As I've written on the implications of campaign policies for Catholic Social Teaching, I've tried to explain how different issues prompt difference responses from our tradition. For instance, with respect to specific immoral actions like abortion, physician-assisted suicide, or use of artificial birth control, there is a clear call from our teaching to oppose them directly. On the other hand, more complex issues involve a more complex response.Mr. Trump offered bits of immigration plan formally this past week - great summary via @nytimes #morethanredandblue pic.twitter.com/67gnqLxk71— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) September 5, 2016
Take gun control: the bishops generally support the second amendment, even if mildly, but their emphasis is on firm, strict controls and limits. We have a right to defend ourselves but have the responsibility to limit the kinds of guns we own, the who and how of acquisition, and more...
Take universal health-care: we are called to advocate for universal health-care access as a thrival human right. On the one hand, no one has to support ObamaCare explicitly as the path toward achieving that, yet on the other hand, our tradition calls us to actively choose some sort of path toward universal health-care...
Then take immigration: I think the core principle at play here is the dignity and value of human beings as well as the dignity of their work. I think this is another issue where there isn't a cut-and-dry path made clear by our teachings, but there is a basic minimum we have to start from as we approach this issue.
At the root of immigration issues, the people involved must be acknowledged and affirmed for their dignity. One way to start assuring this is to watch our language. Our word choices can often show internal biases for or against someone or something. When it comes to these people, words and phrases like "illegals" and "illegal immigrants" are too depersonalized. I think we ought to remember people-first language or at least people-centric language and use phrases like "people who are undocumented," "undocumented people," or "undocumented immigrants," at least.
From there, it is difficult to pin down an exact Catholic Social Teaching response, beyond our Rights and Responsibilities and Call to Family, Community, and Participation, built on Jesus' call to welcome the stranger. Certainly, acknowledging and responding to this issue is also a form of opting for the poor and marginalized.
We must be hospitable to those who come to us in need from a place of trial and hardship. On the other hand, we do have concerns for our safety and security if people come with violence or malevolence. I tend to want to err on the side of welcome over paranoia, and at the least, think that the dignity of all people must be at the heart of our response. Even amid these greys, my gut says the dignity of all people is absent in all of Mr. Trump's remarks.
He first reiterates the necessity of building the border wall between the US and Mexico. This action goes against so many of the principles of our teaching. It deals a palpably terrible blow to solidarity, blocking off our brothers and sisters to the south from our social consciousness. It scoffs at community and participation by closing off a connection to another culture and people.
I think of the disciples, scared and locked up in the upper room following Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus visits them, passing through the locked doors and breathes peace into them; the Holy Spirit then animates their mission as they spread the Gospel throughout the region. I think of Paul in prison, consoling fellow prisoners, as the locks and walls are destroyed by God's angel. Paul reassures the guard of God's love and goes forth to continue his mission across the world. These separators that try to confine humanity - both in the Bible and in Mr. Trump's policies - are no match for the mission spirit of love that nurtures human solidarity and pushes us to make global connections.
Then from there, Mr. Trump hints at how he would respond to the undocumented people who are here: no more catch-and-release (a phrase usually used for fishing, not people!), zero tolerance for criminals, repealing executive order protections and work permits restricting visas, forcing reacceptance from origin countries, and upping biometrics.
When it comes to those people already here, I again wish to start with their human dignity and acknowledge their humanity. How does our response affirm or belittle their humanity? Mr. Trump is not for amnesty of any kind; however, I would support amnesty as a one-time occurrence that coincided with a reformed entry system and consolidated border patrols. The people here now broke the law by entering, but they are contributing to society, working in our economy, and participating in our communities. Tax or fine them once and then integrate them formally into our economy. I don't think we must be for an amnesty as Catholics, but I believe exercising it is certainly befitting of the dignity of those who are here.
Deportation is justifiable, in my understanding, as people who have broken the law must accept the punishment for what they have done; the nature of civil disobedience is that rule-breakers have to accept the consequences of their crime, even if against an unjust law. Though I don't support it and don't believe our tradition compels us to support it, I understand the argument for it.
From there, I actually support some of the other pieces of Mr. Trump's plan. To affirm the community of the US, to be true to our rights and responsibilities, to support and uphold the balance of work and workers' rights, we do need to be more responsible in our border controls. We do need to have a thorough system of biometrics, identification, and vetting that facilitates legal entry to our country and strives to filter out violent or dangerous people. So here, there is some reasonable consensus ideas buried in his policies.
However, again building on the dignity of people and acknowledging our place in the world, we need to be as liberal as reasonably possible in setting forth this system. We need to have generous maximums in admitting people, attainable processes for prospective immigrants, and efficient systems that don't make people wait so long that they feel compelled to instead break the law. and enter illegally.
Mr. Trump and others who are anti-immigrant hang their hats on citing the violence or crime of a few immigrants, and few would argue that those offenses aren't a tragedy. But Mr. Trump portrays this as being the whole picture of immigration in his remarks to the American people, even while telling Mexico out of the other side of his mouth that Mexicans are a people "beyond reproach." These few bad apples cannot ruin it for the millions who may resemble them physically or metaphorically.
So whether you are for or against deportation, whether you are for or against amnesty and/or fines, whether you are for or against stricter border controls and immigration policies, I think the baseline of our Catholic Social Teaching calls us to engage these challenging issues with the dignity and value of each human life at our core. And then we go from there in discerning a socially just response.
Mr. Trump, when it comes to immigration, as usual, does not give voice to the dignity and value of human life and certainly never in any way opts for the poor and marginalized.
No comments:
Post a Comment