A get-tough attitude is not enough to
stay the growing influx of undocumented
workers in the United
States, according to Archbishop Charles
Chaput of Denver. The archbishop has
witnessed the large growth of the Latino
population in his see and insists that for
an immigration policy to work, it must
address the root, economic issues.
In this interview with Zenit, a news
service with ties to the Vatican, Archbishop
Chaput discusses the immigration
situation in the United States,
which he says Americans live "with a
curious kind of schizophrenia."
Zenit: You have recently criticized the
raid of undocumented workers that took
place in three meatpacking plants in the
Midwest in December, saying that these "dramatic, get-tough arrests" will not
solve the immigration problem. Why
not?
Archbishop Charles Chaput: The U.S.
immigration problem is systemic. Attacking
the symptoms-in this case, undocumented
workers in a meatpacking
plant-does nothing to address the root
cause, which is economic.
Some 40 million abortions and billions
of contraceptives later, Americans
have a work-force shortfall. Why is
anyone surprised?
We want a strong economy and a
good standard of living, but we also
don't want to do a lot of the unpleasant
jobs that help sustain that standard. So we live with a curious
kind of schizophrenia.
We need the "illegals,"
but we also want to
complain about them.
Z: You also said that the
immigration system in
the United States has
failed. In what sense?
Are there any laws on the
table with the new Congress
that would effectively address these
issues?
ACC: San Antonio's Archbishop José
Gómez and others have pointed out that
today's Latino immigrants are different in
some important ways from the Irish, Italian
and Polish immigrants of a century
ago.
Many Latino immigrants neither want
nor plan to settle here. They want to work
for a while and then return home, and unlike
previous generations of immigrants,
they could actually do that if our system
let them, because they don't need to cross
an ocean.
The U.S. immigration machinery has no
effective way of welcoming, licensing
and tracking guest workers, and yet we
need enormous numbers of them. I'd call
that a failure.
As to the politics of the issue, I've been
equally dissatisfied by both major political
parties. Colorado's Democratic senator,
Ken Salazar, and Arizona's Republican
senator, John McCain, and others,
have pushed some good legislation at the
federal level, but overall, both the Democrats
and the Republicans have played
to the uglier qualities in America's mood
when it comes to immigration issues.
Z: The United States gives out about 1
million "green cards" a year, yet more
than 800,000 undocumented workers arrive
illegally each year. Would it be fair to
assume that part of the problem also lies
with the economic and political situation
in the immigrants' home countries? What
responsibility should these countries assume
for the large numbers of citizens
leaving their borders?
ACC: That's an important point. Some
people enjoy blaming the United States
for nearly every problem, and, unfortunately,
American policy has had a very
mixed history in Latin America.
But until Latin American nations seriously
reform their own legal and economic
systems, they are co-responsible for the
current crisis. Just pointing fingers at the
United States isn't going to work. One of
the implications of a hemispheric economy
is that both sides of the border need to
cooperate. Both sides of the border have
duties.
Z: The federal government is insisting on
the need to control immigration for security
reasons. The church, among others,
has criticized some of the measures taken,
such as the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border,
because of the human toll it takes.
How can we reconcile the need for security
with a more humane treatment for
those trying to enter?
ACC: The church is most effective when
she reminds people that punitive force
alone can't work. For me, the debate over
the border wall is really a debate over
blunt-edged solutions.
The border wall is an icon for all sorts
of other American contradictions. For example,
we're trying to fight a war in Iraq
with an obviously inadequate manpower
pool, but Americans have no intention of
making the sacrifices that would enlarge
that pool in an equitable way.
Have you heard anyone seriously calling
for conscription or mandatory national
service, or vastly increasing military pay
to encourage volunteers? I haven't. In a
similar way, we want to "get tough" at the
border, but are we really willing to militarize
American life and spend the money it
would take to shut down the immigrant
flow? And what if we were? Have we really
thought through the consequences for
our economy?
At the same time, candidly, I don't think
all religious voices are equally helpful in
the national debate. Accusing Americans
of national racism, or prematurely threatening
civil disobedience to immigration
law, is unwise.
Sometimes common sense is more useful
than "prophetic witness." The security concerns most Americans feel very legitimate.
Citizens have a right to be worried
about disrespect for the law and the solvency
of their public institutions.
If Americans are angry about the immigration
issue, it's not because they're instinctively
bigoted. They're frustrated and
afraid, and too many of our public servants
have failed us by not really leading with
vision-in other words, by following their
polls and ambitions, instead of their brains
and consciences, to find a solution.
Z: You have said that the immigration crisis
is a "test of our humanity." What measures
could the government take to get
control over the increasing numbers of undocumented
workers in the country, but at
the same time
demonstrate this
sense of humanity?
ACC: I know of
many Catholic
and other members
of the U.S.
Border Patrol who
do their job with
extraordinary humanity. At the people-to people
level, Americans have always been
among the most fair and generous in the
world. We still are.
But the further away from practical
human realities we get, the more inhumane
our politics can become. It's not the job of
the church to draft immigration law. If it
were, we wouldn't
need Congress.
Of course, that
wouldn't work either,
because the
church doesn't
have the particular
skills needed
for that kind of
public service. Where the church and other
communities of faith do have skill is in explaining
the moral issues that should help
shape the law. So her voice on an issue like
immigration is vital.
Z: What has been the impact of immigration
in your diocese?
ACC: Colorado saw a 70 percent increase
in Hispanic immigration from the late 1980s
through the late 1990s. Immigration is huge
in my diocese, and on the balance, it's been
a tremendous infusion of new life into the
church.
In Denver, we want to build a church
community that it is truly multiethnic and
multiracial. That strikes me as a demand of
discipleship.
But unless we get serious national immigration
reform soon, a sense of grievance
will continue to grow among both
Hispanics and non-Hispanics. In the long
run, that could gravely wound the whole
country.