The November elections really pushed immigration to the forefront as many candidates ran on anti-immigrant platforms, asking the American public to choose sides in this messy debate. As a result of growing anti-immigrant sentiments around the country leading to an increase in heavy handed immigration enforcement tactics, more and more people have come to our office seeking help. As such ive grown equally more and more frustrated with, not only congress' inability and unwillingness to offer constructive solutions that can benefit both immigrant communities and America at large, but also with the American public's growing opposition to helping "illegals".
The most common argument by far, and the root of people's stiff-necked refusal to offer any type of relief for immigrants is the claim that they are here "illegally", and therefore should not receive a single thing for being law breakers.
This claim is very frustrating for those who have opened a history book. The fact is that the dichotomy of "documented and undocumented" is based on a false premise - the premise that our immigration system, which separates the documented from the undocumented, is just and functions properly. This dichotomy from which so many American's base their voting choices, and from which members of congress often create policies, rests on shaky ground. This immigration system, that either puts people on a path or disqualifies them from citizenship, is antiquated and incomplete with it's most recent overhaul being under Reagan in 1986 (The Immigration Reform and Control Act - IRCA), and even then, the reforms of IRCA did not take into consideration long term effects on American society, particularly in the labor market. From 1986 to 2010, the immigration system has been shaped by placing a patchwork of laws wherever leaks occur in the system. This patchwork of laws is short sighted and lacks a longer term vision for integrating immigrant communities into society (and we must have a program for integration because it is simply logistically and economically unfeasible to deport every single undocumented immigrant from this country. Anyone who argues against this must have been sleeping for the last 3 years while the recession has taken place.) Instead, this patchwork of laws offers temporary fixes with empty futures and dead ends for hard working immigrants who "play by the rules". This is terribly unjust.
Back when California first became a state in the 1850s, governing bodies were forming, and the state constitution and laws were ratified, there were clauses within certain laws that stated that if you are eligible for citizenship you were granted the rights to x,y,z. For example, if you are eligible for citizenship, you could testify in court against a white person. If you are eligible for citizenship, you could own land. If you are eligible for citizenship you could mine in the local mines without paying a hefty land tax. If you are eligible for citizenship...
But this begs the question, who then is eligible for citizenship, what system is used to determine who is eligible and who is not? The answer: Only free whites are eligible for citizenship... everyone else, ineligible. This hardly seems just.
The system that distinguished people as "eligible for citizenship" or "ineligible for citizenship", just as the system categorizing people as "legal" vs "illegal", is inherently flawed. Therefore, any laws that rest their basis on these stipulations are unjust. And as Martin Luther King Jr. says, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
What kind of society are we, what kind of human beings are we, when we close our doors to people who refuse to lie down, but rather fight to choose Life?
What kind of society faults the mother who loses her child to a preventable disease, who climbs a mountain, and crosses a river to save her second child from that very same disease?
What kind of society condemns the farmer who leaves his native land for America, because foreign trade agreements have undercut his profits, and now unable to feed his family, he would rather break the law than watch his family starve to death?
What kind of society criminalizes the youth who came when he was months old, knows no other home but America, studies hard, and wants to become a contributing member of society?
What kind of society are we when we turn away those who are so adamantly fighting for Life, all because they don't have a piece of paper, the basis of which is an arbitrary path to obtaining documents?
This is not an open endorsement for anarchy or a complete disregard for the law, but it is an endorsement for change, for a feasible solution that will help America recover from this economic depression, and allow immigrants to thrive in this nation, moving us forward together. It is an endorsement for a rational and humane approach to reforming our immigration system.
As people of faith we must ask:
Looking through the Gospels, when has Jesus ever put laws above humanity? I would propose, never.
Conversely, looking through those same gospels, when has Jesus put a human life above a law? I couldn't contain the count on 2 hands...
The law was created for people, not people for the law.
When followers of Christ confuse these priorities, we become slaves to that which Christ came to free us.
I refuse to be bound by injustice, or to let those around me be bound by injustice.
I refuse to allow fear to dictate my life.
I refuse to bow to a system that does not respect the sacredness of our God-given humanity.
I refuse to ignore the face of Jesus in my neighbor, documented or not.
I will choose Life.
No comments:
Post a Comment