Features
Special Report on Immigration by Douglas Culp
Donald Kerwin, Executive Director of the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Advisor to the USCCB’s Committee on Migration, Non-Resident Fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, and Associate Fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center recently met with Faith Magazine to discuss the issue of immigration in the United States.
Have the major causes of immigration changed over the years? What are the primary causes today?
Yes and no. On a basic level, economic desperation, which drives many to seek a better life for themselves and their families, and the need to escape persecution or to seek political asylum remain primary causes regardless of the particular time period considered. For example, the Catholic Church has assisted in the relocation and placement of around 900,000 refugees since the fall of Saigon.
Today, U.S. economic needs also contribute greatly to immigration. The truth is that 16% of the U.S. workforce is composed of immigrants (5% of these workers are undocumented). Both high-end industries, such as those found in Silicon Valley, and low-end industries, such as the agricultural and garment industries, depend on immigration labor. Most experts recognize that these industries would collapse without this labor.
This issue also affects entire communities, especially rural and inner-city communities, which immigrants can revitalize. Consider the case of Iowa, whose fastest growing demographic is the 100 year-old and plus age group and whose economy is facing a shortage of more than 300,000 workers according to their past governor.
As some 78 million baby boomers begin to retire over the next several years, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, has projected that the U.S. will need 3.5 million workers per year to replace them. Where will these workers come from? There are only two options: immigrant laborers and U.S. citizens working beyond the typical retirement age.
How has NAFTA and globalization fueled immigration to the U.S.?
This is one cause of immigration that does differ from the past. We have an economic order that increasingly recognizes the right of goods and services to cross international boundaries but not the right of the people being displaced by this movement of goods and services to cross borders.
In the 12 years after the passage of NAFTA, two million Mexicans working in the agriculture sector lost their jobs in part because subsidized U.S. exports drove them out of the market. Where have they gone? Some have joined the “illegal” migrant labor stream in the U.S. Another casualty would be the garment workers in El Paso who lost their jobs when the companies relocated manufacturing to Mexico. The point is that we are experiencing the massive displacement of people, but our legal regimes and immigration policies do not reflect this reality.
How much effect, if any, does race and religion impact the public’s view on immigration?
There does seem to be a growing body of people in the country for whom race, religion, culture and country of origin are very important. In the past, being an American meant being part of a country formed by immigrants who were committed to core civic values like democracy, equality, rights and opportunity. It meant being loyal to the country and supporting common civic values and institutions.
Now there is a growing movement that says this is not what makes an American. For this group, Americans are a separate people connected by common attributes, although proponents of this view are careful not to describe these attributes too carefully because to do so begins to sound very un-American. However, Western culture, race, religion and national origin are candidates.
I do not believe that this view directly motivates most people’s concerns on immigration. Instead, I think that a person’s own economic situation and sense of displacement plays a bigger role. Economic uncertainty coupled with feelings that one’s community is becoming unrecognizable contributes to anti-immigrant sentiment as such concerns get displaced onto immigrants.
It is interesting though to note that a great majority of border resources go to enforcement on the U.S.-Mexico border instead of the U.S.-Canada border, especially when one considers that most confirmed terrorists have entered from Canada or ports-of-entry at airports.
Many have questioned the Church’s stance on immigration as somehow being opposed to the interest of the United States, especially in terms of national sovereignty and the subsequent right to regulate its borders. Is this a legitimate critique? How are we to understand the Church’s stance?
No, it is not a legitimate critique. Today, one hears all kinds of falsehoods that attempt to paint the Church’s stance on undocumented immigration as somehow anti-American and crassly self-interested: the Church is looking to make money off the undocumented, to divert attention from the sex abuse scandals, and to increase membership. A great deal of it amounts to calumny and would not be tolerated if it were directed at any other group.
The Church has recognized repeatedly the right of a state to control its borders and to regulate immigration. However, this must be conducted under the rubric of the promoting the common good – the very reason for the state to exist in the first place.
In general, Church advocacy has been in favor of humane and effective enforcement.
U.S. bishops have been talking for some time about immigration as a life issue. Every day people are dying on the border, families are being broken apart, and workers are being exploited. These are things that go right to the question of the dignity of the person. Humane and effective enforcement policies would be those, for example, which resulted in no crossing deaths, limited detention to people who presented a risk, and avoided deportation policies that result in the destruction of U.S. families.
To the Church, there is no conflict between the common good and a person’s God-given rights. For example, if a person is being persecuted and has no other recourse but to leave his or her country, that person has the right and the duty to leave; appeals to state sovereignty in these circumstances are misplaced because sovereignty is ultimately about locating state responsibility for furthering rights and the common good.
In short, a state can regulate all immigration and keep out those who do not truly need to enter. But those who are trying to support their families, fleeing persecution, and otherwise exercising their God-given rights should be admitted and welcomed.
We hear a great deal about the negative economic impact of undocumented immigration, i.e. tax burden, social services, etc. How much truth is there to this view?
When I hear that immigrants don’t pay taxes, as I do quite often, I ask if the person making this claim has ever been in line at a convenience or grocery store and experienced the clerk waiving the sales tax for someone after being informed of his or her undocumented status. The truth is that everyone pays sales tax and the majority of undocumented immigrants pay income tax.
As of 2005, the Social Security Administration estimated that it had $580 billion in a suspense fund, monies it could not attach to known social security numbers. This money is overwhelmingly from undocumented immigrants who will never derive any benefit from it.
About 10 years ago, the Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating undocumented immigrants and their children will pay $80,000 more in taxes over their lifetimes than they will receive in benefits. So the issue is not whether immigrants pay taxes. The real issue is that the majority of the tax revenues collected from this group goes to the federal government, but it is the states and localities that are left bearing the cost of education and healthcare. So while the federal government experiences a surplus, the state and local governments often experience a drain. The question is how to share theses resources more equitably.
Would you like to offer any final thoughts to our readers regarding immigration?
We face a complex issue that calls for a global solution. The Church teaches first and foremost that people have a right to not to have to migrate. This means addressing poverty, economic development and the rule of law across the globe and not simply approaching immigration as a domestic issue. However, we cannot ignore that there are real people caught in this reality in this moment. How do we deal with this in a way that reflects our religious and civic values?
At this point in our history, many seem to have a vision of the country that does not recognize the contribution of immigrants and views 12 million people as “illegal aliens.” However, people cannot be illegal in our tradition anymore than a child can be illegitimate. We are all God’s children and God is not a scofflaw. These dehumanizing labels prevent humane policies and facilitate scapegoating as “illegals” are blamed for everything from our healthcare and labor problems to rats in our public schools.
However, I do not believe that this vision can prevail. We are a better people than that. We are a people who recognize the God-given dignity of others, who see immigrants as real people not as abstractions, and who ultimately support humane immigration policies. We are not happy about families being separated and people dying needlessly. I am confident that at the end of the day we will enact policies that are befitting of our heritage and our values.