Boehm 1

Ashley Boehm

Faith Religion and Society

12-6-16

CST Final Project

There are many contemporary issues out there, whether it is economics, race, secuality,

and so on. But, in this day and time with everything going on in the political election, I believe a

very concerning issue is the issue of immigration. Before we had voted for the president elect,

there was two sides that we would have to choose from for ideas on immigration. This was to

either kick them all out by force or let them have the chance to become citizens. About 60% of

voters said that this issue was a deciding point for who they would want to vote for.

Immigration from low income countries to high income countries has been operating at a

steady pace for around the past 50 years or so. There has been an obvious trend over these years,

along with a combination of the countries that immigrate here changing from country to country.

The presence of foreign born immigrants here living in the United States has increased very

significantly over the last couple decades. The United States had made the Immigration and

Naturalization of 1965 which established rules for immigrants and set standards that we still live

by today. Until around 1990, immigrants from high-income countries had shared a very high

significance to the amount of immigrants we have. These were mostly Canadian, Australian and

European country migrants. The growth of foreign born populations has been fueled by growth

in immigrants from non rich countries in the last 25 years. Asia and Latin American countries

were the biggest part of foreign born population in the 1970’s and has further increased since
 Boehm 2

1990 due to the growth of these cultures immigrating to the United States. The non rich countries

with large immigrant rates to high income countries are those at intermediate levels of economic

development. These are countries and cultures such as Latin America, Mexico, Asia and North

Africa to the middle east, but not the poor countries. The growth in the income and education of

very poor and poverty countries is usually associated with increased emigration rates because

migration becomes more affordable and economic returns to emigration growth, so the

emigration from these countries is usually low, surprisingly enough. Before looking up my

research and reading through my sources on immigration, I thought the statistics of immigrants

from certain countries would have been completely flip flopped. It would be believed that the

low income countries would be the ones with the most amount of immigrants coming into the

United States, but it is actually the high income countries that have the most leaving them. This

does not make sense to me, as it should be opposite. Immigrants should be the ones that are

leaving all the poverty and low income they receive to come to a higher income country.

Immigration from non rich countries often can conjure the image of large populations of

unskilled laborers and workers, which in reality has been quite skill intensive. The composition

of immigrants into high income countries tends to be more from the highly educated than the

lower and less educated, which is relative to the population of that country. Highly educated

people are much more likely to migrate and obtain the largest economic gains from migration.

Great examples of how we as a country deal with immigration can come from the political

debates from this year's election. The DACA is the deferred action for childhood arrivals and the

DAPA is the deferred action for parents of America. Gaps in United States immigration laws and

the international human rights obligation are highlighted in my one source that identifies ways
 Boehm 3

that the discretion can advance rather that undermine the rules of this law and the ways it is

carried out. There are many different outlooks on immigration and immigrants being here with

us. The election have me a very good insight to how we treat these kinds of people and showed

me very good information to inform someone that this is indeed a contemporary issue at hand

that the CTS can be dealing with or have their ideals on.

Hillary Clinton was on the side of eventually letting them into become citizens after

going through a certain process. She was promoting a pathway to citizenship. She had

established an office of political affairs and had followed Obama on his orders of DAPA and

DACA programs. DACA is deferred action for childhood arrivals, meaning that it allows some

undocumented immigrants into the United States who entered before their 16th birthday and/or

before June of 2007 to receive a two year work permit and an exemption from deportation.

Obama changed the date of this to 2010 when he entered office, and he also lengthened the

renewal deferral period. The DAPA is the deferred action for parents of America. This is also

known as the deferred action for parenthood accountability. This grants deferred action status to

only certain illegal immigrants. This goes to immigrants that have been in the United States since

before 2010 and have two children that are American citizens. This comes with a three year

renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. This was presented in 2014 by

president Obama. In May, Clinton had stated that she would address the immigration reform with

a pathway to citizenship in her first 100 days as the president. She had also stated that she would

want to build off of Obama’s work for the task force and create a designated place in the white

house that would be strictly for immigrant affairs and policies. She wants them to “come out of

the shadows” and so she can register everyone. This would the people that are working, going to
 Boehm 4

school and being productive members of society in the United States. The feelings that she has

towards the republicans are very strongly opposed. She wants the republicans to quit dividing the

country by immigrants and nonimmigrants and to stop taking actions the way that they do. She

stated in a debate video that I had watched that she thinks it is way too much work and effort to

go out and find all the immigrants in the schools and workplaces and transport them all back to

where they came from, one by one. She had stated correctly that this would just simply be way

too much work to comprehend. They would have to be transported on busses and trains, which

would also be expensive. And with Trumps idea of building a wall, there is a lot of finances to

go into this project alone. She is for border security, so the only people she would have wanted to

send back is the people who are only here to sell drugs and get away from their crime in their

home country.

Donald Trump was the republican nominee and the elected president elect. He is the

complete opposite of Clinton and wants all the immigrants sent out of the United States and back

to where they came from. He does not like the immigrants being here and he wants a wall build,

totally under the expenses of mexico. One he actually becomes president, he wants of congress

to form the “end illegal immigration act”. He would have the wall fully funded with its

construction on the southern border with the full understanding that Mexico would reimburse us

for the costs of this wall. He would have the exeption to undocumented immigrants that serve in

the military to be allowed to stay. With the people who are here today, he said they would only

have one route; this is to exit the country and re-apply for citizenship like everyone else. He had

laid out a ten point plan on his immigration policies. To summarize all the points, this is

basically what it would be like: the first would be building a wall that Mexico would have to pay
 Boehm 5

for. Second, he would catch anyone that gets over the border, detain them, then send them back

to their home country. From there, there would be a zero tolerance for illegal criminals or

criminal “aliens”. There would be no more funds for sanctuary cities. Fifth, he would cancel all

of Obama’s laws with immigration, those of which Hillary Clinton was in on keeping and

continuing if she was elected. He would suspend the issue of visas to anywhere that cannot

provide screening. Seventh, he would make sure that the countries these immigrants have come

from would take them back. The entry-exit tracking system would then have to be completed,

and also the jobs and benefits “magnet” would be turned off. Lastly, he stated that we are going

to take care of our workers. I had watched a video of a debate between them for my second

resource, and he basically was stating that drugs are the big deal in this debut of getting the

immigrants out of the country. He believes that the drugs being smuggled over are poisoning not

only the kids in other countries but also the kids in the United states. Trump ended up winning

the election on November 8th.

To continue to my second topic of the paper, the CST is the main objective I am trying to

get to. The CST has many different thoughts on all different kinds of topics, usually

contemporary problems happening. Their thoughts on immigration is what I am trying to get at.

The CST is to welcome the foreigner to the country with charity and respect. The country was a

duty to let the person in and accommodate to the person and the right at the greatest extent

possible. ​"The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the

foreigner​ in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his

country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places

a guest under the protection of those who receive him." (Catholic Catechism, 2241). Another
 Boehm 6

duty of the CST in immigration is that laws must be forced. The border must be secured and this

law should be used to produce the common good of the country. Everyone should be able to

accept and follow this right. The immigrants must accept and respect this law and assist in

carrying out this duty to the others. Our church has responded to the urge to welcome others and

the strangers amongst us, because in the encounter we have with the migrant, the immigrant and

the refugee, christ is encountered as well. The CST believes that the person has a right to find

opportunity in their own homeland. Economical, political and social traditions and conditions in

their own home country should provide an opportunity for these people to work and be able to

support his or her family in safety and dignity. Along with this, these persons should have the

right to migrate to support their family financially. This right, according to Pope John XXIII, is

not absolute when he said this right applies to people who immigrate when there are actual

reasons for it that can be useful. Thirdly, the church believes that sovereign nations have a right

to protect and control their borders. These nations also have a right to the common good, which

they should accommodate the migration to the best extent that they can. We in the United States

are said to have an even higher obligation to serve the common good rule because we are a

powerful economic country. It is also said that “the United States should establish an

immigration system that provides legal avenues for persons to enter the nation legally in a safe,

orderly, and dignified manner to obtain jobs and reunite with family members” (Justice for

Immigrants, 3). The fourth idea is that refugees should be afforded protection. This means that if

someone is to be persecuted or fear to be in their home country should find a safe haven in

another country where they can protect themselves. Lastly on this list to my source, the human

rights to the people and the immigrants should be respected, even though they are undocumented
 Boehm 7

persons of the country. The people who enter this country, according to the Catholic Social

Teaching, should be respected no matter what and should be treated with dignity, no matter the

improper authorization into the country or not. These people should not be deported at any time

or treated unjustly, such as being held for long periods of time, shackled by their hands and their

feet and abused in any type of manner. “They should be afforded due process of the law and, if

applicable, allowed to articulate a fear of return to their home before a quali ed adjudicator. They

should not be blamed for the social ills of a nation” (Justice for Immigrants, 5). In my source,

there were also Gospel quotes that supported the Catholic Social Teaching stance on

immigration. One of these is “In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus instructs us to welcome the

stranger: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a

stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt. 25-35). Jesus Himself was not welcomed by His own

people: “He came to what was His own, but His own people did not accept him.” (Jn. 1:11)”

(Justice for Immigrants, 1).

There are a number of ways that I feel about the subject of immigration. Immigration is

the process of moving into another country permanently to live. This can be a good thing and a

bad thing. Although some immigrants may be here for a certain reason and to better themselves

and their own families, others have other intentions. This can be some of the reasons that had to

deal with terrorists attacks in the United States, such as 9/11. Also, drug deals and violence can

come from some immigrants, but not all of them are like this. I had grown up with a bunch of

different cultures, such as mexican, african american, asian and so on. I had learned really

quickly and early in life that you cannot judge people by their culture and where they are from.

Just because they are from a country that might not have the best reputation along with it, does
 Boehm 8

not mean that all the people coming from there are just like that. I was taught very early that all

people are nice and have a good side to them, we just have to find that in them when they show it

to us. Now, this is not saying that the people I had grown up with were immigrants, but it is

obvious that they are not from the same kind of cultures as myself and others around me. My

parents played and still do play of a co-ed slow pitch softball team, which would play every

sunday. Since I was small, I would have to go every week. This taught me to play and hang

around people of all ages and all cultures. Immigrants are people too, just as we are. We should

not be judging them or kicking them out because of what their culture might betray of them.

Some people are hard working people that had come here for a reason, and that is to better not

only themselves, but their families and the country, the United States. Although in this year's

election, it seemed to be a huge, wide known deal that there needs to be something done about

immigration by “building a huge wall”. Although a wall will make the country a little more safe

from immigrants, I believe that it is a stupid idea. We should increase border control, rather than

just building a wall and wasting money on it, just for it to may or may not work out. This is

something we would not know until trial and error. It is just a waste to me and I believe that

some of the immigrants should be allowed citizenship or a chance to become citizens once in.

Trump wants to round up all the immigrants and send them back to their home countries on

busses and trains and planes, but this is also a waste. This would waste money and a lot of time.

You would have to go out to every work place, every school and every home to find each and

every one of them, let alone all throughout every city in the country. I believe if they are already

here and are being productive members of our society, than they should be able to have a chance

to receive an actual citizenship into the United States. This is the way that on this specific issue, I
 Boehm 9

would have to agree with Hillary Clinton. The Catholic Social Teachings also have good points

on immigration. The common good of the immigrant here should be taken into account, though

many people really do not think about the Catholic thought on topics. Once deciding what we

want to do with these people and immigrants, we should refer to the church and have opinions on

what it is that is the most reasonable when dealing with them. Each person has the right to be

here, and I can understand why they would want to just immigrate to the country rather than

waiting years and taking tests to get in and get citizenship. If they are helpful and useful people

to our communities, I do not see a reason for them not to be able to live here and continue out

their everyday duties. Immigration is a contemporary issue at hand in today's society, and i

believe that is why so many people listen to the wrong doings to go about it. Some people are

scared that there are bad people in this country, which there are, that are immigrants. The people

that are working should be dismissed from the leaving of the country and it should be

encouraged to want to do better for yourself and for your country if you have the will to pursue

this duty. “​Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment

on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats

vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and

the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him” (Romans

14 1-4).
 Boehm 10

Works Cited

Peri, Giovanni. "Immigrants, Productivity and Labor Markets." Journal of Economic

Perspectives, 1 Oct. 2016. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

Thronson, David B. "CLOSING THE GAP: DACA, DAPA, AND U.S. COMPLIANCE WITH

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW." Journal of International Law, 1 Mar.

2016. Web. 3 Dec. 2016.

"Catholic Church's Position on Immigration Reform." ​Catholic Church's Position on

Immigration Reform.​ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Aug. 2016. Web.

04 Dec. 2016.

"Catholic Social Teaching." ​Religion Past and Present​ (n.d.): n. pag. ​Justiceforimmigrants.org.​

Justice for Immigrants. Web.

ABCNews. "Third Presidential Debate | Trump, Clinton on Immigration Reform." ​YouTube​. YouTube,

19 Oct. 2016. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.