Two things can be true at once
(and yes, I should get this phrase tattooed on my person)
Come, let us bow down, and bend the knee, *
and kneel before the Lord our Maker.
For he is our God,
and we are the people of his pasture
and the sheep of his hand. *
Oh, that today you would hearken to his voice!
Sister Liz, OA and I had a talk on Thursday that included a brief discussion of the Presiding Bishop’s recent letter on immigration. I actually hadn't thought much about the letter or the situation the PB was responding to. My top of the head thought was how strange it was for the government to ask for help after having so crippled the migration efforts of many churches.
Yesterday I read the TGIF column in The Free Press. It included a comment about the PB's action. So I sent that on to Sister Liz telling her that it was by Nellie Bowles, a left-wing, lesbian, Jew that does the column every Friday. I forgot to mention that Nellie frequently makes a point of a former debutant and Episcopalian. “It's mostly snark and comedy, but I always pick up things I didn't know.” Here’s part of what Nellie wrote.
“What kind of refugees wear cargo shorts: The Trump administration made good on its promise to allow certain white South Africans to claim refugee status in America. This week 59 Afrikaners (descendants of the mostly Dutch colonists who began settling in South Africa in the seventeenth century, also known as Boers) arrived on our pearly shores, hungry for biltong, ready to crack open a hard cider for a sundowner after the braai. Imagine explaining the Triple Dipper at Chili’s to these people. Everyone is being weird about their arrival, except, surprisingly, the Afrikaners. First, the Trump administration. Here’s what the deputy secretary of state said when welcoming the lucky 59: “When you have quality seeds, you can put them in foreign soil and they will blossom.” Quality seeds. He means genes, strong white Dutch seeds to be exact. The Danes and the Dutch are major sperm exporters, and so this week the Trump administration, yet again, agrees with America’s lesbians. Personally, I feel that blondes are fundamentally inbred, but to each her own, Mr. President. Anyway, the Afrikaners really are fleeing persecution, and those denying it probably on some level think they deserve it—a little ancestral blood justice. But the farm murders are truly not a hoax, and a popular South African political leader named Julius Malema really does gather together huge crowds to chant things like: “Shoot to kill. Kill the Boer.”Or as The New York Times has explained it: “Right-wing commenters claim that an old anti-apartheid chant is a call to anti-white violence, but historians and the left-wing politician who embraces it say it should not be taken literally.” It’s a metaphor, silly goose.: She quotes an MSNBC’s Rick Stengel: “These are the descendants of the people who created the most diabolical system of white supremacy in human history,” and “There’s just been a small handful of farmers that have been killed. . . (It’s more than a handful.) So it’s evil that their ancestors went there, and also evil for their descendants ever to leave. Tricky puzzle, this one. Then comes the Episcopal Church, which has been helping resettle refugees for decades but said they would not help the Afrikaners, and will instead entirely end their resettlement partnership with the U.S. government over it. “In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step.” Two things can be true at once (and yes, I should get this phrase tattooed on my person): The Trump administration can embrace a more eugenic immigration philosophy genuinely at odds with Episcopalian beliefs (all souls being equal and such) and the Afrikaners can be legitimate refugees who are in danger. We’ve grown so accustomed to refugee applying only to “young men seeking economic opportunity” that we forgot that not all refugees are ambitious 23-year-old Moroccans looking to enjoy the greatness of capitalism! Me, I’m balanced: pro-immigration but neither racist nor anti-racist. I don’t care if you’re a Dutchman or a Moroccan. I just believe our border entry should be determined by a combination IQ and physical fitness test, a quick grade on baby-rocking ability, see how long it takes you to down a Triple Dipper, then Jordan Peterson personally deciding if you’re too neurotic, and boom—welcome to America. Here’s your Amazon warehouse tunic. Lekker? Lekker.”
Liz responded with “I need to subscribe to her. I have no problem with them coming, as long as they wait in line with everyone else in the world.” Exactly! She also shared a report on who the undocumented immigrants were in terms of religious affiliation. She sent me One Part of the Body which pointed out that if you engaged in mass deportation, most of those being removed were Christians. That's obvious if you think about it, but it had not really occurred to me before. The document is a very respectful and thoughtful pushback on President Trump's statements about immigration. It offers clarity about the existing legal procedures, moving stories about several people, and abroad look at the impact on Christian families living in the United States. It also noted, “We should also be clear that, as Christians, our concern is not exclusively for fellow Christians. We believe that all people, regardless of their religious beliefs, are made in the image of God with inherent dignity (Genesis 1:27, Genesis 9:6, James 3:9). Jesus’ command to love one’s neighbor was clarified by a story of a person who loved someone of a different religious tradition who was in need (Luke 10:25-37). Our call extends to those outside of the Body of Christ — but it certainly also includes those within, and many American Christians, we suspect, have not realized that among immigrants at risk of deportation, the vast majority — four out of five — are fellow Christians.”
O God, you have made of one blood all the peoples of the earth, and sent your blessed Son to preach peace to those who are far off and to those who are near
I think it's a very useful and informative report. On reflection, I found myself thinking that the report would have been improved if it was somewhat broader. It does an excellent job of covering the legal ways in which immigrants can be removed. And it makes an excellent case about the negative impact that can result from excessive action.
Much of the discussion in the press is about all the legal issues around several high profile removals. That is certainly part of any discussion on the social ethics of the situation. But another part has to do with the actual politics of the situation. The law must play out as the law will. But if you are the leader of a nation or a state, or in the legislature of one of them, you're not going to be responding only to the law, but to what you understand to be the desire of the citizens of your nation or state.
My impression is that the political pressure about immigration would be relieved if the southern border was under control (which appears to be the case at this point), and there was a faster process to remove those associated with crime, gangs and support for terrorist groups and causes. I gather the fact is that while Trump has been successful on the southern border, he's actually removed fewer people in this period of time than Biden did. There was something I read yesterday that cautioned that some of Biden's numbers come from taking those trying to cross the border and immediately turning them around. So given that there are many fewer people trying to cross the border, there would be fewer people being turned around immediately.
Trump's way of talking about immigrants and immigration is brutal and cruel. And as it's too often the case, his action is chaotic and less effective than he pretends.
The problem we have is that he is tapping into the frustration among most Americans, especially about the categories of migrants I noted above. That's why we see governors in some of the most progressive states beginning to limit healthcare options for immigrants. A couple of them say they're doing it for budget reasons, but the fact is it also serves them for reelection purposes.
I think the report is both useful and part of the problem. It's useful because it presents information and facts about the numbers and the legal processes that may help many people understand the situation. It's part of the problem because it doesn't really help move us toward a solution. I think it would be helpful for the churches to offer what is in this report, empathetically address the frustration of most citizens about the negative impact of immigration, and engage legislators about options to address those frustrations in a manner that recognizes the human dignity of the migrants alongside the right of any nation to restrict immigration. Not doing that simply comes across as though the church is fighting not just Trump, but on some parts of the issue, most American citizens. Of course there are times when the church must engage in such struggles. But effective engagement needs to include the whole picture. And all the churches have recognized the complexity of the picture in many formal statements. All the churches have statements that recognize the right of a nation to restrict immigration. At the moment we're not being very public about those statements or carefully factoring them into the discussion.
For example, "In the House of Bishops Pastoral Letter in 2010 they noted, “We acknowledge the duty of governments to protect their people, including the securing of borders. The church has always respected this duty, which is grounded in government’s God-given duty to protect innocent people and punish wrongdoers (Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17).” And the guidance offered to the Church of England clergy included this: “This is not to say that there should be no borders. Precious resources must be stewarded carefully and the impact of rapid, unplanned or under-resourced social and economic change on settled communities matters to God too.” [see Immigration and social ethics for more]
V. Let not the needy, O Lord, be forgotten;
R. Nor the hope of the poor be taken away.
My guess is the turmoil might only be addressed in a short term, if the Supreme Court comes up with an approach that allows the government to take action about the groups most citizens see as problematic while also insisting that there has to be some form of minimal due process and humane treatment of people. I have no idea if this is possible. I certainly don't see it happening through Congress, unless one party or the other gets a significant majority in both houses. And I don't see that happening. A slight fear rattling around in the back of my mind is, that if there is some truth about the accusation Trump desires to change the nature of American democracy, and there is no pathway provided through the courts or Congress, he'll ignore any Supreme Court order that limits him and we really will be in a constitutional crisis. My guess is if he stays with his cruel sweeping approach that impacts all immigrants -- popular opinion will turn against him. But if he focuses on the issues in groups that have overwhelming support in the polls, he may have support even in ignoring the courts. And then we are in even more of a mess.
Maybe the churches need to follow Harvard University’s example with a mix of resistance to overreach, a deeper and empathetic understanding of popular opinion, and reflection that causes it to understand and correct its own blindness.
As God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience. Bear with one another and, if anyone has a complaint against another, forgive each other; just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. Above all, clothe yourselves with love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts. (Colossians 3:12-15)
This abides,
Brother Robert, OA
The Feast of Thurgood Marshall, Public Servant, 1993