photo by takomabibelot
With the election coming up immigration remains a hot topic. And rightfully so. It’s especially a hot-button issue here in Texas, but maybe not to the extent that it is in other border states. It would seem that more Texans are understanding of Hispanic immigrants than others – maybe because of our past ties to Mexico – but I can’t quote you any surveys or stats to back that up.
I thought I’d take a look at how the remaining five (major) candidates stack up on immigration. I’m not going to go into detail or bullet points on what each candidate thinks – you can do that on your own (hopefully).
Hillary Clinton
John McCain – who doesn’t list immigration as an issue on his site, instead it’s listed as border security
Ron Paul – who by the way now has LOADS of money to run his congressional re-election campaign with
As you read through the bullet points there are several issues/phrases that come up with amnesty and border security being the big hot-button issues. Depending on how politically correct you want to be or how conservative you want to sound will make a difference in how often you use either of those terms.
So you’re a Canadian eh?
The mob mentality seems to say, “Border security – YEAH! Amnesty – No!”
But I still have to question, if border security is the real issue at hand, why has no one proposed a fence along the U.S. Canadian border?
No one wants a Canadian moose strapped with a dirty bomb to cross the border into the U.S. yet we seem to only be concerned about a fence along the Mexican border.
And why don’t we have a huge problem of Canadian’s crossing illegally across the border of the United States — maybe because they like their country better or maybe they realize that the same opportunities or similar ones can be found in their own country. I find it amusing that many of my friends claim that if certain people are elected as president – they’re moving to Canada. Not Mexico. Not South America – but Canada.
I have to wonder, if we spent half the money we have budgeted on a border fence and budgeted that towards helping Mexico improve their schools, hospitals and infrastructure what impact would it have on illegal immigration?
Simply an American problem
Brian McLaren writes in his book Everything Must Change about the suicidal machine we’ve created in the Western world. We push and push for a system of prosperity but because we prosper we are forced to build up our system of security. We can’t let those not in our circle steal from our prosperity. But then we also have to have a system of equality or fairness within our own circle or else the “have-nots” will rise up and try and still from the “haves.” The greater disparity there is between the haves and the have-nots, the larger the system of equality must be in order to ensure security and prosperity for the haves. I’m telling you it’s a vicious machine.
McLaren looks back at Rome in the time of Jesus and writes that the Roman Empire promised peace, security and equity through domination. “Decisively crush any and all opposition to the emperor. Then, under the emperor’s supreme will, the empire will defeat it’s enemies and punish its criminals so that all will experience prosperity, equity and peace… All, that is, except slaves and servants, whose free and low-cost labor were essential to the empire’s prosperity and who therefore had not rights, or next to no rights.”
McLaren then adds, except for the small farmers – a.k.a tenant farmers. Oh and women – because their role is to bear as many sons as possible so they can become soldiers to protect the empire and then also enrich the empire with their work and taxes.
“So the empire benefited everyone – except for slaves, servants, tenant farmers and women – and perhaps we should add those who lived at the borders of the empire.”
It seems that in Rome’s case, when you build a prosperous nation, everyone wants a piece of it. Neighbor’s of Rome lived in constant fear of being conquered and annexed into the empire, so they heavily armed themselves, requiring Roman border dwellers to do the same. At the same time other neighboring tribes would grow jealous and were prone to launch raids that would involve plunder and revenge for past offenses. And whenever neighbors of Rome encountered times of extreme hardship, large numbers of them would wish to immigrate to enjoy the relative prosperity and security of the empire.
“But the empire didn’t want its own people to suffer by sharing pieces of the pie with a flood of unwanted immigrants, so the borders had to be carefully protected. As a result, border dwellers could expect constant militarization and frequent skirmishes, if not all-out war; the security of those at the center required constant insecurity for those at the margins.”
“So unless you were a slave, servant, tenant farmer, woman, or border dweller, you had a great life of prosperity, security and equity in the empire.”
Sounds like a winning system for all!
Of course to support this system there has to be taxes. “But these were small prices to pay for the pleasure of being part of a great and peaceful empire – a pleasure enjoyed by all except slaves, servants, tenant farmers, women, border-dwellers, conscriptable males and those not given tax breaks.”
But then again the government officially celebrated and defended the right to freedom of speech, thought and religion — unless of course it might undermine support for imperial policy.
So what do we do?!
Sorry if you want a sure fire answer. I ain’t gots none.
It seems that regardless of what we think the next step is, we have a system that is broken. We have a system that allows people to come here illegally, live and prosper, without paying taxes and they can stay here basically as long as they don’t cause a scene or get out of line.
A friend of mine (who incidentally is here with an expired visa) said he joked with his co-workers – “The Mexicans were fine and no one cared until they started wanting more rights. If they would have kept their mouths shut no one would have noticed.”
It seems like there’s two options now. We can either round up all 12-million plus illegal immigrants and pay to ship them all back home and tell them to wait in line again – or we can send them to the back of the citizenship line while they stay here and work. There are some variations on both plans. You can view those yourself.
When did it change?
Another question I must ponder is when did our immigration process change? As it appears from our family history, many of my ancestors came over in a boat, lived here and then applied for citizenship. They weren’t expected to stay in England, or Germany or Ireland and wait for their immigration papers to come in – they just simply came. I suppose they registered with the government when they came into the country – but how many others didn’t.
Kick ’em in the butt and send them packin’
So because these illegal immigrants broke the law should we no longer offer care and love for them? Should we simply give them a kick in the butt and send them packing?
Sure sin, disobedience, breaking the law (whatever you chose to call it) deserves punishment – but how far do you extend that punishment (oh yeah – the punishment must fit the crime)? Jesus tells the disciples to care for those in need – including those in prison. Do we simply neglect our duties because someone else made a mistake?
Brian talked this Sunday about being Inverted, especially in marriage. Scripture tells husbands to love their wives and give of their lives like Christ gave up His life for the church. And women are told to love their husbands and honor and respect them.
But if the husband doesn’t give up his life and treasure his wife like he’s supposed to – does that let the wife off the hook? If the wife doesn’t respect and honor the husband does that let the husband off the hook?
I don’t think so. I think it’s more about us than it is about them. We should be more concerned about whether or not we’re living in accordance with Scripture than how our brother or sister is.
I keep coming back to, “Love your neighbor as yourself” and “if your neighbor asks for your cloak, give him your robe also.”
I’m afraid that maybe in our Western culture we gloss over passages that instruct us to love everyone. I can’t tell you what that means in as a part of American governmental policy but I think I can tell you how it should affect each of us personally – and I know I’m not doing my part like I should.
I just feel like we have a moral obligation to help others in need – regardless if they’re a thief, murderer or illegal immigrant. I feel that if we’re going to send them home we should be doing more to help them fix their home so they don’t want to break into ours next time. And maybe not “we” as a government as much as “we” as a church.
“The sanctity of life doesn’t end at birth.” – Mike Huckabee