Arizona, the Rest of Us, and the Futility of Hiding from Immigration

One can deplore or applaud Arizona’s new get-tough law cracking down on illegal immigrants, but rational debate is not served by Cardinal Mahony’s characterization of the new law as the kind of tactic used by Communists and Nazis. Nor is rational debate served by the Federal government’s head-in-the-sand approach to the problem of illegal immigration. Readers may recall how quickly the question of immigration faded from view during our last presidential campaign. Frankly, nobody knew what to say about it. Or at least nobody knew how to say anything effective that would also be popular.

It is perfectly clear to me that the root issue in illegal immigration is as old as history itself: There is ultimately nothing anybody can do politically to stop mass migrations that are driven by pressures which go way beyond politics. For this reason, it makes far more sense to seek ways to creatively work with the situation and harness the human energies it produces. The alternative of trying desperately to preserve whatever makes us most comfortable is unrealistic, especially in a country whose birth rate has just fallen beneath the replacement level, and which needs huge amounts of immigrant labor as much as the immigrants themselves need jobs. I refer again to factors “way beyond politics” which drive mass migrations.

At the same time, it is an extremely important fact on the ground that places like Arizona bear the brunt of the problems which illegal immigration causes. Arizona is the number one location for illegal crossing of the Mexican border and the extensive drug-running and crime that go along with it. Arizonans have a right to be concerned, and to look for solutions. One proponent of the new law, state representative Russell Pearce, made it clear what he hopes to get out of it: “We’ll have less crime. We’ll have lower taxes. We’ll have safer neighborhoods. We’ll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We’ll have smaller classrooms.” Every item on the Pearce list may not, under the circumstances, be morally desirable, but one would have to be blind not to see the attraction.

The new law makes it a crime to be in the country illegally (nothing new there, of course). It also requires local police officers, in the course of addressing other legal violations (such as traffic violations), to question those involved about their immigration status  if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; it allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and it makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them. It does not, as Cardinal Mahony claimed, require citizens to report illegals.

But there is certainly a legitimate concern that the only way police will be able to enforce this law is frequently to stop and question—in a word, harass—Hispanics, including those who are in the country legally, and including citizens. Racial profiling of some sort can hardly be avoided. How this will work out remains to be seen, but it has many of those worried who share common appearance traits with the majority of illegals. Of course, a certain amount of inconvenience to a whole lot of people will inevitably go along with any effort to try to stabilize our immigration problem. There are no easy solutions.

But Communists and Nazis? They were hardly hated, feared and morally culpable because they tried to keep illegal aliens out of their countries, or because they frequently questioned people to that end. They were hated, feared and morally culpable because they built totalitarian states atop warped ideologies, and persecuted or killed everybody who didn’t fit their ideological molds. It says much about Roger Cardinal Mahony’s regard for truth that he thinks this a fair description of the citizens of Arizona, who have many good reasons—even if they also have some selfish ones—for wanting to bring some order out of the current chaos.

President Obama can express alarm (as President Obama has dutifully done), but he can’t claim to have yet presented a reasonable alternative. The government of Mexico can denounce this law as adversely affecting relations on both sides of the border (as the government of Mexico has strategically done), but it can’t claim to have made a significant effort to induce its own people to try to build better lives at home. Catholic bishops can seize the moral high ground (as Catholic bishops have piously done), but they can’t offer a sketch, let alone a blueprint, showing how to make the situation more manageable. And the citizens of Arizona, whether for or against the new law, may believe that something important has been accomplished here (as the citizens of Arizona on all sides vehemently do), but they are going to find that denial will not solve the immigration problem. It will simply change the pressure points.

Once again, mass migrations cannot be stopped without alleviating the pressures which drive them. Americans are apparently incapable of addressing their desire for continued economic growth by producing a large new generation of their own, or their desire for a secure and comfortable life without resorting to high taxes and massive social programs. Paradoxically, this is a better recipe for bankruptcy without immigration than with it. Meanwhile, the governments of Mexico and quite a number of other countries are apparently unwilling to address the needs of their own citizens through economic reform. So I advise everyone in the United States to prepare to get serious about the changes required by massive immigration. We can’t stop it, but we may be able to improve substantially on how it works.

Now I hasten to admit that I, like almost everybody thus far, do not know enough to offer concrete proposals. But I do know one thing very well. Ultimately we will have to recognize that we’re all in this together. Indeed, that’s how real Catholics always think. Therefore, we need to face the consequences of massive immigration in exactly the same way we are called to face everything else in life: Not with an unseeing defense of the status quo, but with work, creativity, intelligence, realism, love and prayer. Read the list backwards to succeed.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Mirus


Dr. Mirus is the founder of Trinity Communications and a veteran Catholic writer. He was previously a professor and co-founder of Christendom College. His writings can be found at

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Joe DeVet

    Congratulations on a thoughtful, well-reasoned, and principled article on this very difficult subject. Such articles are hard to come by!

    We really need to avoid the false rhetoric of the likes of Cardinal Mahoney as well as the hate of some on the other side of the issue.

    I really question, though, whether our USCCB has piously expressed the “moral high ground.” It seems to me that they are once again simply being selective in whom they will favor on questions of “social justice.” Their pronouncements on this subject tend to favor the illegals at the expense of US citizens. However, in so doing, they risk cooperating in evil. For those who come here illegally violate one of the first principles of “social justice” — the Seventh Commandment “Thou shalt not steal.”

    In defense of the USCCB, it might be said that the bishops are simply recommending charity to the less fortunate. Charity is a good thing, to be sure. However, they are not recommending charity, at least not in their highest-profile communications. They are lobbying for a certain kind of political action, of public policy.

    And that is quite a different thing from charity.

  • One can hardly blame the state of Arizona for trying to maintain social order by keeping the border sealed, enforcing the law. In my view the problem is not illegal immigration, the problem is abortion+the pill. We the people have to start having large families again. It would take several pages to explain this but I will try to do it in a few words.

    If the 50 million plus legally aborted–and the uncounted millions who were never born because of the pill–had been given the opportunity to live and thrive in the US, we would have a naturally growing economy which in turn would have made Mexico and Canada partners of the US. Mexicans would be happily home being productive and prospering.

    The US, since the Johnson administration, chose not export our greatest good: the American Order. Instead the prevailing idea has been that we cannot “impose our ideas on others.” Our failure to export American Order abroad brought the disorder from outside to our soil. This combination of Malthusianism and isolationism has proved to be fatal. The pill is a poison pill, abortion is social suicide.

    Alan Greenspan said once that “we cannot be an island of prosperity in a sea of misery”. I would have said instead that we have to be an ever growing island of prosperity, extending the benefits of the American Order to other nations so that they can also trust in God and be prosperous.

    Either we find creative ways to extend the benefits of American Order to the countries south of the border or we will start looking more and more like them. May be the first step should be to stop electing the likes of Juan Perón.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Arizona, the Rest of Us, and the Futility of Hiding from Immigration | Catholic Exchange --

  • The main reason people think of immigrants as a drain on our financial resources is because they get legally required, taxpayer-funded benefits. As the equality of all before the law is a bedrock principle of our legal system, it’s really tough to extend these benefits through law to some and not others.

    So I have a sketch of an idea: first, make immigration easy. This will reduce the demand for criminal enterprises importing workers. Reducing criminal enterprises will reduce violence, simply because that’s the only form of conflict resolution really available within a black market.

    Second, eliminate legally mandated, taxpayer-funded benefits from our government budgets, and cut taxes to compensate. That should greatly alleviate the resentment that comes from being required to provide for others.

  • orapronobis

    It is my understanding that the Arizona law allows questioning only if persons are stopped for some other, legitimate reason, e.g., speeding; running red light, etc. Racial profiling would be avoided by querying Everyone stopped for an appropriate other reason. This is legitimately and morally done at our national borders, where Everyone is required to prove their citizenship.

  • elkabrikir

    My suggestion is to empty out all of sub-saharan Africa into Europe. And to legally transport all the citizens of Latin American countries into the USA (only because Canada won’t take them).

    Then the beach-front property in South Africa and Baja Califoria will be available for reverse migration.

    Everybody will have gotten what they want: Africans in Europe, and Europeans, “on holiday” not supporting Africans on the dole. Relocated Americans can have jobs they want to do, only they’ll also enjoy South American vacation destinations since all of those natives will have gone to the land of opportunity: America. US citizens will carry their spirit and American Way with them wherever they go.

    On another note, US schools cannot educate its native-born poor and marginalized in order to produce productive citizens (look at Appalachia, Detroit, Chicago, Wash DC, and much of SC). How can we bring up-to-speed people who come here and are illiterate in their own language, refuse to learn English, and easily accomodate themselves to the welfare way of life? (Fact: 3rd generation Hispanic girls in Texas have the highest high school drop out rate in the country according to an NPR report.)

    We are NOT assimilating these immigrants because the influx is too huge and occurring too quickly. Frankly, much of the area with dense hispanic immigrant population is poverty ridden for generations and the people are not doing well (albeit perhaps better than they had it in their native village).

    Also, I don’t think it’s a good idea to use the immigratiom issue as a platform to discuss abortion and the pill. Desipte these scourges on America, the US has enough workers to sustain itself. If that were not the case, there wouldn’t be a 22% unemployment rate in my state! We are not utilizing the human resources that we have in America: look at the statistics for black high school drop out rates and black male incarceration rates. We don’t need more unskilled labor in this country. Obviously, we have an over-supply according to the unemployment rates in major cities.

    Bottom line: sarcasm aside, mass migration is NOT the solution to poverty and injustice within the homelands of would-be immigrants (Africans/Latinos). Our leaders, both political and regligious must work for justice oversees. We are a world of sovereign nation-states. If the US and Europeans are required to clean up the mess created by corrupt, ineffective governments, then we should also have the right to govern those nations. However, Mexico et al can’t have it both ways: run your country into the ground and grab from the till of working legal residents in other countries. Ever read the story of the “Little Red Hen”?

    Thanks for the article: spot on, on every point.

    PS Cardinal Mahony, teach the faith and stay away from politcs. Leave Liberation Theology alone. We don’t need that Brazilian heresy migrating here.

  • I think that at some point here, maybe soon, our nation is going to have to allow mercy (for families) to triumph over justice (strict application of the law) in order to deal with this problem. BUT FIRST — seal the border. As long our government will not do its first job — national security — we cannot move forward. It is the duplicity, venality, and cowardice of national leaders of both parties that have created this mess.

    And –AMEN! Stacy.

  • goral

    The Feds won’t do anything because it’s not in their interest. Chaos and crisis are always a windfall for any gov’t especially the inept one that we have presently. The pretender can not allow Arizona to succeed because it would demonstrate that this issue can better be controlled at the state level.
    ‘Thank you Obama and Mahoney but we’re doing alright down here’ These would be words straight from hades for our fearless leaders.

    So, the bought and paid for nat’l media now trumpets gov’t of the people, by the people and for the people as facism.

    The labeling came out of your mouth, bp. Mahoney, you now define Communism if you know so much about it.
    Can someone give me the stats on the good bishop as far as what he paid out in scandal money?

    I’m intrigued by elkabrikir’s hemisphere swap proposition. There are several complications with it.

    The Europeans only go as far as the African Mediterranean beaches, They will however, bravely venture into the heart of darkness in search of ivory, diamonds, platinum and gold.
    In the Americas the best Brazillian beaches are already taken so that would leave the bug infested tropical rain forests for the white working class. I’m a skier, not interested.
    There would have to be a strick color test like the brown bag test. That would means that olive skinned people who are not on the pill would have to remain in the northern hemisphere, sorry no copacabana.

    Like Mary says, before we can develop the hemisphere swap proposition or amnesty and grace further, the borders must be sealed first. Arizona is working in that direction.

  • consecrata

    A policeman stopping someone is not necessarily harrassment – there are legal immigrants who tell me that they worked at low paying jobs in Mexico and waited years so that they could come to this country legally. Why should others just cross over and get in front of the line ahead of their compatriots who are, many of them, just as poor and needy but who are willing to do it the right/legal way? I think what makes the issue worse is having tens of thousands of legal and illegal aliens marching in protest throughout our country – and illegals DEMANDING loudly and arrogantly the rights of citizens…I would ship them out immediately. As for those who are here for years working quietly to support their families, I would give them a worker’s card and set them on the road to citizenships…I am going to work with them to teach them English. These quiet immigrants, though illegal, want nothing to do with those loud and, at times, violent demonstrators who demand equal rights while flaunting the law…and it has been shown that there were many SEIU members fanning the flames, and members of American communist parties with them…they make it very hard for illegal immigrants who want to do what they can to make the situation better…and who is looking into those who hire illegal immigrants claiming they want to help them? Many illegal immigrants are exploited terribly, their women raped, their men put to hard and long labor…recently, when over 200 illegal aliens were sent back to Mexico, the jobs they worked were immediately filled by Americans who were out of work…so it is a very complex situation…I worked in Haiti for many years and it is a country poorer and more dangerous than Mexico and yet when Haitians risked their lives to come here, they were immediately turned around and sent back to Haiti…if we are going to have open borders, it should be for everyone…

  • You will never be able to seal borders. Just ask the indigenous peoples that lived in Arizona before 1846 or before 1540. It won’t happen. While we might not agree with Cardinal Mahoney’s choice of words, the facts are Hispanic-American citizens will now have to prove they are citizens in their own country. This is not what Catholics should support, ever. As has been pointed out, if Catholics followed Church teachings on abortion and contraception, there would not be a problem in America, we would have a nation of at least 250 million more citizens than we have today. Think of the leaders, the priests, the ideas that have been lost through abortion and contraception in this country over the last 3 generations.

    And let us not forget how the USA stole what were to become the states of Arizona, New Mexico, California and parts of Utah, Colorado, Neveda, Texas and Wyoming from the sovereign nation of Catholic Mexico. We don’t teach this history in school because it doesn’t fit in with the ideal of what America stands for, and it is just plain ugly.

    The Mexican-American War (1846-48) was fought primarily to enable the United States to expand at the expense of Mexico. Texas became the focal point of hostilities between an expansionist United States and a recently independent Mexico first. Increasingly dominated by white immigrants from the United States, that Mexico had invited to settle their lands, Texas gained independence from Mexico in 1836. This short-lived Texas republic sought U.S. protection against Mexico and possible interference from the British or other European powers.

    At the urging of President James K. Polk, Congress approved the annexation of Texas on March 1, 1845. Polk also sent representatives to Mexico to negotiate the purchase of what are today New Mexico and California, but Mexico did not want to sell any more territory. We would not take no for an answer.

    U.S. forces, led by the future President Zachary Taylor (with Majors U.S. Grant and Robert E. Lee on the same side in this war), provoked an incident with the Mexican Army (much like Hitler did in 1939 with Poland), and Polk quickly obtained a declaration of war from Congress on May 13, 1846. We invaded Mexico and followed the route that Cortez used in the early 1500’s through Veracruz on the east coast of Mexico and occupied Mexico City, flying the U.S. flag over their capitol building. Imagine what that must have felt like to citizens and government leaders in Mexico then! President Polk wanted then the entire country of Mexico annexed to the United States (that would have solved today’s immigration problem, but he didn’t get his way).

    The February 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in front of the only known self-portrait of our Blessed Mother signaled Mexico’s surrender and finalized the purchase of Arizona, New Mexico California and the other parts of what would become 4 states for $15 million.

    This conflict had several long-term results: First and foremost, it largely completed the continental republic; other than the Gadsden Purchase in 1854, the borders of what would become the lower 48 states were set in 1848.

    At the time of the treaty, 90 percent of the population of these states were either native American Indians or Hispanic descent, the other 10 percent were white European. Had the treaty not been signed when it was in February, 1848 it is likely it Mexico never would have given up California. Exactly one month before, in January, 1848, James Marshall discovered a three ounce gold nugget at Sutter’s Mill that would eventually trigger the California Gold Rush the following year. News of the discovery, a month before the Guadalupe Treaty, didn’t reach either Mexico City or Washington D.C. until much later in 1848.

    We should be at least glad that most of the “illegal” immigration into the USA is coming from people who revere Our Lady of Guadalupe and by and large are Catholics. God has a plan. He always does. We should love our neighbors as ourselves. Surely God does not believe in borders and wars to draw them.

  • elkabrikir

    Mr Armstrong,

    your logic is illogical and of no relevance to the current discussion despite your impressive recitation of the facts (I suppose you must have collaborated with the authors of my son’s history book.) And do you suppose that Georgia and North Carolina were Spanish or Mexican at some point? For, those states are inundated with Latinos here illegally.

    Detail the boundaries of any nation-state and you’ll see a similar story. What difference does it make? Currently, and for well over a hundred years, the nation of Mexico accepts the boundaries as established by the war fought long ago by the then 20 year old country.

    If the land you reference as “stolen”: the Southwestern states, basically, were under Mexican control today, do you think we wouldn’t have the current mass migration up from the South? Your position is the radical position of La Raza and other nationalist Mexican groups (as referenced by consecrata). Your comments are a “red herring” and don’t further the discussion.

    Mexico’s poverty is self induced through corruption, drug running, monopolist business practices (think Carlos Slim whose monopoly of the communications system in Mexico has made him the richest man on earth at the expense of the common person), misuse of natural resources (what happened to Mexico’s oil industry?),…Until Mexico recognizes its responsibility in causing millions of its citizens to scatter across the US, we’ll never be on the road to a solution from south of the Rio Grande.

    Until that time, the US must look out for its national interest, which is its right under international law.

    The rule of law must prevail regarding the integrity of national boundaries. Furthermore, John Paul II recognized the right of nations to exist. And, I daresay the villagers abandoned at home by people seeking to provide an existence for their families, would rather be at home, in their homeland. Work for justice within countries of origin. Now there’s something you never hear.

    …and quit bringing the pill and abortion into the discussion. America has a willing work force: think skyrocking unemployment rates around the country.

    Also, Mexican “catholics” are for the most part, uncatechized, consume vast diocesan resources at the expense of the existing flock, and fall into the modern US pattern of social behaviors—think contraception and abortion and absentee fathers– within several years of living here. Therefore, I believe the problem of empty pews is not to be solved by abandoning the flock the Church already has: both practicing Catholics and non practicing Catholics.

    The minimal outreach to fallen away Catholics is disgraceful. We have a mission field available in that area. However, little attention is paid to those souls in favor of embracing the immigrant and the poor. Well, we’re all sojourners and poor in the eyes of God. Maybe the Church hierarchy doesn’t want the blot of those lost souls, on the souls of the bishops and priests who failed the flock placed under their care in the first place. I’m sure it’s very satisfying to ones ego to embrace the aboriginal immigrant than the woman wearing David Yurman. Jesus said that he had not lost person his Father gave him. And just how do the Bishops answer the same question?

  • fishman

    I propose a simple two part solution to the problem.
    1) create a process by which any citizen of a Latin or south american country
    can go to a courthouse, or a border station and spend about 1/2 hour getting the proper paperwork to live and work legally in the united states. No quota’s no waiting, no fees.

    All people going through this process will be issued a tax id and an identification card including their picture and recording weight, name eye color ( all the normal drivers license/ passport info).

    2) A program requiring about 2 month training and having some reasonable and nominal fee is set up. Anyone taking the coarse is certify as a work inspector.

    Every employer in the united states is currently supposed to keep copies of w-2 forms for each employee which include copies of that employees tax id and identification usually ID or driver license.( this is current law)

    The new program allows work inspectors to spot inspect any employer ( this can be done a maximum of 2 times a month). The inspector can request access to all the w-2 at the employment site they are choosing to inspect). Failure to produce the w-2 results is a $50,0000 fine. Any employee who is found to not have proper documentation is the cause of a $25,000 fine for the employer. The inspectors are paid on commission only and get to keep 85% of all fines they collect.
    ( they must call in a police officer to verify violation and have a report written so the fine can be collected and the employer can have their opportunity to defend themselves as with any ticket).

    ( a perfect job for hungry college students part time/ set your own hours).

    This 2 pronged approach has several advantage.
    1) The mass migration and the problems that are causing it are addressed, no racial profiling required, no harassment of individuals.

    2) The problem caused by ‘illegal’ immigration are almost completely resolved.
    Anyone who want to work can , and they can pay taxes, and be here legally. Those who have been found guilty of crimes can be kept out more easily , because there are fewer targets to sort through.
    Also, their extended stay/paperwork renewal can be made contingent as needed, say on proving they are improving in learning English , or progressing towards citizenship.

    3) enforcement is taken care of by free market principles. It is should be so easy to get any legitimate employee registered that no employer would ever risk the fine. The number of enforcement offers self adjusts with demand curve, because at first there might be a lucrative job, but as the competition increases and there are fewer violations

    4) The record keeping required really requires little new infrastructure for employers or government, simply a change in policy of how existing paperwork is handled.

  • fishman

    I can see how the cardinal drew the comparison, the Jews were required to wear yellow stars to identify themselves prior to WWII, and always carry their paperwork.
    They were racially profiled and subject to repeat inspection / harassment.

    I don’t know if that will be the reality of the currently law, but certainly that seems to match well with the fear the people have.

  • goral

    Great plan fishman, it presumes that the gov’t is looking for ways to solve this problem – it is not!

    Fine chronological layout of historical facts, Mark Armstrong, but as the eloquent lady put it – so what!

    So we give back Arizona and New Mexico etc… what about Chicago and Detroit and Philly and Bridgeport, CT??? Will those also fall, out of guilt.

    Every legal immigrant must have ID on them by law. This has absolutely nothing to do with Nazis or Communists. It’s a detraction from the subject.

    I was just in court today to pay a fine. My white daughter did not have her auto insurance card in the car. I’m appealing it because there was always coverage in force. Anyway, the city is inhabited by a 25% Polish-Am. population.
    The courthouse is staffed by a 50% Hispanic population because that’s what’s necessary.
    Should I be crying reverse racism here, should I ask them what they think of the Arizona law? Is it not communism that my daughter had to have her insurance card, of all things, in the car?

    Oh yeah! God doesn’t want us to have borders or laws or expectations of justice and civility. This is the modernist, Mahoney style catholicism.

    Happy Cinco de Mayo, Amigos!

  • plowshare

    Fishman, you can put your worries to rest about racial profiling–the Arizona law explicitly prohibits it. There must be some other reason besides appearance for suspecting that someone is an illegal alien, before even taking the required steps.

    Dr. Mirus was slightly inaccurate about what the police are required to do. They are not required to question the people even if they do suspect they are in the country illegally. What they ARE required to do is to make an inquiry to the appropriate federal authorities unless to do so would impede the course of some investigation.

    You can read the full text of the law here:

    By the way, I wrote about Cardinal Mahony three days ago at another Catholic Exchange website:

    Dr. Mirus was not at all exaggerating how irresponsible Mahony has been.

  • c-kingsley

    Mary -> “… mercy (for families) to triumph over justice (strict application of the law) in order to deal with this problem …”

    If the law is merciless, let’s CHANGE THE LAW rather than ignoring it. I’d rather strictly follow the rule of a merciful law, than be merciful and lawless. I’d rather help people work through a merciless law, than be lawless.

    Three of my children are immigrants. Even in the situation of adopting foreign orphans, the law is complex, and the bureaucracy moves like molasses in winter. After all, what does delay cost them?

    Is it racist to ask for the government to TRY to enforce immigration laws? (Yes, people will always find a way to get around our borders. Is that a reason to ignore the borders? NO.) Is it crazy to ask for the laws to allow more immigration, and to make the process accessible?

    I saw a funny cartoon once — Two Indians are watching the pilgrims’ ships come ashore, and they’re saying to each other something like, “Maybe they’ll be good at gardening and housework.”

  • c-kingsley

    Fishman -> “… any citizen of a Latin or South American country
    can go to a courthouse, or a border station and spend about 1/2 hour getting the proper paperwork to live and work legally in the united states.”

    I’m a citizen of the US and it took nine months and hundreds of dollars to get my children allowed in (counting only the fees for their visa / permanent residency). I had to get a criminal background check. I had to prove we wouldn’t be a public burden after the children joined the family. (Income at least 125% of the poverty line after adding the new children.) I forget all the things I had to prove. Your system is SO fast and easy, I can’t believe even our efficient government (I’m joking here) would be able to make even these basic checks. I don’t think you could prove my driver’s license is valid in under 1/2 hour!

    Let’s talk about how big the quota is, rather than say there is none. What would the US be if we got 300 Million immigrants from the middle east? Considering we may have 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants here, and, if it wasn’t for the criminals, we aren’t doing too badly, we can probably handle higher quotas than we currently have, but to allow anyone who wants to come in may be a problem. So let’s talk about raising it, rather than have none.