System failure: the ethics of immigration reform

A HUMAN RIGHTS lawyer, Ralston Deffenbaugh has since 1991 been president of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, an agency of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. He previously represented the Lutheran World Federation at the United Nations. He has worked for the Refugee Council USA and has served as an observer of political trials for Amnesty International. We talked to him about the work of LIRS and about current debate over immigration policy.

Why do you think immigration has suddenly become a major political issue?

Because we have had a period of high migration, and the system to govern that migration is fundamentally and visibly broken. There is a dire need for a comprehensive solution.

How do Christian ethics shape your approach to immigration issues?

The Christian tradition recounts the migrant experience we have had as God's people and emphasizes that we should show empathy, compassion and welcome to newcomers in our midst (Exod. 23; Matt. 25). Because of our experience of being loved and our tradition of being welcomed, our basic approach to migrating people is to open our hearts and welcome the newcomers. The mission statement of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service captures this perspective: "In response to God's love in Christ, we welcome the stranger, bringing new hope and new life through ministries of service and justice."

Specifically, we think immigration policy should be based on four principles: uniting families, protecting human rights and worker rights, bringing undocumented people out of the shadows and providing a path to permanence for newcomers.

In virtually all cases, people who migrate to the United States come for reasons of family, work or freedom--to unite with loved ones, to take up employment or to seek refuge from persecution. As President Bush has said, the vast majority of U.S. newcomers are decent, hardworking people and good members of the community. Most people would judge the newcomers' motivation for migrating and their actions in the United States as good acts that contribute to the common good.

While most Americans would question the appropriateness of unlawful entry, their judgment should be tempered by at least two realities. First, necessity is often driving the migration--people are fleeing persecution or abject poverty or the prospect of living for years and years without family. Second, the immigration system is so broken that there is often no viable way to migrate legally.

As you've noted, your organization has focused on nts protecting human rights and worker rights and on uniting families. Could you give us some examples of the kinds of problems you try to address?

Some 11 million people live in the margins of society, in the shadows. They are frequently exploited in the workplace, paid substandard wages and forced to live and work in subhuman conditions. Among them are children, who are often victims of trafficking and forced labor. One cornerstone of U.S. immigration policy has always been family unity, but that is hard to achieve in the current system. There are long wait times and large backlogs in processing applications--a wait of seven to ten years is not unusual. In family time, a lot can happen in seven to ten years--childhood passes, people are born, get married, die. That is a lot of life to miss. If individuals do choose to unite with their families by entering without permission, the united family often includes a mix of undocumented people, legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens. They live in the shadows and in fear.

What parts of the immigration system don't work well, or don't work at all?

Billions of dollars are spent unsuccessfully trying to stop the migration of people who mean us no harm and whose hard work is in fact helping our communities. We need to create a regularized, authorized workforce.

Our current enforcement system, for example, relies more and more on mandatory detention and removal schemes that are not prudent financially and that are inconsistent with the right to fair process. These schemes undermine our ability to provide safe haven for asylum seekers, who are often detained upon arrival. They are often retraumatized by the experience and are left to navigate the complicated immigration system on their own. Furthermore, overly broad security provisions are currently blocking deserving refugees and asylum seekers from getting protection in the U.S.

Is it reasonable for the U.S. to try to secure its borders?

It is not just reasonable; it is the duty of the U.S. government to establish orderly, safe, expeditious migration controls. Controls at the border are meant to keep out those who intend us harm. At the same time, it is the duty of the government to put in measures consistent with our values as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

Should immigration papers be given to anyone seeking a job in the U.S.? To put it another way: while Christians are clearly called to welcome the stranger and the alien, does such an approach translate directly into public policy? What kinds of limits are reasonable, given current realities?