Without question immigration currently is a hot button issue for all Americans, all Christians and all Virginia Baptists. Daniel Carro, coordinator of the Latino Network of Virginia Baptists and professor of divinity at the John Leland Center for Theological Studies, writes passionately on the subject in the 2nd Opinion piece titled “What should lawmakers do?” printed in the Herald, Aug. 9. At the risk of appearing insensitive to a very sensitive issue I want to question or take exception to a few points in Professor Carro's opinion piece.
First, at the outset, he states, “Nobody should think — and that includes lawmakers — that illegal aliens are in this situation because of their choice” (underscoring mine). That statement boggles the mind! One need only to see TV news coverage of Latino immigrants crossing the Rio Grande, climbing border fences, and trying to outrun U.S. Border Patrol agents to know that these individuals have a choice. Of course, children born in this country to illegal aliens have no choice, but thanks to our constitution such offspring are not illegal — a constitutional provision worthy of debate if we really want to counter illegal immigration. Our daughter, a dedicated public school teacher in Texas, deals with such children on a daily basis — “sweet kids” she calls them, but their presence is putting a burden on under-funded school systems across the country.
Second, throughout the rest of the article Professor Carro adopts the use of the politically correct but factually incorrect adjective “undocumented” rather than “illegal.” Why are we unwilling to label an illegal act as such? If someone steals your car, as mine was once stolen and wrecked by thieves, he is not listed by the police as an “undocumented” driver. Further comparative examples of such imprecise language usage are unnecessary.
Third, Professor Carro contends he is not trying to instruct lawmakers, but while lawmakers “must do something” he only suggests things they should not do. “The worst thing a lawmaker can do is to legislate under fear,” he says and claims that “national security is best served when freedom is allowed …. Classifying people by race or national origin does not help…,” the implication being that we need have no fear that illegal entries across our borders could include persons who intend to do us harm. Of course racial profiling has become a “no-no” for police and airport screeners, but only males of Middle-Eastern descent perpetrated the terror of 9/11.
Fourth, Carro says lawmakers should avoid “the trap of legislating to their own counties.” Disapproving of the actions by local legislators in Prince William County, Va., to control immigration in their county, he expands that line of thought by suggesting that since international migration is a social phenomenon that crosses borders, solutions for a particular country, e.g. the United States, “should be resolved on a national and international scale.” Would he have the World Court in Geneva decide what immigration laws are appropriate for the United States?
“Finally,” says Carro, “lawmakers should not legislate as if the only people who are breaking immigration laws are illegal immigrants.” He concedes that they are breaking the law but suggests that “when so many people are ‘breaking the law,' isn't it time to change these … laws?” Such logic would suggest that we need to change the laws against embezzlement, assault, robbery, and a plethora of other statutes because so many people are breaking them. I doubt that he would favor doing so. He concludes by saying, “It is due time for lawmakers to resort to information and creativity,” suggesting we study the laws of Europe, Asia and Australia, as though countries in Europe and Asia have found solutions to similar problems. Not likely! Certainly not in England or France.
I share many of Professor Carro's concerns about the welfare of immigrants — legal and illegal — to our shores. But he and other critics of our local and national lawmakers' efforts to find satisfactory solutions to this intractable problem seldom address themselves to the reasons that we have the problem — namely, the laws and practices of Mexico and Central America countries that do not provide opportunities for their own people. I would rather that he and his Latino Network of Virginia Baptists address their complaints and recommendations to the presidents and lawmakers of those countries with concrete suggestions for improving the welfare of their people within their own borders. At the bottom line, his implied solution is that the United States throw open the doors to any and all who desire to come to America. Does anyone doubt that if we had contiguous borders with many nations in Africa or the Middle East that we would be inundated by immigrants from those countries? The Latino Network members might be less welcoming were that the case.
Dan Polk is a member of Derbyshire Baptist Church in Richmond.