Tag Archive for: political discourse

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.