Yes, I do believe that the law itself is unjust on two levels. First, our immigration system is so badly broken that there is not really a lawful option for many people who are fleeing for their lives--I know this from working with documented refugees and undocumented asylum seekers. I think a fair number of liberals who have become invo…
Yes, I do believe that the law itself is unjust on two levels. First, our immigration system is so badly broken that there is not really a lawful option for many people who are fleeing for their lives--I know this from working with documented refugees and undocumented asylum seekers. I think a fair number of liberals who have become involved with immigrants and border issues share this concern. More broadly, I also have doubts about the legitimacy of the territorial claims of nations, particularly my own. The US southern border is where it was because the US invaded Mexico and stole that land; not sure that gives us the right to turn people from other parts of Mexico away...there's also the question of all of it being stolen indigenous land.
Since I see our immigration law as doubly unjust, I believe that it is wholly just to disobey it.
So I think I do not actually agree in principle with the people turning away undocumented immigrants. But I am not sure that forecloses the possibility of conversation. I do recognize that both the border hawk and I may be motivated by concerns for justice. (Also, perhaps, by concerns for mercy: some of the border hawks I know argue that undocumented immigrants are threatening vulnerable people in the countries to which they immigrate. I think that is not true, but...) I see some hope in speaking of the principles that we both hold dear, and also of the different life experiences which have caused us to believe certain sets of facts and to prioritize certain concerns. I think it's much better to have these conversations than to assume the worst of each other.
Hi, Thanks for this thought and heart provoking discussion. I don't have much to contribute, but what does surface for me (coming from being an attempted student of Buddhism) is that there is no perfect option that does not entail suffering of some sort. There's no way to fix things so that they're just right. It's kind of a sobering and, in a way, even a relieving thought or observation. It's certainly worth trying to get things better, or do things right, but discomfort/dissatisfaction/pain will be part of the outcome, probably in some way for all involved. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this was pretty tangential, sorry about that (:
Thank you! I find that to be a salutary reminder--and while in some ways it seems it should be obvious, I can easily slide into an unconscious perfectionism which expects some ideal solution and blames myself and everyone else for not coming up with that solution.
I actually think this is right on target. It's often easy to fix half a problem. In this case, people who prioritize mercy over justice focus on one half of the problem; people with the opposite prioritization focus on the the other half. Both see a half they want to fix. And both can be blind to the half that will remain unfixed.
Don't you think there'd be chaos if we just opened our borders? And is it fair that somebody gets more access to America just because they happen to live in a bordering country? I would shut our borders completely and offer much more foreign aid so people didn't feel the need to come here.
I agree with you in wishing that we offered more generous foreign aid. I also wish--I don't know if this is a wish you share--that we did less to destroy other people's countries and economies so that they have to flee. (I am thinking of the US backing of dictators in Latin America in the second half of the last century, and of the destruction we have been wreaking in the Middle East for most of my life, directly or by proxy...)
I think we also agree on not wanting chaos, though we may have different ideas about what brings chaos. When my ancestors immigrated to America in the 1700s and 1800s immigration was far more open than it is now, and it doesn't seem to me that that caused chaos. I'd like to see immigration opened again, both at the border and for overseas immigrants like my ancestors. This would be a great blow to the traffickers who now profit from the mismatch between people's desperate need for safety/refuge and our restrictive border policy. I think it would actually reduce chaos. If peaceable people seeking a safe place to raise their kids could come openly and aboveboard, then law enforcement could focus on drug smugglers and other actual criminals, making things safer for us all.
Yes, I do believe that the law itself is unjust on two levels. First, our immigration system is so badly broken that there is not really a lawful option for many people who are fleeing for their lives--I know this from working with documented refugees and undocumented asylum seekers. I think a fair number of liberals who have become involved with immigrants and border issues share this concern. More broadly, I also have doubts about the legitimacy of the territorial claims of nations, particularly my own. The US southern border is where it was because the US invaded Mexico and stole that land; not sure that gives us the right to turn people from other parts of Mexico away...there's also the question of all of it being stolen indigenous land.
Since I see our immigration law as doubly unjust, I believe that it is wholly just to disobey it.
So I think I do not actually agree in principle with the people turning away undocumented immigrants. But I am not sure that forecloses the possibility of conversation. I do recognize that both the border hawk and I may be motivated by concerns for justice. (Also, perhaps, by concerns for mercy: some of the border hawks I know argue that undocumented immigrants are threatening vulnerable people in the countries to which they immigrate. I think that is not true, but...) I see some hope in speaking of the principles that we both hold dear, and also of the different life experiences which have caused us to believe certain sets of facts and to prioritize certain concerns. I think it's much better to have these conversations than to assume the worst of each other.
Hi, Thanks for this thought and heart provoking discussion. I don't have much to contribute, but what does surface for me (coming from being an attempted student of Buddhism) is that there is no perfect option that does not entail suffering of some sort. There's no way to fix things so that they're just right. It's kind of a sobering and, in a way, even a relieving thought or observation. It's certainly worth trying to get things better, or do things right, but discomfort/dissatisfaction/pain will be part of the outcome, probably in some way for all involved. Anyway, I'm pretty sure this was pretty tangential, sorry about that (:
Thank you! I find that to be a salutary reminder--and while in some ways it seems it should be obvious, I can easily slide into an unconscious perfectionism which expects some ideal solution and blames myself and everyone else for not coming up with that solution.
I actually think this is right on target. It's often easy to fix half a problem. In this case, people who prioritize mercy over justice focus on one half of the problem; people with the opposite prioritization focus on the the other half. Both see a half they want to fix. And both can be blind to the half that will remain unfixed.
Sometimes the best solution is imperfect.
Don't you think there'd be chaos if we just opened our borders? And is it fair that somebody gets more access to America just because they happen to live in a bordering country? I would shut our borders completely and offer much more foreign aid so people didn't feel the need to come here.
I agree with you in wishing that we offered more generous foreign aid. I also wish--I don't know if this is a wish you share--that we did less to destroy other people's countries and economies so that they have to flee. (I am thinking of the US backing of dictators in Latin America in the second half of the last century, and of the destruction we have been wreaking in the Middle East for most of my life, directly or by proxy...)
I think we also agree on not wanting chaos, though we may have different ideas about what brings chaos. When my ancestors immigrated to America in the 1700s and 1800s immigration was far more open than it is now, and it doesn't seem to me that that caused chaos. I'd like to see immigration opened again, both at the border and for overseas immigrants like my ancestors. This would be a great blow to the traffickers who now profit from the mismatch between people's desperate need for safety/refuge and our restrictive border policy. I think it would actually reduce chaos. If peaceable people seeking a safe place to raise their kids could come openly and aboveboard, then law enforcement could focus on drug smugglers and other actual criminals, making things safer for us all.