People and their lives should become the focus of the ongoing debate about immigration, Bluffton University's 2009-10 Civic Engagement Scholar argued in a March 16 presentation to a campus audience.

Dr. Paul Neufeld Weaver, assistant professor of education, cited the case of Ad'an, a friend who applied for political asylum in the United States after fleeing Guatemala in 1985.

Twenty-five years later, the case is still unresolved, Weaver said, noting the need to find a compromise to fix "a system that's completely broken" and get people like Ad'an out of limbo.

In the Civic Engagement Forum, titled "Sojourners and Borders: Transforming the Immigration Debate," Weaver also urged his listeners to let their faith guide them in regard to immigrants and immigration policy. Afterward, he explained that immigration is among the "extremely challenging" issues that the university community must consider. More than one approach is possible, but all must be based on the Christian obligation to welcome a stranger, he said. Everyone has been a stranger at some point in life, he added, and everything we have belongs to God, who gave us possessions that we might share them with others.

Weaver, who has worked with immigrants for 27 years, outlined five positions on immigration held by Americans, from zero-net to open immigration. Some people think zero net and open are the only two options, he pointed out in his presentation, calling them "marker" positions that "everyone knows will not happen."

Zero-net immigration backers would like levels to return to about 300,000 immigrants per year-roughly the figure from the 1930s-50s and about the same as the number of people who voluntarily leave the U.S. annually, Weaver said.

But the place where many supporters of immigration restriction hope the nation will arrive is the second position-a sharp reduction, from about 1 million per year now to as low as 500,000, he continued. In that scenario, quotas would be reduced, as would numbers of visas allocated for family reunification. In addition, enforcement both at the border and inside the country would be greatly strengthened, while deportations would be speeded up and increased.

The third position is maintenance of current levels of legal immigration while ending illegal entry. It may be the option that would receive the most public affirmation, and it is supported in official Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod statements, Weaver said.

The middle-ground position would entail a compromise between increased deportations, employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants and stronger border controls on one hand and, on the other, earned status for a portion of the currently illegal population and adjustments in application procedures for immigration, he noted. "If we get a bill (in Congress), this is what it's going to say-and nobody will be happy," he predicted, saying that any successful bill will have to include some process for legalization of now-illegal immigrants.

Relaxing immigration controls-likely leading to levels of up to 2 million immigrants annually-and increasing respect for immigrant rights constitute the fourth position on the issue. Earned status for illegal immigrants, rights for those in detention and family reunification are central to this stance.

Mennonite, United Methodist, Presbyterian and Evangelical Lutheran statements put their support either behind this option or between it and the open-immigration position, which calls for restrictions only to provide for orderly entry, documentation of immigrants, and screening for terrorists and those with criminal intent, Weaver said.

The fourth position is the best that many church denominations "can reasonably expect from the U.S. political process," even though they may be closer in step with open immigration, he added.

Proponents of each of those two options maintain that open immigration-which would be similar to U.S. policy from 1776-1921-would benefit the American economy and workers by eliminating the underground economy of illegal workers, according to Weaver. He also cited a survey of major U.S. economists, all of whom expressed belief that immigrants benefit the economy, with 81 percent indicating a "strong" beneficial effect.

"The fact is, immigrants pay taxes," he maintained, explaining that because most immigrants are working young adults, Social Security and income taxes are deducted from their paychecks. They also pay property taxes, whether through ownership or rent, and sales tax on their purchases, he said.
For his part, Weaver advocated U.S. policy reform that includes provisions providing reasonable and "generous" immigration quotas, support for family unity, a path to earned legal status, fair treatment for detainees and guaranteed worker rights.

Family unity, earned legal status and worker protection are also part of an interfaith platform on humane immigration reform, as are immigrant integration, due process and humanitarian values.

Nations must work together to solve what is not solely a U.S. problem, Weaver said. Pointing out that American and Mexican Catholic bishops have issued a joint statement outlining steps each country should take to repair their immigration systems, he added, "The church can't have borders."

"Beyond Borders: The Role of Immigration in a Global Community" has been the third annual Civic Engagement Theme at Bluffton for 2009-10. The theme has shaped academic and student-life programming throughout the year.