Bishop Seitz on immigration policy - Updated

Update 1/10/2023 3:40 pm CST: the Morning Dispatch newsletter from this morning does a deeper dive on the Biden administration's new immigration policies.  At the bottom of the post, I've pasted some of the content from their analysis.

-----

The bishop of El Paso criticizes US immigration policies, and calls for us to do more.

President Biden made news this past weekend by visiting the US border with Mexico.  In case this is important (I am not sure it is): this was his first visit as president to the border.  Border crossing attempts have increased significantly during his presidency, and the increased levels of immigration are causing issues for the cities and towns along the border.

The president marked the occasion by announcing some new executive-branch immigration policies.  (As an aside: the visit itself, and the centrist nature of the policy measures he announced, strike me as a pretty good indicator that he does indeed intend to run for re-election next year.  But that is not the subject of this post.)  Among the new policy announcements:

• The federal government will continue to use Title 42, a COVID-era restrictive policy devised by the Trump Administration, to expel migrants
• So-called "parole" (subject to a cap) will be granted to migrants from four countries, allowing them to stay in the United States:  Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Nicaragua
• Those who transit through other countries on the way to applying for asylum in the US will be denied entry.  If I am not mistaken, this is another Trump-era regulation which the Biden administration is continuing
• The federal government will develop a mobile-phone app, allowing prospective immigrants to schedule an appointment at a border station 

Regardless of where we stand on the complicated and vexed set of issues which fall under the umbrella called "immigration", this set of policies might strike us a mixed bag.  

The Catholic church in the United States knows (or should know) where it stands: with immigrants.  This may be as clear-cut an example of the Preferential Option for the Poor as one can name. 

The chairman of the Committee on Migration for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Mark Seitz, the bishop of El Paso, issued a statement last Friday.  El Paso may be ground zero for the immigration crisis; the volume of immigrants pouring into the city has been straining its social services.  Seitz is a consistent advocate for the rights and dignity of immigrants, and that advocacy comes across in his statement:

We welcome the announcement of new legal pathways to the United States, but it is difficult for us to consider this progress when these same pathways are contingent on preventing those forced to flee their native land from availing themselves of the right to seek asylum at our border. Under this approach, many of the most vulnerable will be excluded from relief and subjected to dangerous circumstances, contravening U.S. and international refugee law, as well as Catholic social teaching.

It simply defies reason and lived realities to require those facing persecution, trafficking, and torture to only pursue protection from within those potentially life-threatening situations. This is a drastic departure from the Administration’s promise to create a ‘fair, orderly, and humane’ immigration system and will only exacerbate challenges on both sides of our border. Even for those who are permitted to enter the United States, we continue to be concerned about their access to housing, work authorization, legal services, and other pressing needs.

The Catholic bishops of the United States are among those religious leaders referenced by the President who have consistently called for a comprehensive reform of our immigration system, and we share the President’s disappointment regarding a lack of bipartisan cooperation in Congress on this issue. We also wholeheartedly agree that to truly address the irregular movement of people in our hemisphere, we must tackle the root causes of forced migration, promoting integral human development in sending countries so people may flourish there.

We urge the Administration to reverse its present course in favor of humane solutions that recognize the God-given dignity of migrants and provide equitable access to immigration and humanitarian pathways.

(As another aside: this is the right tone for a bishop to take when issuing a public statement on matters of political importance.  Note that it criticizes certain policies of the president and Congress, but does so respectfully and courteously, and also expresses support for these institutions.)

The American bishops often are characterized as a conservative bunch, but when it comes to immigration, the bishops are to the left of the center of American political gravity.  Perhaps this is a moment when Congress could act to bring about more comprehensive and humane immigration reform.  Biden's presidency has some genuine bipartisan achievements under its belt; why not try for one more?  Tectonic shifts are happening in American politics and in American political alignment.  We don't know whether this is an opportunity to seize, unless we try.

Update: as mentioned above the break, here is some analysis from the Morning Dispatch team of the president's immigration policy announcements:

The new plan is meant to bring order to the chaotic influx of migrants at the southwestern border of the United States by pairing an expansion of Title 42—the pandemic era rule allowing border officials to quickly expel migrants—with a new humanitarian parole legal entry pathway. The scheme relies on Mexico’s cooperation, and we’re thinking of it less as “closing a door and opening a window” and more “closing the windows everybody’s been climbing through, cutting the padlock off the door, and giving the bouncer a queue quota.”

Under the new program, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Haitian migrants face immediate Title 42 expulsion to Mexico if they cross into the U.S. illegally. The United States can’t deport most of these migrants to their home countries because of dangerous conditions or poor relations with the respective regimes, and until recently, Mexico refused to accept them. But according to the Biden administration, Mexico has changed its tune, agreeing to let in 30,000 people per month from those three countries, and expanding a similar, smaller cap set up for Venezuelans in October. Though the Biden administration has been fighting in court to end the use of Title 42—the program is currently pending Supreme Court review—this change amounts to a major expansion of the policy, since an increasing proportion of migrants arriving at the southern border hail from these newly included countries.

To accompany the Title 42 stick, the administration is providing a carrot: a humanitarian parole program, also capped at 30,000 per month, for migrants from these countries. Those who apply, pass various screenings, and can demonstrate they’ll have financial support in the U.S. can enter the country and receive a two-year work authorization while they wait for asylum or other legal entry claims to process. Once approved, migrants can take a flight directly to the U.S.—but there’s a catch. In a bid to disincentivize dangerous and illegal crossing attempts and reduce demand for predatory smuggling operations, anyone who enters the U.S., Mexico, or Panama illegally won’t be eligible for the parole pathway.

“We can provide humanitarian relief consistent with our values, cut out vicious smuggling organizations, and enforce our laws,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said. “Individuals who are provided a safe, orderly, and lawful path to the United States are less likely to risk their lives traversing thousands of miles in the hands of ruthless smugglers, only to arrive at our southern border and face the legal consequences of unlawful entry.” 

President Joe Biden was more direct. “Do not—do not—just show up at the border,” he warned. “Stay where you are and apply legally from there.”

Administration officials touted the success of the smaller Venezuelan program as proof of concept: After implementing the capped parole program and Title 42 expulsions, illegal border crossings by Venezuelans dropped from around 1,100 per day to about 250, while more Venezuelans entered the U.S. legally. It’s not clear whether more Venezuelans took advantage of the Title 42 expulsions to make repeated crossing attempts until they succeeded, as successful attempts reportedly increased in October and November.

The parole and expulsion caps don’t match current migrant crossing numbers, a sign that the administration hopes migrants will opt to wait in line anyway. “The 360,000 parole admissions from these countries would be more people than were issued immigrant visas from these countries in the last 15 years combined,” wrote David Bier, associate director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute. “Of course, in another frame, it is only 60 percent of the number of people from these countries arrested crossing illegally at the border last year. The administration is correctly betting that many people would rather wait to be sponsored and admitted legally than undergo a dangerous journey to enter illegally.”