On The Immorality of Illegal Immigration

AuthorHouse

Contents

Chapter One

It is not a pleasant task for a priest to take a position that is not shared by the hierarchy of his church. This is especially true when that hierarchy's motives stem from the gospel teachings of assisting the poor and those most adversely affected by political or economic systems. It is the function of the Christian church to make a moral judgment about economic and social matters whenever the fundamental rights of the person demand it. However, after examining all the evidence and listening to the voice of the American people, I believe that the Christian church, both here and abroad, has made a serious misjudgment, supporting a policy that has a long list of attendant evils. The Christian church currently favors an immigration policy that assists those who violate our laws rather than enter the legal process that leads to legal immigration. The Christian church, in some quarters, actually recommends to its ministers and priests that they break the law by helping illegals who break the law. The church's position disappoints those who play by the rules, placing legal immigrants and businesses that respect our laws at a great disadvantage. Americans are all completely in favor of legal immigration. That is how most Americans were lucky enough to live or be born in this great nation. Immigration is not a problem; it is, in fact, America's gift to the world. But, the simple fact is that illegal immigrants are unlawfully present in the United States and most of them are providing fraudulent documents and fraudulent identities for tax and other purposes. There are only nine digits in a Social Security number; that means that there are approximately one billion possible Social Security numbers. So, if you pick at random a nine-digit number, it is likely that you will come up with someone's valid Social Security number. The Social Security Number pool is a lottery where anyone can pick a winning number and it has no expiration date so, once an illegal alien manages to match a valid name to a valid Social Security number, it will be hard to catch him. In the meantime, he can cause untold worries and legal problems to the legitimate owner. Unfortunately, the 1986 amnesty law allowed the use of the Social Security card as proof of legal status. We need a system in which the Social Security numbers are secure.

Militancy

The year 2007 saw the rise of a militant mood among illegals south of our borders; a militant mood that insisted on the `right' to live in the United States whether we Americans liked it or not. This is boldness never before witnessed in our history. The justification behind such militancy derived, in part, from the approbation and authority of the Christian churches. Some of them were either accompanied or led by Roman Catholic priests. I do not question the sincerity and idealism that motivated these priests. I do question their judgment. In one of those marches, in the month of March, 500,000 people took to the streets of Los Angeles, flying flags and chanting "Viva Mexico," while 500,000 marched in Dallas on April 9, using (abusing?) the image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe" on those flags. The southwestern part of the United States, they claim, as they fly the Mexican flag, belongs to them.

And what generated the anger of these crowds of illegals and their supporters? It was, believe it or not, the "temerity" of the United States to decide for the American people who could and who could not enter the United States! It did not even occur to the marchers that nowhere else in the world would they be able to mount such a bold `invasion' without being resisted, if necessary by force. Their very lack of fear was itself an acknowledgment that the United States was the most patient and tolerant nation vis-a-vis illegal and sometimes violent entry into its territory. An invasion of twenty million people into the sovereign territory of the United States should have been responded to by demanding that the foreigners leave our soil immediately. If this demand were not met, it would be the duty of our president, in as humane a way as possible, to remove them from our territory, by force if necessary.

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act

The Mexican government became very upset with the Simpson-Mazzoli Act (Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359, signed by President Ronald Reagan on November 6, 1986). It is an Act of Congress which reformed United States immigration law. The Act made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit undocumented workers. The Act also required employers to check on their employees' immigration status, and it granted amnesty to undocumented workers who entered the United States before January 1, 1982. Mexico was happy about the amnesty provision, but very angry with the rest. The Mexican Senate responded by adopting a strongly worded resolution on "this grave matter that negatively affects our good neighbor relations," and saying that the Act would have a negative impact on the relations between both countries. The Mexicans called it a unilateral act that should have been dealt with and decided on bilaterally, even multi-laterally. Foreseeing that this might happen, and attempting to stop such legislation, in 1984, then Mexican President Miguel de la Madrid wrote: "The situation of Mexican migrant workers in the United States has been, and continues to be, of special interest to Mexico. We have reiterated our support for the rights and interests of Mexican nationals abroad. We have no intention of meddling in the legislative processes of the United States. But we express our concern over measures such as the Simpson-Mazzoli bill which could affect the social, labor, and human rights of numerous Mexicans, whose daily work and efforts represent considerable benefit to the U.S. economy."

For a declaration that begins by saying that Mexico did not want to interfere in our affairs, the language used sure strayed along the way.

The Christian leadership of this country, not really comprehending the wide-ranging problems connected with illegal immigration has blessed violating the sovereignty of our nation, depressing the wages of American workers, encouraging the growth of the most violent gangs in America, driving up black unemployment and draining the best and brightest of the Third World, leaving it helpless. How could the church possibly desire that this state of affairs continue?

Radical Organizations

The propaganda of such rather radical organizations as The National Council of La Raza and La Voz Aztlan openly challenge America's right to protect its borders. On its Website, for example, LaVoz Aztlan also questions the legitimacy of America's major newspapers. For example, they claim the following. I quote:

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by people who run the country.

2. The New York Times is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The Washington Post is read by people who think they ought to run the country.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't understand the Washington Post.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could spare the time.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country.

8 The New York Post is read by people who don't care who's running the country, as long as they do something scandalous.

These organizations back the aims of a fellow-organization. Reconquista openly calls for the Reconquest of America's Mexican/U.S. border areas. A prominent sign carried by thousands at these marches and rallies tell the whole story. "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my homeland." This is not an idea that gives comfort to the average American citizen. Sometimes, La Raza gets pretty tough. In Kansas City, actions of the National Council of La Raza raised some alarm among its citizens. They threatened to boycott Kansas City and pull their national convention from the city if the mayor, Mark Funkhouser, did not remove 73-year-old Frances Semler from the Kansas City Parks Board. She came under fire from La Raza because she belonged to the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a neighborhood watch group that seeks to end illegal immigration by watching our southern and northern borders and reporting illegal immigration to the border patrol. Mayor Funkhouser, to his credit, stood behind Ms. Semler as long as her personal beliefs on immigration policy did not affect her service to the parks board. La Raza spokesperson, Jessica Ayala, joined five other pro-illegal immigration activists and appeared on Ms Semler's doorstep one morning. Startled by the pounding on her door and seeing the large group outside, she did what any elderly woman would do: she called police. The group responded that they were there to hand-deliver a note demanding she resign from her position on the parks board. And what is the Congress doing about all of this? When the 109th Congress (2005-2007) wrapped up its session it failed to achieve that most basic element of national sovereignty: securing America's borders. The majority of Americans made it clear that to reward ten million to twenty million individuals with the right to violate American law with impunity was immoral, just plain wrong. The American people, God bless them, saw right through the felonious nature of the bill, and knew that it penalized those who had legally applied to enter this country. They rejected it loudly and clearly, calling shame on the Congress. It was America at its best.

Thomas Jefferson

America's uniqueness derives from the belief that all men are created equal, a Jeffersonian belief that has transcended physical, psychological, and ethnic boundaries. In spite of the periodic decay imbedded in every nation-civilization, this belief has withstood the slings and arrows of outrageous misfortune for well over two hundred years. No concessions, until recently, were ever made to wholesale and flagrant violations of American sovereignty. Our recent concessions to this bold and defiant breaking of American law and the multiple evil consequences that attend it have made fools of us all, and caused us to become the butt of the international joke circuit. We have become so pitiful that even those who pour over our borders, enjoy the liberties and affluence of our wealth, are treated at our hospitals and taught in our schools, raise their native flags over the Stars and Stripes, and even, on occasion, burn our flag in the streets of our Metropolitan cities. And, meanwhile, those migrants who get lost in the maze of legal attempts to become American citizens get shortchanged, along with the businessmen who have followed the law, placing themselves, competitively, at a great disadvantage, with fellow businessmen who pay low wages to the illegals they are hiding in their business establishment.

Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton opposed granting citizenship immediately to new immigrants: "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they set foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty." He recommended that when we do allow foreigners to live in America, we should make an effort "to enable aliens to ... acquire American attachments; to learn the principles and imbibe the spirit of our government; and to admit of a philosophy, at least, of their feeling a real interest in our affairs." Theodore Roosevelt wrote: "In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birth place, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here."

Twisted and Suspect Piety

Groups that favor illegal immigration often invoke the Almighty and wrap themselves in the mantle of compassion as their justification for turning a blind eye to the terrible consequences to America of our porous borders. If simply giving somebody something they want without making them earn it is compassion, then laziness is next to godliness. The American and Mexican bishops should use their good intentions and powerful influence to remind the Mexican government that it has a responsibility for its citizens. The Mexican works for slave wages, thus impelling him to enter the United States under any conditions. Why does every discussion among American and Mexican ecclesiastics leave out the responsibility the Mexican government has for its own citizens? This is a question they must ask and answer. If it is a lack of understanding of economics and social development, then they need but acquire it from the vast academic community at their disposal. Those who preach the biblical emphasis on Sanctuary might need also to meditate on the meaning of this quote: In chapter 13 of the apostle Paul's letter to the Romans, we read: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed." (Romans 13:1-2).

Clearly, this is advice to Christians to follow the laws of their nation and to respect the laws of other nations. It might be better for those superiors who order their clerics to break the law by harboring illegal aliens, to use the tools available to any American and work to have the law changed. Let democracy decide this question. Although Christianity encourages acts of charity, we cannot be both charitable and law breakers. We cannot rob Peter to pay Paul. The Archbishop of Mexico City should be encouraged to work with his own backyard politicians and create a Mexico that treats its own citizens decently. He should encourage Mexicans to work for Christian social change in Mexico.

And, of course, American companies love "investing" in Third World nations.

Labor is cheap in Mexico, leaving Americans without jobs. These factories are known as "maquila." Some maquila has as many as a thousand workers. It is not unusual for some of these sweatshops to have 12-hour shifts, except on Saturdays, when the workday is nine hours. Salaries can range from thirty to fifty dollars a week. Hanes, for example, operates a t-shirt factory in Mexico. Hunger drives the local populations to work at any wage. A full-service Maquiladoras Management company based in San Diego, California, seeks American companies to "come on down."

Their Web site reads: "With a combined total of over 70 years of experience in Mexico manufacturing, the principals at Made In Mexico, Inc. are uniquely qualified to help your organization realize manufacturing cost savings." The American manufacturers cover their sins by asking us to look at the "bright side" of all this. U.S. consumers pay lower prices for clothing, and U.S. companies continue their practice of planned obsolescence, "allowing us" to replace things at a more rapid rate.

It has not occurred to a sufficient number of American workers that rather than paying a little bit less for clothing, at the expense of exploited workers around the world, the better solution, the right solution, is to pay living wages to American workers, so that they can do the jobs that "Americans will not do." The governments of Mexico and El Salvador would then be forced by internal public pressure, to pay their own workers living wages. Justice would be better served around the world if the Christian churches, armed themselves with a better understanding of the immorality of creating slave labor conditions around the world, while at the same time lowering wages in the United States for increasingly impoverished Americans.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from On The Immorality of Illegal Immigrationby Patrick J. Bascio Copyright © 2009 by Father Patrick J. Bascio. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.