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

Home
Progressive Christian
Does it stink like rotten meat?

Does it stink like rotten meat?

Last updated on: December 9, 2010 at 5:14 pm by Fred Clark

Does it stink like rotten meat? 2010-12-09T17:14:06-05:00 Fred Clark

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.

The House of Representatives passed the DREAM act. (The Senate, being the Senate, will probably never vote on the measure.)

This originally bipartisan bill was first written by Sens. Dick Durbin and Richard Lugard and has been kicking around for about a decade. Columnist Ruben Navarette Jr. offers a useful summary:

The bill targets young people in the country illegally, offering them "conditional permanent residency" if they came to the United States before they were 16 and if they attend college or serve in the military.

Once they either graduate from an institution of higher education, complete two years toward a bachelor's degree or complete their enlistment, they would have been eligible for permanent legal residency with a chance to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship. However, anyone who didn't participate by enrolling in college or joining the military would have been subject to deportation.

This bill would affect about 2.1 million young Americans. For a moving illustration of what it's passage might mean for each of them — and of how frustrating, destructive and stupid it is not to have such a policy — listen to the fourth segment of This American Life: Just One Thing Missing.

Opponents of the bill would insist that these young people are not Americans, but as President Barack Obama said yesterday, this is the only country "they know as their own." An 18-year-old who was brought here by her parents at the age of 2 does not think of herself as a Briton or a Norwegian, she thinks of herself as an American — whether or not America is willing to acknowledge that, that is what she is.

Opponents of this bill, of course, don't really oppose the fair bargain it creates when the young people in question are Britons or Norwegians or any other variety of white Europeans. What they're worried about, or terrified of, are, in Rep. Dana Rohrabacher's phrase, "non-minority Americans." Steve Benen flags the California Republican's explicitly racist* objection to the bill last night:

"… if this act passes, if an illegal immigrant happens to be of a racial or ethnic minority, which the vast majority of illegal immigrants are, that individual, as soon as legal status is granted, will be entitled to all the education, employment, job training, government contract, and other minority preferences that are written into our federal and state laws.

"As a result, the DREAM act would not only put illegal immigrants on par with American citizens, but would in many cases put them ahead of most American citizens and legal immigrants. So those voting for this so-called DREAM act are voting to relegate the position of non-minority American citizens to behind those who are now in this country illegally."

Yeah, that bit. Oppressed whites always getting sent to the back of the bus and all that.

Remind me again, is it scarier if Rohrabacher really believes this hateful nonsense or if he's just cynically appealing to others' propensity for swallowing hateful nonsense?

On a much happier note, I was pleased to see Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals speaking out in favor of the DREAM act "as one step in the immigration reform of our broken system."

"These are children brought here by their parents. We have educated them. It doesn't make sense to leave them in limbo," Carey said. "Why not allow them to be fully productive tax-paying citizens?"

That's a pragmatic argument and a good pragmatic question, but it's also rooted in the NAE's consistent and principled support for immigration reform. The association produced a good summary of that stance in a 2009 "resolution" on immigration that "urged":

That immigrants be treated with respect and mercy by churches. Exemplary treatment of immigrants by Christians can serve as the moral basis to call for government attitudes and legislation to reflect the same virtues.

That the government develop structures and mechanisms that safeguard and monitor the national borders with efficiency and respect for human dignity.

That the government establish more functional legal mechanisms for the annual entry of a reasonable number of immigrant workers and families.

That the government recognize the central importance of the family in society by reconsidering the number and categories of visas available for family reunification, by dedicating more resources to reducing the backlog of cases in process, and by reevaluating the impact of deportation on families.

That the government establish a sound, equitable process toward earned legal status for currently undocumented immigrants, who desire to embrace the responsibilities and privileges that accompany citizenship.

That the government legislate fair labor and civil laws for all residing within the United States that reflect the best of this countryâ€™s heritage.

That immigration enforcement be conducted in ways that recognize the importance of due process of law, the sanctity of the human person, and the incomparable value of family.

Not bad.

Immigration policy is a tricky subject for Christian ethics because immigration policy is all about boundaries and borders that we Christians don't regard as ethically significant. States have the duty and obligation to secure, safeguard and regulate their borders. Those charged with that responsibility have to do the difficult job of determining who may enter and who may stay and how many and from where and for how long. All of those decisions are based on the crucial distinction of nationality — a distinction that Christian ethics doesn't easily accommodate because it teaches that this distinction is not ultimately real.

The contribution we Christians can make to this conversation, then, I think arises from this very refusal to accept its basic premise. We can argue that immigration policy must not be constructed according to national boundaries of moral obligation because there is no such thing as a boundary of moral obligation.

Responsibility for and to others is always universal. We cannot escape the constant and difficult task of discerning priorities of obligation — to act is to choose. But working out what our primary and most direct responsibilities are does not allow us to claim irresponsibility toward anyone or anything else. States and lawmakers have a primary responsibility to secure justice for and the welfare of their constituents, but that is only one constituent piece of their larger responsibility.

More concretely, an immigration policy that attempts to do justice for Americans by perpetrating injustice toward Mexicans is based on a lie, on a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of the universe, on a faulty model. Such a policy cannot work for very long and will not, ultimately, do any good for anyone on either side of any lines we care to draw.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* I know the current vogue is to never, ever use the term "racist" to describe racist statements, preferring politely dishonest and inaccurate euphemisms, but I've yet to hear a persuasive argument for why such dishonesty and inaccuracy is preferable. As Chris Rock says, "What do you gotta do? Shoot Medgar Evers to be a racist?" I appreciate the pragmatic argument that using the term "racist" with such appropriate precision tends to create a loud and distracting hubbub and some may choose to avoid this predictable harrumphing. But I find this feigned uproar informative and clarifying — more useful than asking for a show of hands. (Ah, so Jim's first reaction is to defend Rohrabacher's statement and suggest it wasn't really "all that bad"? Now we know where Jim is coming from …)

Uncategorized

Previous Post

December 7, 2010

TF: Beyond Good and Evil

Next Post

December 10, 2010 Getting laid off is not the same as getting fired

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 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 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I told my daughter-in-law to uncover a man's feet and lie down at the threshing floor. Who am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Naomi Ruth Rebekah Bathsheba