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?