IN THEORY:Should a wall be built along the U.S.-Mexico border?

Before Congress passed a bill to erect a wall along the border with Mexico, Bishop Gerald R. Barnes of the San Bernardino archdiocese urged the federal lawmakers to reject it. He said the 700 miles of fencing “could drive those who may seek to cross the border to take more remote and dangerous routes, resulting in more unnecessary and tragic migrant deaths in the American desert.” Other religious leaders joined in the lobbying against the wall. What is your stance on this issue?

I have mixed feelings about this issue. While I do not condone the migration of illegal immigrants, I don’t think this fence is going to solve the problem. I also do not like the level of discrimination and objectification this type of legislation encourages. The Mexican-American community is an amazing group of loyal citizens who have solid family values and generously contribute to our economy, legal or illegal. I do not like the idea of saddling our local law enforcement with immigration issues, and I do not approve of the kind of racial profiling that accompanies this type of approach.

I would rather see our government work more closely with the Mexican government to help it solve the economic reasons that drive people to our country. I would also like to see a change in the attitudes of some of our current City Council members. Recently, I heard that some City Council members were reporting that three illegal immigrants from Mexico were arrested for child molestation. Legal or illegal, ethnicity or country of origin is not the issue. I’m sure that this crime is not exclusive to people from Mexico and that such reporting simply makes people look at other Mexicans with some sense of suspicion that is completely unfair, undeserved and extremely prejudicial.

The level of attention required for this issue must be focused on improved communication between our governments, law enforcement and local community leaders. As Marianne Williamson is famous for saying, “You are a child of God, and your playing small does not serve the world.” The time for playing small is over. It’s now time for a new proactive behavior that serves all of humanity, not just Americans.

SENIOR PASTOR JIM TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

Do we need a man like President Ronald Reagan again? Can’t you see him on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and hear him saying, “President Bush, do not build that wall!”

(THE VERY REV’D CANON) PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All

Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

America has the right and obligation to forestall invasion by foreign nationals. I regret that a security fence along our border with Mexico might prove to be an inconvenience, forcing those seeking illegal entry to search for a more remote vantage through which to cross. I believe, though, that the rule of law must prevail and that we must regulate entry into our country the old-fashioned way: by granting permission.

Where is the justification for breaking our laws? Whatever happened to green cards and going by the book? When did “undocumented” become the euphemism for “illegal?” Are people entitled to violate our borders?

We are a nation of immigrants, but illegal aliens are not immigrants.

If I were to move to Mexico with my family, I would prefer to cross the border without having to undergo any formalities or legal procedures. Applications, inspections, questions and paperwork are so inconvenient and troublesome, and I prefer to dispense with them. I am also impatient with waiting in lines and resent being told to wait my turn. I anticipate relating on all levels in English since foreign languages are not my strong suit. Oh, yes, I will be bringing along a very large American flag so I do not forget where my true sympathies lie. If I ever participate in a demonstration, I would like to wave it. And there should be no discussion of my right to medical care and a driver’s license.

Many in Mexico call the proposed protective barrier a “wall of shame.” I think the shame lies in the spinelessness with which we respond to invasion. As America’s ambassador to Mexico said, “There is no human right to enter another country in violation of its laws. In fact, as a protector of human rights, the United States has allowed thousands upon thousands of people fleeing oppressive regimes to seek asylum, through a legal process, in our country. Every sovereign state has the right to control the entry of foreigners. Mexico, too, imposes immigration controls and often notes, correctly so, that it has the sovereign right to make and enforce its own laws.”

Some propose that the only religiously moral position is one that focuses on people’s impoverishment and their desire to better themselves in a land of opportunity. But scripture states that we should not be respecters of persons, perverting justice on behalf of the wealthy because of their riches or on behalf of the poor because of their poverty. Rather, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” Justice equates with securing ourselves against those who would break in like thieves in the night. Justice must be synonymous with order and cannot abide unlimited entry. Justice calls trespassers by their proper name: “outlaws.”

For those who advocate for the rights of outlaws, I ask: Why add to the burden these people bear? Why should they undergo the hardship of sneaking into America? Why not abolish the border entirely? And while we are at it, why stop with our southern borders?

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

Clearly, we should consider the plight of all those who were unfortunate enough to have been born in a poor country that can neither provide proper education nor create jobs for most of its citizens. But to say that anyone, from anywhere, has the right to come into our country simply because they are unfortunate while others wait for years after legally applying for entry is to ignore the practicalities of life on this planet, as well as being unfair.

If we opened our borders to all while other countries kept their borders under control, we would end up in an impossible situation and become somewhat of a third-world economy ourselves, full of destitute and desperate residents.

The proposed wall sections on the Mexican border certainly is not the real solution. It is more of a political pretense of doing something about the problem. It might have a minor and temporary effect, but only a full and well-guarded wall along the whole border would make much difference — and even that would not really solve the problem. The problem is a world problem, starting out with overpopulation in many disparate areas where the local economy and ecology cannot properly support even the existing population, let alone any significant increase. Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan, for example, are projected to more than double their populations by 2050. Mexico and South America are not the only cauldrons creating crowds who will want to come to the .United States.

A world problem requires a world solution. Our government should be cooperating with the United Nations instead of blocking everything it tries to do. We should be helping to provide means of birth control to those who want it, rather than forcing all the countries that get any aid whatever from our government to not even mention any means of real birth control, as the inept Bush administration insists on.

Ignoring the worldwide overpopulation problem is like the ostrich sticking its head in the sand. That is where the problem starts and where it must be contained, regardless of the religious, political and ideological objections that might be encountered. Overpopulation can quickly kill off whole populations as the result of ecological degradation, as has been shown time and time again. Consider the history of Easter Island, where overpopulation and misuse of the environment, accelerated by their religious beliefs, turned an idyllic tropical island into a hell on earth for the entire population of around 15,000 people, of which only a handful survived.

Until such time as we can learn to cooperate with the UN to help save the world from Easter Island’s fate, we should at least try to control the number of immigrants or guest workers allowed into the United Statesstrictly according to the number of jobs available, while also somehow keeping criminal elements out. Such a program could help stay some of the current problems. But we must start to cooperate with other countries to significantly slow down the worldwide population growth — if it is not already too late — in order to save the Earth as a habitable environment for our species.

JERRY PARKS

Member, Humanist Assn. of Orange County

If the U.S. government hypothetically had $9 billion to spend on bettering the lives of its citizens and neighbors, would a wall on its southern border be the best use of that money? How about pouring some of those billions into addressing the shameful high school drop-out rate in America’s poorest neighborhoods or the broken prison system that does not reform criminals but makes them? Couldn’t Congress come up with some better ideas one month before the midterm elections besides increasing our debt burden for the purpose of show?

Before there was “border control” or “illegal aliens,” my grandparents immigrated from Sonora, Mexico. They had nine children, my father being the eldest. Eventually they landed on a large fruit ranch in Visalia, Calif., where the entire family picked and packed oranges, grapes and walnuts for many years. My father was drafted during World War II and continued to serve for another 30 years. He was nicknamed “the Colonel” because we were proud of him but also because he was so serious about achieving “the American dream.” I still have the newspaper photo of my grandmother finally becoming an American citizen in her 50s. I also have many stories from my parents, such as the time my father was refused service at a Virginia restaurant because of race even though he was an Army officer in full uniform.

I think if Congress is truly serious about comprehensive immigration reform, the debate must keep in mind our history as a land of immigrants (remember who was here in 1492?) and the uncomfortable elements of colonialism, class and race. Of course, we are worried about another agricultural season going by with fruit and vegetables left unpicked in the fields due to the hazards for workers in crossing our borders. We are also worried about more deaths should a wall be constructed at the most common crossing points. B

I think walls should be a solution of last resort as a means to solve problems. I do not think “fences make good neighbors” — quite the contrary. We should look more closely at why there is a need for walls in the first place, and commit our money and efforts to solving those problems.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

I think the wall is a bad idea.

If people from Mexico want to find a way to get into America, they simply will do so. Let’s look, for example, at the Jews who came to America in the past 125 years. They had to come across an ocean from Europe — a much more difficult journey, crossing water rather than traveling across flat land. Before World War II, during the rise of anti-Semitism in Germany, there were harsh restrictions of the immigration laws made stringent by presidential orders.

Prior to World War II, while the number of Jews who succeeded in scaling the barriers of illegal immigration remained very small, the figure of those who sought immigration elsewhere, south of the border, never exceeded those who made it into this country legally.

Then when the war broke out, things changed. Many were refused access into America during the war, but a lot got in somehow. Look at the Jews who fled Europe into Israel after World War II. No wall could contain them. Many got into Israel from 1945 to 1948 against the English law. These same people helped build the Jewish State of Israel in 1948.

Likewise, during World War II and after it, many Jews entered Canada, only to use this country as a midway station to secure the necessary means for entry into the United States at a later point. Where there is a will for a better life, there is way to achieve that better life. So history has repeated itself many times. People yearn for a better life for them and their families.

Therefore, there is indeed a deep moral and psychological chasm between right and wrong here. The need for a better life, for survival — whether Jew, Mexican or any person justifies the means. As long as human life is not taken or no terrorist threat becomes involved, human nature is such that people will enter America legally or illegally, whether or not there is a wall.

RABBI MARC S. RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach