|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By a comrade, April 17, 2006
At the recent country-wide demonstrations in defense of migrants' rights, there have been more banners with images of Our Lady of Guadalupe than white workers proclaiming support for their "immigrant brothers and sisters." And although, for a variety of reasons, the organizers, official leadership, and even the most visible signs, slogans and flags, don't necessarily define the class and national nature of these demonstrations, Catholics and Catholic clergy have played a significant role in mobilizing people for these demonstrations. This requires an explanation. One could chalk it up to the Catholic Church's dominance in Latino and indigenous communities, and historical or other demographic factors, but the Catholic Church's current teachings on migration may also be at play.
On paper, there doesn't appear to be too much difference between Amerikan labor bureaucracies and the U.$. Roman Catholic bureaucracy over migrants. Both support "comprehensive immigration reform" and "securing the border." Like CNN's anti-migrant pundit Lou Dobbs, who wants to seal the border, both claim to support "humane" immigration reform. Consequently, both take part in the discourse created by the anti-migrant movement. In and within this "immigration reform debate," actually a planning discussion on how to increase the repression of migrants without affecting different economic interests, nobody is effectively opposing the repression of migrants across the board or openly supporting a relaxation of the laws that limit the number of migrants who cross the border. In contrast to these groups who negotiate, for supposedly pragmatic reasons, with white nationalists working to step up the repression of migrants, MIM resolutely opposes white nationalism and puts forward the interests of the world proletariat and the majority of the world's people who live under imperialist dictatorship. Unity with Amerikans who want to increase immigration levels for economic reasons is possible. However, pandering to white nationalism, and going on the defensive whenever anti-migrant sentiment arises, reinforces anti-migrant movements in the long run.
One area of disagreement between the dominant labor unions and the Catholic hierarchy has been immigration and border legislation containing temporary-worker provisions. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has openly endorsed the so-called Kennedy-McCain bill, which would increase border repression while creating a temporary-worker program and an arduous so-called path to citizenship requiring fine payments and knowledge of English. Some major Amerikan labor unions have supported the same bill and similar legislation, such as Arlen Specter's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Most of these labor unions, though, have been highly critical of such legislation and would rather see a bill passed that would intensify anti-migrant repression without there being any temporary-worker program. They oppose temporary-worker programs, but do not support increasing the legal immigration level to compensate for more border repression.
Despite paying lip service to the legalization of undocumented migrants or calling for legalization for tactical reasons to control undocumented workers' perceived impact on U.$. citizens' living standards, the labor unions want to further restrict the overall immigration level. This points to a further difference between the labor bureaucracies and the Catholic bureaucracy. Catholic News Service is a division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The news service is used by Catholic media throughout the United $tates. CNS recently published an article criticizing the concept of illegal immigration.(1) CNS, based on information from Doris Meissner of the Migration Policy Institute, suggested that talk of Amerikans' ancestors being legal migrants is misleading because, in fact, hardly anyone was turned back in the late-19th and early-20th centuries except for Chinese migrants and other groups. The CNS article points out that the United $tates is far less welcoming to migrants than it used to be, and that so-called "illegal immigration" is a function of restrictions on legal migration. This resonates with something MIM has said repeatedly about the aim of the anti-migrant movement.
The numbers reported in the CNS article point to an additional fact. The current immigration level, documented and undocumented, relative to the size of the U.$. population, is actually lower than it has been at points in the past. This is a well-known fact among demographers and is something that MIM, libertarians, and others, have pointed out for different reasons. The Catholic Church's seeming implicit support for increasing the immigration level puts it at odds with most labor unions.
MIM Notes has said that there is some basis for unity between proletarian internationalists and open-borders Catholics, Buddhists, Jews and other religionists at this point in time. Obviously, this presumes that Catholic open-borders advocates exist. They do, even though the Catholic Church bureaucracy officially and explicitly opposes "open borders." This defensive statement, from the Web site of the USCCB Office of Migration & Refugee Policy is typical:
"Does the Catholic Church believe in 'open borders?' No, Church teaching supports the right of the sovereign nation to control its borders. This is necessary to ensure the common good. Enforcement of our borders, however, should include the protection of the basic human rights and dignity of the migrant and not place lives at risk."(@)
In a March 1, 2006, letter published in the Washington Times , USCCB Executive Director Migration and Refugee Services adamantly denied that the USCCB supported open borders. "The bishops do not advocate 'open borders,' but rather acknowledge the responsibility of nations to control their borders." At their Justice for Immigrants: A Journey of Hope campaign Web site, the USCCB denounces the accusation that it supports open borders as "an attempt to discredit the Church's voice."(3) The Church buys into the idea of "open borders" being a swear word. It has acquiesced to ultra-reactionaries such as National Review. Playing the diplomat, the Church (San Bernardino Bishop Gerald Barnes) has also said that the authors of HR 4437 are well-intentioned and worthy of "great respect."
Globally and domestically, the Catholic Church is itself a reactionary organization that seriously impedes the political development of the oppressed while regularly rubberstamping -- and facilitating -- imperialist policies, economic, social and military. Communists' differences with the Church's imperialist leadership are deep and irreconcilable. Yet, it must be pointed out what a sad state the "labor movement" of the bourgeoisified, parasitic Euro-Amerikan working class is in if it doesn't have a more progressive line on migration than this throwback to feudalism, the Catholic Church.
Individually, some pastors in the United $tates have supported open borders. On the other hand, the USCCB and several dioceses, including the Archdioceses of Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and New York, have published their own statements specifically calling for comprehensive immigration reform and improved border security. Catholic Church leaders imagine that the effectiveness of border repression measures can be increased while simultaneously enhancing dignity for migrants. Supporting repressive proposals that could be used to further restrict migration is an extremely dangerous gamble when the Euro-Amerikan oppressor nation desires to stop the movement of migrants. In its argument to relax immigration restrictions, however, one can identify some relatively agreeable ideas in the Catholic Church's recent teachings on migration compared with the labor aristocracy's thinly concealed white hysteria.
Prominent organizers named one record-setting march in Aztlán "March for Dignity, Respect & Hope." One may be able to guess without even looking at the coordinating committee member list that this language originated in the Catholic Church, reflecting the January 2003 pastoral letter on migration and the Church's Justice for Immigrants campaign. This writer was not privy to the discussions of the coordinating committee, but it is obvious. AFL-CIO and SEIU use similar language. As it turns out, the San Diego Catholic Diocese and some SEIU local unions were on the committee. Contrary to reactionary lies, this was not a radical nationalist march, though the march had an oppressed-nation character.
There are numerous substantive things to disagree with in "A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States," but one interestingly titled sub-section, "Sovereign nations have the right to control their borders," reads:
"The Church recognizes the right of sovereign nations to control their territories but rejects such control when it is exerted merely for the purpose of acquiring additional wealth. More powerful economic nations, which have the ability to protect and feed their residents, have a stronger obligation to accommodate migration flows."(4)
If the Catholic Church really believed this, it would openly oppose U.$. borders, because that is why they exist: for acquiring wealth, and for reinforcing privileges based on the patriarchal oppression of the world's wimmin and youth. The Church also believes people should be allowed to migrate who want to do so for work and opposes "attitudes of cultural superiority" toward migrants. Failing to address migrants who are oppressed-nation non-workers, the USCCB and the Conferencia del Episcopado Mexicano adopt a capitalist point of view, but their seemingly unconditional support for the right of proletarians to migrate in response to international inequality puts the Church at odds with chauvinist labor unions.
The Church's orientation toward migration in these parts of the pastoral letter seems far removed from the "America first" white nationalism of the labor aristocracy. But there are overtones of U.$. chauvinism.
The Catholic Church claims that the U.$. settler imperialist border is legitimate. The Church opposes border-fence policies that force undocumented migrants to cross at dangerous parts of the U.$. borders -- policies that Bu$h has supported -- but it believes abuse of migrants by Border Patrol agents is an isolated phenomenon and accepts "the legitimate role of the U.S. and Mexican governments in intercepting undocumented migrants who attempt to travel through or cross into one of the two countries."
Furthermore, the Church ultimately puts U.$. workers first. Its support for the right to migrate is conditioned on not hurting U.$. workers and their high wages, obtained through imperialist-country parasitism. The Church accepts "reasonable limits on immigration" imposed by "the sovereign state" so long as "basic human rights" aren't violated; in its view, people aren't entitled to migrate when it's not out of necessity. (Elsewhere in the pastoral letter, the Church opposes reducing "legal immigration," saying a reduction would not make either the United $tates or Mexico more secure. What about the immigration level overall?) Simultaneously, the Church proposes "developing" the economy of Mexico to alleviate the international inequalities that drives migration, not recognizing the role of the imperialist economic system in creating these inequalities. "Illegal immigration" is seen as a problem whose "antidote" is "development," rather than liberation and reparations for years and centuries of exploitation and theft. The pastoral letter also fails to acknowledge the relationship between inequality and the bourgeois "wages" of U.$. citizen workers.
The pastoral letter demonstrates the pitfalls of pandering to economic nationalism. The exploitation of Third World workers and migrant workers in the long term confers major economic benefits, not just crumbs, on First World workers. On the other hand, giving migrant workers close to First World wages perpetuates the exploitation of workers in the Third World while benefiting First World workers still. But pointing these things out to chauvinist white workers will get the proletariat nowhere. Neither will saying that migrants, left undocumented, lower citizen workers' wages. Pandering to the chauvinism of the labor aristocracy toward oppressed-nation workers, and pointing to an imaginary unity between Third World workers and the bourgeoisified workers of the dominator nation, only reinforces an incorrect view of the way the imperialist economy works.
The Church takes a paternalistic attitude toward migrants. It opposes abuses and inhumane treatment, but its opposition to repression is limited. The voice of U.$. exploiters and the segments of the comprador bourgeoisie in Mexico come through in the pastoral letter.
Perversely, the Church accepts the "security interests" of Amerikans as legitimate. Beside tolerating imperialist border repression, it perversely reasons that legalizing undocumented migrants would "promote national security by reducing fear in immigrant communities and by encouraging undocumented persons to become participating members of society."
The Church seeks to cut a deal with reactionaries bent on increasing the repression of migrants and advises the imperialists on how to repress migrants. It opposes one end of the anti-migrant movement but flatters another. Despite this balancing act, the U.$. Catholic church has acted in a way that supports anti-migrant advocates.
Catholic News Service recently published an article about Cardinal Roger Mahony's opposition to the May 1 boycott actions being planned for cities throughout the country. The Archbishop of Los Angeles opposed walkouts by students on May 1, and told people to stay at work and "write to members of Congress about their concerns," according to CNS. Cardinal Mahony in his April 16 statement encouraged people to take part in the bogus "immigration reform debate," whose very goal is to increase the repression of migrants. Cardinal Mahony has been harshly criticized for telling his archdiocese to ignore the provision in HR 4437 that would have criminalized anyone who "assists" undocumented migrants, but now he joins the concerted effort, fueled by the media, to discourage anything that looks like a non-mainstream demonstration, to demobilize people considering boycotting, and to discredit them as fringe "activists," rather than students and workers, etc. In doing so, Mahony has apparently brought himself into conflict with Mexican clergy who have called on Mexicans in Mexico to support the May 1 boycotts.
Not all Catholic dioceses in the United $tates are even taking part in the Church's Justice for Immigrants campaign: most are not. Now, the U.$. Catholic church is coming down on communities resisting the anti-migrant movement. The diocese of Bishop Gerald Barnes, chairman of the USCCB Committee on Migration, has published the CNS article about Cardinal Mahony's statement on its Web site, giving conniving support to those who are discouraging the May 1 boycott, which the white media is trying to isolate. Employers are threatening to punish workers for not showing up for work. Events for people who don't want to miss school or work have been planned, but critics of May 1 boycott plans don't just offer them as an alternative, they actively discourage the May 1 boycott. The frequent claim is that a boycott would be counterproductive in the legislative debate, but the critics' words merely have the effect of isolating demonstrators who are going to come out anyway. Others have complained that businesses would suffer unnecessary losses, though some businesses in the United $tates have decided that they will be closing on May 1. The reactionary media will undoubtedly portray the May 1 boycott as some kind of intervention by Mexico in U.$. affairs.
All of this comes at a time when when the Senate was last considering legislation that would criminalize undocumented migrants, not as felons, but misdemeanor offenders, which ironically would make it faster and easier to deport them. This is the kind of legislation that lackeys of reactionary U.$. imperialists and the labor aristocracy are calling "comprehensive" or "positive" immigration reform, "a step in the right direction," legislation that would allow legalization for only a subset of undocumented migrant workers while subjecting other undocumented workers to continued persecution. The so-called Hagel-Martinez Substitute would, among many other things, increase the number of Border Patrol agents, expand surveillance, and reimburse local law enforcement agencies that apprehend an undocumented migrant and give her up to the Department of Homeland Security.
There is nothing humane about this treatment. It is despicable that the U.$. Catholic church officials, and other conciliatory groups that have posed as defenders of migrants, continue to condone the so-called immigration reform debate, with the direction it is going and has been going since the beginning. There also appears to be an effort to use HR 4437 as a smokescreen to obscure dangerous legislation such as the Hagel-Martinez amendment. Some groups only calling for "legalization" of undocumented workers are also complicit in the continuing momentum of the anti-migrant movement since they don't address the issue of migrant workers who don't want to stay in the United $tates. The repression of migrants must be stopped, not just the repression of those already in the United $tates. The proletariat is not interested in protecting the parasitic incomes of U.$. citizen workers from the perceived harmfulness of having super-exploited oppressed-nation workers in the United $tates, instead of outside U.$. borders.
[mim3@mim.org comments:Notes:
1. Patricia Zapor, "In immigration law, distinctions of 'legal,' 'illegal' fairly recent," <http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601727.htm> (17 April 2006).
2. "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," <http://www.usccb.org/mrs/mrp.shtml> (17 April 2006).
3. "Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Important Principles," <http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/ParishKit/Enforcement.pdf> (17 April 2006).
4. "A Pastoral Letter Concerning Migration from the Catholic Bishops of Mexico and the United States," 22 January 2003, <http://www.usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml> (17 April 2006).
5. Catholic News Service, "Cardinal asks people not to support immigration-related boycott May 1," 17 April 2006, <http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0602199.htm> (17 April 2006).
6. "Church leaders back May 1 boycott plan," El Universal Online , 16 April 2006, <http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/miami/17809.html> (17 April 2006).
7. Gabriel Xantomila, "Diputados viajarán a LA para reunión con alcalde sobre tema migratorio," El Sol de México en Línea , #60;http://www.oem.com.mx/elsoldemexico/notas.asp?urlnota=210406diputadoss> (17 April 2006).
8. http://www.visalaw.com/2006_04_06_blogarchive.html
http://www.visalaw.com/HegelMartinez.pdf
9. "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 06040762 (posted Apr. 7, 2006)," AILA Infonet , 7 April 2006, <http://www.aila.org/Content/default.aspx?docid=19060> (17 April 2006).