San Francisco Economist . . . Changes Mind, Says Porous Borders Harm Families, Nations
By DEXTER DUGGAN
An economics professor at the Jesuit University of San Francisco offered ideas for significantly improving the lives of Central Americans in their home countries, rather than having a porous border, in an article posted January 8 at Christianity Today, a major evangelical magazine and website.
In “Border Crisis = Church Opportunity — The international difference a local congregation can make,” evangelical Bruce Wydick wrote that he used to think border security was callous, but changed his mind to see that orderly, fair entry is needed, in part because of the way the current migration system hurts families left back at home.
Wydick also explored the organized crime and its narco-trafficking as they affect the Latino countries.
“Many have called for an increase in border security,” Wydick wrote. “I used to think that this represented a callous and heavy-handed approach [to] the problem. But I have come to believe otherwise. Failing to regulate the flow across our borders makes us unable to genuinely act with compassion to those who have legitimate refugee status, such as seriously threatened children.
“A porous border is not compassionate — it is just chaotic, making it difficult to differentiate between the many different needs and interests of undocumented persons, a process which can only happen under some semblance of order,” he wrote.
“A new immigration bill must substantially increase funding to create safe, orderly, and fair entry into our country.”
As for the issue of breaking families apart, Wydick wrote: “To act wisely in this context, one has to understand that migration to the United States has had a devastating impact on families in Central America. I have seen firsthand the negative impacts on families who have lost mothers and fathers to U.S. migration. Caring for illegal immigrants is certainly a grace to the individual. But it doesn’t address the underlying problem. Indeed, when replicated on a large scale, it exacerbates the crisis.
“The more the Church is viewed as welcoming any undocumented immigrant with open arms, the more it spurs undocumented immigration: More Central American families are broken apart, immigrants are forced into self-protection in our dangerous inner cities, and ties are strengthened between U.S. gangs and Central American narco-networks,” he wrote.
“Moreover, Central American countries become increasingly dependent on foreign remittances at the cost of their development.
“Instead, we should focus our compassion on the problems rather than symptoms. We can do this by helping to foster shalom in these Central American cities and villages, helping build healthy lives and families where peaceful prosperity can take root,” Wydick wrote.
He told of a group named Mayan Partners that he helps lead, to work with a village in western Guatemala, sponsoring a middle school, financially supporting a library, and working in public health and economic development. “It is hard for organized crime to find recruits in places where everyone already has a job.”
Currently on sabbatical in Mexico, Wydick responded to some questions that The Wanderer submitted by email on February 12. Here is the edited result.
Q. Please tell a little of your background at the University of San Francisco and also outside the school, as well as your religious background.
A. I am an economics professor at USF and have been on the faculty since 1996. I am also an evangelical Christian, and have been following Christ — or doing my best try to — since late high school. My family attends an Evangelical Covenant church in Berkeley, and down here in Oaxaca, we have started attending a Baptist church.
But I consider myself quite pan-denominational. I teach at a Catholic university, send my daughter to Catholic school, will have a research affiliation with Notre Dame as of this next year. There is something good of Christ in every denomination.
Q. Would you please say where you are in Mexico?
A. We are living in Tlalixtac de Cabrerra, a small village in the state of Oaxaca, until July.
Q. Would you agree that there likely wouldn’t be much negative attitude in the U.S. against illegal immigration if it were on a far lower scale and it truly seemed confined to needy people looking for work in a healthy U.S. economy?
A. I really don’t know. People are used to immigrants in the U.S., given that there are so many. Indeed, about 98 percent of us came from immigrant families. I sure did — only a few generations ago on one side, back to the Mayflower on the other. If there were only a few, it’s hard to say if they would face an easier or more difficult time in the U.S.
Q. Does continuing mass illegal immigration without us knowing who’s coming here and why — and the fact it never seems to stop — make a difference? I think of the observation that a nation without sovereignty over deciding who enters and why ceases to be a nation.
A. I used to think a strong border was heavy-handed. I think what I believe now is that a country has to have some control over the process to establish a sense of order, priority, fairness, and control. But this does not mean that we as a country, and Christians in particular, don’t need to act compassionately to everyone, including immigrants and even illegal immigrants.
Q. Is it not better to wish Latino countries well and offer our assistance instead of, apparently, viewing them as incapable and beyond reform, while the U.S. is the only land worthy of residence?
A. I don’t think most people view it this way, but the point is to address immigration problems at their root — by doing all we can to promote peaceful prosperity in Latin American countries — to the extent we can. I’m a development economist. These things aren’t easy.
Q. Would you agree there seems to be an attitude defending illegal immigration that it’s a win-win situation, instead of being harmful (as your article indicates) to Latino families and countries themselves?
A. In some narrow sense it is win-win — it is a labor market in which the (illegally) employed and employer both benefit. That’s why it happens. But it also has outside costs, on families in home countries and in the U.S. inner cities. Immigration needs to happen in a way that is legal and transparent, and with a sense of fairness, justice, and order.
This country was built on immigration — our diversity is part of what makes us a great country. And immigrant churches are some of the most vibrant in the Gospel. Immigrants in the U.S. are mostly a continuing breath of fresh air in our society.
By the way, I advocate everyone learning English who comes to the U.S., but I also advocate Americans learning Spanish. Becoming fluent in Spanish has been one of my great joys and has opened up so many doors and relationships. I am grateful for those painful months living in the Dominican Republic, where I had to slog through those tough early stages of learning the language, but it was worth it. Highly recommended.
And when you speak the language of an immigrant, you find that at the core, you have so much in common at a human level.
Q. Because Catholic prelates try to help set the immigration policy and population profile of this mainly non-Catholic U.S., I don’t think they can seriously object to you as a non-Catholic commenting on their activities. Was there a particular event or events that led you to change your mind about the need for U.S. border security?
A. I am not an expert on border security, and my view is not very radical. It just says that we should focus on the root of illegal immigration issues — mainly by decreasing the demand for narcotics in the U.S. so that people don’t need to flee from drug lords in Latin America. That is the crux of the current problem in Central America. Nobody wants to leave home if they don’t feel compelled to.
Q. Do you have any thoughts on why religious organizations including Catholic dioceses, even ones close to the border, seem unconcerned about facts such as dangerous foreign criminals operating within, not on the border of, a U.S. state?
I say “unconcerned” because I don’t see diocesan statements being made about the danger this poses to U.S. citizens — whereas statements about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform” are familiar.
A. I think the energy of the Catholic bishops might be better focused on promoting social justice, transparency, and economic opportunity in places like Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. They can do this by speaking out against corruption, encouraging all in their flock to lead transparent lives free of corruption and sin, educate their children to the highest level possible, teach them the ways of Jesus, and hold their leaders to strict accountability with regard to their political ethics.
Promoting a culture of honesty, openness, transparency, with a zero-tolerance attitude toward political corruption, is a worthy goal for the Church in Latin America. Latin America needs to create a culture where the way to advance economically is to help create a vibrant civic society, work hard, save, respect the rules, and invest in children — not by wealth redistribution, extracting resources from others, or having ties with crime.
In the U.S., we need to get ourselves off illegal drugs by addressing the root issues that lead to narcotics use. How to do this is a difficult set of social, spiritual, and policy questions, but it is what we need to do to better the lives of our Latin American neighbors (and ourselves). The Church needs to be involved in this.
Compassionate
Common Sense
Q. Anything else to say?
A. There are no easy solutions to these problems in the Western Hemisphere — only difficult ones. The U.S. needs to stop focusing so much on curtailing the supply of illegal drugs (which is a pointless, fruitless exercise that only serves to drive up prices and, therefore, violence). And instead it should focus on demand reduction: treatment centers, random testing, counseling, connecting people with responsible family members, establishing accountability for our actions in the areas of drug use.
The drug problem originates in the U.S., but we seem intent on insisting that is mainly the fault of drug dealers and drug lords. People who advocate supply-side narcotic reduction don’t understand basic economics: Where there is demand and a high willingness to pay, supply will try to match it.
Focusing on supply reduction in the context of high demand is like playing Whack-A-Mole. And from a spiritual perspective, one aspect of spiritual maturity means owning one’s problems and not blaming others for them.
If we clean up our act in the States in terms of drug consumption, things will turn around markedly in terms of narco-trafficking and corruption in Latin America. Leaders in the Church need to show Christian believers in the U.S. how we can be part of coming alongside the drug abuser and showing him or her a way that is healthier for them and for others who are the victims of their habits and addictions.
I don’t advocate legalization — just talk to parents of teenagers in Colorado to find out how that’s going. I advocate demand reduction.
At the same time, we need to welcome students here to study in our universities, allow some reasonable number of people to enter the country (legally) to work, and build bridges between people and churches between the north and the south. I believe the Church needs to take the lead in this. It’s not right or left-wing, red state or blue state, it’s just compassionate common sense.
