Washington Post (Plum Line)
By Greg Sargent
September 24, 2015
Pope
Francis’ speech to Congress today was notable for all kinds of reasons,
but his words about immigration were particularly striking, because
they came amid an intense
argument over the issue among Republican presidential candidates in
which the loudest voice is the one whipping up anger and hatred and
xenophobia.
To
me, the Pope’s treatment of immigration is important not because of who
he is (though countless people around the world see him as a moral
authority). Rather, it is
noteworthy because he captured one of the most fundamental dilemmas we
face on immigration with a striking moral clarity that could assist our
understanding of the debate. Here’s what he said:
In
recent centuries, millions of people came to this land to pursue their
dream of building a future in freedom. We, the people of this continent,
are not fearful of foreigners,
because most of us were once foreigners. I say this to you as the son
of immigrants, knowing that so many of you are also descended from
immigrants…
Our
world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the
Second World War. This presents us with great challenges and many hard
decisions. On this continent,
too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better
life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater
opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must
not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather
view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their
stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond
in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a
common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever
proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.”
This
Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same
passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for
others the same possibilities
which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would
like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give
security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities,
let us provide opportunities.
The
Pope has implicitly, or perhaps explicitly, laid his finger on one of
the most fundamental questions that underlies all the arguing among
Republicans (and, indeed,
all of us) on the issue:
Should
undocumented immigrants be seen only as lawbreakers, or (provided they
are not serious criminals) are they entitled, by simple virtue of the
fact that they are
fellow human beings, to a more morally complex and nuanced examination
of their plight? If it is the latter, are there circumstances under
which the specifics of their plight should mitigate our verdict and
treatment of their initial lawbreaking? Are we morally
obliged to locate a set of penalties and conditions under which we’re
willing to allow them to stay?
That,
I believe, is what the Pope meant when he suggested that any one of us
might have done the same for our own children, and that we must view
undocumented immigrants
“as persons” whose “stories” should be listened to. We should provide
fellow human beings with “opportunities,” just as we want
“opportunities.” We must “respond as best we can” to their “situations” —
i.e., bringing a nuanced view to the potentially mitigating
circumstances of their lawbreaking.
The
Pope did not reference “legal” or “illegal” immigration. So I cannot
prove that he meant to frame the challenge as I have interpreted it. But
it’s hard to read his
urgent plea for tolerance towards the “thousands” who stream northward
any other way, since there is already broad consensus that legal
immigration is a good thing. Even Donald Trump supports it.
Indeed,
in his response, Ted Cruz pointedly noted that “when we speak of
welcoming immigrants, I believe that should refer to legal immigrants.”
This distinction would
not be necessary if the Pope were not calling for tolerance and
accommodation (depending on the specifics of their plight) towards
undocumented immigrants. Cruz disagrees with the Pope on this point. And
that’s fine: The Pope has clarified the central question
we face; Cruz took one side of it, arguing that illegal immigrants do
not deserve accommodation (because they are lawbreakers), which is
itself helpful and clarifying.
My
reading of the Pope’s words is also consistent with the approach
serious thinkers about illegal immigration have brought to the
fundamental challenges it presents.
In “Immigration Outside the Law,” Hiroshi Motomura argues that the
unique specifics of this issue have created a situation in which, at
various times in our history, a tacit, inadvertent deal of sorts with
illegal immigrants has taken shape. Because the U.S.
periodically needed — and needs — immigrant workers, and because the
challenges of enforcement inevitably mean only a tiny fraction get
deported, the end result has often been a tacit acquiescence as they
slowly come to inhabit the role of “Americans in waiting.”
Obviously
one can reject that tacit deal on moral and/or legal grounds by arguing
that it’s wrong to reward lawbreakers under any circumstances. That’s
an argument many
conservatives believe in with principled fervor. As I’ve noted, it
should not be dismissed, even though I think in this case it’s
ultimately unconvincing and doesn’t adequately reckon with the practical
challenges the problem presents, or with the positive
contributions undocumented immigrants make to American society.
But
the point is that the Pope today helped guide us towards this as the
basic question we face: whether to treat undocumented immigrants as
merely lawbreakers; or whether
their moral plight, the weight of our history, and our sense that they
add something to American life entitle them to something more. That’s
what Donald Trump and Jeb Bush are really arguing over when Jeb
describes illegal immigration an “act of love” and
calls for a more rational approach to tapping their potential — and
Trump mocks him for it while vowing to deport the 11 million. This is
the basic split among Congressional Republicans that they have not yet
resolved. GOP leaders are open to some form of
legalization, but they have yet to buck those in their party who are
not open to it under any circumstances (though many won’t quite embrace
mass deportations, and instead want to leave them in the shadows).
Today
Marco Rubio shed a tear when the Pope talked about immigration. Yet
Rubio has retreated to a point where he’s dodging the obvious
implications of the Pope’s message.
After championing a path to citizenship, he now supports legalization,
but only at some unspecified point in the future when unspecified border
security goals are met. Surely Rubio agrees with the Pope’s call for
accommodation, and not with Trump’s call for
mass deportations. But his practical position on the issue now seems
designed, at a minimum, to keep at bay those on Trump’s side of the
argument.
Trump,
by framing the issue as a choice between legalization and mass
deportations, has made that sort of fudging harder to pull off. Now, in
his own way, so too has the
Pope.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment