From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
From The New Colossus, a sonnet by Emma Lazarus, which was placed at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty after the turn of the 19th century:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
I will use the passages above, which are “as American as apple pie”, to frame all of the Immigration Orange Lessons. This is because the lessons are directed at U.S. citizens. I encourage readers to consider them in this discussion of justice, as well.
For this discussion, however, I will skim thousands of years of knowledge in the world’s religions. I believe the universe is on the side of justice, and I think religion provides the best fodder to deeply reflect on this concept.
Millions of migrants in the U.S. suffer from fear, prejudice, and persecution simply because they seek “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is very difficult to come up with a greater injustice. All of the migrant denigration, and marginalization in the world cannot take away the fact that migrants are suffering from global injustice. Anyone who denies this injustice is blind.
For moral guidance on how one should act in the face of injustice, I think Muslims make the best case:
O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do. [Qu’ran 4:135]
As I humbly understand this passage, it is taken to mean that one must “stand out for justice, even if it is against ourselves, our families, or against the rich or the poor”. Many anti-migrant advocates will recognize the injustices that migrants face but they refuse to act against them, or “stand out for justice”. Even worse, anti-migrant advocates will justify all manner of horrendous practices against migrants because they pretend to be the champions of U.S. citizens.
First of all, it is not in the interests of U.S. citizens to treat migrants and the countries that they come from with hostility or apathy. Although I will leave this argument for another day, it is this hostility and apathy that has forced many migrants unto the doorsteps of U.S. citizens in the first place. Even then, I think one has to stand for justice “even as against ourselves”. I can already imagine the hate I am going to be a target of for quoting the Qu’ran.
For moral guidance on how one should act towards migrants, my favorite passage comes from The Bible.
Leviticus 24:22, (Leviticus is also part of the Hebrew Bible or the Torah):
Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.
Finally, I will come to one of my favorite religious passages on this subject which is attributed to Baha’u’llah of the Baha’i faith.
The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens.
I think people will be uncomfortable with my choice of appealing to religion in this discussion of justice. To be just is to be morally right, and the world’s religions have been discussing moral truths for milleniums. Some would say discarding lessons they have to teach is sinful. I just think it’s stupid.
Only the blind can deny that migrants are facing widespread global injustice. Injustice cannot be ignored, it has to be acted upon. One does not cease to act on injustice simply because it crosses national boundaries or it involves the citizens of other nations. Migrants are suffering from injustice and when I write about people I am asking them what to do about it. If this injustice is not addressed then I consider it a derailment of the conversation. Again, I will respond criticism of this reasoning in the comments of this post only, when I have the time.
I case I have not been preachy enough I will end on a quote from the New Testament, Hebrews 13:2:
Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.
The people you deny access to could be the ones that save you.
Everybody that disagrees with you isn’t derailing your conversation. But since you seem to think so, I won’t try to engage you in conversation again. Enjoy your echo chamber. Would you also like some cheese with your whine?
<
p>
It’s about certain points that I’ve had to debate over and over again.
the most enjoyable conversation I’ve had with you on Blue Mass. Group EaBoClipper. I didn’t expect much from them but these essays definitely were a good idea.
i agree with him. you may have had to explain or argue these points a million times to others, but you have not explained them a million times to the BMG readership. i am in a similar situation. i spend a lot of times explaining over and over again why LGBT people should be treated like every other citizen. i am surely sick and tired of doing this, just as every black person is surely sick and tired of educating a blind non-black populace to the racism that still exists in this country, etc. however, none of us can expect to hash it out with one person, and then magically have everyone else know the content of that conversation and accept it.
<
p>
i think your series is well worth your efforts, but you really do yourself a disservice if you shut off debate before it begins. further, calling your diaries “lessons” lays a layer of paternalism on it right off the top. you’re asking for submission, not conversation among equals. you might consider choosing a more neutral term, like “topics” or something. and here’s a final suggestion. since you refer to other topics in your diaries and/or comments, it might be useful for you to place the hyperlinked list at the bottom of each diary. people not immediately open to your point of view aren’t likely to spend much if any time looking around for them on your main page unless they’re looking for data to skewer you with. but a ready link has higher probability of positive use. my 2 cents, given as constructive criticism.
First time for everything huh! đŸ˜‰
It’s true that lessons do have a sort of paternalistic ring to them. I couldn’t really think of anything better.
<
p>
I don’t want to shut off debate I just want to keep myself from having to debate the same points over and over and over again.
<
p>
After I finish these lessons I will past them at the bottom of every diary that I write, and I will still engage in debate, I just hope to engage in debate on a higher level.
<
p>
<
p>
I hate to have to debate with those I deem less enlightened than me.
a lot of these comments as I have take a sort of paternalistic and arrogant tone in my writing, and especially with these lessons.
<
p>
I’ll never deny my arrogance, that is for others to decide. But I do recognize my privilege and the tone of my writing and in my heart I try to be humble.
<
p>
I’ve written these lessons just so that I don’t have to make the same points over and over again, and people that disagree with me can make points that I will concede, not ones that I have already refuted.
<
p>
I have already conceded points on these lessons on Immigration Orange, but take you what you want from what I’m trying to do here.
I was not able to figure it out from the instructions. Could you e-mail me about that at: AmberPaw@aol.com?
img src =
…but peotry does not have the force of statute. Befoe your portest, imagine if I deemed the text of “Onward, Christian soldiers” to be legally enforceable.
<
p>
“Justice” is perception – Law is statue. If you don’t like it, by all means work to change it. If you feel compelled, by all means break it as an act of Civil Disobedience. But please remember – even Henry David Thoreau went to jail, and deemed accepting the consequences of breaking an unjust law to be crucial to validating the moral act. It seems more modern lawbreakers want all the latitude, and none of the consequences.
MLK talked about how breaking the law and willfully suffering the consequences was the highest form of respect for the law, while it highlighted how unjust it was.
<
p>
The problem in this case is suffering the consequences completely removes you from changing the law since you wont be in a place to change it anymore. Still there are some remarkable acts of civil disobedience happening.
This is BS:
<
p>
<
p>
If they’re in fear it’s because they know they broke the law and they’re here illegally. And it’s not “persecution” they are facing, it’s “prosecution.” And rightly so.
<
p>
If these folks want a better life, let them follow the same rules as legal immigrants.
See Lesson #3.
SeeLesson # 3.
<
p>
This is exactly why I need to write these things instead of being forced to write the same argument over and over.
And what it says is that the US has required documentation to enter since 1918. And that overstaying a visa is an infraction of civil law.
<
p>
I cannot understand why you keep acting as if an infraction of civil law isn’t important. Would you exclude fraudulent money managers who embezzle in the same way? Would you allow monopolies to price gouge?
<
p>
You said it yourself – illegal entry is a violation of both civil and ciminal law. Why should those law not be enforced?
<
p>
You hae one vision of justice. Mine includes tradesmen not going bankrput from being chronically underbid by firms who don’t pay illegal workers minimum wage. Mine includes granting citizenship to those who are willing to pledge allegiance to this country and foreswear other allegiances, instead of coming to exploit our robust economy and return home again with the profits. What makes my vision of justice less compelling than yours?
<
p>
At least mine is grounded in law.
is that the system is rigged. international trade law and business interests have developed a system that deliberately created a large international pool of cheap labor. bushco are enormous beneficiaries of this arrangement, and this is why bush isn’t at all keen on stemming the tide of cheap foreign labor. (i’m sure if they could get away with cheap home-grown labor like they used to [think mining towns], they’d use that first. but we’ve put too many worker protections in place, consarn it!). so our laws have been subsumed by a larger system of global economic gamesmanship. that is where the injustice lies. the laws are now a joke. the “real” law are the economic powers that be.
I hear exactly what you saying about justice for the people your speaking about. I just happen to believe that there is a way that justice for everyone can be achieved.
<
p>
I’m not arguing that an infraction of civil law isn’t important I just think it’s disengenuine that people are intent on labeling people illegal when they don’t call everyone that infringes upon a traffic violation illegal.
seems to me that so far, the people who have rigged the system have been expert at the old trick of divide and conquer. they have pitted citizen workers against migrant workers, just like they pitted the irish against italians, etc back in the late 19th century. as i see it, we need to do two things:
1. create an international workers solidarity. after all, whether you are a US citizen or a migrant worker, you are suffering under the current system. we should not be at each others throats. we should be working together to:
2. shine the spotlight on the real beneficiaries of the system, the employers. when they hire undocumented workers, they need to receive prison time, not a slap on the wrist. the larger system of injustice won’t go away until it is no longer profitable and comfortable for the beneficiaries.
was tried in MA recently – it sort of failed miserably. Should further efforts be shelved?
I think Grace Ross will run again. đŸ˜‰
Further, the majority of “economic migrants” are here to make money and go home. What if folk could apply for a one year work permit, had to register their locations, comply with the terms of their “right to work license” and were deportable if they did not? My understanding is that 75% of the Central Americans who come here to work do not intend to stay, or want to do so, but are working to improve their position back home.
<
p>
The current immigration system has plugged the path back home without lessening the inflow!
<
p>
I truly believe that “work licenses” that are structured and managed are far better then the current punitive and overwhelmed/broken/economically biased system.
…and most of the H2B workers I’ve talked to here on Cape – and there are LOTS of them – don’t favor relaxation of the overall requirements. For example, right now to qualify you have to pass the equivalent of a CORI check in your home country – any criminal record and you’re disqualified. And many who thus flunk out then take the illegal route. That is not to say they engage in illegal activity here, but it does indicate a greater likelihood, especially for non-violent crimes such as embezzlement and larceny in their home country.
Your point is?
<
p>
We are a nation of laws. Whether they are criminal or civil, they need to be followed.
<
p>
A borderless country is a country who has given up their sovereignty.
MLK
<
p>
Why is your organization called Immigration “Orange”? Is there some sort of Williamite affiliation or something?
to symbolize truth.
one or the other
was the unfortunate term that popped into my mind when seeing immigration orange.
Either one is pretty bad.
Now they’re just “The Orange“
Hmmph
I was thinking Protestant, Hindu, or possibly affiliated with DailyKos.
I’ve chosen orange as a color of meaning completely independent of everything else.
I am perfectly capable of affording the item, as is every other person in line. However, I do not wish to wait in line, nor pay the sales tax on the item, so I just walk out with it. I rationalize that if the line moved faster I would have paid, I rationalize that if there was no sales tax I would have paid, I rationalize that since at the end of the day I would have ended up with the item anyways, there shouldn’t be a fuss that I broke some laws to get it.
<
p>
I almost got stopped at the door by store security, but since there was so many other people stealing the item, I was able to pass through. I am vigilant in my watch for the police and try not to be overly noticeable, because I am still aware that I broke the law and do not wish to be caught. I am prepared to cry out the injustice wracked upon me should I b caught and the item taken away from me.
<
p>
I am caught.
<
p>
I go back to the store where I give the item back. To my chagrin, the last thing I see before my item is put back on the shelf is the man who was standing behind me in line, walking out of the store with his shiny new item, receipt in hand.
<
p>
le sigh.
of these metaphors that people like to appeal to. Breaking into someone’s house, getting in front of the line. A lot of these don’t make sense in the context of what migrants are going through and the global injustice that they’ve had to suffer.
Mind you, I’m going at this from a legal perspective, not a “feelings” perspective.
You’ve taken the decision to try to change the entire conversation on immigration to something that better aligns with your beliefs, a step somewhere between boldness and hubris. From what I can tell, here you seem to pursue an idea of “justice” that is formed from selectively quoting holy books of various religions who’ve historically offered little in the way of justice. For a humanist such as myself, it’s an underwhelming argument. The fact that you dismiss “discomfort” — a theistic term for “historical awareness” — at the idea of using the arbitrary rules of advanced animism upon which to base global policy reveals quite a blind spot in your own idea of justice.
<
p>
I’m also looking forward to seeing exactly what we’re all supposed to do, aside from feeling bad about and for migrants.
I didn’t mean to put religious texts forward as fact, I was merely shooting for a deeper reflection on the meaning of justice and righteousness. If religious people have caused harm it is not the fault of the texts, but of the people themselves.
1. Write letters to the editor about the clap trap that passes for news about immigration issues. See mine on the Guatemalan babies! I did a letter to the Globe.
<
p>
2. Pick candidates at all levels who talk sense about fixing the immigration problem as opposed to pandering to fear and hatred.
<
p>
3. I am thinking through a system of work licensing with management/over sight which would cost less and be so much less offensive then the ICE GOONS.
…you seem to be every bit as much of the problem as the irrational xenophobes on the other side of this argument. While it is certain that there is a very serious immigration problem in this country it is only going to begin to be resolved as a result of very serious compromise by both sides of the debate. You appear to be every bit as certain of your rectitude and unyielding in your beliefs as anyone advocated a “round ’em up and send ’em home mentality.”
<
p>
Undocumented immigrants are not free from responsibility for the situation that they are in. Global political and economic realities may have made the choice to come and stay here without permission a favorable choice to staying where they came from but that moitvating factor is not exculpatory.
<
p>
This is a global issue of enormous proportions and any degree of inflexibility in determining how best to deal with the situation is detremental to anyone’s goal, regardless of political ideology.
<
p>
I humbly suggest that you are in need of considerably more education on this issue before you can credibly cast yourself in the role of the learned instructor.
arguments and I do not profess to have all the answers. I have however lived in Guatemala for 18 years of my life, watching migrants come and go all the time, and I have covered this for over one and a half years.
<
p>
Perhaps you are right to call me out for being arrogant, but I’m merely putting these arguments forward, as I understand them, so that I don’t have to make them over and over again.
…this very same topic over a series of a couple of weeks has turned into a big yawn. You made your point, many times over, some people agree with your point, others disagree, so what is the point of you hanging around here repeating a point that some people agree with and others don’t and taking up computer storage from the people who run the site?
<
p>
Thank goodness for the scroll bar on the right.
and I happen to believe that discrimination against migrants is the most important issue that the world has to deal with. If you have a problem with what I post everyday, ask the administrators to limit my postings, or like you said yourself, use the scroll bar.
Kyle, time to start making short, well organized proposals. No one disagrees there is a problem. As well as calling out hypocracy like the “oh poor adoptive parents’ article when the reality is birth parents being stripped of their children by poverty.
but a lot of people have found what I’m doing right now to be useful. There are plenty of short and well-organized proposals and I have certainly made my share of them, the point of these is to refute the common arguments. People might not like the tone that I am taking, but I don’t think, “they broke the law, so what?” is a very nice tone either and I’ve confronted that more than in any other forum, here.
The moderators/owners of this forum have encouraged conservatives to participate, including those from the “mirror image” at RedMassGroup….do you are also hearing from them. What did you think of the adoption story I commented on [in its way, it also explains the economic migrations].
…that you have been through a number of posts, but you have not even addressed the primary issue. The primary issue is that the American government has been intentionally decimating the indigenous economies of those countries from whom the so-called “illegal” immigrants come, including Guatemala. And then the indigenous Americans complain about influx of the so-called “illegals.”
<
p>
That is the real issue, isn’t it? It isn’t an issue of justice for immigrants into the US, it’s an issue of justice of the indigenous peoples in their home countries, who are negatively affected by policies of the American government.
<
p>
Let’s discuss that issue: the US government’s policies of intentionally decimating the economies of the sourses of the “illegal” immigrants’ home countries.
<
p>
I suspect, but cannot prove, that most of the “illegal” immigrants would prefer to remain in their home countries instead of being uprooted by necessity to maintain some modicum of living style.
<
p>
BTW, I intentionally put quotation marks around “illegal,” because I actually refuse to call someone an “illegal” immigrant until his or her status has been finally determined. Most have not been, and, even it it had been, that was in an administrative (INS/ICE) proceeding.