Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Are You Fleeing Communism? On the Right’s Litmus Tests for Refugees

Are You Fleeing Communism? On the Right’s Litmus Tests for Refugees

Last updated on: July 10, 2018 at 9:15 am by Libby Anne

Are You Fleeing Communism? On the Right’s Litmus Tests for Refugees 2018-07-10T09:15:14-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Fred Clark of Slacktivist recently wrote about his childhood church’s sponsorship of a family of “boat people” during the Vietnamese refugee crisis of the late 1970s. His church, Clark explains, was white, conservative, and fundamentalist. His experience was not unique—evangelical and fundamentalist churches that were profoundly conservative and very Republican sponsored thousands of Vietnamese refugees during this period.

Clark ruminates on the seeming disconnect between those actions and the actions of these Christians’ ideological and cultural descendants today:

But today, in the 2018 America of the 81 percent and the 40 percent, the demonstration of national hospitality and American ideals that led so many of us to eagerly welcome the “boat people” — at least initially — seems completely gone. We no longer seem to have any sense of obligation to the refugees fleeing the countries we bomb and then abandon. The stunted counterfeit notions of “patriotism” we now perform or put on as a cheap costume make the words on the Statue of Liberty seem like a cruel joke. And the white evangelical churches that once embodied the ideals of “missionary” Christianity emphatically reject the idea that any of those people from the mission field be allowed to cross the sacred borders of our white nation.

We have — as Americans, as Christians — gotten smaller, crueler, uglier, and more selfish. We act like the world is a zero-sum game of musical chairs, and we’ll shiv anybody who we fear might be trying to take our seat.

What we have lost is massive and important. Getting it back won’t be easy.

There’s a piece missing from Clark’s analysis, however. There is a reason these churches supported these refugees, and it wasn’t because there was a universal pro-refugee zeal at the time. There wasn’t. It had everything to do with context.

Clark gets close to the underlying issue here:

We were seizing the chance to help desperate people … because doing so was a way of reasserting — of demonstrating — a needed sense of national greatness that had been wounded and diminished by the loss of the war in Vietnam and by Watergate and the hostage crisis in Iran.

And again he comes close, here:

In part, we felt that we had a special obligation to help people like this family. Our congregation had supported the war and so we were obliged to support the refugees fleeing the outcome of that war. That was obvious to us, and we recognized this was something we really had to do.

But even in these passages, Clark doesn’t quite hit on the underlying issue. This is completely understandable—Clark is sharing childhood memories, after all. This issue, however—immigration, and refugees—is one that I’ve studied on an academic level, which gives me a wider context within which to understand Clark’s childhood memories.

The Vietnamese boat people were fleeing Communism. The U.S. was embroiled in a decades-old Cold War with the Soviet Union. Championing the Vietnamese boat people offered a way for the United States to thumb its nose at the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites. Our reception of the boat people was not about making up for what we did during the Vietnam War. It was not that American conservatives were all refugee-friendly back then. Support for the boat people made a political point: See how horrible Communism is? Their people are literally fleeing from it.

We know this in part because of a simultaneous lack of support for another set of boat people—Haitian refugees. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, thousands of Haitians fled the human rights abuses of Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, a U.S.-backed strongman dictator. These boat people did not receive the welcome that the Vietnamese did.

As a 1980 Washington Post article explained:

The government insists that they are here for “economic” reasons, which means they cannot stay. The Haitians and their defenders argue they are political refugees, entitled to asylum and the federal benefits that go to political immigrants.

Their defenders include a range of religious and civil rights groups, headed by the National Council of Churches (NCC), and an array of legislators, led by the Congressional Black Caucus, all of whom have called on President Carter to grant the Haitians asylum here.

The official White House position, that the Haitians are here solely for economic reasons, is under heavy attack in a federal court trial of a suit brought by the NCC and civil rights groups.

Testimony this week has indicated that the Duvalier regime in Haiti, contrary to assertions by the Department of State, routinely tortores and imprisons returned boat people as enemies of the impoverished island nation’s government.

INS documents introduced in evidence suggested that Washington, seeking not to embarrass President-for-life Jean-Claude Duvalier, has sanctioned a skirting of the usual due-process procedures in handling the Haitians’ pleas for asylum.

The U.S. stood by Duvalier, despite gross human rights abuses, because he opposed Communism. At the time, opposing Communism made a leader a U.S. ally—regardless of things like human rights abuses, lack of free and fair elections, or political reigns of terror. All that mattered was opposition to Communism—and Duvalier met that qualification.

Accepting refugees from a U.S.-backed dictatorship wouldn’t have made said dictator alone look bad—it would have also made the U.S. look bad. It didn’t promote U.S. foreign policy or the national narrative of America as a bastion of freedom and democracy in the face of Communist dictatorship and oppression. In fact, it rather belied that narrative.

And so the U.S. refused to grant Haitian refugees refugee status.

Contrast this refusal of Haitian refugees with a third group of boat people—Cuban refugees. Like Vietnamese refugees, Cuban refugees were fleeing Communism—so the U.S. accepted them. Without question. Accepting Cuban refugees made Fidel Castro look bad, and by extension it made the Soviet Union look bad. The door was open to Cuban refugees.

In the end, then, it’s not so much that conservative, Republican churches have changed their approach to refugees as it is that there is no political payout for accepting Central American refugees. These individuals are not fleeing Communism. This does, of course, lead to a larger question—in a post-Cold War world, what has become our new national litmus test for accepting refugees? Do we have one? (Whether we should have one is a separate question.)

Anti-Islamic sentiment in the U.S. seems to have ruled out embrace of refugees who are Muslim—even those fleeing an entity the U.S. considers an enemy. Consider the response to the Syrian refugee crisis, for example, when many conservative churches advocated for accepting Syrian refugees who were Christian, but not ones who were Muslim.

While ISIS loomed large in the national psyche, it did not reach the status of Communism as an existential boogeyman. Nevertheless, accepting refugees fleeing ISIS would seem at least somewhat similar to receiving refugees fleeing Communism. However, our “War on Terror” has often been framed as a conflict between Christianity and Islam, particularly on the Right. This colors how many Americans view refugees from the Middle East.

Christian refugees, good. Muslim refugees, bad.

No really, consider—throughout the Syrian refugee crisis, the Right made constant calls for accepting Christian refugees, and Christian refugees only. Many claimed that there was no way to know that a Muslim refugee was not actually an insurgent—recall the framing on the Right that posits the conflict as one of Christianity v. Islam. Accepting Christian refugees fleeing Syria offered another perk—it underscored a Christianity v. Islam framing of the conflict.

But what of Central American refugees? Where do they fit? The short answer is that they don’t. The U.S. does not have anything to gain politically by accepting Central American refugees. If anything, recognizing large numbers of refugees from countries racked by decades of U.S. meddling gives U.S. foreign policy a black eye.

Of course, most Americans know very little about the conflict that racks these countries and even less about the United States’ role in creating it. For these Americans—particularly those on the Right—the question of Central American refugees has become disconnected from foreign policy. In the era of Donald Trump, this question has become connected instead to white nationalism, and to xenophobic fears of racial decline.

In the end, then, this is not a story of conservative congregations moving from an acceptance of refugees in the late 1970s and early 1980s to opposition to refugees today. Instead, it is a story of a political Right that has grounded its approach to refugees not in human rights but in the refugees’ foreign policy implications—and, increasingly, in refugees’ implications to a white, Christian state—for the past half century and beyond.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism

Politics

refugees

Previous Post

July 8, 2018

Lesbian Duplex 179: An Open Thread

Next Post

July 10, 2018 Thoughts on Becerra: Do Women Have No Right to Truth in Advertising?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

True or False: Paul wrote to Titus about overseers needing to be hospitable and able to teach.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE