Conclusion

Conclusion

I am not sure it is possible to have a debate about immigration, or indeed about any serious topic, before an election.  Perhaps there’s too much posturing!  Is it possible after an election?

I set out to engage Neil Parrott in a debate about immigration.  I believe I prepared good material, and I hope that readers find it thought-provoking and sometimes entertaining.  I am confident that most of what I wrote was new to most readers.  And yet, I must admit that I failed in what I set out to do.  This short book presents one position, not the invaluable give-and-take of a debate.

Dorothy Day, a Communist turned Christian who wrote about war and poverty and labor and all the issues of the 20^th century, believed that everyone is born with a deep and nearly unquenchable love of truth.  She believed that the best way for people to find the truth was to have all positions on any question presented as clearly and forcefully and possible.  If we hear all the arguments presented clearly, and we are allowed to react freely and without pressure, we will be attracted by the beauty of the truth.

I think we need a public debate about immigration, with all sides presented clearly.  I failed to bring that about.

It seems to me that real communication about significant issues is impossible until the speakers understand and trust each other.  I think it is hard, almost impossible, to hear even the most persuasive and most powerful and all-around best arguments – from someone you don’t understand and trust.  You can start an argument, and make some headway, but it’s just scoring points until the debaters start listening, really listening, to each other.  In general, it seems to me that real listening requires that the debaters take time to hear each other’s stories.  The stories we tell do not replace logic, but they are much more than mere examples that illustrate a point.  Stories make it possible for a human to communicate with another human, heart to heart.

I understand that in the immigration debate, most opponents of immigration (proponents of restrictions) are tired of hearing stories that seem designed to engage emotions instead of thought.  Sometimes, stories cause “compassion fatigue.”  Sometimes, they seem designed to stir guilt.  I understand that problem, and I try to limit my use of stories, at least at the outset of a debate about immigration.  But at the same time, I am keenly aware that both Moses and Jesus, addressing issues related to immigration, carefully and insistently shifted from logical argument to stories.  So I certainly won’t stay away from stories. 

But I do think that a real debate is impossible until the debaters trust each other enough to tell – and, more importantly, of course, to hear – stories.  I failed to get to that beginning point of real communication.

It seems to me that one of the great breakthroughs that stories can facilitate is making a distinction between what people say and what really drives them.  Some years ago, I had the opportunity to witness a fight between two groups of activists who had been allies, apparently about an issue of labor relations.  Both sides made good points, but there was a huge anger, even bitterness, between the parties involved – an anger that was not justified by the points they were making.  Near the end of the fight, I began to see that what drove them had little to do with their stated positions.  Each of them was defending what someone else, hidden in the background, had said.  The fire in the fight had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that were on the table; for each of them, the fire was a matter of loyalty to a beloved and vulnerable friend who wasn’t in the room, who wasn’t even acknowledged openly.

For real communication to take place, the debaters need to trust each other, need to tell stories, and need to identify what it is that drives them to fight for their position.  That’s not to diminish the importance of the stated position; it’s just that sometimes – or often, perhaps almost always – the fire and passion in a debate is only loosely connected to the facts that are in the open.

I failed to get to clarify the fire that drives opponents in this collision of values. 

Three failures: We didn’t achieve trust, didn’t get to stories, and didn’t identify the passion that drives our opponents.  One day, somewhere, God willing the debate will go forward.

What I have tried to offer, then, is limited.  It is just 20 points, presented clearly and briefly.  I think that most readers will find most of them, perhaps all 20 of them, to be new and thought-provoking.

The United States has been and remains a great nation.  But our greatness is based in part on our commitment to ideals.  We define ourselves as a people united – not by color or ethnic background or national origin – but by beliefs.  We hold several truths to be self-evident: that all people are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.  In his Inaugural Address, John Kennedy spoke of a torch passed to a new generation of Americans.  The “torch” was our commitment to ideas, not privilege nor wealth nor a firm grip on the best slice of God’s green earth.   “The same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God,” Kennedy said.  “We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.”

The Centurion's Clarity

Day 20 – O’Keefe – Recalling the Centurion

At every Mass, Catholics join in a short prayer about hospitality, recalling the words of a Roman military officer who asked Jesus for help.  Just before we receive communion, the priest speaks the words of John the Baptist: “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world.”  The congregation responds with a short prayer, altering the words of the centurion slightly, “Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word, and my soul shall be healed.”  The words contain several lessons about hospitality to strangers, including immigrants.

The words that we repeat come from a story that appears in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.  The centurion, an officer in an occupying army, asked Jesus to heal his servant.  Jesus is prepared to come see the servant, but the centurion limits his request: I am not worthy to be blessed by having you visit my home; do not trouble yourself to visit; just heal my servant from afar.

Four points about this story.

First, in Luke’s Gospel, the story of the centurion is paired with another story of healing.  The second story is about a widow, whose only son has died.  Jesus restores the son to life.  The pair of healings shows Jesus fulfilling one part of the Law of Moses; he shows a special concern for the familiar trio, widows and orphans and strangers.

Second, the centurion had a correct attitude toward hospitality.  He understands that the host is blessed by a visit more than the guest is blessed.

Third, the centurion was clear about his own power and dignity.  He gave orders to his servants, and also had about 100 soldiers under his command.  He had exercised authority, and had seen obedience.  Further, he was a commanding officer in an army of occupation; he was in Israel to make sure that the Jews were properly subservient to Rome.  And yet, his request to Jesus is carefully limited.  He makes a request for someone else – for his paralyzed servant – and not for himself.  And understands Jesus’ busy schedule; just give the order, he asks.  (Note: Jesus has given us orders too.)

Fourth, he knows something about Jesus.  He believes that he can heal, and believes that he can do so without a lot of fuss.  He treats Jesus as his superior.

The words of the centurion reflect the right attitude toward an immigrant.  An immigrant, says Jesus to us, should be received with the same welcome that we offer him.  What we do for the immigrant, the Lord accepts as a gift to himself; and what we fail to do for the immigrant, we fail to do for the Lord.  An immigrant has the innate dignity of any child of God, carefully re-affirmed and protected by Jesus.  When an immigrant approaches, we are offered blessings that are greater than anything the immigrant receives from us. 

Claro.  Amen.

Mr. Parrott?

Owning Facts

Day 19 – O’Keefe – owning facts

American political discourse today has become coarse, nasty, divisive, etc.  That’s not hard to see.  But I admit there is a facet of our current fight that baffles me: we often deal in our own facts.  Often, it seems, if people know a specific datum, you can jump from that to a long string of likely conclusions about what they believe.  Debates should start with verifiable facts and/or stipulations, then proceed to varying plausible interpretations, then articulate the underlying values where you find the real collisions that are worth debating.  What happens now, though, is we start with different facts.

That’s gotta be unnecessary.  And it’s definitely boring: yes-it-is versus no-it’s-not is an unsatisfying fight after age five.

I dealt with this collision of data sets in peace work.  I might say to a conservative Catholic that the Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, but it did condemn the “indiscriminate destruction of civilian populations.”  One might expect a collision over authority, or over the meaning of “indiscriminate.”  But often, the response was, “It did not,” and the argument was at a standstill until we found a book.  Or a duck-thing would happen: I would watch the words slide off someone’s back.  The fact that didn’t fit a theory wouldn’t fit into the ear either.  Slip-sliding away is not an argument, but it works.

I saw the refusal to accept data in pro-life work.  I found bodies in dumpsters in DC and Maryland, and I learned in dumpsters that everyone has blue eyes before birth.  I saw the stunning beauty of the fern-like plates that become ugly lumpy skulls.  I counted fingers and toes to make sure I had everything for a respectful burial at Truro Church.  When I told people about what I saw, people were usually polite, but I saw in their eyes what they saw: they just saw a nut.  They were polite, but wanted a quick exit.  Often, the closest people came to engaging with the data was to offer a shrink’s number.  Face the facts that I present?  Forget that!

That’s a long introduction for a short fact.  I hope it worked.

In most honest arguments about immigration, there’s an angry retort hovering in the air.  Sometimes it comes out into the open, but often it just hovers.  “Why don’t they just get in line!  Just obey the law!  If you want to come here, go through the process like everyone else!” 

Here’s the fact: there’s no line.

“Whaddaya mean there’s no line!  I’ve been listening to sob stories about lines from you people for years!  Don’t BS me!”

There are lines for people who definitely qualify for citizenship.  Those lines take years.  But for most Latino immigrants, there’s no line.  The line isn’t long; it isn’t there.

Please read a page at the website for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. It’s at http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/. Then click on “Green Card,” and there’s the info.  Please.

There’s no line.

 Mr. Parrott?

Negative eugenics: destructive and stupid

Day 18 – O’Keefe – positive and negative eugenics

The idea of restricting immigration comes from the eugenics movement.  Countries have always kept enemies out, and have paid attention to who came in.  But restricting immigration in order to shape and sculpt a new and proud population is a new idea in history, brought to us by the eugenics movement.

Eugenics is a serious effort to shape a new human race – or at least some nation – by controlling the genetic pool.  A simple slogan spelled out this goal on the cover of a key journal of the eugenics movement in the 1930s: “More from the fit, less from the unfit.”  Getting more “fit” babies – or “positive” eugenics – has never worked well; killing off the “unfit” – or “negative” eugenics – is much easier.

For a century, the eugenics movement has been promising that they would learn to control genetics, and produce super-babies.  Whatever you think of the goal, they haven’t achieved it.  Instead, they identified and aborted tens of thousands of children with Down syndrome.

For a century, the eugenics movement has tried to persuade Nordic types to have larger families.  Whatever you think of the goal, they haven’t achieved it.  Instead, they launched depopulation propaganda in developing nations, and drove down population growth in Africa and Latin America.

For a century, the eugenics movement has tried to backstop population control by immigration control.  If you can’t improve the whole world by eugenics, can you improve one nation?  So they did manage to pass laws keeping out peoples whom they considered inferior.  First target: the Chinese.  A generation later, between the two world wars, the focus was on Jews.  I’m not sure how important IQ is, or whether we can measure it successfully; but it is ironic that we tried to improve our national IQ by excluding Chinese and Jews.  Right?

Today, many Americans are deeply concerned about the widening gaps between faith and national life.  The Catholic bishops (to take the most prominent example) assert that religious freedom is under assault as never before in our nation’s history, and have launched or supported dozens of lawsuits to protect religious freedom.  And many Americans are deeply concerned about trouble in family life. Over 40 percent of children born in the USA are born to unmarried women.  Rates among some groups and in some areas are much higher than that. 

I would argue that we are in the middle of a catastrophic mistake.  Just as it seemed bizarre to keep out the Chinese and Jews when we were worried about intelligence, so today it is bizarre to keep out Catholic Latinos when we are concerned about faith and family life.  And when we do let some in, we divide families aggressively.  This is not only unbiblical, unjust, inhospitable, and shameful; it’s also stupid and ironically counter-productive.

We can do better.  The opposite of eugenics – including restrictive immigration policies – is Mother Teresa, who sees the face of Jesus in the face of the poor.

 Mr. Parrott?

the right to serve with a smile

Day 17 – O’Keefe – religious freedom includes a right to serve

In a Supreme Court case in 2011 (Arizona v. United States, decided in 2012), the Catholic bishops of the United States filed a brief making an argument that deserves thought.  They claim that religious freedom includes the right to serve.  This seems like an odd claim, but it contains an insight of immense importance.

They argue that the Arizona law restricting immigration damages Americans who lose a chance to be hospitable. That sounds a little strange, but I think they are right.

The bishops argued: “The Catholic Church’s religious faith, like that of many religious denominations … requires it to offer charity—ranging from soup kitchens to homeless shelters—to all in need, whether they are present in this country legally or not. Yet [the Arizona law] … could either criminalize this charity, criminalize those who provide or even permit it … and then to exclude from that charity all those whose presence Arizona and other states would criminalize. This ... would unnecessarily intrude on the Church’s religious liberty.”

Right now, we are in a recession, or at least near one, so Americans are not feeling as optimistic as usual. But still, compared to most of the world throughout all of history, we are fantastically wealthy. We may not always have jelly, but we always have bread. We don’t always like the people under it, but we can always find a roof. In fact, we have cars to complain about, and computers with sticky keys, and pools that need cleaning. We have a lot of stuff, and we have numerous complaints about every single thing we have – so we have a lotta lotta complaints.

Jesus said that when he shows up at the door (disguised, usually) he comes to set us free. He comes to give us joy. Sometimes, what he offers is easy to grasp.  If I have a pool to myself, I see leaves and smell chlorine. But if I let a kid use it, he screams and splashes until I remember how cool it is.  If I eat a piece of candy, I enjoy it for 30 seconds. If I give it to a kid, I enjoy his smile for a long time.  And I have a right to that smile.

Here we are in this vastly wealthy country, moaning and groaning. And 12 million people show up at the door, saying they want some of what we’ve got. If we share it, we enjoy it. If we throw them out, we probably get to keep the stuff, but we lose the joy that should go with it.

We are moaning and groaning about tough times. 12 million times, Jesus has knocked on our door and offered to show us how to enjoy what we have.

The bishops are right. If we refuse to be hospitable, the immigrant is hurt, maybe – but the host is hurt far more. 

Kids get it; we can, too.

Mr. Parrott?

Puzzles solving themselves

Day 16 – O’Keefe – Balancing humanities, STEM, immigration

American education is in perennial turmoil.  It’s not enough to have local and state goals and standards; now we are engaged in setting national goals and standards, because we are worried about international competition.  So we are emphasizing science, technology, engineering and math, which must take some time and energy away from the humanities.  We need hands-on skills more than ever, but after computer skills.  Is a “secular” education neutral and shared, or is it the greatest threat to free speech and George Washington’s ideals ever devised?  Can we train a generation to compete in industry and innovation, and also transmit cultural values?  In this turmoil, anyone with a simple answer is a fool or a liar.

Amidst the turmoil, I would argue that immigration is a huge blessing in the classroom.  It is a huge challenge, of course; administrators across the country are deeply brow-furrowed about expenses, SAT scores, how to engage parents, etc.  But surely, we value the ability to get inside the mind of another person, to listen, to understand, to push our limits, to identify our own pre-conceptions, to alter our assumptions calmly, to empathize – indeed, to love.  Students can learn that collection of skills/abilities/virtues in sports, or in music, or in history and literature classes.  Best, though: students can and do learn from each other, and immigration can help.

I hear the squawks.  “Latinos don’t value education!”  “Chinese don’t value freedom!”  “Muslims don’t value free speech!”  What a lot of nonsense!  Wading into the mental and emotional mix of a 21^st century American classroom is great preparation for life on this planet!

One example to make the point.  In an AP Lit class, I had a student from Israel and a student from the West Bank, who became close friends.  Both were funny, quick-witted, confused, articulate, foul-mouthed clowns.  I asked them once, what will you do if there’s a war, and you are on opposite sides.  They laughed easily, pointed at each other, and answered in unison, “Kill him.”  Then each of them explained, calmly, his loyalty to his family, culture, nation.  They were both eloquent; they listened to each other with humor but respect.  They enjoyed being shocking. 

Guess what?  We didn’t straighten out the whole Middle East in class that day.  The bell rang before peace arrived.  But I’ll tell you what.  That kind of exchange is possible in American classrooms.  It’s not the second coming of Christ, but it’s amazing and valuable.

I’ve seen Latino kids who fit the stereotype, who “don’t value education.”  But that kid comes with a whole family who want confusedly but fiercely for that kid to move ahead.  I’ve watched Chinese kids listen owl-eyed to other students arguing about the difference between freedom and license.  The most tolerant students I have known were Muslims aware of their critics.

Each mouth comes with two hands.  Hungers bring solutions.  Immigrants are a challenge and a puzzle planning to solve themselves.

Mr. Parrott?

Biblical urgency about hospitality

Day 15 – O’Keefe – the Biblical urgency about welcoming strangers

The clear admonition in the Bible that we take care of immigrants and other strangers was watered down and almost forgotten for some years.  But when you do retrieve it, you find that this neglected teaching is repeated all through Scripture with tremendous urgency.

Caring for strangers shows up 18 times in the trio that touches the heart if there’s a heart to be touched: widows, orphans and strangers.

The command shows up all through Leviticus, not as a detail of the dietary laws, but as the principle that explains many laws.

The command shows up frequently followed immediately by a command to respect God.  Punctuation is not an ancient invention, so we can’t say for sure whether welcome-strangers-respect-God is a single idea in a single sentence.  But throughout Scripture, they are clearly related ideas.

At the end of his life, Moses gave a long teaching that incorporates 12 curses.  The list includes a curse on anyone who perverts justice for the familiar trio – widows, orphans, strangers (Deut 27:19).

Psalm 94 stretches to explain an incredible evil: they are so evil that they even kill widows and strangers and orphans!  Worse evils are beyond the imagination, it seems.

In his “Temple Sermon,” Jeremiah cries out for reform, and lists four specific details: Deal justly with your neighbor, stop oppressing the stranger and the orphan and the widow, do not murder the innocent, and avoid idolatry (Jer 7:6).  Later, Jeremiah addresses the king of Israel, and says that if the king fails to make these reforms, the kingdom will fall and the palace will be smashed to rubble.  In his words to the king, he drops one item – idolatry – from his Temple Sermon: he does not focus on idolatry.  But he keeps the demand to care for the familiar trio (Jer 22:3). 

Ezekiel does the same.  The children of Israel deserve to be exiled in Babylon, he says, because of a list of evils, including the oppression of immigrants and other strangers (Ez 22: 7 and 22:29).

In the last chapter of the last book in the Old Testament, the prophet Malachi describes a mysterious day of immense violence, when the messenger of the covenant will come “like a refiner’s fire,” purifying the children of Israel.  The description of this day includes judgment against a list of specific evils: sorcery, adultery, perjury, defrauding employees of their wages, defrauding widows and orphans, ignoring the rights of strangers, and failing to fear God.  Note the familiar three.  And note the connection from welcoming strangers to respecting God (Mal 3:5).

The fiery words in Matthew’s Gospel are not puzzling strays.  When you welcome an immigrant or other stranger, you welcome the Lord of the universe, and the rewards are incalculable forever.  When you slam the door shut, the almighty Lord takes it personally, and responds with justice.  Hospitality is not trivial decoration; it is fundamental.

Urgent: Welcome immigrants!  (Eternal rewards and penalties apply.)

Mr. Parrott?