This conservative rejects the term "illegal immigrant"

TWO OF the defining things in my life, aside from family and football, are my writing and my immigration practice. Ironically, the one flows directly from the other.

Back in 1998, a little boy named Elian Gonzalez captured the nation's attention when he was fished out of the waters south of Miami. He was a tiny little thing, the only survivor among adults who set out with him from Cuba.

His mother, who it turns out was pregnant, drowned when their vessel essentially disintegrated and had it not been for two fishermen who'd seen the little boy clinging to some wood, he likely would have joined her.

At the time, I was a few years into my immigration practice. I remember thinking that the laws were not prepared to deal with this tragic story where, on the one hand you had a father who wanted his son home, on the other you had the desire to protect a child against the evils of communism and, in the middle, a panicked Clinton administration torn between political extremes.

I decided to write a letter to the editor at the Daily News, explaining why I thought then (but not now) that Elian should be returned to Cuba. It was pretty long, and letters editor Michael Schefer, a man I'd take a bullet for, printed it in its entirety.

Then we had lunch, and then, well, the rest is history.

One of the few topics that sets me apart from most conservatives, at least the ones who don't think Donald Trump is a buffoon, is exactly what drew me to write in the first place: immigration.

I reject the term "illegal immigrant" or the building of a wall. And while I detest groups like La Raza and Juntos, which engage in race-war rhetoric, I can't take seriously anyone who wants to strip citizenship from an infant with the wrong parents. They are the visceral, vibrating extremes of the same political argument.

That's why it's important to look at the issue from a human, not a partisan, perspective. It happened Tuesday night, when the Archdiocese of Philadelphia sponsored a conference entitled: "At Home Together: The Church And The Immigrant Family." It will hopefully happen again when Pope Francis arrives.

Outside of some jabs at Trump on one end of the spectrum and President Obama/Congress on the other, the evening was a clearinghouse for ideas on how to address what has quickly become a human-rights crisis.

I am very proud to say that my church has always been in the forefront of public service, from the founding of the parochial school system to the intricate network of Catholic hospitals across the nation, to its charitable work both overseas and in the most disadvantaged American neighborhoods. So it's not surprising to find that it has a particular interest in the plight of the immigrant.

I choose the term "immigrant" without the "illegal," because there is a false dichotomy that has been created by those who are angry at the very real problems caused by fluid borders. As Pope Francis has said, no person is "illegal" and while he may not have official permission to live in a particular place, he does not represent a violation of the laws simply by his existence in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The conference at the Archdiocese opened with a moving keynote address by Archbishop Charles Chaput, himself the son of immigrants. He spoke with eloquence and immediacy about his French-Canadian father and Native American mother, reminding the audience that all of us were migrants at one time or other in the historic genetic chain.

He opened by observing that the first visit Pope Francis made after his elevation to the papacy was to the Sicilian island of Lampedusa, the first and often last stop on the refugee voyage of many North and West Africans. It was a reminder of the crisis assailing Europe, and the fact that we are not alone in dealing with a migrant tidal wave.

The focus of the archbishop's speech was an attempt to combat the more "belligerent bombast" of public discussion (that has most recently been personified in Trump) with what he called "sanity." While insisting that laws must be obeyed (something with which I as an immigration attorney strongly concur), Chaput argued that those laws need to be humane and must take into consideration the huge costs of separating families.

He directly addressed the recent attacks on birthright citizenship and correctly noted that most legal scholars support its legitimacy as a bedrock constitutional right. He lamented the shift in policy priorities away from family reunification and in favor of economic benefit. He created, in essence, a template for viewing the immigration issue through a Catholic lens of caritas or compassion, while again emphasizing the importance of working within a legal framework.

After the keynote, a number of immigration advocates discussed their experiences in the pastoral, legal and administrative sectors, including sisters who minister in immigrant neighborhoods, advocates from non-profits, law professors and members of Mayor Nutter's administration.

Clearly, there was a bias to the conference. It was not a political debate "for" or "against" immigration. Everyone had made a decision that immigration was a good and organic thing that, when properly but humanely controlled, enriched the communities we inhabit.

There were some controversial moments, as when Peter Pedimonti of the New Sanctuary movement discussed his group's efforts to shield an immigrant from imminent deportation. While I felt compassion for the woman, I also understood as an immigration attorney that the archbishop's words about obeying the law were of vital importance if we want to avoid anarchy. Compassion without common sense is useless.

Overall, though, it was an uplifting experience to be among these people, all of whom are motivated by the fundamental tenet of Catholicism that what we do to the least of our brethren, we do unto the Lord.

Many will disagree with the methods for solving this crisis, from Trump and those who want to build his wall, to the people who hide immigrants in empty churches to avoid a deportation order.

But I think back on Elian Gonzalez, and the fear in his face as he was ripped out of relatives' arms, the image that set me writing, and I realize there has to be another, better way. Maybe Francis will provide some ideas of his own.

Blog: philly.com/flowers