Immigration

With President Bush's recent speech on immigration, now is a good time to share my thoughts. I could go on and on (I just wrote a ten-page paper on immigration), but I'll try to be brief.

First, partisans on both sides of the immigration debate tend to fall into twin fallacies. Those hostile to immigrants claim that immigrants take jobs away from Americans, as though there is a fixed number of jobs to go around; an odd proposition in an period of economic growth and low unemployment.

In response, some, including our president on Monday night, claim that immigrants take jobs that Americans don't want. But are cities with low numbers of immigrants lacking in industries supposedly good (or poor) enough only for immigrants?

Opposed to these distortions, immigration has multiple interrelated impacts on our economy. Immediately, native unskilled workers do lose jobs or at least earn lower wages, consequent market laws; as supply of labor increases, wages drop. As wages drop, however, profit goes up, and as industries become more profitable, they attract increased investment. Demand thus belatedly catches up to supply as capital adjusts to an increased labor supply, and losses in wages are eventually offset. Consumers, of course, benefit from cheaper labor costs all along, but who really cares about them? Furthermore, stopping immigration will not save native wages, as long as we promote free trade and movement of capital, as we committed to in NAFTA. If immigrants do not come to America, companies will outsource more, lowering demand for labor at home; this has the same effect on wages as increased supply of labor.

The chief problem, as I see it, is how to help immigrants assimilate into our economy. They bring their own language, culture, and traditions, also leaving behind memories and families. Because immigrants are unfamiliar with our language and institutions, employers can easily exploit them; their ignorance, and sometime their undocumented status, bars them from protections American workers enjoy, such as unions and courts. We need to encourage immigrants to learn English, educate their children, and engage our own civil society, without forgetting the families and communities they left behind. Though this is a strain on our resources, it is necessary to fully integrate them into our economy, to which they contribute their labor. For their part, immigrants must make these priorities their own. Rewriting the Star Spangled Banner, for example, is unhelpful; statistically, those who remain in their comfort zone by socializing predominantly with other immigrants and not perfecting English skills take longer to assimilate--their wages take much longer to catch up with native wages than those of more ambitious immigrants.

Today's immigrants, like those of our past, have a lot to offer America. Rather than seeing them as a threat to our jobs, we need to welcome them into our communities and workplaces. I suspect that most immigrants are not greedily out to snatch jobs from deserving Americans. A dangerous journey across the Mexican-US border, leaving everything familiar in a trail of dust, betrays not a jealous, selfish whim, but desperation. People have a duty to support their families, and when conditions at home leave families in constant jeopardy, migration becomes a necessity. It is not surprising, therefore, that so many Hispanic immigrants have strong family values; communities promoting family values are a prophetic voice to our lonely, individualistic culture. From this perspective, people have not just a right, but a duty to migrate if they cannot obtain gainful employment to support their family at home. That so many individuals endure enormous social and personal costs to come to America illustrates their desperation and noble self-sacrifice, which our protectionist fears obscure.

Immigrants face a difficult task: they must remain faithful to their first home, while concurrently participating in a new social, political, and economic culture. As they work out their identity, our policies need to help them. This is not a purely altruistic proposal, because by bringing undocumented immigrants into our society more officially, we can regulate their activity in labor markets, monitor their assimilation, and collect taxes. At all levels, from government to friendship, ties between immigrants and natives need to be nurtured.

Finally, the resolve of immigrants is not just a nice human interest story. The volume of immigration from Mexico to America shows that economic conditions in some regions of Mexico are deplorable. People have a right to migrate if they must, but they should not have to. Employment should seek the worker, not vice versa, because immigration strains families and robs local communities of their human capital. The US, therefore, should partner with Mexico to increase investment in the poorest regions of Mexico. This would ease the immigration strain on both countries, especially for those who would have a real alternative to migration.

Lastly, I ought to add that it's nice to find an issue that can make friends out of a ecclectic group of interests, some sworn enemies. Here's something where leftists, big business, and Catholic bishops can all agree on. I just hope such an odd intersection of interests does not cause a traffic jam in Washington, in which good initiatives will run out of gas.

Shifts in Rome

Catholic and secular news sources have been reporting two imminent policy shifts in the Vatican: (1) Expanded permission to use the Tridentine rite to celebrate mass, and (2) Permission to use condoms in the fight against AIDS (a less likely possibility). I'd appreciate other perspectives on these issues.

Even though I find the Tridentine rite a bit inaccessible, I know people who find it very moving, and I think it has a lot to offer our Church today. First, many Catholics casually dismiss our history. Embracing Vatican II seems to imply rejecting what came before it as cold, distant traditions that could nourish faith. Yet dismissing history means we dismiss our ancestors as well, many of whom lived lives of profound faith animated by their participation in liturgy and parish and family life. Preserving the Tridentine rite today, not in old sacramentaries but as a coequal rite forming today's Catholics, can caution us not to expunge everything old, by demonstrating the enduring power of the liturgy. Similarly, the Tridentine rite can help us be sensitive to lacunae in our own Christian experience, by reminding us of aspects of liturgy that may have been lost in the reforms of Vatican II; some aspects of our worship may be more clearly present in the older rite.

For example, one of the most noticeable innovations in the new rite is the orientation of the priest; instead of facing "away from" the people, he faces toward them. This orientation makes many feel welcome members of a community, and perhaps helps the laity to participate more in liturgy. The old orientation, however, illustrates the nature of the community, in particular the relation between priest and congregation. The priest, acting in persona Christi caput, or in the person of Christ the head, addresses God with the people, who are the Church, the Body of Christ. Rather than facing away from the people, the priest faces God with the people. The Tridentine rite can remind us that liturgy is the prayer of the people, united in Christ, to God the Father.

On the second issues, condoms and AIDS, there are conflicting reports. Whatever is going on, I hope for a change of policy. As a general principle, contraception for the purpose of preventing pregnancy is wrong because it closes a married couple to the gift of life, and, therefore, to their own humanity; spouses aspire to give their entire selves to each other, yet they give everything except their noblest qualities--their ability to father and mother, to create, to sacrifice.... But general principles remain just that until they engage particular circumstances. It sometimes happens that, within a married couple, one spouse has AIDS and the other does not. The couple faces a choice: (1) Live a life of marital abstinence, (2) Almost surely transmitting AIDS, perhaps even to their children, and (3) Reducing the chance of transmitting AIDS by using condoms. The moral doctrine of double effect helps us distinguish this case from ordinary contraception issues. The doctrine reflects that, if an action has two effects, one good (A) and one bad (B), then it is morally permissible if and only if: (1) A, and not B, is willed, (2) The act itself is not objectively evil, and (3) A outweighs B. (1) is subjective and requires vigilance and well-formed consciences on the part of spouses. As for (2), some might claim that contraception is objectively evil, but it is rather the intent to restrict the gift of self, that is, the reservations a couple has, that are problematic. A single tool can be used for distinct purposes (for example, narcotics have both good and evil uses). Finally, A could outweigh B, especially if a couple expresses their openness to life in other ways, such as adoption. By maintaining these distinctions, the fundamental doctrine of our Church need not change.


Anyway, there are my thoughts on two current Church issues. Should these changes come to pass, I trust they will benefit our Church, and all those of good will. I also hope that people will be critical and honest enough to avoid misinterpreting either shift according to their own prejudices.

Moussaoui's Conversion

With Judgment, Moussaoui Is Silenced at Last | Chicago Tribune

I've been fascinated with the Moussaoui trial, which ended with a bang when he was sentenced last week, even if Moussaoui himself will not end with "a great big bang of glory," as Judge Brinkema noted, but with a whimper. The exchange between Moussaoui and Brinkema was interesting, even as Moussaoui himself remained enigmatic.

For a while I assumed Moussaoui, who was surprised to get a sentence for life, not for death, was seeking martyrdom. He clearly tried to project an image of a defendant in control, defying his defense attorneys and mocking the court. He even exclaimed, "This was my choice!" suggesting he somehow outwitted our justice system by evading a death sentence. Martyrdom, according to what I took to be his ideology, is a more attractive alternative to imprisonment, and he could easily spin that as a success. Yet he claims that he won, America lost, because he will not be executed. I take this to be a loss for him, since he fought so hard against himself and his own due process, yet he failed. Moussaoui continues to pretend he is in control, but this is more and more clearly a delusion; no hypothesis is good unless it can be disproved, but Moussaoui could justify himself no matter the verdict. If he were honest with himself, he would see that a life sentence proves him wrong. Instead, he lets his ideology defy the world, not in fact, but in his own estimation.

In his parting toast, Moussaoui called the trial a wasted opportunity for America to understand how people like him think, and to critically assess our own faults. Insofar as there is a major cultural gap between us and radical Islam, this is true. Yet Moussaoui's actions since his sentencing show that this gap is reciprocal. This leads us to what I can only call Moussaoui's (insincere) conversion.

A true judge, Brinkema astutely argued that not Moussaoui, but America emerged victorious:

This trial and this verdict are clear evidence of the enduring strength of this nation and its core values, which do not focus on hatred, bigotry and irrationality.

Rather, we believe that all persons are created equal and that when they appear in one of our courts of law, they will be treated as equals, regardless of their background or their political beliefs.

Only days after the sentencing, Moussaoui is converted to the judge's view. He now claims that he lied in court and wishes to retract his guilty plea. He did not believe he could get a fair trial in America; people would be ruled by emotions and calling for his blood. Now he understands that he can get a fair trial, "even with American jurors," and he repents of his former ignorance.

Apparently, he did not understand the regard America has for fairness and the rule of law. Although I agree that Moussaoui probably didn't appreciate American institutions, I doubt his new-found respect for them. My counter-proposal to his hypothesis is that he lost, and he wants a better consolation prize. At least his fate has finally led Moussaoui to, embarassingly, admit he was wrong. One can only hope that his contradictions don't dissolve in ideology, but precipitate a sincere conversion.

Odd?

Charlie Daniels to perform with Knoxville Symphony Orchestra

Does this strike anyone else as an odd match? How will they decide between the fiddle and the violin?

Oil: A National Security Issue

So to start off things with one of my missions since last summer: reducing our addiction to oil. It's been disappointing to see gas prices rising so consistently, but not just because it's that much less we can spend on cooler things. Really, high gas prices hurt our economy and make us more dependent on foreign energy sources, not to mention the environmental effects and the spiritual degradation that comes from being indoors in air conditioned luxury all day, even on quarter-mile rides to the grocery store. Oil is a moral, environmental, economic, and national security issue.

Politicians have been doing what politicians do best: talking; making vague, long-term promises; and offering small treats, like suspending environmental standards, to appease consumers. One big piece is missing. OPEC, Exxon, and hurricanes are not solely responsible for our oil woes. Consumers, that is, demand, is equally relevant. And our demand is extreme. Where are the politicians calling forcefully for citizens to do their part in conservation?

I envision an opportunity like we embraced during World War II, when ordinary people planted victory gardens in their own back yards to aid our economy, in this case, by increasing supply. In those days, our nation rallied around a common good, and citizens could see their small efforts as part of a concerted effort. The fighters overseas were not the only ones to sacrifice; those at home served their country, too. This is not nostalgia for the olden days; those times when our country embraced a genuine common good are few, but to hold up those moments as an inspiration today can help us to understand our identity and become heroes.

Where are our victory gardens? Today, we can walk or bike to work, or carpool. Sure this is a sacrifice. But surely a nation that is often patriotic to a fault ought to find courage and filial piety enough to fast, in union with the sacrifices our friends and family are making overseas. It's time to replace jingoism with authentic patriotism--to become the poeple we aspire to be.

I've been walking (or biking, back when I lived 10 miles away across the city) to work since September. Not only has it saved a bunch of money and reduced oil demand by a few gallons a week, but I have enjoyed time outside, which gives me an opportunity to transcend the sterile, synthetic environments modern man has chosen for himself. Nature helps me to find a sense of peace and admiration for creation, as I watched ducks and herons wading or swimming in the river, or chronicled in my memory the patient unfolding of leaves this spring. This, too, gives me a sense of freedom from the overwhelming demands of the modern world, so I can more faithfully accomplish my work without being enslaved to it.

All this is to say, you should walk to work, or the gorcery store, or anywhere you can. Try it for a week, and see what you think. Its communal and spiritual benefits are worth a shot. Also, you should write your senators, congressman, and president to encourage them to advocate conservation (I wrote Senator Frist last week--I'll let you know when he gets back to me). If we can capture America's imagination and rediscover a common good, our generation might yet rise to the civic heroism of our ancestors.

My First Blog

So I've never blogged before, but I figured it's about time I caught up with technology. Hence my very first blog, where I'll post stuff I think about or cool things I do. But I don't have anything interesting to say right now; I just want to see how this post thing works. Peace out yo.