Moral Choice and Unauthorized Immigration
A Seminary colleague reached out to me today with the question that follows. It is a question many have asked, and I myself did not understand until meeting Alfredo’s homeland. I hope this is a helpful perspective for those who want to know more about immigration and the people who courageously uproot their lives in search of something more. In my responses I try to emphasize less offensive language that you can use in discussing the issue.
"I am wondering about the basic moral dilemma that immigrants face when they make the decision to do so illegally. I want to understand what makes choosing the legal route an impossibility for so many. Before I go any further in my thinking and jumping to erroneous conclusions I am hoping you might be able to fill me in."
Well, there are multiple facets to this of course. The first and foremost is that for most immigrants who enter without inspection, there is literally no access to our immigration system. To access it, one must have very strong family ties or a guaranteed offer of employment in addition to wealth in the country of origin. The second thing is that it’s honestly not a moral dilemma at all.
I am ashamed to say that I didn’t fully grasp that until visiting Alfredo’s hometown this summer. The idea of it being morally “wrong” just doesn’t exist there. Prior to the Reagan administration, migrant workers crossed back and forth with ease. Less than 40% came and stayed. After his *actual* amnesty (as opposed to what Obama just did), Reagan signed legislation militarizing the border. Since 1986, many more immigrants have simply decided to stay here for safety reasons rather than go back and forth seasonally for work, and their permanent relocation has the *mainstream* in a tizzy. However, this was only one generation ago, maybe two. So people like Alfredo grew up with the stories of uncles and cousins who crossed back and forth for seasonal work when it was no big deal. Many of his relatives were able to adjust their status in the U.S. as access to the system was not yet blocked.
Now add to that the 1996 legislation that hyper-militarized the border. This effectively prevented - and continues to prevent - access to the system for any immigrant who has been here for over 180 days without documentation through imposing mandatory, automatic immigration bars. After 180 days of unauthorized presence in the U.S., a three year bar is automatically applied upon leaving the country. After one year of unauthorized presence in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are barred for ten years upon leaving. Those who have entered without documentation more than once are barred for life upon leaving. After receiving a deportation order an additional bar of 5-20 years applies. All of those bars must be spent outside of the U.S., except for the few who are lucky enough to be eligible for a waiver, and if the highly subjective waiver happens to be approved. However, with the lifetime bar imposed above, one must wait outside the U.S. for ten years before becoming eligible to file a waiver. In light of that, consider that over 80% of Latino families include both documented and undocumented immigrants, and roughly 1.5 million US citizens are married to undocumented immigrants. Who is going to wait ten years away from family?
There are many other technical violations that are given lifetime bars for which no waiver exists. One example is false claim to citizenship. This sounds like a serious crime, but it is often as trivial as the passenger in a car at a traffic stop nodding yes to a question asked in a language not understood. There are many others, and one organization working to overcome these bars in certain cases is American Families United.
Now, the cultural pieces are really difficult to convey without spending time in its native location. Culturally, morality has nothing to do with following laws (which, in countries like Mexico, are not enforced). Moral choices involve how one treats other human beings. Breaking the law does not make a person immoral; failing to show hospitality does. The other major cultural piece I honestly didn’t understand until traveling to Mexico this summer, and I’ve had to ask for Alfredo’s forgiveness for being so callous before. (I have often wondered aloud how someone with such great character could make such a poor choice, viewing his unauthorized entry as his great ethical mistake.)
He grew up in a tiny, impoverished, rural village. It is a three hour drive to the nearest city. In his river village the economy is stagnant as the fishing industry was effectively wiped out by an oil spill several years ago. A few industrious people have tried to start businesses there, but as soon as they become profitable the cartels come in and demand a big chunk of the profits - essentially a ‘tribute’. I mean, this is mafia-run feudalism in the 21st century. If business owners can’t pay what the cartels demand, they are ruthlessly murdered, along with their families. Alfredo’s uncle was shot in front of his wife in the middle of the day. No investigation took place. As long as the people in his isolated town don’t do anything to make money they are safe from the cartels, so his town is mostly poor and safe.
Then there are some students who go away to city universities, usually in Veracruz as it is the closest big university. The young cab driver who picked us up from the airport had taken this route. Two years prior he went off to school to escape his impoverished village. Walking back from class one day, he and a friend stumbled upon 22 severed human heads. At the height of cartel activity in Veracruz, something like 80 people - chosen at random - were decapitated in one night. It was horrifying. Now the Mexican Marines have taken control of the city and state. It is completely militarized, far beyond anything we’ve seen in this country. After this incident, the cab driver quit school and went home to relative safety.
The ‘choices’ we presume that they have don’t exist. Violence or extreme poverty, with no discernible end in sight, ARE their choices.
Complicating the climate of poverty and violence - or perhaps fueling it - is a completely corrupt government from the top down (which the U.S. helped to install). The rule of law means nothing in countries where the government is complicit in kidnappings and mass murders (see Ayotzinapa). Most Mexicans aren’t thinking about following laws; they are consumed with staying out of the cartels’ radar. So for them, entering the US without authorization is not a moral dilemma. It’s a safety dilemma. The moral choice is to risk crossing the border in order to provide for family members who are relatively safe but trapped in desperate poverty.
This is far more complicated than I realized, which is why I wanted to hear from you. I imagined there was much more to the story which is not being told and therefore not being heard in any whole or real sense.
Corruption in both sides of the armed wall make this issue incredibly difficult to navigate. Meanwhile it is the marginal and vulnerable who suffer.
The dialogue we have here around so-called “illegal immigration” is irrelevant to those who come and doesn’t make any sense according to our own laws.
From what you have shared, the politicians’ positions seem like self aggrandizement.
They totally are. When I listen to their statements it is so clear that they either have no idea what our laws are or they are just trying to manipulate people to support a racist agenda. My trips to Washington suggest that they literally have no clue. Many were surprised to learn that marrying a U.S. citizen doesn’t create a path to residency - and that law is 18 years old. Many of these guys voted for it!
I think maybe what they don’t get is precisely what you articulated, through Mexican government corruption and inefficiency the people have no knowledge of or access to a proper knowledge of and access to the legal system. Nothing will change until something changes in that situation. We can dance all over this law and that law that assume people realize that what they are doing is illegal in the first place. They don’t. That makes them not criminals but victims of criminals in their own government.
What a horrible travesty. Thank you for all of this input. I’ve never had the opportunity to experience their situation even as an outsider being invited in to work alongside in mission. I admit that I’ve avoided mission in places where government is unstable.
You have to go where you’re called, and have the wisdom to know where you’re not. But even if Veracruz, Mexico is not your mission field, you can help SO MUCH just by sharing the truth with people who have only been told lies.
It’s hard to have any hope for this country when everything coming from the mainstream media has no basis in fact or reality.
I am terribly frustrated by that. It’s one thing for politicians to be misguided, it’s a complete other problem when the media sources are.
Yes; they should be doing their research and calling out the politicians who are - whether intentionally or not - spreading misinformation. I wish I knew how to change it, but I don’t.
Precisely. Dang. Believe me, this has earned a huge spot in my heart. I want to continue to be informed about it…
Now I feel like I have an insider’s view from you and from Alfredo. Just know, I want to know and I want to do what I can when I can.
My friend’s humble request for first (well, second) hand information warms my heart. Please take the time to educate your family and friends on the truth behind unauthorized immigration. There is a lot more to it that I couldn’t cover in this one conversation/post (ie. trade agreements and the history of Central American gangs), but I hope this helps to see why our national dialogue is irrelevant and must be changed in order to have a productive conversation about this humanitarian crisis.