Seeking to bring a moral dimension to the debate over immigration that has been largely framed as a national security issue, America's Catholic bishops launched a campaign Tuesday to promote pathways to citizenship and unite immigrant families.
Unfortunately, this proposal has not met with open arms, as we can see from the counterpoint, provided by the Center for Immigration Studies (who comes UP with these titles?) - a group that favors tighter controls on immigration (note: I know nothing about this guy, but I feel safe concluding he is most likely an asshole 
):
"It's hard to believe that people who have read the Bible actually think it tells something about immigration policy," Krikorian said. "What Scripture tells us, and all it tells us, is immigrant policy ... how we treat people we've welcomed into our community. It doesn't tell us anything about immigration policy. ... The Bible is not a public policy document."
When you read things like this, you cannot help but wonder if there might not actually be some kind of realignment process - a reordering of the coalitions that make up political parties - actually going on. (Pundits claim there is a realignment after every election, which is pure BS. They take a good while to sort themselves out. If you're hardcore, check out James Sundquist's The Dynamics of the Party System.)
Perusing the Center for Immigration Studies website, we see a lot of the traditional arguments against immigration: things like concerns over national security, density problems in cities, poverty, and so on. There are also some odd ones, like the quirky section on how immigrants displace jobs that African Americans would otherwise take. But there is also a section on Americanization - which is a persistent concern over immigration standards. There is a sense of America as a particular kind of place - and that sense of identity is wrapped up with a certain moralistic, Anglo Protestant subject. Thus, opposition to immigration, I might argue, is now (and generally in the past has been) wrapped up more in issues of concerns for "moral sanctity" and "national identity" than in anything about jobs or safety. The point: these guys are not just objective social scientists; they also have a normative/moral axe to grind when it comes to immigration.
Taking this argument a bit further, I would counter to suggest that immigration is an important part of the United States. Certainly, we could look at the historical argument to see that. But it is also *philosophically* important. Ideally, we have a liberal society - open and inclusive. Anyone who is willling to abide by the social contract and pitch in, should be allowed to join. While international realities and bureaucratic facts in a modern, complex state limit that process somewhat, it still seems there is *some* responsibility to maintain that openness, since it just as integral to the nature of our political order.
Now, I do not want to suggest that willy-nilly immigration should be allowed - because there are real concerns about things like security. On the other hand, this does not mean we erect a fence around the country. It seems a more fair, open process of letting people in. Combine this with improved efforts (through international bodies) to improve the stability, safety and economic health of other states, immigration could both be made "fair" *as well as* less common.
So, how does this all tie together? While, on one had you have social conservatives who rely on moralistic arguments (along with more sober economic and security assesments) to prevent immigration. On the other side, you have ..... social conservatives who argue FOR immigration (supported by classic ideals and their own economic arguments, I'm sure). Certainly, this is *Catholic bishops* - to lack cachet in American politics, compared to someone like Jerry Falwell, in part because Catholics are weird (anti-war, pro-life, and anti-death penalty - there's a certain attempt at apolitical consistency there that does not jive well with the moralistic political crusades of American evalgelicals). On top of this conundruum, there are other internal tensions to the party. Most notably, there is a Republican party trying to please fiscal conservatives/social conservations who are at odds, and Democrats trying to tie together conservative labor unions with those on the far left in terms of social issues.
So, how would it all play out? That's really contextual (re: it depends on what becomes salient, and how capable the existing coalitions are at pleasing their members), but one prediction is that both parties embrace a more religious stance. This is possible, there's a new book detailing how the Right has religion wrong and how the Left should use it better. Certainly, the left has done it before: abolition, civil rights, and Social Gospel vis-a-vis the New Deal all spring immediately to mind. But I just do not buy that. Maybe I'm a culture war freak (not really - the whole bit is overblown), but there *is* a strong secular/agnostic trend in the US, and certainly among elites who disproportionately shape public/political life. I just do not see both parties going in this way.
Anoter, only slightly more like possiblity is that there would be a breakdown between religious and secular parties. Thus, on the "left" (secular) you end up with fiscal conservatives and who adopt a minimal welfare state, a limited state, are very open on social policy, and enbrace realism in their approach to international relations. On the "right" (religious) you get a highly nationalist, interventionist party that is profoundly soically conservative on most issues. [In terms of immigation - the right would remain opposed. Catholics are not that politically powerful as a single group - they're fairly fragmented actually. As long as the Catholics got their other issues - like pro-life, which is most heady right now - they would go along.]
The basic, long winded as usual, pointx:
1. This article just cracks me up.
2. This article DOES point out some very real tensions that exist in American politics right now. They are not necessarily new either. But they highlight, again, the problem of using religion in politics. There is not just one interpretation of these issues, and these texts are old and essentially "private" in their orientation. They do not correspond well at all to policy - in ANY arena. Thus, continued reliance on religion starts to prompt cracks in existing parties. It's just too complicated, and politics is also too complicated. In fact, relying on such absolutes only heightens conflict. This is why we don't like fundamentalist Islam, remember?
3. But really - I'm not sure that any of this is likely, not in any form I've predicted. These kinds of things are notoriously hard to pinpoint. At best, I might suggest there *is* a shift in the political playing field happening, slowly. Over the next generation, the two parties issues and constituents are going to change - and these kinds of disputes are symptomatic of that tension.
Thoughts? 
Anyway. That's enough pretention for now, don't you think? 
