On Immigration: We're Talking Past One Another

The Times-Picayune has published a letter to the editor from an individual by the name of Joe Molyneux who writes in response to City Council President Arnie Fielkow's letter regarding the illegal immigration issue. Mr. Molyneux wrote in opposition to Fielkow's position and expressed support for efforts to curb illegal immigration. Here's what Mr. Molyneux wrote:

Re: "Piecemeal laws no way to handle immigration," Metro, June 2.

New Orleans City Council President Arnie Fielkow wrote a very moving and politically correct letter relative to immigration. However, the issue we face in America is illegal immigration. National security of this country should be a concern to all of us, not just the federal government.

Those who condone illegal immigration may not realize it, but they undermine our own laws in taking this position sending a message to those who break our laws that it is OK. Because most illegal immigrants come to the United States to make money does not make it right to subvert our laws. The end does not justify the means.

We do an injustice to those who come here illegally if we look the other way. We are implicitly telling them that our country is not based on the rule of law, that one can pick and choose reasons for breaking the law and suffer no consequences.

Joe Molyneux

Metairie

First, let me note that Mr. Molyneux's letter was respectful and understandable. He speaks about respecting the rule of law, which is an important concept and is one that I think most of us would agree with. I certainly do. His reference to this "rule of law" argument in defense of the kinds of anti-illegal immigrant legislation working its way through the Louisiana legislature is one that I often hear anti-illegal immigrant folk make. But, I don't find that this "rule of law" argument is really being contested or challenged by those of us who oppose the kinds of anti-illegal immigrant legislation we are seeing in Louisiana (and in other states throughout the country). That is not the source of our complaint within the illegal immigration debate, nor is it the root of our disagreements, especially regarding the state-level anti-illegal immigration measures being considered. We are talking past one another. Let me use Mr. Molyneux's letter, Mr. Fielkow's letter, and Martin Gutierrez's recent Op-Ed piece in the Times-Picayune to demonstrate this.

Mr. Molyneux's argument assumes that the positions held by Arnie Fielkow and Martin Gutierrez are ones that "condone" illegal immigration. His entire argument is based on that assumption. He says that by thus condoning illegal immigration, Fielkow and Gutierrez are undermining the rule of law in our country. If Fielkow and Gutierrez were condoning illegal immigration, he might have a point. But if you read Fielkow and Gutierrez carefully, neither of them at any point condones, either explicitly or implicitly, illegal entry into the United States. Nor are they condoning or justifying breaking the law. I think what both are doing, in their own ways, is simply stating that regardless of the method of an undocumented immigrant's arrival to our community, it serves the broader interests of public safety and the general welfare, not to mention serves the moral imperative to good-neighborliness, to approach these individuals in our midst with compassion, charity, and in a welcoming spirit. Now, there may be some disagreement as to the severity of the illegal activity, but I would imagine that most fair-minded people would recognize that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants are not the kinds of hardened criminals that would warrant punitive social isolation and rejection from our community. I have heard many people say that they would happily welcome the very same undocumented people into their communities if they would just go through the proper channels to get here. To me, this implies that, unlike the hardened criminal, people recognize the goodness of most undocumented migrants such that having them as neighbors would pose no problem. They are not the drug dealers, the sexual offenders, the property damagers, the disturbers-of-the-peace, etc., whom most people either fear or wouldn't want in their neighborhoods.

It is recognizing this aspect of undocumented immigrants that motivates Fielkow, Gutierrez, and myself in terms of how we should approach the problem. There is no condoning of disrespecting the rule of law in this case any more than there is condoning law breaking of the chronic speed-limit violator. Unlike what Mr. Molyneux claims, national (and local) security is a concern for all of us. It is this concern for security which partly drives opposition to what Fielkow called "piecemeal state legislative efforts." Let's revisit what Fielkow actually said:

As we have seen in Congress, the immigration issue is a complex issue that cannot be thoroughly and equitably addressed through piecemeal state legislative efforts.

As a nation, we have a responsibility to develop and implement a comprehensive national immigration policy that is enforceable, does not create an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, respects and protects human rights and creates an atmosphere in which a community can thrive.

Where does Fielkow condone illegal activity? Seems to me his focus is on what these state legislative efforts will do to law-abiding citizens and our communities. Gutierrez is more direct and explicit in his comments about the "rule of law" concern. He writes in his Op-Ed:

The Catholic Bishops of Louisiana and Catholic Charities Archdiocese of New Orleans strongly believe in enforcement of the law. We do not condone illegal immigration. We are not in favor of open borders and are not suggesting blanket amnesty, but rather an earned path to citizenship for the deserving among the millions of hard-working, community-minded undocumented individuals and families in this country.

We support requirements to earn legal status including learning the language, undergoing a criminal background check, paying back taxes and paying a penalty. We support putting this group behind others waiting for their applications to be processed.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if these 12 million undocumented residents were suddenly deported, as some have demanded. Many of these people have been living in the United States for decades. They hold jobs, belong to churches, and have children and grandchildren who are native-born U.S. citizens.

Again, here Gutierrez explicitly says that the Catholic Church, whose position he represents, does not condone illegal activity. But, like Fielkow, his concern is what such legislative efforts at the state level will do to human dignity, families, and local communities.

In the end, I don't think Mr. Molyneux's "rule of law" argument is what is at issue. He misreads Fielkow, Gutierrez, and many others who oppose these state-level anti-illegal immigrant bills. Fielkow, Gutierrez, and others who oppose these state-level anti-illegal immigrant initiatives and who advocate for comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level wouldn't dispute the importance of the rule of law. But it seems that Mr. Molyneux, though he may not realize it himself, is refusing to see that what concerns Fielkow, Gutierrez, and other is what rash and polarizing local anti-illegal immigrant legislation will do to our security and to our sense of community. What Mr. Molyneux seems not to want to recognize is that what is driving these local anti-illegal immigrant initiatives is not so much grounded in maintaining the rule of law in the face of those who would break it, but playing on the fears of citizens and even threatening law abiding citizens with punitive action in the context of the illegal immigration issue.

Mr. Molyneux's letter contends that "the end doesn't justify the means." He was basically arguing that whatever benefits might be driving illegal immigration, those benefits don't justify subverting the law. Along the same lines, I might argue to Mr. Molyneux that targeting law-abiding citizens with punitive consequences and jail time for potentially doing a humantarian good deed for an undocumented immigrant is not the proper means that justifies resolving the illegal immigration problem. Yes, indeed, "the end doesn't justify the means." That's precisely the argument that many make against these local anti-illegal immigrant measures. And even then, there's no concrete evidence that the very means deployed in these measures will achieve the desired end. So, in a sense, Mr. Molyneux uses the same argument that I might use. Another striking bit of evidence that we are talking past one another.

On this issue, we need to talk to one another more, instead of talking past one another. If we could talk to one another more, we might find that we may agree more than we disagree. And we would certainly understand better what motivates us in those areas where we do disagree.