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?

Day 14 - O'Keefe - Necessity Defense

Day 14 – O’Keefe – Point of View

The American legal system is in trouble today: it is slow, it appears to favor the rich, and it does not provide justice with reliability that people trust.  But it has tremendous strengths, including at least two bedrock principles that opponents of immigration like you are assaulting.  I do not think you understand how much damage you are doing to our laws.  It would be better if you debated with your opponents, and explained – or changed.

You routinely assault American law by your bland assertion that undocumented immigrants are here “illegally.”  In order to make that equation, you assault American law by skipping over the necessity defense, and ignoring the assumption in law that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The necessity defense embodies a simple idea: there is nothing wrong with violating a statute if you have a good reason to do so.  Running red lights to get your wife to the hospital when she is delivering a baby violates a statute – but you have a defense.  Trespassing in a burning house in order to get people out violates a statute, but common sense and common law over-ride the statute: in that situation, breaking and entering is heroic – and legal.  If you break a law because you have to break it to protect some higher good, it’s legal: your defense against criminal charges is the “necessity defense.”

When someone crosses the border into the United States without documentation, that violates the law.  But if it is in fact the only way he sees to feed his family, he has a legal defense.  If she crosses the border to escape gang violence, she has a defense.  If they cross the border to find a little sister who’s been missing for six months, they have a defense.  The details of the lives of immigrants are not just irrelevant sob stories; they are legal defenses – if you believe in the principles of American law.

Perhaps many undocumented immigrants are here to build a better life, not because of a specific emergency.  You still can’t call them “Illegals”; they are innocent until proven guilty.

American courts have become slow, ponderous, expensive.  So the idea that millions of undocumented immigrants should have a shot at presenting their cases in American court does not fill us with pride in our system; it sounds really expensive!  I see the problem.  But scrapping ancient common law principles is not an acceptable solution. 

Moses explained over and over that the statutes protecting immigrants make sense, when we look at them from the perspective of the immigrant: “Remember that you too once were a stranger in a strange land.”  Jesus also challenges his followers to shift perspective: “Who was a good neighbor to this victim by the side of the road?”  American law does the same: we do not enforce our laws without any reference to circumstances.  This is Biblical teaching; it is common sense; and it is our law. 

Mr. Parrott?

Day 13 - O'Keefe - Virgin of Guadalupe

Day 13 – O’Keefe – Brothers and Sisters

Mexico has been our neighbor for our entire history.  Why haven’t we learned yet to be respectful?

In the Capitol, underneath the rotunda, there is a large hall with statues from each of the 50 states.  California’s statue is striking: it’s a man holding up a cross.  You’re a Christian, Mr. Parrott: are you proud of that statue?  It’s Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, and his mother language was Spanish, not English.  In Statuary Hall, he stands out: but is he an American and Christian hero, or a foreigner?

In the 20^th century, there were many nonviolent campaigns around the world, modeled on the work of Mahatma Gandhi.  In the United States, there were two large nonviolent campaigns that ended with tangible success.  One, of course, was the civil rights campaign.  The other was the successful campaign to organize farm workers, led by Cesar Chavez.  Four states celebrate his birthday on March 31 as a state holiday.  Three states – Arizona, Texas and Colorado – take note of the day; but in California, many schools are closed, which makes it a real holiday.  Chavez led the United Farm Workers to victory after decades of failure, in part by appealing successfully to consumers across the country.  The grape and lettuce boycotts, persuading Anglos to buy products only if they had a union symbol, were events of nationwide unity, of proud solidarity with the gutsy workers who fed us, who still feed us.  Are we deeply proud of him, of them? 

The UFW symbol is an eagle.  It’s taken from the Mexican flag – which resembles the Great Seal of the United States.  Are we pleased and proud to share this symbol of freedom and aspiration?

The UFW had a second symbol that they carried in marches: the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe.  In 1531, almost four generations before Jamestown was founded, there was a mysterious event in Mexico City.  A young man – one of the very few natives of Mexico who had accepted the faith brought to the America by Franciscan missionaries – said he had seen a vision from heaven, and showed skeptical officials a beautiful picture of the woman he had seen.  The picture was on his cloak, made of rough fabric; to this day, no one has explained how that image got there; it’s not dyed, and it’s not painted.  It’s detailed, and it’s beautiful.  The image taught by graphic images what the Franciscans had tried to say in words, and it led rapidly to millions of conversions.  Key message: God is with us – not just with Europeans, but with all of us.  Do you embrace that message?

I am ashamed to live in the largest gated community in the world.  The wall between me and my neighbors embarrasses me.  Why haven’t we learned to be friends, neighbors, brothers and sisters – after 400 years?

I want the wall down – in the desert, but even more in our hearts, in our lives.

Mr. Parrott?

Day 12 - balancing ownership and migration rights

Day 12 – O’Keefe – mi casa es … whose?

“How would you feel, John, if someone barged into your house and announced that he was staying, and that his cousins would show up in a few hours?”  Great question!  I wish you had asked!

This question shows up often in arguments about immigration.  It’s usually a rhetorical question; the “questioner” generally doesn’t expect an answer, generally considers this oh-so-clever question to be unanswerable.  But I think it’s a legitimate question.

In my view, the right to migrate is inalienable, but not absolute.  The right to life cannot be limited or abridged; but the “pursuit of happiness,” including rights to own private property and to migrate, are negotiable.  These rights “come not from the generosity of the State, but from the hand of God” (in JFK’s words), but the details still require discussion.  The question about how to balance my property rights and an immigrant’s right to migrate is exactly the right question.

America’s population density is about 91 people per square mile, and the world average is about 122 people per square mile.  Our population density is among the lowest of the industrialized nations.  We are the richest country in the world, with vast amounts of empty land.  The “right to migrate” is meaningless if nations with our wealth and land and population density believe that we can exclude immigrants simply because we choose to do so.

For decades, members of eugenics societies who believe that the world is over-populated have been looking for ways to justify coercive depopulation programs.  In one program in Africa, depopulationists were trying to get women in Nigeria to limit family size, and they asked mothers, “In your view, what is the best family size?”  Nigerian women – Christian, Muslim, or from a traditional religion, it didn’t matter – all said that children are gifts from God and we want as many as God sends.  The Western pollsters pressed: “Just give me a number.”  One woman responded, “Seventeen,” meaning, “I want as many as God sends, but I will try to be polite to you.”  The pollster seized it.  The principle of limitation was established; now the job was to massage the number.

It’s the same with immigration.  Any number we set is artificial nonsense.  The question that matters is whether this immigrant is likely to find a job.  Recently, millions have found jobs.  Immigration is an economic phenomenon, and trying to stop it by legislation is a fool’s errand.

The right to private property is real and important, but limited: we are stewards.  And the right to migrate is similarly real and important although limited: immigrants have the blessing and support of the land’s real Owner.  I don’t think I need to negotiate about my house, although I have never closed my door to anyone, and have housed various strays and wanderers for months at a time.  But a claim to control vast tracts is subject to negotiation and modification.

Mr. Parrott?

Day 11 - Biblical and Classical Teaching

Day 11 – O’Keefe – Homer and Scripture compared

Scripture, in both Old and New Testaments, commands hospitality for immigrants, and Christians are obliged to make sure our national laws and customs reflect that mandate.  Scripture’s teaching about strangers may be made clearer by contrast with the ancient Greek epic, the Odyssey.  This great story also explores the theme of hospitality. 

Odysseus, a Greek warrior, offends a god, who delays him for ten years when he is on his way home to Ithaca after ten years fighting at Troy.  His wife Penelope and his son Telemachus wait for him, but many neighbors doubt that he survives, and they come to court the beautiful woman whom they consider to be a widow.  She and her son do not know how to get rid of the suitors, and complain repeatedly that they are abusing the laws of hospitality, feasting lazily on the wealth of Ithaca.  Telemachus goes out to visit his father’s old friends in neighboring kingdoms, and is received with appropriate hospitality.  Eventually Odysseus escapes from the goddess who had held him prisoner for years, and makes his way home.  When he arrives, alone and unarmed, he disguises himself as a beggar, to see what is happening in his palace before he reveals himself.  The suitors treat the beggar rudely.  Odysseus and Telemachus devise a plan to trap the suitors – and then slaughter them all. 

One difference between Scripture and the Odyssey is that the Greek story includes abundant material about the expectations of a guest’s behavior as well as a host’s.  When Telemachus is visiting neighboring kingdoms, there descriptions of his welcome show how a host is expected to behave.  Scripture, by contrast, focuses almost exclusively on the proper conduct of a host.

Hospitality includes the way you think about the speck on the horizon, the initial greeting, the extended stay, and the long-term accommodation.  The Greek story includes initial greetings and a welcome that lasts a few days.  Scripture includes that, but the focus of most of the teaching is on long-term accommodation.

The Greek story resembles Scripture is several ways.  In the Odyssey, abusing the laws of hospitality was a capital crime, as in the Bible (the Exodus, Sodom, and Gibea).  The suitors made three errors, identifying Penelope as a widow, Telemachus as an orphan, and Odysseus as a poor stranger: this is, of course, a familiar trio from Scripture.  These errors would not have mattered much if they had been respectful to the apparently vulnerable trio – as Scripture mandates.

This odd thread that runs through the Old Testament – welcome the stranger because you too once were a stranger in a strange land – comes into full power in the teaching of Jesus.  Literature explores it, Abraham saw it, Moses pointed at it – but Jesus proclaimed it out loud.  Welcoming strangers does not bring a prince or potentate into your house on rare occasions.  No: welcoming strangers brings the King of Creation under your roof, every time.

Mr. Parrott?

Day 10 - O'Keefe - the "American dream"

Day 10 – O’Keefe – Which American Dream?

One concern that opponents of the Dream Act often express is that careless immigration policies threaten to alter or even destroy the American dream.  So what’s the dream: wealth, or shared moral values, or both, or what?

Today, many Americans – in government, industry, and education – are deeply concerned about America’s ability to compete with Chinese education and industry.  This sense of competition is extraordinarily revealing.  To me, it seems obvious that America is light years ahead of China in protecting the things that matter, such as liberty, equality, and human rights.  To me, it also seems obvious that this is not a “competition,” and that we should do anything we can to help the Chinese catch up with us in these critical areas of life.  If they get ahead of us in cherishing liberty and equality, that would be startling but glorious, unequivocally wonderful!

The “competition” is not about human rights or the value of life; it’s about money and power.  To respond to the competition, we are changing our educational priorities, emphasizing STEM – science, technology, engineering, and math.  I support more rigorous education in STEM subjects, enthusiastically.  But will we diminish our commitment to literature and history, our ability to get inside the minds of others, habitually?  To put it another way, what do we value?  What are determined to pass on to the next generation?

Let me propose a thought experiment.  Here’s a list of seven facts about America.  Can we lose any of these seven traits and still be the same great nation that Washington and others founded, that Lincoln and others kept together?

#1 .  We are the richest nation on earth.

#2 .  Militarily, we are the most powerful nation on earth.

#3 .  We have – or have had – a strong work ethic (often called a “Protestant” work ethic).

#4 .  We enshrine in our founding documents a commitment to equality.

#5 .  We enshrine a revolutionary attitude towards inalienable human rights.

#6 .  We are proud of our history of generosity and hospitality.

#7.  We are predominantly white.

Which of these can change, without changing American identity?  (I recognize that I am skipping over at least one huge and complex aspect of American life that is critical to our identity.) 

We can dump #7, right?  We can’t dump #4 and #5, no matter what, right?  What about #6?

100 years ago, we kept out millions of Chinese immigrants, because we considered them inferior.  Now we want to compete with the Chinese, and are worried (some people are worried) that their work ethic and intelligence might overwhelm us.  In retrospect, wasn’t it a colossal blunder to keep out those scrappy Chinese entrepreneurs?

Today, many Americans are deeply worried about family life, and about our ability to maintain an intelligent commitment to a family life that imparts traditional attitudes toward faith and family.  And yet we keep out Latinos, and divide immigrant families!  How dumb is that?

Mr. Parrott?

Day 9 - O'Keefe - Maryland's mixed heritage

Day 9 – O’Keefe - Maryland Heritage: What a Mix!

Maryland has a rich and wonderful geography and history. Geography: we have ocean, mountains, Midwest-like rolling hills, a great bay, and Baltimore. No one else can match that diversity! And our history is a similar tangle.

In 1641, Mathias de Sousa – who had worked for several years as an indentured servant of Fr. Andrew White, a leader of the colony – was elected to the Maryland Assembly. De Sousa was the first African American legislator in North America. A great moment for Maryland!

In 1645, Protestants from Virginia invaded Maryland, arrested Fr. White for practicing priestcraft, and sent him back to England in chains. He was arrested for celebrating Mass, not for integration; but it was his faith that led him to treat his servants with respect. De Sousa disappeared from colonial life.  When was the next African American legislator in the North America? Reconstruction? Not a great moment for Maryland.

In 1664, Maryland pioneered another part of American history: it was the first colony to ban inter-racial marriage. The fact that anyone wanted this law indicates that inter-racial marriages were taking place. But the law was shameful.  Not a great moment for Maryland.

In 1789, when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights, they incorporated ideas pioneered in Maryland and developed more fully in Pennsylvania: the First Amendment protects freedom of religion. Another great moment for Maryland!

In 1850, President Zachary Taylor died in office, and Millard Fillmore became president. Fillmore, generally listed among the worst presidents in our history, was not re-elected at the end of that term. But in the following election, he joined the American Party, or Know-Nothings. The Know-Nothing movement was a reaction to German and Irish Catholic immigration, and the problems that followed, including a dramatic increase in crime and welfare costs. The American Party was anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic. Fillmore became their presidential candidate in 1856. Fortunately, he lost, dramatically. In fact, he carried only one state. Uh-oh.  Another bad moment for schizophrenic Maryland.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the eugenics movement (improving the human race by social control of reproduction) was successful in passing laws affecting three issues: miscegenation, forced sterilization of the so-called “feeble-minded,” and immigration. Maryland was NOT among the states passing eugenic sterilization laws, and that is a reason for modest pride.

The work of the eugenics movement is still being dismantled. The anti-miscegenation laws are gone, and the sterilization laws are gone, although abuses continue. Now, we are debating racially charged anti-immigration laws, and Maryland is a battleground again.

Which way will we Marylanders go this time? Are we proud to be the home of Mathias de Sousa, or will we vote for racial bitterness again? Are we proud of Fr. White, or will we support the Know-Nothings again? We resist some of the eugenics movement: can we throw out its evil the remnants?

Claim a proud heritage, and vote for hospitality! Support Maryland’s Dream Act!

Mr. Parrott?

Day 8 - O'Keefe - lesson from Sodom

Day 8 – O’Keefe – the issues in Sodom

Mr. Parrott has taken a leading role in Maryland referenda on immigration and also on marriage.  The most-quoted passage in the Bible supporting Mr. Parrott’s position on marriage is also about welcoming strangers.  So if he overlooks the command to welcome strangers (or immigrants), he loses all credibility on marriage.

In Genesis 18 and 19, there are two stories about patriarchal figures, Abraham at Mamre and Lot at Sodom.  The passages are parallel.  Both Abraham and Lot receive guests, and promptly offer hospitality.  Both offer to serve the travelers.  Both offer to bathe the travelers’ feet.  Both provide a meal.  Both offer a place to rest.  Both passages include reference to their wives, and both wives get in trouble.  Both men bargain – Abraham with God, Lot with two angels.  Both men are to become the fathers of nations.

When you see the parallels, it is simply not possible to overlook the issue of hospitality.  The stories deal with a motif that is familiar not only in the Bible but in literature around the world: the stranger at the door who turns out to be divine.

Both Lot and Abraham provide models of hospitality.  They were pro-active, offering to help.  They provided for basic needs promptly.  They treated their visitors as if they were celestial – which was good, because they were.  And the key difference between the stories of these two men on that day is about a failure in hospitality.  Lot’s neighbors violate the laws of hospitality, among other problems.

So what did the people of Sodom do wrong?  They had a pattern of activity that offended heaven.  The angels’ investigation turns up evidence of three obvious crimes: rape, specifically homosexual rape, and assaulting guests.  (1) The non-consensual sex does not seem to be a key problem in the story, however horrifying it is to us.  Lot does not come off looking good, but he is rescued, not punished, after he offers his virgin daughters to the mob in order to protect his visitors.  (2) The traditional interpretation of the passage focuses on homosexuality, and the word “sodomy” comes from this story.  (3) But certainly, a large part of the evil is the assault on strangers, the sins against hospitality.

The last thing the townspeople do before the angels intervene is to shove Lot, threaten him, and make some kind of anti-immigrant remark.  Boom.

Given the extensive parallels between the two stories, it does not make sense to try to dodge the issue of inhospitality in the story.  Nor is it merely that the men of Sodom had the bad luck to try to rape two angels: the treatment you offer strangers is the treatment you offer God.

When the story is over, the corpses of those guilty of inhospitality and homosexual rape are scattered over the desert. 

It is not honest to take a lesson about marriage from the passage and ignore the lesson about welcoming strangers – including immigrants. 

Mr. Parrott?

Day 7 - O'Keefe - The Right to Migrate

Day 7 – O’Keefe – “the right to migrate”

Mr. Parrott, your friends often refer contemptuously to “open borders.”  I understand that the phrase gives you and/or your friends hives, but I don’t really understand the bitter complaint.  The phrase is emotional for many folks on your side, but I honestly do not know why.  Please explain.

Generally, the phrase is used to refer to a border without any restrictions or limits on movement.  The border between Maryland and Pennsylvania is an open border; most European countries have open borders once you have entered the EU.  By contrast, the longest international border between two countries, the U.S.-Canadian border, is controlled, not open.  I think the Mexican border should be like the Canadian border.  I am honestly baffled when I’m accused of supporting open borders.  There is clearly something here that I am missing.  I wish you would engage, and explain.

I think – I guess in the dark – that this disagreement is about the status of the individual at the border, so I’ll explain my view.

I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by God with certain inalienable rights.  Since these rights are from the hand of God, not the generosity of the state, you don’t have to be an American citizen to have these rights.  I hold further that the inalienable rights include the “pursuit of happiness,” which – here’s the disagreement, perhaps – includes a right to pursue better economic conditions, by migration if necessary.  With the Catholic Church, among others, I believe that there is a God-given right to migrate.  So the individual at the border requesting permission to enter is not begging for a handout; he/she has God-given rights.  This right is clear in the Bible; but like the Founders of this great country, I hold this truth to be self-evident, independent of Biblical support or Catholic teaching.

Logically, the right to migrate refers to both emigration and immigration.  For example, it includes the right of North Korean citizens to emigrate, a right that their government violates.  I don’t think we disagree about that.  But further, the right to migrate is gutted if it doesn’t include the right to immigrate. 

That doesn’t mean that a host country has to accept every comer passively.  But it does mean that it is deeply wrong and completely indefensible to write a law excluding immigrants without a clear justification for the law.  We are stewards of the land, not owners, and the owner – the Creator – has made clear that we should welcome immigrants, generally speaking.  And it seems obvious to me that a right to migrate is a silly thing, a meaningless concept, if huge and wealthy nations with lots of empty space and available jobs can exclude immigrants without rational explanation. 

The right to migrate is a limited right – like property rights, unlike the right to life.  That is, the details are negotiable.  But it’s a right.

Mr. Parrott, are we in agreement so far?

Day 6 - O'Keefe - the money argument

Day 6 – O’Keefe – $ + $

Jesus was crucified between two thieves, and the opponents of immigration are generally very interested in money.  What will it cost the Maryland taxpayer to welcome and educate students in our midst whose parents had the guts to move here – with or without documentation?

A thinktank at UMBC (that’s the University of Maryland Baltimore County) issued a policy paper recently estimating the benefits we will get from encouraging bright students to finish college.  They estimate that the return on the state’s investment (estimated at $3.5 million annually to start) will be about $66 million per class over the lifetime of these Dreamers.

But let’s back up a step.  Suppose, just for the moment for the sake of the debate, that helping these kids had a cost without a huge payoff?  Four thoughts:

1. Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to discern what God asks of us, and we notice that God has asked us to welcome immigrants (Matthew 25), the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

2.  Same point, slightly revised. Obviously, for many people, if it seems possible to help good people in real need, and we come to believe that many immigrants fit that description, the cost is interesting but not terribly important.  We’ll do it.

3.  Recall the Irish argument.  The arguments made about the costs associated with Latino immigration were all made about the Irish in the middle of the 19^th century.  While the Irish were fleeing from famine and poverty, and for a generation after the disaster, they (we) were a burden, including an economic burden.  Crime went up with the Irish; drinking and hooliganism in the streets went up with the Irish; welfare costs went up with the Irish; health care costs went up with the Irish.  I admit freely that poor relief costs in the 19^th century were less comprehensive than health and welfare benefits today, but the argument doesn’t change.  The point is, since then, we Irish have proved ourselves to be a huge benefit to the nation, worth the trouble we caused.

4.  The United States is a shrinking country, except for immigration.  Average family size for people born in the USA is already disastrously below replacement level.  So Social Security, which is based on a growing population, is certain to fail unless we permit – encourage! – robust immigration.  Assuming for the moment that all of Mr. Parrott’s and his friends’ numbers are right, and immigration is a financial drain (I don’t accept it, but assume for the moment), what costs in their whiny list come close to balancing off the financial catastrophe of destroying Social Security?

Maryland taxpayers have already invested in these students for at least five years.  Now, we are two years away from cashing in on the investment when they enter our workforce with a college degree.  Will we help for the last two years?  Justice and the Bible and finance agree: of course we should!