LETTERS
2006 LETTERS
September/October
July/August
June
May
April
March
February
January
ARTICLES
NEWS
ROAMIN' CATHOLIC
Contents © 2006
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
LETTERS
April 2006
TAKES ISSUE WITH STORCK
Your newspaper is an invaluable source of information and insight regarding the (often troubling) state of the Catholic Church in the greater Los Angeles area. However, a number of points related to Thomas Storck's piece on Latino immigration into the southwest U.S. came to mind while reading his views. [See "Be Thankful They're Not Moslems," January 2006 Mission.] Before addressing "problematic" elements of Storck's article, let me state unequivocally that -- as he indicates clearly in the best traditions of Catholic social teaching (from Rerum Novarum to Centessimus Annus) -- any exploitation or abuse of workers, families, and societies by employers, or even foreign corporations, is gravely wrong. Further, Storck is onto something compelling when he discusses, toward the end of his article, the issue of "depend[ing] on foreign workers" who are willing to accept poorer wages, schedules, and working conditions. The immigration question -- specifically, illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States -- is a thorny topic whose full treatment cannot be undertaken in a brief letter such as this. Here I limit my remarks to items found in or relevant to Storck's article.
The most glaring flaw in the article is its failure even to mention the immense culpability of the Mexican government for the illegal immigration situation. Even when one allows for wage and other abuses by U.S. employers, and what is arguably a defect in the greater American economic practice (relying on these immigrants to fill huge numbers of service positions), it is manifestly obvious that a nation which has driven at least 11 million of its citizens to enter a bordering country illegally bears the lion's share of guilt for this problem. Documented reports of the Mexican government spending large sums of money on pamphlets directing would-be economic refugees on the best way to "sneak" into the U.S. are immensely disturbing, as are numerous cases in which Mexican authorities willingly allowed (or worse, assisted) citizens it deemed less desirable -- such as criminal elements -- to flee to the United States. Yet more serious than anything else is the rampant corruption and callousness of the Mexican leadership, for decades running, which has generated such vast numbers of its own citizenry to run for the border in the first place. If, as Storck stipulates, it is "the conduct of our [American and other] corporations" that is to be blamed for driving down the economy of Mexico and thus generating the illegal immigration flood, he should first take the Mexican government to task for permitting such practices by foreign companies on its soil. Having been in Mexico on at least two occasions, I've seen firsthand the wealth of natural resources and am forced to wonder: where is all the money going, that Mexico's second largest industry (some $14 billion or more annually) should be money sent home from its expatriates working in the U.S.?
As a parishioner active nearly ten years now in various forms of ministry to and with Latinos, and a bilingual educator who deals primarily with children of such immigrants, I know firsthand how these individuals live (I routinely spend time in their homes) and the hardships they bring upon themselves by leaving their homelands. Was it not Mission that featured a recent article by a priest entitled, "I Tell Them to go Home"? This holy priest clearly saw that the most important factor on this issue is the spiritual damage done to Latino families when one or more members illegally enters the United States for money. Yes, I well understand the motivations, but many of these people have told me point blank that money is indeed the reason they have come to the U.S. How many men have been unfaithful to their wives; how many young girls have risked (and received) sexual abuse by manipulative men preying upon them both during and after border crossings; how many families have been split up, divorced, alienated, stressed, etc. by the decision that what mattered most was making more money? With Storck, I am edified that the majority of these immigrants come from (Spanish) Catholic stock, yet I've long since lost count of their own stories of why they left the Church, joined some Protestant sect (usually a strongly anti-Catholic one), or simply don't have time for Church at all anymore, working seven days a week as many of them do.
Finally, while it is true that a sovereign nation such as the U.S. has both the right and obligation to defend its interests -- economic, social, and security -- by curtailing illegal immigration, and as has been stated, the Mexican authorities are far and away the party most responsible for this sad situation, neither of these facts should concern us Christians nearly as much as the profound disorder in millions of souls leaving their homeland and placing everything they ostensibly value the most at risk for love of money. It is particularly disconcerting that Storck seems to regard their coming over here as a fait accompli, not a decision -- however desperate its conditions -- freely made by individual Mexican citizens. No one is forcing them per se to come into the U.S. illegally, and as far as Storck's case that, "Hispanics were in the Southwest before Anglo-Saxons," it is a thin one at best; anyone possessing a passing familiarity with California history, for example, knows that a handful of extremely wealthy Spanish-origin families held "ownership" of California for a few decades in the 1800's without any serious attempt by Mexico at large to colonize or develop the California territory, which in any case these aristocrats subsequently sold.
As an educator focused on teaching immigrant children functional English skills, I am one of countless such who daily experiences firsthand what a grand disservice it is to my students and their families to insulate them in Spanish-speaking enclaves, with everything from ATMs to voting materials tailor-made in Spanish. Ultimately, it is my Latino brothers and sisters who end up paying the check for their illegal immigration, and Storck -- if he really is concerned for their well-being above all -- needs to propose constructive ways to discourage them for pouring out of their beautiful homeland just for money.
Stephen Burns,
Editor replies: I shall allow Mr. Storck, in the next issue, to address Mr. Burns' criticisms. For my own part, I would take issue with what seems to be Mr. Burns' assumption in the following sentence: "It is particularly disconcerting that Storck seems to regard their coming over here as a fait accompli, not a decision -- however desperate its conditions -- freely made by individual Mexican citizens." If indeed at least many immigrants come to the United States to remedy a condition of dire poverty, they can be said to choose this remedy only in the most narrow sense. Certainly, they could have decided to remain in their home countries and starve or watch their children starve; that choice was quite possible. But it could hardly be said to be free, since it was done under the duress of the threat of a poverty unbecoming to men. And to the degree a decision is made in duress, to that degree it is coerced. That is why the Church declares null marriages where one or both parties entered into the contract under duress. The decision to marry was not freely made.
As for the character of the Spanish and Mexican southwest -- it is not true that these areas were inhabited by only a handful of aristocrats. New Mexico and Texas had sizable Latino settlements, not to mention the Catholic Indian population. Even California had stable settlements such as Los Angeles and San Francisco that had populations of non-aristocratic people of Spanish blood. Granted the population in California was never great -- it reached only about 3,270 in 1820 -- it was not exclusively aristocratic. And one must not forget the missions, whose inhabitants, though Indian, were part of the Hispanic cultural milieu. Further, the "aristocrats" did not sell California; it was conquered by the United States in an unjust war. One might, perhaps, criticize the Californios for not doing much to stop the conquest of their country; but, then again, they had few guns, and metal-tipped lances, though wielded by adroit horsemen, are not much use against firearms.