The Arizona Law

The highly negotiated and contested Arizona law comes into effect this weekend with some changes, thanks to the intervention of U.S. federal judge Susan R. Bolton. More than a law, this is a parcel of reforms for state laws, which will enable state and county police to substitute for U.S. federal authorities and detain any person if there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are an illegal immigrant.

This law is a response to pressure from the white majority (a little over 60 percent) in Arizona, which perceives undocumented persons as a threat, in part to the “cultural integrity” of the U.S., something that is mythical in the original 13 colonies of that country — now populated by other groups — but which seems surrealistic in states like Arizona, where half of the towns, rivers and mountain ranges have Spanish names. The white majority also perceives the undocumented as a threat to their privileges.

According to the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs, there are between 400,000 and 530,000 undocumented Mexicans in Arizona.

For now, the law will be partially applied; later the federal government will challenge it, and surely by the end of this year, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the lawsuits that will be presented.

The story of the resistance of this law by individual people is more important than these acts. For example, a great deal of publicity has been given to a video of the National Council of La Raza, in which several people are asked if they see themselves as Hispanic or not. The video will be broadcast in New York in Times Square, on TV and on YouTube.

Nonetheless, there are other organizations that are working against this law. The most prominent players include religious organizations — Christians, Jews, Muslims and other denominations who have played a key role for the immigrant community — since they offer the first shelters to integrate oneself into life over in America.

Religious organizations have a detailed knowledge of the problems and contributions that immigrants, legal or illegal, bring to public life and the economy. That is why, since the mid-19th century, churches have facilitated their integration as well as promoted reforms in favor of immigrants.

In terms of what the Catholic Church is doing, the work of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stands out. Despite the many difficulties which it has faced in the past years, the conference did not hesitate for a moment in mobilizing its resources and symbolic capital in support of immigrants, like the efforts that certain legislators have made to alter the U.S.’ labyrinthine immigration laws.

A logical consequence of the work of the U.S. Conference of Bishops is the work of Catholic-inspired civil society organizations, such as the Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc., known as CLINIC. Since the U.S. bishops promoted its creation in 1988, this organization — which offers different types of publications on its website (http://cliniclegal.org/) and social networking sites like Facebook — has developed intense lobbying to change the way that immigrants are perceived in the U.S.

CLINIC’s lobbying in favor of just and humane laws — which holds the family as the central concern — was inspired by the principles of church social doctrine, which has two levels: One, awareness of the realities that immigrants are facing, including the contributions they make to the U.S. economy; and two (the more difficult and laborious), to help those who are facing the complicated trials of immigration. It is thus an institution which brings to life the principles of church social education.

CLINIC is not the only institution which is working in this area. This June, the Jesuits who work as professors at distinctive universities — Catholic and non-Catholic — in the U.S. visited the Capitol at the request of their bishops to present to the representatives a five-point plan with which the Church will try to resolve the dilemmas of immigration.

This plan is summarized as a legalization process that allows undocumented persons to have access to the full rights of citizenship, an organization of legal employment for future workers which protects citizens and immigrants, expedited reunification of families and emphasis on their unity, the necessity of a clear process and the application of humane criteria to immigration laws, assistance for economic development and fair access to the market for developing countries.

It remains to be seen if all of these movements will have an impact on the political will of those who hope for a “pure” Arizona.