“The parents ate sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” In Ezekiel, this ancient proverb is referenced with respect to the Babylonian captivity of ancient Israel. In Israel’s captivity in Babylon, the children believed they were suffering for their parents’ sins. They didn’t eat the proverbial sour grapes, but they were suffering just the same. Generations before them made mistakes, but it’s their descendants that pay the price. The Lord speaks through Ezekiel and says that the Lord will change that. No longer will the children say that. Everyone will suffer for their own “sins.”
Reminds me of the once again failed Dream Act.
The children of undocumented immigrants may feel like the ancient children of captive Israel. Their migration to the U.S. was not of their choosing, but they still suffer for it. They can’t go to college, can’t get driver’s licenses, can’t open bank accounts, can’t get insurance, can’t hold their heads up with dignity when they walk the streets. They are subject to abuse and failed dreams. They are snatched up at unexpected times and sent back to countries they do not know, and to learn languages they do not speak.
In God’s economy of things, it is not his intention for the children to suffer for the sins of the parents, although sometimes that is unavoidable. Children grow up in homes where mistakes cause much suffering, even among the innocent.
But with respect to the immigration consequences of children raised in the U.S., but born in another country, we have [had] an option. The Dream Act. Children brought here before the age of 16, who graduate from high school here, who go to college or spend two years in the U.S. military, can get permanent residence after many years of fulfilling all sorts of conditions and jumping through hoops (including criminal checks).
This seems like a “no brainer.” These children are raised here and stand to contribute significantly to our economy, our military, and our country. In their minds, they are already Americans. But for some people, the supposed “crimes” of the parents are so heinous that the continued suffering of the children is warranted as a kind of deterrent to future behavior.
But honestly, is there any real deterrent effect here? Do parents about to cross the border to find jobs to feed their families really stop and ask whether their children will be punished at some distant point in the future? Or do they think about what their children need right now, and so they cross the border and hope the future can be brighter?
It is unjust and it is immoral for the U.S. to deny children the opportunity to stay and contribute to this country, when those children have been brought here and raised here through no fault of their own. The Dream Act will come up again. Matters of justice tend to do that, and one day it will be adopted.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Jesus, Justice, Immigration
“I can bear witness about them that they have a zeal for the law, but it is not according to knowledge.”
In the biblical passage, Jesus is responding to his critics who elevate the keeping of a strict letter of the law over what we might call today the “spirit” of the law. In another passage he tells his critics, who are the religious leaders of his time, that although they have been diligent about the details of the law, they have neglected the “weightier matters of the law, namely justice, mercy and faith.”
I find a parallel to this threefold concern in the prophets, most notably, Micah 6:8: “He has told you what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
Certainly, none of these “weightier matters” of the law are present in much of today’s debate about immigration reform, the Arizona law signed last week being just the most recent example. There is nothing “just, merciful, or faithful” about the execution of that law. Only a cold indifference to human beings in favor of the central question: “legal or illegal”? One cannot read a blog on the subject without some self-proclaimed minuteman type shouting (often in all caps) “WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?” To which I reply, “WHAT PART OF JUSTICE, MERCY, AND FAITH DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?”
Well, I understand plenty about the law and sometimes only a little about justice. I have spent the greater part of my life thinking about the law and this part is clear: the law is imperfect and, at its best, is only a dim reflection of what true justice is. Yet this doesn’t mean that the law is evil. It is, in fact, good. The more advanced and progressive our society, the more we rely on law to give structure to our community. But the law is not an end in itself, and where a law doesn’t reflect justice, mercy, or faith, that law should be changed and, if serious enough injustice results, should be ignored and disobeyed until it can be changed. Our goal as Christians (or for that matter, as human beings), should be to strive for justice, not just law-abiding.
In platonic terms, I suggest that the law is what we see in the material world, and its very existence points to a higher, more perfect form that exists in the world that cannot be seen. That higher, more perfect form is justice, tempered by mercy, and faith. But if all we ever consider is the material law here, without considering what it is intending to reflect, we elevate the letter over the spirit and we become unrighteous in our insistence on strict adherence to unjust laws.
To insist on the observance of the law regardless of the consequences is to presume that the law is always just. That is simply not the case. If it were, the law would not change so frequently. The immigration laws are possibly the most dynamic groups of laws on the books in the U.S. That is, they are constantly in flux. What is illegal today may have been just fine a few years ago. What was punishable by a fine a few years ago may result in permanent banishment from the U.S. now. Which of these is the just law, the law that exists now or the law that existed ten years ago?
As an example, a person who entered the U.S. without inspection 10 years ago, but married a U.S. citizen, could adjust status to permanent residence (green card) without leaving the U.S. based on the petition of the U.S. citizen and pay a fine of $1,000 for having entered the U.S. illegally. That same person today could face a permanent bar from the U.S. regardless of the sponsorship of a U.S. citizen spouse or children. Which is more just? To welcome into our society the one who came in ten years ago without inspection but demonize and call “criminal” the one who does it today in exactly the same circumstances is simply wrong.
One could argue that the one who comes in today without inspection is not coming in under the same circumstances as the one who came in ten years ago. The law is different now. That is true, but both actions were unauthorized or “illegal” whether done now or ten years ago. The difference is the penalty for those actions given by the law. As a society we have to ask ourselves which is more just. That requires more than just a mechanical application of a simple law; it requires us to look at the circumstances. There is good reason for giving persons with families here, and with jobs here, and fleeing persecution there, a chance to get right with the law. Persons without ties to the U.S. and without humanitarian grounds for acceptance may justly (from the perspective of whether they ought to be allowed to remain in the U.S.) be looked at differently than those with significant ties to the U.S.
This requires an examination of our core values. Our core values are not simply that the law must be obeyed, but that the law must reflect justice in society. Is it right for families to be allowed to stay together? Is it right for persons not to be sent back into oppressive situations where they are subject to being killed or deprived of liberty? Is it right for persons to be allowed the freedom to work and provide for their families? Of course it is, but if our inquiry stops with whether they are “legal” or “illegal”, we never get to the question of what core values would be preserved by allowing them to stay and pay an appropriate penalty for their lack of legal status in the U.S.
In the biblical passage, Jesus is responding to his critics who elevate the keeping of a strict letter of the law over what we might call today the “spirit” of the law. In another passage he tells his critics, who are the religious leaders of his time, that although they have been diligent about the details of the law, they have neglected the “weightier matters of the law, namely justice, mercy and faith.”
I find a parallel to this threefold concern in the prophets, most notably, Micah 6:8: “He has told you what is good, and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”
Certainly, none of these “weightier matters” of the law are present in much of today’s debate about immigration reform, the Arizona law signed last week being just the most recent example. There is nothing “just, merciful, or faithful” about the execution of that law. Only a cold indifference to human beings in favor of the central question: “legal or illegal”? One cannot read a blog on the subject without some self-proclaimed minuteman type shouting (often in all caps) “WHAT PART OF “ILLEGAL” DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?” To which I reply, “WHAT PART OF JUSTICE, MERCY, AND FAITH DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND?”
Well, I understand plenty about the law and sometimes only a little about justice. I have spent the greater part of my life thinking about the law and this part is clear: the law is imperfect and, at its best, is only a dim reflection of what true justice is. Yet this doesn’t mean that the law is evil. It is, in fact, good. The more advanced and progressive our society, the more we rely on law to give structure to our community. But the law is not an end in itself, and where a law doesn’t reflect justice, mercy, or faith, that law should be changed and, if serious enough injustice results, should be ignored and disobeyed until it can be changed. Our goal as Christians (or for that matter, as human beings), should be to strive for justice, not just law-abiding.
In platonic terms, I suggest that the law is what we see in the material world, and its very existence points to a higher, more perfect form that exists in the world that cannot be seen. That higher, more perfect form is justice, tempered by mercy, and faith. But if all we ever consider is the material law here, without considering what it is intending to reflect, we elevate the letter over the spirit and we become unrighteous in our insistence on strict adherence to unjust laws.
To insist on the observance of the law regardless of the consequences is to presume that the law is always just. That is simply not the case. If it were, the law would not change so frequently. The immigration laws are possibly the most dynamic groups of laws on the books in the U.S. That is, they are constantly in flux. What is illegal today may have been just fine a few years ago. What was punishable by a fine a few years ago may result in permanent banishment from the U.S. now. Which of these is the just law, the law that exists now or the law that existed ten years ago?
As an example, a person who entered the U.S. without inspection 10 years ago, but married a U.S. citizen, could adjust status to permanent residence (green card) without leaving the U.S. based on the petition of the U.S. citizen and pay a fine of $1,000 for having entered the U.S. illegally. That same person today could face a permanent bar from the U.S. regardless of the sponsorship of a U.S. citizen spouse or children. Which is more just? To welcome into our society the one who came in ten years ago without inspection but demonize and call “criminal” the one who does it today in exactly the same circumstances is simply wrong.
One could argue that the one who comes in today without inspection is not coming in under the same circumstances as the one who came in ten years ago. The law is different now. That is true, but both actions were unauthorized or “illegal” whether done now or ten years ago. The difference is the penalty for those actions given by the law. As a society we have to ask ourselves which is more just. That requires more than just a mechanical application of a simple law; it requires us to look at the circumstances. There is good reason for giving persons with families here, and with jobs here, and fleeing persecution there, a chance to get right with the law. Persons without ties to the U.S. and without humanitarian grounds for acceptance may justly (from the perspective of whether they ought to be allowed to remain in the U.S.) be looked at differently than those with significant ties to the U.S.
This requires an examination of our core values. Our core values are not simply that the law must be obeyed, but that the law must reflect justice in society. Is it right for families to be allowed to stay together? Is it right for persons not to be sent back into oppressive situations where they are subject to being killed or deprived of liberty? Is it right for persons to be allowed the freedom to work and provide for their families? Of course it is, but if our inquiry stops with whether they are “legal” or “illegal”, we never get to the question of what core values would be preserved by allowing them to stay and pay an appropriate penalty for their lack of legal status in the U.S.
Facebook Response
This is a popular, albeit uninformed, sentiment expressed on facebook. My response is below.
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS...YOU PASS THE
NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YRS. HARD LABOR.YOU PASS
THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT.YOU PASS THE AMERICAN
BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND ALLOWANCE FOR A
PLACE TO LIVE, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT SO YOU
CAN READ A DOCUMENT. WE CARRY PASSPORTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR FACE JAIL
TIME. REPOST IF YOU AGREE
No, you don’t really understand this very well. Are you suggesting that North Korea and Afghanistan are good models for U.S. immigration policy? Here is a more accurate view on what it is like to come into the U.S. illegally. You suffer in poverty, discrimination, or abuse in some Central or South American country and hear that there are jobs and employers, or maybe even family, in the North. You ask about work visas for unskilled labor in the U.S. and discover that there is no such thing. In desperation, you risk your life crossing the desert or paying thousands of dollars to some smuggler or coyote who would just as soon leave you for dead as get you to your destination. If you are a woman, you are probably raped. You find a job and work harder than anyone else there only to find out that you are being paid ½ of what everyone else gets. When you complain, your employer beats you and tells you that if you ever open your mouth again, he will call immigration. You pay your taxes, go to church, encourage your kids to excel in school, and do your best to stay out of trouble and make a positive contribution in your community. You pay billions of dollars into the social security system, but will never see a dime of that money. You can’t get a drivers license, can’t get insurance, can’t open a bank account, or get credit cards. You hide in fear of discovery. You pray that you don’t get taken from your children and leave them to fend for themselves. You don’t talk to police when you are a crime victim because they may ask you for your papers. You ask an immigration lawyer if there is anything you can do and (if the lawyer is honest and not out to rip you off by collecting fees for benefits that you are not eligible for) are told that there is nothing, and if you do leave the U.S., you face a ten year or even permanent bar to ever returning to the U.S. Your family is ridiculed because of its legal status. And worst of all, many of your Christian brothers and sisters don’t have compassion on you, but despise you because you are “illegal.” Still, Jesus loves you and you keep going and praying that the law will some day allow you to become legal.
JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS...YOU PASS THE
NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YRS. HARD LABOR.YOU PASS
THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET SHOT.YOU PASS THE AMERICAN
BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, DRIVER'S LICENSE, AND ALLOWANCE FOR A
PLACE TO LIVE, HEALTH CARE, EDUCATION, BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT SO YOU
CAN READ A DOCUMENT. WE CARRY PASSPORTS IN OTHER COUNTRIES OR FACE JAIL
TIME. REPOST IF YOU AGREE
No, you don’t really understand this very well. Are you suggesting that North Korea and Afghanistan are good models for U.S. immigration policy? Here is a more accurate view on what it is like to come into the U.S. illegally. You suffer in poverty, discrimination, or abuse in some Central or South American country and hear that there are jobs and employers, or maybe even family, in the North. You ask about work visas for unskilled labor in the U.S. and discover that there is no such thing. In desperation, you risk your life crossing the desert or paying thousands of dollars to some smuggler or coyote who would just as soon leave you for dead as get you to your destination. If you are a woman, you are probably raped. You find a job and work harder than anyone else there only to find out that you are being paid ½ of what everyone else gets. When you complain, your employer beats you and tells you that if you ever open your mouth again, he will call immigration. You pay your taxes, go to church, encourage your kids to excel in school, and do your best to stay out of trouble and make a positive contribution in your community. You pay billions of dollars into the social security system, but will never see a dime of that money. You can’t get a drivers license, can’t get insurance, can’t open a bank account, or get credit cards. You hide in fear of discovery. You pray that you don’t get taken from your children and leave them to fend for themselves. You don’t talk to police when you are a crime victim because they may ask you for your papers. You ask an immigration lawyer if there is anything you can do and (if the lawyer is honest and not out to rip you off by collecting fees for benefits that you are not eligible for) are told that there is nothing, and if you do leave the U.S., you face a ten year or even permanent bar to ever returning to the U.S. Your family is ridiculed because of its legal status. And worst of all, many of your Christian brothers and sisters don’t have compassion on you, but despise you because you are “illegal.” Still, Jesus loves you and you keep going and praying that the law will some day allow you to become legal.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
A visit to a Kansas congressional office in Washington, D.C. in March to lobby for immigration reform brought this idea home from St. Augustine. This representative (who is also now running for higher office in Kansas) has voted previously 1) to criminalize immigration violations, including visa overstays; 2) to take away birthright citizenship by being born in the U.S.; 3) against the Dream Act; and 4) for just about any other anti-immigrant legislation ever proposed.
Yet, in his office he was surprisingly warm and engaging (perhaps not so surprisingly considering he is an elected official). He seemed sympathetic.
“These are mostly good people,” he said. “But it’s a very complicated issue and there are no easy solutions.”
And then came the cop out.
“But we are a very generous country.”
Not that he had any intention of advocating any kind of generous position going forward. It seems like whenever someone is about to advocate a heartless position, utterly lacking in compassion or grace, they start talking about how generous we are as a country.
After all, we admit a handful of refugees every year, etc. So whatever failings we might have in compassion and justice, it’s all o.k., because, after all, we are “generous.”
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
I have to say this is true. People will put up with a lot of poverty and hardship. But injustice? No.
Is the failure to consider immigration reform a lack of charity, or a lack of justice? It is unjust to reap the fruits of people’s labors, and not dignify them with status. It is unjust to exact punishment, such as permanent banishment from home and family, for minor immigration infractions. It is unjust to abuse workers with impunity because they are powerless and without status. It is unjust for honest employers to have no legal options to recruit foreign workers when no U.S. workers are available. It is unjust for asylum seekers to be detained indefinitely, then deported to a country where they face persecution without the opportunity to see a judge. It is unjust for family members to have to wait decades to join their relatives in the U.S. It is unjust for foreign professionals to wait for years and years to fight their way through the legal green card process only to be denied because of a lost job or minor immigration status violation. It is unjust for hard working compassionate immigrants, documented or not, to be labeled as criminals and vilified by persons whose only claim to superiority is the accident of their birth in the U.S. I could go on.
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
- St. Augustine
A visit to a Kansas congressional office in Washington, D.C. in March to lobby for immigration reform brought this idea home from St. Augustine. This representative (who is also now running for higher office in Kansas) has voted previously 1) to criminalize immigration violations, including visa overstays; 2) to take away birthright citizenship by being born in the U.S.; 3) against the Dream Act; and 4) for just about any other anti-immigrant legislation ever proposed.
Yet, in his office he was surprisingly warm and engaging (perhaps not so surprisingly considering he is an elected official). He seemed sympathetic.
“These are mostly good people,” he said. “But it’s a very complicated issue and there are no easy solutions.”
And then came the cop out.
“But we are a very generous country.”
Not that he had any intention of advocating any kind of generous position going forward. It seems like whenever someone is about to advocate a heartless position, utterly lacking in compassion or grace, they start talking about how generous we are as a country.
After all, we admit a handful of refugees every year, etc. So whatever failings we might have in compassion and justice, it’s all o.k., because, after all, we are “generous.”
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
I have to say this is true. People will put up with a lot of poverty and hardship. But injustice? No.
Is the failure to consider immigration reform a lack of charity, or a lack of justice? It is unjust to reap the fruits of people’s labors, and not dignify them with status. It is unjust to exact punishment, such as permanent banishment from home and family, for minor immigration infractions. It is unjust to abuse workers with impunity because they are powerless and without status. It is unjust for honest employers to have no legal options to recruit foreign workers when no U.S. workers are available. It is unjust for asylum seekers to be detained indefinitely, then deported to a country where they face persecution without the opportunity to see a judge. It is unjust for family members to have to wait decades to join their relatives in the U.S. It is unjust for foreign professionals to wait for years and years to fight their way through the legal green card process only to be denied because of a lost job or minor immigration status violation. It is unjust for hard working compassionate immigrants, documented or not, to be labeled as criminals and vilified by persons whose only claim to superiority is the accident of their birth in the U.S. I could go on.
Charity is no substitute for justice withheld.
- St. Augustine
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Lobby Day in DC
Example of what it is like to lobby for immigration reform in Missouri and Kansas. This is an approximation of an actual dialogue on lobby day with a congressional office in Washington, DC. The rep’s office will remain nameless (although there are no innocents being protected here).
We enter the office and are greeted lukewarmly by a young staffer probably in his late 20’s. I will be the Q. and the staffer will be the A.
Q. We are here to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama mentioned the need for it very forcefully in his Town Hall speech last night in California. Also, Speaker Pelosi and majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, have indicated that immigration reform is at the top of their legislative agendas. Some are saying we may see specific proposals on this by this Fall. What do you think?
A. The Congresswoman does not support amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws.
Q. O.K. What do you mean by amnesty? President Obama said that he would require persons seeking a path to legalization to pay back taxes, learn English, pay a fine, and get in the back of the line. Is that amnesty?
A. Yes. If someone has broken the immigration laws of our country and is here illegally, they should have to leave.
Q. For how long? Can they come back?
A. No, we do not support amnesty.
Q. What if a person is here illegally, but has married a U.S. citizen and has five U.S. citizen children? And what if that spouse and those children, all U.S. citizens, will have to go on welfare if their sole breadwinner is deported, never to return?
A. We do not support amnesty.
Q. So is any return to the U.S. considered amnesty by you, no matter how much of a fine or penalty they pay?
A. We do not support amnesty. Yes, if they are allowed to stay after breaking our immigration laws, that is amnesty.
Q. So under your definition of amnesty, anything short of permanent banishment from the U.S. is amnesty. Have you ever received a speeding ticket?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever exceeded the speeding limit, but not caught – even one mile over the speeding limit?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then aren’t you a criminal driver? Do you think an appropriate punishment should be permanent revocation of your driver’s license? Or perhaps permanent banishment from this country and your family? Does that make sense?
A. That’s not the same thing.
Q. Well, do you know what the criminal penalty is for entering this country without authorization? It’s a $250 fine – about the same as a speeding ticket. Does that sound like the kind of “crime” that warrants permanent banishment from family and country?
A. We do not support amnesty.
Q. Although I don’t think this qualifies as amnesty, let me suggest an example. A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh was caught in a federal drug felony. Do you remember that?
(I could tell he did. He started getting red in the face and obviously irritated. I should explain that at this point I had abandoned any idea of persuading him to change his mind. It was obvious that he couldn’t really go beyond his talking point of “no amnesty” and I shifted to my "make him feel guilty and/or foolish” mode. And by the way, Rush Limbaugh was from his district, Cape Girardeau.)
Q. Rush was caught in this felony drug crime. He’s a drug criminal and could have gone to prison. But instead, he reached a plea agreement, paid a large fine and was on probation for a long time. It was a win/win situation. The prosecutors could avoid the expense and delay of a trial and Rush got to avoid jail. This is something, by the way, that happens every single day in our justice system.
So Rush didn’t have to go to jail – the punishment that our federal laws required. The question is, did Rush get amnesty for his drug crime?
A. No, that’s not the same thing.
Q. Why not?
A. We don’t support amnesty?
Q. So you support amnesty for Rush but not for some poor migrant worker who crosses a border to find a job and has U.S. citizen children and a U.S. citizen spouse that will be irreparably harmed if he is deported from the U.S.?
A. We don’t support amnesty.
Q. My impression of your representative was that she was pro family.
A. Yes, we are very pro family.
Q. Really? Did you know that in the past ten years we have deported from the U.S. over 100,000 parents who left behind U.S. citizen children and U.S. citizen spouses? What do you think that did to those families? Did you know that according to the Urban Institute, one out of every ten children in the U.S. is in a mixed status family? That is, they have one or more parents that are not documented in the U.S. So, if their parents are deported, that will destroy a lot of families. Do you think this is a good result?
A. We are very pro family.
(At this point, it was painfully clear that the cognitive dissonance of maintaining in one breath “no amnesty” and in the next that he is “pro family” simply did not register for him. In reality, the primary principal was “no amnesty” regardless of what human damage it does.)
Q. So exactly whose families are your supporting? Not these poor families. You take this “no amnesty” position despite the fact that what we are talking about with immigration reform is not amnesty at all, and the only alternatives involve either an unacceptable status quo, or incredible human misery and huge expense to the government in trying to deport these poor people. Do you know that it has been estimated to cost over $200 billion to try to deport about 10 million undocumented people in the U.S. And what do you get in the end? Destroyed families, messed up economy and no appreciable benefit to anyone -- the U.S. or the alien. Do you think that is a good result and a good expenditure of taxpayer money?
javascript:void(0)
A. We don’t support amnesty.
Q. Then you don’t really care to act in the national interest, do you?
A. (standing up) Thank you for coming.
We enter the office and are greeted lukewarmly by a young staffer probably in his late 20’s. I will be the Q. and the staffer will be the A.
Q. We are here to talk about comprehensive immigration reform. President Obama mentioned the need for it very forcefully in his Town Hall speech last night in California. Also, Speaker Pelosi and majority leader of the Senate, Harry Reid, have indicated that immigration reform is at the top of their legislative agendas. Some are saying we may see specific proposals on this by this Fall. What do you think?
A. The Congresswoman does not support amnesty for those who have broken our immigration laws.
Q. O.K. What do you mean by amnesty? President Obama said that he would require persons seeking a path to legalization to pay back taxes, learn English, pay a fine, and get in the back of the line. Is that amnesty?
A. Yes. If someone has broken the immigration laws of our country and is here illegally, they should have to leave.
Q. For how long? Can they come back?
A. No, we do not support amnesty.
Q. What if a person is here illegally, but has married a U.S. citizen and has five U.S. citizen children? And what if that spouse and those children, all U.S. citizens, will have to go on welfare if their sole breadwinner is deported, never to return?
A. We do not support amnesty.
Q. So is any return to the U.S. considered amnesty by you, no matter how much of a fine or penalty they pay?
A. We do not support amnesty. Yes, if they are allowed to stay after breaking our immigration laws, that is amnesty.
Q. So under your definition of amnesty, anything short of permanent banishment from the U.S. is amnesty. Have you ever received a speeding ticket?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever exceeded the speeding limit, but not caught – even one mile over the speeding limit?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Then aren’t you a criminal driver? Do you think an appropriate punishment should be permanent revocation of your driver’s license? Or perhaps permanent banishment from this country and your family? Does that make sense?
A. That’s not the same thing.
Q. Well, do you know what the criminal penalty is for entering this country without authorization? It’s a $250 fine – about the same as a speeding ticket. Does that sound like the kind of “crime” that warrants permanent banishment from family and country?
A. We do not support amnesty.
Q. Although I don’t think this qualifies as amnesty, let me suggest an example. A few years ago, Rush Limbaugh was caught in a federal drug felony. Do you remember that?
(I could tell he did. He started getting red in the face and obviously irritated. I should explain that at this point I had abandoned any idea of persuading him to change his mind. It was obvious that he couldn’t really go beyond his talking point of “no amnesty” and I shifted to my "make him feel guilty and/or foolish” mode. And by the way, Rush Limbaugh was from his district, Cape Girardeau.)
Q. Rush was caught in this felony drug crime. He’s a drug criminal and could have gone to prison. But instead, he reached a plea agreement, paid a large fine and was on probation for a long time. It was a win/win situation. The prosecutors could avoid the expense and delay of a trial and Rush got to avoid jail. This is something, by the way, that happens every single day in our justice system.
So Rush didn’t have to go to jail – the punishment that our federal laws required. The question is, did Rush get amnesty for his drug crime?
A. No, that’s not the same thing.
Q. Why not?
A. We don’t support amnesty?
Q. So you support amnesty for Rush but not for some poor migrant worker who crosses a border to find a job and has U.S. citizen children and a U.S. citizen spouse that will be irreparably harmed if he is deported from the U.S.?
A. We don’t support amnesty.
Q. My impression of your representative was that she was pro family.
A. Yes, we are very pro family.
Q. Really? Did you know that in the past ten years we have deported from the U.S. over 100,000 parents who left behind U.S. citizen children and U.S. citizen spouses? What do you think that did to those families? Did you know that according to the Urban Institute, one out of every ten children in the U.S. is in a mixed status family? That is, they have one or more parents that are not documented in the U.S. So, if their parents are deported, that will destroy a lot of families. Do you think this is a good result?
A. We are very pro family.
(At this point, it was painfully clear that the cognitive dissonance of maintaining in one breath “no amnesty” and in the next that he is “pro family” simply did not register for him. In reality, the primary principal was “no amnesty” regardless of what human damage it does.)
Q. So exactly whose families are your supporting? Not these poor families. You take this “no amnesty” position despite the fact that what we are talking about with immigration reform is not amnesty at all, and the only alternatives involve either an unacceptable status quo, or incredible human misery and huge expense to the government in trying to deport these poor people. Do you know that it has been estimated to cost over $200 billion to try to deport about 10 million undocumented people in the U.S. And what do you get in the end? Destroyed families, messed up economy and no appreciable benefit to anyone -- the U.S. or the alien. Do you think that is a good result and a good expenditure of taxpayer money?
javascript:void(0)
A. We don’t support amnesty.
Q. Then you don’t really care to act in the national interest, do you?
A. (standing up) Thank you for coming.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Immigrant Voter Fraud; Fun on Election Day
Election day had beautiful weather here in the Midwest. As I was standing in line to vote, an older man in front of me began chatting with me. We talked about the weather, and that was about it. He didn't know what I do and I don't know what he does. All of a sudden, totally out of the blue, he says disgustedly "you know there are about 100,000 illegal aliens in this area, and every one of them is going to vote today." I suppose that he thought, me being a middle aged white guy and all, that I would agree with him on this observation.
I was stunned. So stunned that I immediately shot back, "no they aren't. Why would they do that? Why would they risk being detected and arrested by voting when they are trying to hide out here? You know, they will have a permanent bar to the U.S. if they falsely claim to be U.S. citizens. There is absolutely no evidence of illegal voting by undocumented immigrants."
I think he was a little stunned at my response and muttered something like, "well, I don't know." And then neither of us spoke to each other the rest of the awkward time we stood in line. We went to our separate booths and doubtless voted our separate ways.
We had not been talking about immigration or politics or anything that would have ellicited such a statement. I even looked at my clothes to see if I was wearing some kind of button or something that gave me away. I wondered if he had seen bumper stickers on my car or something, but I don't see how since I had to park a couple of blocks away, etc.
Then I saw it. A 20 something Asian man placed his ballot in the box and walked out the door. Maybe my line friend assumed that because this guy (who for all we know was born in the U.S.) looked Asian, he must be an illegal alien.
I kept wondering, where does this come from? Was this just some random ignorant bigotry coming out in what he thought must be a welcoming environment? Surely this couldn't be a widespread serious belief. Then a couple of days ago I saw that local hero Kris Kobach was going to run for office again, probably for attorney general or secretary of state in Kansas. His supporters cited as their concerns that the current state administration wasn't doing enough to guard against voter fraud by illegel immigrants.
This from the Joplin Globe:
"Many of Kobach’s fellow conservative Republicans question whether the state is doing enough to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Incumbent Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, also a Republican, has said there’s no evidence of significant problems."
Of course, the lack of evidence is no barrier to those who want to blame undocumented persons for every problem they see in the country. Unfortunately, this is just more demagoguery against a voiceless group.
I was stunned. So stunned that I immediately shot back, "no they aren't. Why would they do that? Why would they risk being detected and arrested by voting when they are trying to hide out here? You know, they will have a permanent bar to the U.S. if they falsely claim to be U.S. citizens. There is absolutely no evidence of illegal voting by undocumented immigrants."
I think he was a little stunned at my response and muttered something like, "well, I don't know." And then neither of us spoke to each other the rest of the awkward time we stood in line. We went to our separate booths and doubtless voted our separate ways.
We had not been talking about immigration or politics or anything that would have ellicited such a statement. I even looked at my clothes to see if I was wearing some kind of button or something that gave me away. I wondered if he had seen bumper stickers on my car or something, but I don't see how since I had to park a couple of blocks away, etc.
Then I saw it. A 20 something Asian man placed his ballot in the box and walked out the door. Maybe my line friend assumed that because this guy (who for all we know was born in the U.S.) looked Asian, he must be an illegal alien.
I kept wondering, where does this come from? Was this just some random ignorant bigotry coming out in what he thought must be a welcoming environment? Surely this couldn't be a widespread serious belief. Then a couple of days ago I saw that local hero Kris Kobach was going to run for office again, probably for attorney general or secretary of state in Kansas. His supporters cited as their concerns that the current state administration wasn't doing enough to guard against voter fraud by illegel immigrants.
This from the Joplin Globe:
"Many of Kobach’s fellow conservative Republicans question whether the state is doing enough to prevent illegal immigrants from voting. Incumbent Secretary of State Ron Thornburgh, also a Republican, has said there’s no evidence of significant problems."
Of course, the lack of evidence is no barrier to those who want to blame undocumented persons for every problem they see in the country. Unfortunately, this is just more demagoguery against a voiceless group.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Immigration and the RNC
Haven't been blogging much. Caught up too much in election issues.
But I couldn't help but notice the Republican National Committee's approach to immigration issues. You can see the entire platform document at http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. The immigration section is on pages 10-11.
First notice that immigration is discussed in a section titled, "Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law." That pretty much tells you where they are going with this. Before 9/11 no one thought of immigration as a national security issue. It is the nativist crowd that constantly (and unfortunately, successfully) drumbeats a connection between the two. Somehow 9/11, which is primarily about a radical muslim agenda, has become the battle cry for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
Thinking of immigration only in terms of national security issues is a recipe for xenophobia. Every immigrant is a potential terrorist, rather than a potential nobel prize winner, or potential reunited family member, or potential solution to U.S. employer's needs for specialized labor, or potential model citizen and patriot.
The focus on the "rule of law" rather than justice or compassion is also a telling sign of the approach to immigration. Apparently, it doesn't matter how stupid or unjust the law is, our moral imperative is simply to abide by it, rather than change it to reflect our true values.
There is much more that could be said about this document, but I did want to point out one amusing irony. On page 11, the platform talks about the English language, as a sign of our national unity. They support English as the "official language in our nation." Although this seems innocuous, it is often code for immigrant bashing and intolerance. I regularly see letters to the editor where people complain about having to "press 1 for English" on telephone calls to their banks, as if somehow this inconvenience of an extra click is undermining our national integrity.
At any rate, the "English Only" section ends with this statement
English is the accepted language of business, commerce,
and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a
unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of
cultural integration, that our schools provide better
education in U.S. history and civics for all children,
thereby fostering a commitment to our national
motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Maybe someone should point out that "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin. I guess English only is important unless we are talking about national mottos.
But I couldn't help but notice the Republican National Committee's approach to immigration issues. You can see the entire platform document at http://platform.gop.com/2008Platform.pdf. The immigration section is on pages 10-11.
First notice that immigration is discussed in a section titled, "Immigration, National Security, and the Rule of Law." That pretty much tells you where they are going with this. Before 9/11 no one thought of immigration as a national security issue. It is the nativist crowd that constantly (and unfortunately, successfully) drumbeats a connection between the two. Somehow 9/11, which is primarily about a radical muslim agenda, has become the battle cry for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico.
Thinking of immigration only in terms of national security issues is a recipe for xenophobia. Every immigrant is a potential terrorist, rather than a potential nobel prize winner, or potential reunited family member, or potential solution to U.S. employer's needs for specialized labor, or potential model citizen and patriot.
The focus on the "rule of law" rather than justice or compassion is also a telling sign of the approach to immigration. Apparently, it doesn't matter how stupid or unjust the law is, our moral imperative is simply to abide by it, rather than change it to reflect our true values.
There is much more that could be said about this document, but I did want to point out one amusing irony. On page 11, the platform talks about the English language, as a sign of our national unity. They support English as the "official language in our nation." Although this seems innocuous, it is often code for immigrant bashing and intolerance. I regularly see letters to the editor where people complain about having to "press 1 for English" on telephone calls to their banks, as if somehow this inconvenience of an extra click is undermining our national integrity.
At any rate, the "English Only" section ends with this statement
English is the accepted language of business, commerce,
and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a
unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of
cultural integration, that our schools provide better
education in U.S. history and civics for all children,
thereby fostering a commitment to our national
motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Maybe someone should point out that "E Pluribus Unum" is Latin. I guess English only is important unless we are talking about national mottos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)