Richard Neuhaus described something I once wrote for First Things magazine as “winsomely forceful.” I thought that was an unusually charming turn of phrase, he was good at them, and it honestly was the tone I tried to achieve in my “uninformed” piece last Thursday on immigration. 
For those of you who missed last week’s column due to life threatening illness or because you had to get the dog wormed (the only plausible reasons I can imagine for skipping my golden prose) I talked about illegal immigration and prefaced my remarks with accounts of legal immigrants I know who have come to America. From there I argued something must be done for undocumented families and their children. The piece was not—yes, I am shocked—universally praised.
Reading the comments left by many readers indicates at least three things. First Things readers are serious people, so serious playful whimsy on serious topics tends to confuse some of them. Many of them misspell my name. And, last, I confess, I must have fallen somewhat short of the mark at being winsome or forceful, or the two in combination. Any confusion among readers was entirely my fault. On top of all that, immigration has become another third rail in public policy with the left and the right mercilessly scratching at each other without quarter. Used to be, messing with Social Security would get you deep fried pretty quickly and still does. But immigration, illegal or not, does just as well these days. Anyway, I should have offered better clarity. So I will start over.
I began saying I did not know what I was talking about. That really ticked off a couple folks and earned me accusations of a “contemptible” “faux humility” by one reader. Let me be clear: I didn’t know what I was talking about. The fact is we do not know with any accuracy how many undocumented people are living in the United States.
One hears high-ball estimates from the hard-right “round ‘em up and ship ‘em back” contingent and low-ball figures from the “aw, aren’t illegals cute” among progressives. Here is a real question. How many children and youth would have been affected by The Dream Act of 2010, the failed legislation that would have created a conditional permanent residency for undocumented children? Go ahead, take a guess. Sixty-five thousand? Eight hundred thousand? Both figures were tossed around in the debate, the lower one by proponents and the higher by opponents. Even some Dream Act advocates, prominently the Center for American Progress, asserted a number of “no more than” seven hundred thousand. My point: I do not know what I am talking about. And nobody else does either.
Another respondent took exception to the evidence I marshaled to support my personal immigration policy, namely stories I’ve collected from immigrants I have met. “It is a clever ploy to declare abject humility and follow it with a handful of emotional anecdotes that point to an implied assertion. One could summarize this column as ‘I don’t want to entertain your responses because I am more empathetic than you.’ The current debate is about ‘illegal’ immigration. Since Reverend Salzmann agrees that our border laws should be respected what function does his essay have other than to throw distracting flack into an important discussion?”
It’s Saltzman. And I don’t like “reverend” as a title (though the fellow gets a pass; he didn’t know). And I was hardly humble; I’d say instead arrogantly ignorant. But, sure, you bet I used “emotional anecdotes” to reach “an implied assertion.” Absent hard fact, emotional anecdotes really are the next best thing. The purpose some of those stories tried to serve was to reveal just how esoteric, arcane, mysterious, and unfathomable immigration rules are for people trying to gain legal admission.
The lady from India who spent a decade in Canada before being granted an entry visa, what was that? After my piece appeared a friend told me—I can’t resist one more story—about his son and his new Chinese wife, trying to follow immigration rules so she may join her husband in Houston. They met in Canada and were married in Singapore. A U.S. immigration form asked the young bride to provide a U.S. birth certificate or an affidavit of birth abroad to a U.S. citizen. Well, that’s impossible, what with her being Chinese and all, so my friend called the immigration help line. Some help. “Unfortunately, sir,” he was told, “I cannot access that form on my computer, so I will not be able to answer your question.” Was there a supervisor he might speak with? No. “Unfortunately, sir, there is no one here who will be able to answer your question. I suggest that you consult an immigration attorney.”
If—answering my critic—my assertion was only implied I regret I did not make it explicit. Clamping down the border is one thing. Figuring out how to best respond to the presence of undocumented families already here is another. Why we cannot do both comprehensively eludes me.
Last year the United States admitted one million legal immigrants. Most years the numbers hover between eight hundred thousand and nine hundred thousand, an impressive figure any way one cares to look at it. We are—and we should say so with pride—a very generous nation in our immigration policy. We are much poorer at devising coherent regulations that express our generosity.
Oh, back to my immigration policy: Let ‘em all in. That didn’t win me many friends either. But there you go; I was trying out that winsomely forceful thing again. I did allow as how that likely makes for poor public policy. Would anyone think otherwise? At the same time, keep in mind we are a nation instinctively friendly to immigrants. Should anyone wish otherwise? As first instincts go, rubbing against realities that properly suggest something more prudent, it is not a bad one.
That is what first instincts are good for. This is what we aim at, what we try to achieve with public policies that are fair, equitable, and above all understandable. What function did my essay have other than to throw “distracting flack” into an important discussion? I had hoped it would put the real issues in relief, invoking stories of real people in real situations.
As the anonymous woman shouting from the back of the room on The Simpsons is always asking us, “What about the children?” Talking about undocumented, illegal families with kids in our schools who cannot read or write Spanish any better than I can, I shall more or less repeat myself. We cannot deport them. That would be a cruel humanitarian lapse, “returning” them to a “homeland” where many will be functionally illiterate. Nor by their now semi-permanent shadow presence should we permit their consignment to a new American underclass. That too would be a cruel humanitarian lapse.
So, yes, it would be good for our country to create a sure path to citizenship for those already here and do it in a way that honors all the legal immigrants who followed the rules, stood in line, and in many cases underwent long years of waiting before they were admitted. This, combined with strong border enforcement, would be a good thing.
Broadly, this is all I wanted to say, though in a winsomely forceful way.
Russell E. Saltzman is pastor of Ruskin Heights Lutheran Church, Kansas City, Missouri. His previous On the Square articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
Russell Saltzman’s last column, “One Thousand Five-Hundred or So Uninformed Words on U.S. Immigration Policy” is available here.
Russell Saltzman’s “winsomely forceful” essay.
Comments:
Preliminarily, I should point out that I loved the previous essay and shared it with a number of friends and family. It is sad that this one -- more force, less winsomeness -- was necessary; the tone of the first was pitch-perfect.
That said, you do make pretty explicit two of the big three problems in our current immigration policy -- exclusive focus on enforcement without acknowledgement of the human realities and downright absurdism regarding how our policies for legal immigrants are enforced. If anyone doubts that the good Mr. Rev. Dr.'s examples are representative, I urge you to find someone to talk to who married a foreigner; I have never met one who did not have to do some crazy thing at CIS's order.
The third major problem with our immigration policy, though, is just as important and does not seem to draw as much attention: we only allow in legally people who either (a) are exclusively qualified for a job here or (b) have immediate family members who are here. There is literally no other path to legal immigration, and the vast majority of people here illegally had no legal way to get to the US even if they had been so inclined.
There is another side to that issue to: it means we take legally the skilled and successful of other nations -- robbing them of the people who might help the nation develop economically -- while refusing to take those who are dirt poor but willing to work hard, unless they have a family member living here. This does not take seriously any obligation -- whose existence I'm sure some "conservatives" with no knowledge of history would dispute -- on the part of richer nations to offer opportunities to those with none in their homelands, which is a very different kind of thing than offering opportunity to those who already have it there because those people more greatly enhance our economy.
Now let's imagine that those millions who are really already here illegally (i.e. the brown skinned Hispanic Catholics) were all known with certitude to become inflexible pro-life Republicans the moment they were able to vote. I wonder how many heavy breathers on the Left would lose their zeal to let 'em all stay and make 'em citizens.
There are many reasons we cannot find a solution to our immigration problems, and few of us, I suspect, are as ruthlessly honest about our own fears and loathings as we ready to be about the fears and loathings of those on the other side of the debate. In such a pass, a little winsome forcefulness is a very good thing.
I believe many would find it hard to argue if asked if a stereotypical immigrant from Mexico should be allowed into our country and society. On that is Christian, poor, and willing to work. I believe the main point here is that yes the law must be upheld, but the law can be better and allowing these people into our society is not to its detriment.
"If unlimited immigration continues (as Mr. Salzman wishes it to do, the USA will be, not so much a "nation" in its original sense of a group of people of the same ethnic family, as a mere governmental entity defined by the physical space it governs. An "American" will be anyone found within the four corners of the physical territory in which the writ of Washington runs supreme and if a majority of those people want nothing to do with the kinds of ideals that used to matter hereabouts then that will be their choice."
Mr. Arsfield apparently forgets that this precise argument has been made repeatedly throughout the US's history, regarding first all Catholics, then the Irish, and then the Chinese. None of these groups has killed the fundamentally American character of the place, and unless he can offer some reason why current immigrants are somehow different, fundamentally, from past groups (and how could he? Catholics were thought to be the antithesis of American-ness), this line of argument just comes across as par for the course.
To others who don't think so, I would ask if they agreed with Russell's premise beforehand. If so, they are unlikely to find any nasty edges of tone objectionable. None of us do, it's just human nature, and tribal nature. One has to make an effort to see whether "forceful" is actually something a little darker.
Of course reasonable people approve of your idea that lots of immigrants are very nice people and we shouldn't let our rhetoric express otherwise. Do you actually encounter many people outside of the anonyminity of comment threads who say terrible things? My impression* is that folks are accused by advocacy groups of hating all immigrants, or sounding secret racist dog whistles that prove that they really are bigots, when actually, they just might disagree. I fully admit I may be wrong on that. You guys may hear or read supposedly respectable Christian people saying bigoted things all the time, and I just don't want to hear that contrary evidence.
As I noted in my previous comment: With two Romanian sons and many Eastern European friends, I can hardly be called anti-immigrant. I work in a human service agency and certainly don't refuse to help desperate people just because I have grave suspicions about their immigration status (I am seldom in a position to know for sure). My position is that each illegal costs a legal immigrant a slot, and so am in favor of most legislation that reduces the number of illegals. Those waiting in line in other countries have the greater right.
*The impression is supported by actual examples. But I may be collecting my data conveniently.
Isn't this absurd? Let's forget for the moment whatever prejudices we may or may not have: those prejudices should make us neither more nor less sympathetic towards immigrants.
In justice to our own citizens (and remember, the primary duty of any government is to its own people--Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and a host of Christian theologians would agree!) we ought to preserve what little national culture we have left. In justice to human beings everywhere, who are our brothers in Christ, we ought not deny them the opportunity for a better life here.
My proposed solution? Let them all in BUT (1) run criminal background checks on everyone entering the country and (2) make passage of high-level English language and American history tests mandatory before giving citizenship (and make lower-level tests mandatory before giving residence). (While we're about it, we might make those tests mandatory for our own high school seniors and Congressman. Just sayin' . . . !)
Admittedly, this doesn't solve the present problem of what to do with the illegal families already within our borders. But if we implemented changes like these NOW it would save a lot of grief for everyone from here on out. And I suspect that taking care of the problem in this way would gruntle even most of us rabid, right-wing, jingoist, tea-party types . . .
While I have had sympathi with that, my focus is on immigration for the wives or husbands of natural born U.S. citizens who are treated like sub-humans.
The anti-family polices of our govenment seem determined to breakup such illicit marriages. Members of Congress create these mind boggling regulations and then wash their hands and turn it over to mindless bureaucrats,
The last time my wife, who has her greencard, returned here from her Ph. D progarm abroad, the customs agent told her that he would put her on a plane and send her back.
We had already spent three months trying to work with our Senator's office to undo the bureucratic Catch 22. We had done all that we were intructed to do. In the end she was let in but now as she completes her program this spring we are again up against another Cathch 22 where bureaucrats and politicians rule.
So, forgive me if I don't jump on the bandwagon for illegal immigran6s. My concern is for one legal immigrant.
According to the French concept, firstly, the nation is the community all those who are not exempt from taxation, military service and other public duties, and, secondly, it includes all those, and only those, who are willing and capable of sharing in the service of the country. This volitional element has been repeatedly emphasized by such writers as Ernest Renan. The national community, declares Renan, resides in the voluntary and revocable loyalty of its individual citizens. In this sense the nation is based on a "plébiscite de tous les jours” – on a daily vote of confidence. This philosophy has become the basis of French legal practice. The French citizen is defined as a person who is born on French soil, shares the cultural heritage of the country and gives evidence of loyalty to the French commonwealth. Populations of alien stock or culture who are born or living on French soil are either potential Frenchmen or else they are aliens by resolution, but they are neither aliens nor Frenchmen by birth alone.
Of course, from time to time nativist and anti-immigrant attitudes have been widespread, but they have never succeeded in altering public policy.
In Germany, by contrast, nationality is defined by descent and birth, and it is neither revocable nor is it attainable at will. A German may lose his citizenship but not his nationality. The term nationality, as it is defined in German legal practice, does not refer to citizenship and legal status, but to ethnic characteristics that are transmitted through descent. Underlying this is the assumption that the German nation is a tribal unit, a unit of common descent and blood and not of voluntary adherence and of association. From this, the legal definition of minorities as permanent aliens logically follows.
"[patricksarsfield] apparently forgets that this precise argument has been made repeatedly throughout the US's history, regarding first all Catholics, then the Irish, and then the Chinese. None of these groups has killed the fundamentally American character of the place, and unless he can offer some reason why current immigrants are somehow different, fundamentally, from past groups (and how could he? Catholics were thought to be the antithesis of American-ness), this line of argument just comes across as par for the course."
What argument? I made an observation that the term "nation" is a poor one in the context of unlimited immigration. Chris's similar formulation--"the fundamentally American character of the place"--is an equally poor, indeed meaningless, term as "nation." What is the "fundamental American character" of the geographical entity known as the US in 2011? Is it the same as the "fundamental American character" of the US-- after WWII? Meaningless terms should be avoided. If American character (or culture) is whatever the majority wants it to be at a particular time, we ought to admit that and realize that there is no necessary content to "American character" beyond what an evanescent majority wants at a particular time.
Within that understanding of our freedom to choose the forward shape of this agglomeration called "America,", we can argue about whether and if so, how much immigration we want. There are all sorts of fairly immigrant-friendly positions that could be adopted shy of the unlimited immigration Mr. Saltzman proposes ("Oh, back to my immigration policy: Let ‘em all in. ") Unlimited immigration will necessarily change the current "fundamental" composition of the US at a rapid rate. We are becoming a transient agglomeration of whoever finds themselves within the borders of the US (with voting rights) at any particular time. Does today's majority want unlimited change however it develops? SO, if that majority wants to impose a fundamental shift in what had been American culture up until now: why not? For certainly, whatever the composition of the electorate, don't all of us A"Americans" agree that "Majority rules?"
How exactly are you going to pay for this? We are at the point where it is immoral to advocate policies requiring significant expenditure without explaining where the money comes from to pay for the expenditure. If you have sympathy for the immigrant children, how about sympathy for children of citizens who will suffer greatly from deficit spending championed by the present administration?
We aren't paying our bills now; how do you propose to add new financial burdens?
Who bears responsibility for the fact that most Catholic nations are autocratic, corrupt, poverty-stricken, Third World toilets? Might it not be the Catholic Church, or something about the Catholic culture in general? The Transparency International Index of Worldwide Corruption consistently shows that of all the countries in the world, those consistently scoring high marks as the least corrupt countries of the world are either Northern European Protestant countries (Holland, Scandinavia, Britain, Germany), or countries that were founded by Northern European Protestants (US, Canada, Australia, etc.) Countries founded by Catholics consistently score among the most corrupt in the world, and this includes even First World countries like Italy.
Perhaps you should concentrate on fixing the beam in your own eye before pointing out the mote in someone else's? I never hear anyone excoriating (Father Newman, perhaps?) the Mexican government, or any of the other (Catholic) Latin American governments, for their endemic corruption, or for not taking adequate care of their own people.
Speaking here as a former Catholic who is very, very glad I was born in a nation founded by Northern European Protestants, and not one that was founded by Latin Catholics.
...except for the fact that the most corrupt countries in the world happen to be in Africa many of which were once part of the English empire....
....oh and the fact that most of the French settlers of Canada were Catholics not to mention that famous French Catholic who traveled down the Mississippi trying to spread corruption oh! i mean Catholicism. Franch was Roman Catholic until about 1905.
Two notes in the face of your very strange rant against the Catholic Church and the countries it colonized:
1) I'm fairly certain, though he can correct me if I am wrong, that Saltzmann is not Catholic, but is actually a Lutheran minister.
2) There are a number of factors that lead to the issues in the Catholic Countries you mentioned and the stable-ish protestant ones you noted. One, that cannot be discounted: there was historically relatively little ethnic strife in the Prot countries because the prots were very good at wiping out the native populations.
But some people live in protected communities and revel in sanctimonious self congratulation...........maybe winsomely.
"One woman is dead and two others were raped recently and police say each crime was committed by a different illegal immigrant. One of the sexual assaults happened just hours before the Seattle city council passed an ordinance boycotting Arizona over its new immigration law.
Gregorio Luna Luna had a history of beating up his live-in girlfriend Griselda Ocampo Meza. He was also in the U.S. illegally. On May 1, Luna Luna was deported to Mexico. Three weeks later Meza was murdered in her apartment in a violent knife attack.
Franklin County prosecutors say Luna Luna slipped past the border again and killed Meza in front of their five year old son. He’s in the county jail awaiting trial.
A suspected rapist in Edmonds, Washington has been deported at least 4 times according to Snohomish County prosecutors. Jose Lopez Madrigal has been charged with raping a woman next to a dumpster behind a Safeway store. A witness to the attack alerted police and Madrigal was taken into custody.
An illegal immigrant just convicted of his possible 3rd strike in Whatcom county- a rape of a homeless woman- has been deported to Mexico five times.
Washington State ranks 11th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants with an estimated 150,000. They make up 2% of the state’s population, but account for 4.5% of those in Washington prisons. In Franklin county, 14% of the jail bookings are illegal immigrants.
Currently, over half of the individuals on the Washington State Patrol’s Most Wanted List are suspected illegal immigrants. 18 of the 26 on the list are Hispanic with no place of birth identified. Most are wanted for vehicular homicide and they have languished on the Most Wanted list for several years.
There are about 50,000 felony warrants currently issued in Washington State and according to a source in the U.S. Marshal’s office between 30-40 percent are believed to be illegal immigrants.
We asked the State Patrol about the immigration status of the most wanted suspects and they told us they didn’t know. Officials say that information is not important in trying to locate the individuals.
The U.S. Marshall’s Service disagrees. Leaders of the region’s fugitive task force say knowing immigration status can be very important to an investigation. In fact, the Marshall’s have an office in Mexico to help with cross-border cases.
Last week, the city of Tacoma joined Seattle in admonishing Arizona for its immigration law. While the council did not go so far as passing a boycott, the ordinance does criticize Arizona for its stand against illegal immigration."
"PS I find it amusing that Catholics are screaming to "let them all in." Aren't most nations that were colonized by Catholics hopeless Third World toilets (Haiti, Mexico, most of Latin America)? While nations founded by Protestants (U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) all seem to be prosperous First World democracies. Funny coincidence, eh? "
Canada was founded by Protestants? Hardly.
As to the relative positions of Catholic and Protestant countries: I suppose Maria believes that the US is the only super power and that it bestrides the World like a Colossus. That is a quaint notion in 2011. In truth, the largest Catholic nation in the World (Brazil) is growing at a far faster pace than the US and the richest man in the World is not some American (Protestant). Rather, it is the Mexican Catholic Carlos Slim. While it is true that Mexico is suffering through awful drug cartel warfare right now, the shameful reason the drug cartels are flourishing is because the "Third World toilet" that is the US drug subculture is such an insatiable consumer of drugs. Is it any wonder why Mexicans bemoan their fate as "so far from God, and so close to the United States"?
As to its being Catholics who are screaming to let them all in, Maria obviously has not read the article she purports to be commenting on. In fact, it was written by a Lutheran..
"Washington State ranks 11th in the nation in the number of illegal immigrants with an estimated 150,000. They make up 2% of the state’s population, but account for 4.5% of those in Washington prisons. In Franklin county, 14% of the jail bookings are illegal immigrants."
That is somewhat of an overrepresentation of illegals (125%) but it is hardly the greatest "over-representation" in the prisons of Washington. For example, blacks (who generally are native born and not immigrants, legal or illegal) constitute 23% of the inmate population even though they are just 3.4% of the state's population (Source: http://ronmull.tripod.com/racism.html). Thus, blacks are overrepresented by 575% (i.e., their overrepresentation is more than 4 times greater than the overrepresentation of illegals).
If I were a Protestant, and someone tried to ingratiate herself with me using your type of language, I would be embarrassed.
We've already had this discussion with another blogger not so long ago. All of his similar claims to the effect that "most Catholic nations are autocratic, corrupt, poverty-stricken, Third World toilets" were shown to have no basis in fact.
Maria, please try to resolve your issues with the Roman Catholic Church elsewhere.
people would have something to say about "letting them all in"?
"With all the discussions going in one skewed direction, I wonder if the native indian people would have something to say about "letting them all in"?"
They didn't.
(This exchange illustrates one of the problems with so many Internet discussions. People often talk with total disregard for History. And nuance often goes out the window in favor of Left-Right blather in which a person from one side assumes that other persons perceived to be from the other side are really suggesting some strawman that can more easily be knocked down than the point the other persons actually made).
Apparently Brazil, which had a large indigenous population before the Portuguese showed up, was "founded" by a Roman Catholic country, but Zimbabwe, which also had a large indigenous population before the British showed up, was not "founded" by a northern European Protestant country.
And Mark VA: I am, and I am.
In the liberal mind, in the name of compassion, we put people of color into large-city Indian reservations in the form of welfare dependency, or we disproportionatlely abort African-American and Hispanic babies in the name of reproductive rights. As for immigration, in the liberal mind all the world's people are Kipling's "White Man's Burden." They must be brought into the fold of capitalism and Western ideals. Since colonizing them and exploiting their labor is so passe, so 19th century, we now bring them in and colonize them here. Obviously they can't make it on their own, in their own nations and homelands. They need European guidence, religion, and benevolance. It amazes me how easily liberal minds are manipulated my a few turns of phrase to advocate for the very things they supposedly despise.
reservations which are today impoverished. They who had the God-given right to
be there and possess their lands. Yet in this tread we read of those who speak
against illegal immigrants. The native american indians may have had similar thoughts when they stumbled upon white settlers or illegal immigrants if you will, setting up camp on their lands and hunting their game.
"Last year the United States admitted one million legal immigrants ... an impressive figure any way one cares to look at it. We are—and we should say so with pride—a very generous nation in our immigration policy. We are much poorer at devising coherent regulations that express our generosity."
If unlimited immigration continues (as Mr. Salzman wishes it to do, the USA will be, not so much a "nation" in its original sense of a group of people of the same ethnic family, as a mere governmental entity defined by the physical space it governs. An "American" will be anyone found within the four corners of the physical territory in which the writ of Washington runs supreme and if a majority of those people want nothing to do with the kinds of ideals that used to matter hereabouts then that will be their choice.
So, we ought not use terms like "nation," when we talk about the US's immigration policy. The word "nation" comes from the Latin for "born" and suggests a commonality of past experience and interrelatedness. It therefore is a very inaccurate term to describe the temporary majority any election brings about in these here "United States." Instead we should talk about the "agglomeration of persons found within the territorial borders of the US, whosoever they may be, on the date of any particular election."
If that particular agglomeration happens to be "generous" in Mr. Salzman's eyes, good for the next crop of would-be Americans. If the agglomeration changes and becomes "anti-immigrant," that will be the way it is for the next period in this great agglomeration's history. It will be, though, jhust as valid, for "vox populi, vox dei."