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense” [Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311 (2002)]. In contrast, in my state a four-time drunk driver loses his driver’s license for four years [Ark. Code § 5-65-104], while a teenage girl loses her driver’s license and freedom to work for life for having a father suspected of having violated an immigration law.
Finally, people reject the logical conclusion of justice. By claiming that justice is tied to foundational values that “are weighed differently at different times and in different situations” the logical conclusion changes to “maybe we should do X or maybe not.”
Paul, I don’t mind you making utilitarian arguments that greater good comes from denying X to shortchanged groups. Just let’s not call the end result “justice.” Lady Justice won’t comment about how many immigrants to let in, but she would remove every excessive sanction we have placed on this group in order to drive them away.
See how different our concepts of justice are!
A timely topic to consider. As a first-generation immigrant myself, the subject has strong appeal. Tha U. S. is a nation of immigrants in the first place. Those who leave the comfort of family and friends to move to a new country, new language, and a new culture usually have a srtrong motive to do so. A great deal of innovations–backbone of American greatness–have been achieved by immigrants, especially first-generation ones. It is quite logical for the immigrant to expect that for him/her to advance, s/he must put in an amount of effort that far exceeds what is expected from the ordinary citizen. This expectation just comes with the territory, and is behind much of their achievements.
So, it seems there should not be a problem with documented immigrants–usually the educated ones.
For the undocumented immigrants, however, there is a lot to be pondered. To enter the U. S. illegally is wrong to start with. How to handle more than 10 million illegals with justice is not an easy endeavor.
Early on in the present presidential, campaign, the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrish, offered the most reasonable solution to an epidemic problem. He siad if s/he has been in the country for a number of years (20-25 years), belong to a church, and is recommended by a family from the community, then this qualifies him/her for a quasi-legal status that could open the road for granting permanent residency. A fine might be imposed to address the illigal action committed early on.
A timely topic to consider. As a first-generation immigrant myself, the subject has strong appeal. Tha U. S. is a nation of immigrants in the first place. Those who leave the comfort of family and friends to move to a new country, new language, and a new culture usually have a srtrong motive to do so. A great deal of innovations–backbone of American greatness–have been achieved by immigrants, especially first-generation ones. It is quite logical for the immigrant to expect that for him/her to advance, s/he must put in an amount of effort that far exceeds what is expected from the ordinary citizen. This expectation just comes with the territory, and is behind much of their achievements.
So, it seems there should not be a problem with documented immigrants–usually the educated ones.
For the undocumented immigrants, however, there is a lot to be pondered. To enter the U. S. illegally is wrong to start with. How to handle more than 10 million illegals with justice is not an easy endeavor.
Early on in the present presidential, campaign, the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrish, offered the most reasonable solution to an epidemic problem. He siad if s/he has been in the country for a number of years (20-25 years), belong to a church, and is recommended by a family from the community, then this qualifies him/her for a quasi-legal status that could open the road for granting permanent residency. A fine might be imposed to address the illigal action committed early on.
A timely topic to consider. As a first-generation immigrant myself, the subject has strong appeal. Tha U. S. is a nation of immigrants in the first place. Those who leave the comfort of family and friends to move to a new country, new language, and a new culture usually have a srtrong motive to do so. A great deal of innovations–backbone of American greatness–have been achieved by immigrants, especially first-generation ones. It is quite logical for the immigrant to expect that for him/her to advance, s/he must put in an amount of effort that far exceeds what is expected from the ordinary citizen. This expectation just comes with the territory, and is behind much of their achievements.
So, it seems there should not be a problem with documented immigrants–usually the educated ones.
For the undocumented immigrants, however, there is a lot to be pondered. To enter the U. S. illegally is wrong to start with. How to handle more than 10 million illegals with justice is not an easy endeavor.
Early on in the present presidential, campaign, the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrish, offered the most reasonable solution to an epidemic problem. He siad if s/he has been in the country for a number of years (20-25 years), belong to a church, and is recommended by a family from the community, then this qualifies him/her for a quasi-legal status that could open the road for granting permanent residency. A fine might be imposed to address the illigal action committed early on.