"Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;
But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house." - Proverbs 6:30-31
This workshop, held in a Catholic church, was designed to promote principles and practices of faith-based advocacy. An organization called NETWORK produced the workshop. NETWORK is a group founded by nuns, and the proof texts for the speaker's arguments were intended to be adaptable to any religious group's purposes in advocating for illegal immigrants.
A range of views were represented among attendees at the workshop. One of the attendees argued for the abolition of borders. Though the speaker and others did not support that argument, they did not attempt to refute it, either. Workshop materials talk about justice to the earth (as distinguished from people), which is the idea that the no-borders argument is based on.
The arguments that the speaker presented had more to do with providing opportunities and creating an immigration system that is fair and efficient. The speaker argued for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, including those who have committed minor crimes. She did not offer considerations on what to do with those who commit major crimes. There seemed to be an acknowledgement of people who come illegally to flee violence, but it was clear that that was not the main concern.
One of the main goals along the way to a path to citizenship is codifying the provisions of the DACA executive order, which largely suspends enforcement of immigration law with respect to children who are brought into the US illegally. Lindsey Graham's BRIDGE act would extend the provisions of DACA to recipients for three years while Congress decides what to do about immigration law and enforcement. One of the attendees was of Puerto Rican origin, and he identified as a Republican. He acknowledged that the DACA order was illegal (which no one else mentioned), and he voiced support for legislation like the BRIDGE act. The speaker mentioned some other proposed legislation that would, taken together or separately, move the amnesty agenda along.
One of the attendees asked the speaker whether it was better to appeal mainly to justice or to compassion when advocating for illegal immigrants. The speaker came down clearly on the justice side, although she said advocates should appeal as well to people's compassion.
I spoke at the workshop on the priority placed by conservatives on the rule of law. I mentioned that the rule of law is usually used as an argument for stricter immigration enforcement, but I said that reining in out of control bureaucracy and creating a simpler, more effective legal system might require some leniency. This article from the Witherspoon Institute gives the pros and cons of some kind of amnesty from a perspective that highly values the rule of law. I think the best conservative argument can be summarized by saying that some kind of amnesty may be needed, but a blanket, unlimited amnesty would be extremely harmful to the rule of law. The rule of law is necessary for personal and national security and to secure human rights.
While the Witherspoon Institute article gives the pros and cons of amnesty, the Hillsdale College publication Imprimis published an article in February 2015 making a good argument for prioritizing enforcement of existing law. What the former article argues for on the con side from a theoretical perspective, the Imprimis article reinforces with empirical evidence.
I would say that while the social justice perspective (represented at the workshop) has some valid concerns, the burden it places on the government and people of the United States is unjust and does damage to respect for the law. In the following articles, I will discuss how to address the legitimate concerns of advocates for illegal immigrants without compromising the rule of law. Just as in the gospel, grace confirms the law of God (Romans 3:21), so in civil society, leniency must uphold the law of the land.
