April 12, 2007
-
Hope for Immigrants
From the Sojourners newsletter:
“Most of us know this town would have a heck of a time trying
to run itself these days without the immigrants. They’re working
at the grocery stores, the fast-food places, they’re opening
businesses and keeping this town alive and young. We’re just
being practical by telling them, ‘Look, we want you in our
community, and we want you to feel like you belong.’”- Republican Mayor Robert Patten of
Highstown, New Jersey, whose town council unanimously approved
measures allowing undocumented residents to interact with police
and city services without fear of being reported to federal
authorities – making it one of an increasing number
of ”sanctuary cities” with no-questions-asked policies on
immigration status. (Source: The
Washington Post)I much prefer “undocumented residents” to “illegal immigrants.” The Indigo Girls put it so eloquently: “Funny, I thought we were on the same boat back in 1694.” Except that boat carried firearms and blankets with smallpox. And other boats carried opium. Apparently the difference between civilization and illegal immigrants is purely a matter of firepower, not a moral high ground. And it’s not a problem confined to white Americans — throughout history and today the people with more guns and butter dominate and oppress those without. But as an American, I’d like my country to represent a convergence of morality and power, and to lead the world in its treatment of the less fortunate. Kudos to Mayor Robert Patten and the town council of Highstown for their initiative.
Comments (15)
Amen! What you wrote is beautiful.
Sorry I totally disagree with this. I can understand the desire to be inclusive but breaking the law is another issue with serious consequences across the board. Are you saying that calling illegal immigrants that name is oppressive? I’m not sure what exactly is oppressive. I don’t think obeying the law and asking people to do so is mutually exclusive from helping the less fortunate.
What I’m saying is that immigration law, as it is currently written in the U.S., is immoral. We should change the laws to reflect what is just and good.
yeah you’re totally right about that dude
And it’s sad that it’s taking so long to change it too
freakyi is such a flipflopper
Based on this quote alone, Mayor Patten is just sitting on a fence. If he really believes in this immigrant population (the so-called “undocumented residents”) then he would be helping them obtain citizenship so that they can take a legitimate place in the population, receive a proper wage, pay taxes, etc. I’m sorry, but the “feel like you belong” line is total political bs. Perhaps it’s not the immigration laws that are immoral, but those entrusted to properly enforce them.
This quote only serves to illustrate that the Mayor and town council are taking a stand against the recent evils that our government is inflicting on immigrants (for example, the roundup in Bedford last month). It doesn’t say anything about what steps they are taking towards bettering their condition, but rather preventing it from worsening. Isn’t it better to do something than nothing?
I agree that it would be even better if the town leadership took action to help legalize the immigrants. That is probably beyond the scope of their direct influence, though, as citizenship is a federal manner. I like that they used their sphere of influence (local governance) to commit an act of civil disobedience for a higher good. I also like that Bonhoeffer tried to assassinate Hitler, though his effort was unsuccessful. For that, he was hanged 62 years ago today.
I guess I’m a little confused as to why you think the current immigration laws are “immoral,” and then what changes need to be made to make it just and good.
Love that you used an Indigo Girls quote!!!!!! “Shame on You!”
Kudo on the inferred distinction of what is moral (vs. immoral) from what is ethical (vs. unethical). Sometimes if we don’t break earthly laws, we might actually be breaking Godly ones!
Oh, re: the illusion of free will. True, we might think we have choices in terms of what we do with our impulses, but what are the driving forces behind THOSE choices. Reducte ad infinitum…. I think boiling it down, we really can only “choose” two things: to obey God or not to obey God. [And if "choosing" God is good (or good for us ultimately) and if "choosing" NOT God is bad (and ultimately bad for us), then even there really is no choice afterall.]
Mmmm, yummy cognitive sustenance.
I don’t have a comprehensive plan to overhaul immigration law. But I think in general residence and citizenship requirements should be opened up more. And deportation should be reserved for extreme cases, not for everyone who manages to arrive in the country. I believe the laws are immoral because they target the helpless and inflict further pain on their lives.
Interesting, though I’m not sure I agree that the laws target the helpless and inflict further pain on their lives. I think of it more as that the laws apply to everyone, however, it is the helpless/poor who end up breaking the law as they are the ones that come here to “start a better life” (whereas I think think the wealthy probably don’t want to leave their native lands) and if they get caught, don’t have the resources to challenge the laws. But then again, maybe that goes to an argument of disparate impact vs. disparate treatment and that either way, the helpless are being targeted. So, to sum up, I’m not sure what I’m saying, but it’s an interesting issue that you raise.
Actually, upon further thought, I’m not sure you can characterize the immigration laws as immoral because they target the helpless/poor. For example, the law says that it’s illegal to steal. Is that law immoral? After all, the majority of people who steal are probably poor since they are stealing because they don’t have the money to pay whereas the rich have the money and don’t need to steal (gross generalization I know, but used to make a point). Thus, the people who break that law are made into criminals are the poorer, more helpless section of society, but I don’t think that people would argue that the law is immoral because of that. Hmmm, I’ll probably need to think this through more…
It’s hard to judge the morality of a single law apart from the entire system. I would say a law that prohibits stealing can be a part of an immoral legal system that keeps some of the population in destitute poverty, forcing them to choose between stealing and starving.
H-1B lottery is what I call “immoral!”