Arizona Immigration Law Does Not Dehumanize Anybody

Bishop Robert Vasa, Diocese of Baker (Oregon) recently wrote the following about the Arizona immigration law:

"I do find...that thinking about real, identifiable people, concrete human persons and human families, makes it much easier to see that those who cross our borders or remain here illegally are not necessarily evil or wicked men or women but simply people with human aspirations and longings and dignity. Crossing a border illegally does not eliminate that person's right to be treated as a brother or sister. Remaining in this country illegally does not eliminate that person's human dignity."

I wholeheartedly agree. But, the Arizona immigration law does not dehumanize anybody. The new Arizona law states that "[t]he provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States."

I'm not an immigrant. I'm not an immigration lawyer. I do not have any family members or friends who have gone through the immigration process. But, I am concerned with the quick assessments of the Arizona law that seemingly have come without much thought and analysis. For the first time, I find myself confused and in disagreement with several bishops. I cheered them on throughout the whole healthcare debate, standing by them when other catholic organizations did not. With all due respect to Catholic bishops who have spoken out, you are running the risk of "moralizing" instead of thoughtful catechesis.

In terms of immigration law, there is no such thing as an "illegal immigrant." You are either a "temporary" or "permanent" immigrant - a legal status. If you are in this country illegally, you are an illegal alien. These are terms defined by the US immigration laws. They are not meant to pass any individual judgment about any individual wishing to enter this country legally or otherwise. The laws define an individual's status and the rights afforded to an individual. What status and rights designated to an individual is defined by law and not definable by anyone else for political gain.

Simply, it is a crime to cross any country's border illegally. An individual knowingly crossing a border illegally is equivalent to "cutting in line." The US, as resourceful as it is, like all other countries, has a finite number of resources. The US, like all other countries, has a duty to protect its citizens. In theory, immigration policies allow for the safety of its citizens and for the measured allocation of rights to individuals. If an alien (a non-US citizen) wishes to reside in this country in order to make a better life for themselves and their family, the US immigration laws most definitely allow that to happen. The expediency in which that can occur for an individual is a problem that the individual most account for. In times of emergency, the immigration laws allow for asylum under certain circumstances.
 

Bishop Vesa also stated that "I am not suggesting that the American "immigration policy" is immoral, but there seem to be some elements of injustice that permeate it, and it is this injustice, whether legally sanctioned or not, the Church opposes." Which elements? It can't be in the manner in which the federal immigration law is administered, since, according to Arizona, the federal government fails to apply the necessary resources to defend the laws. It also isn't in the manner in which the law is defined; in fact, the law (Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations (8 CFR) - http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis) allows all kinds of accommodations of lawful status in the country based on ethnicity and when individuals first arrived in this country.

With respect to the Arizona law, here is how I interpret some excerts:

"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL ...WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON (capitalization preserved)." In a state with habitual illegal entries across the US border, this seems perfectly reasonable.

"A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES (capitalization preserved)." Can't a law enforcement officer, without a warrant, arrest a person for probably cause of committing a public offense already?

The rest of the bill describes penalties for unauthorized aliens and penalties for employers knowingly employing unauthorized aliens (with provisions for employers to claim entrapment), among other things.

What all this means to me is that the state of Arizona is guilty of no wrongdoing. It is simply doing what states in this country are allowed to do. In the absence of what is perceives as a lack of defense of immigration laws by the federal government, the law enables its own law enforcement agencies some latitude to help deal with the problem. The bill is littered with references to upholding federal immigration laws. You can't blame a state for taking matters into their own hands. And in doing so, Arizona does so in a responsible manner.