January 15, 2012
Matt Alspaugh
About five years ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a congregational study trip to Guatemala, sponsored by the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. About twenty of us stayed in a small, traditional hotel in Antigua, which was our base camp for part of the trip. From there we traveled to visit many small groups working for social justice, and to talk with individuals who had been witness to the genocide that Molly described in her chalice lighting reflection.
On the last day of our trip, we had dinner with the proprietor of our hotel. Hugo was a quiet man, very polite, speaking good English, but a little uncomfortable telling his story. During the early days of la violencia, Hugo had worked as a newspaper reporter for one of the more liberal papers, but when his life became endangered, he fled, crossing the border into Los Angeles. There, he worked as a bellhop for one of the larger hotels, gradually learning other aspects of the business. When it was relatively safe to return to Guatemala, he did so, and opened his hotel. He still maintains a low profile, since, as a former journalist, he knows too much about the ‘hidden powers’, the corruption that still remains in Guatemala, and his life could still be in danger.
But Hugo’s story was a reminder to me of the importance of migration as a path to safety, to possibility, to new life.
I think most all of us would agree that our immigration law and enforcement practice has become increasingly broken. Much of what passes for immigration law at the federal level is a sclerotic patchwork of rules and regulations that results in situations like this one, related by Rev. Thom Belote, of the UU church in Overland Park, Kansas. One of the members of his church, Ivan, had come to America from in Vera Cruz, Mexico. Ivan grew up in poverty in a dirt floored shack, and while he was able to complete high school and even attend a little college, there was no future for him in Vera Cruz.
He decided to emigrate to the US, crossing the Arizona border and traveling to Overland Park, Kansas, where friends took him in, and he found work as a dishwasher in a chain restaurant. Let me quote Rev. Belote:
“Ivan lived in the United States for eight and a half years before making the difficult decision to attempt to alter his immigration status. With the help of an immigration lawyer, Ivan prepared to apply for residency. I want to tell you a little bit about this process. First, Ivan had to prepare extensive paperwork, detailing his entire history in this country, from addresses, to his financial history, and more. Next, Ivan had to build a case for why he should be granted residency. His residency case hinged on proving that his absence would create hardship for his wife. Almost perversely, residency cases for those in Ivan’s situation depend on proving that it would be harmful to a United States citizen for him not to remain in the country. The personal well-being of the non-citizen is not considered. …
In August of 2008, Ivan boarded a bus for El Paso, Texas and crossed into Mexico. This was probably the most dangerous part of the trip. For his case to be considered, Ivan needed to leave the country under his own power. If he had been apprehended trying to return to Mexico, everything would have been different. … In Mexico, Ivan went to US immigration officials to make his case. Because he had entered the country without the required documentation in the first place, his case was automatically denied. A hearing to appeal this decision was scheduled for six weeks later. …
Six weeks later, Ivan returned for his appeal hearing. His chances of winning were about fifty-fifty. If he won, he would be granted a permission to re-enter the United States for two years. If he lost he would be banned from entering the United States for ten years. Fortunately, Ivan won his appeal.”[1]
And this is the best our country has to offer. Current federal law treats undocumented presence in this country as a civil offense, which ought to be less onerous than a criminal offense, but it’s not. There are no guarantees of basic rights of an attorney or a speedy trial; persons may be deported in days or held for months in private prisons.[2] Violent criminals have more protections. If this were not bad enough, many states, Arizona, Alabama, and yes, Ohio, too, are creating immigration law on their own, with increasingly oppressive, racist, and unconstitutional legislation. As Bill Clinton reminded us in the reading earlier, “The divide of race has been America’s constant curse. Each new wave of immigrants gives new targets to old prejudices.” In our governance, we face a race to the bottom.
Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray, the former settled minister here at UUYO, tells of how she got involved in the immigration issue. While in Youngstown, she met a young woman in a Woman’s Leadership training meeting, and the facilitator of the event asked each person what they wanted to accomplish in their lives. Susan tells the story:
“Most of us gave vague, meandering answers, something about making a difference, something about justice or personal strength. When it was this young woman’s turn, her answer was absolutely clear. ‘My goal is to become a U.S. citizen,’ she said. I was shocked. I had been talking with this woman all weekend. She was Latina, yes, but had no accent. She seemed as American to me as I do. I never would have guessed she was not a citizen.”[3]
Susan describes how she learned this woman had been brought to the US when she was two years old, the family joining her grandfather, who had been their path to citizenship, but he died, and citizenship was suddenly closed to her and her parents. And of course, many people in her situation have been deported by INS and ICE to countries where they have never lived and do not know. Think of living in fear of random stops, of raids, of “ICE agents are lying in wait for parents as they take their children to school, arresting the parents and leaving the children without care. … [of] agents staking out churches, arresting immigrants and refugees …”[4]. This has happened here in Ohio, according to accounts by an interfaith group working in Columbus.
Our first principle calls for respect for the inherent worth and dignity of every person. Even if we feel that minimizing immigration, for population control or other reasons, is a proper national goal, it is hard to claim that our current immigration policies are skillfully constructed and executed. As the two stories illustrate, the policies are needlessly capricious and unfair. Some laws, especially those enacted by certain states, are simply racist on their face. So at a minimum, we need rules that respect people’s dignity, rules that are far more just than they are now.
Rev. Christine Robinson of the UU church in Albuquerque, New Mexico, suggests that to control immigration in a fair way, we need two things, an identity card that is tied to your right to work, and a willingness to enforce existing law that requires employers to verify that employees have a right to work in this country. She also believes that we have to provide a way for undocumented immigrants who have obeyed the law and worked here for many years to become citizens of the country. She notes that none of this is easy, saying “There is a vocal minority that just wants undocumented workers to go away. It is an ignorant minority but an insistent one. There will have to be a careful political calculus created to accomplish this, and it will take a long time. Time to start.”[5]
Now I know I am just beginning to understand the complexities of immigration. I’m looking forward to learning more, at our — somewhat controversial — General Assembly in Phoenix in June, which will focus primarily on social justice around immigration. I hope some of you might consider joining me.
Rev. Peter Morales was with me on that trip to Guatemala, and, as president of the UUA, has made immigration justice an important part of his work. He talked of the question of morality of immigration law in the larger context. This is what he said:
“… As a religious people who affirm human compassion, who advocate for human rights, who seek justice, we must never, never make the mistake of confusing a legal right with a moral right. The forced removal of Native Americans from their land and onto reservations was legal. The importation and sale of African slaves was legal. Later on, in my lifetime, we had laws across the south designed to prevent African American citizens from voting. Apartheid was legal in South Africa. The confiscation of the property of Jews at the beginning of the Nazi regime was legal. The Spanish Inquisition was legal. Crucifying Jesus was legal. Burning Michael Servetus at the stake for his unitarian theology was legal. The fact that something is legal does not cut much ethical ice. The powerful have always used the legal system to oppress powerless.
Yes, as citizens we should respect the rule of law. But more importantly, our duty is to create laws that are founded on our highest sense of justice, equity and compassion. As Unitarian Universalists, we have a long and proud tradition of opposing unjust laws. One of our martyrs, the Rev. James Reeb, died while protesting Jim Crow laws in Alabama.”[6]
You may know that James Reeb had traveled to Alabama to support Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. in his civil rights work. One of King’s strongest and clearest statements of the moral nature of civil rights work was written while he was sitting in the Birmingham Jail after being arrested for illegally parading without a permit. In the letter he wrote from the jail he outlined the distinction between just and unjust laws. As I read this, I invite you to substitute the word “deportation”, where King speaks of “segregation”, and see if it still fits.
“… How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. … Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. … Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an “I it” relationship for an “I thou” relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful.”[7]
I’ve already referred to our first principle, respecting “the inherent worth and dignity of every person”. As we reflect on this topic, many of us turn to our sixth principle, which is “the goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all”, which we feel compels us to go deeper into the issue of freedom to migrate, to cross borders. We’d like to see a return to a sense of openness and welcome to all who might flourish here.
Even President Ronald Reagan, on leaving the presidency, called America a “shining city upon a hill” saying, “if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone who had the will and the heart to get here.” And certainly many of us would like to go further, to tear the walls down, rather than build them up.
Of course the great fear is that we’d be swamped with immigrants, with economic refugees. This is actually a wonderful, helpful fear. It is the kind of fear that causes us to hold ourselves accountable as a nation. We would then have to reckon with our history of oppression and colonial behavior in Latin and South America. We would have to make amends, such as changing NAFTA and other trade laws, to promote prosperity and economic justice in these countries. We would have to contend, daily, in our politics and our business and all aspects of our lives, with Martin Luther King Jrs’ reminder,
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”[8]
And with walls torn down and borders opened wide, we would be compelled, as Carl Sagan reminds us, to broaden our loyalties beyond our families and cities and our nation “to the whole human community, the entire planet Earth. … Rich nation-states will have to share their wealth with poor ones. But the choice, … is clearly the universe or nothing.”[9]
Notes:
1 Rev. Thom Belote, Sermon: “Ivan’s Story”, http://revthom.blogspot.com/2008/11/sermon-ivans-story-delivered-11-23-08.html
2 http://www.uua.org/immigration/policy/172156.shtml
3 Rev. Susan Frederick-Gray, “Immigration, Politics and How We Move Forward”, http://www.phoenixuu.org/?q=node/3783
4 http://www.examiner.com/unitarian-universalist-in-columbus/fixing-a-broken-world-part-2-virginia-lohmann-bauman-on-immigration-reform
5 “Immigration Conundrum”, A sermon preached by Rev. Christine Robinson on Sunday, June 27, 2010
6 “Immigration”, Rev. Peter Morales, May 30, 2010, http://www.phoenixuu.org/?q=node/3872
7 Rev. Dr. M.L. King, Jr.”Letter from a Birmingham Jail”
8 ibid.
9 Carl Sagan, “Cosmos”, 1985, p. 284.