“May you live in interesting times” – Ancient Chinese
Proverb
The last couple months in regards to immigration in the
United States of America has certainly been “interesting”. President Donald Trump and his team ramped up
border security, with Attorney General Jeff Session announcing a “zero
tolerance policy” on 7 May 2018[i]. After extensive reporting and a sizable
public and international outcry (inclusive of criticism by Pope Francis), on 20
June 2018, the President signed an executive order ending the policy that his
Attorney General had put forward in May in regards to separating families[ii]. The saga is hardly done[iii],
but it did bring to the fore a lot of discussion on what has been a core issue
for this Presidency and for the USA for some time around immigration.
To that end, this tweet by Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA[iv]
was emblematic of many a retort I saw on many social media platforms regarding
the outcry against the policy of separating families at the US southern border:
The numbers quoted certainly should be verified[v],
but they aren’t far off the mark. An
initial reaction to this post and its juxtaposition of comparing children of
inmates and those in foster care, to those being separated at the border, might
very well be indignant rejection. After
all there is a significant difference between a person who is awaiting a
hearing or trial (those being separated at the border) and one that has been
tried and convicted of a crime that resulted in a prison sentence (parent in
prison; even though one could speak to the various injustices within the legal system). Likewise, children in foster
care are there for many reasons, inclusive of voluntary decisions made by the
birth parents themselves. And while
these facts are true, that there is an apples to oranges comparison being made
here, there is an underlying set of questions being asked, or at least should
be.
For instance, one question that needs to be asked, is do we
consider the welfare of a parent’s children in the process of sentencing for
crimes? Law and order focused efforts
often narrow the band of consideration for sentencing guidelines to simply
relate to the crime committed, and rarely desire to look at other
circumstances. And even if it were true
that sentencing guidelines enable broader consideration (and many in truth do),
one question that needs to be asked is shouldn’t a parent who really cares for
their child consider that before committing a crime that will potentially cause
them to be separated? And arguably, this
is a very valid question. Good parents
simply shouldn’t commit crimes, not only to model good behavior or their children,
but also to avoid the possibility of incarceration and separation, never mind
economic impacts and social stigma.
So this line of questions leads us to perhaps the better
question and better response to this whole debate and discussion. Why or under what circumstances would a
parent justifiably take this risk and do something illegal? Are there any? For those in the strict law and order camp,
the answer may well be that there are no such circumstances or reasons. For others, there may be.
To that point, I had a fellow US Army officer[vi]
share a few thoughts with me related to the topic of illegal immigration: “There is a way to stop [illegal immigration]. Stop crossing border illegally. We can't let our borders leak with a constant
flow of immigrants putting a strain on society[vii]. Response dumbed down for Democrats to
understand.”[viii] Simply, from a law and order perspective, it’s
about us protecting ourselves from whatever real or perceived threat that might
exist; so be it that it damages “them”.
The thing is, however, that is the opposite of what Charlie Kirk’s
assertion is trying to say, it’s trying to make a morally equivalent argument based
on a notion that is more sophisticated than protection, it’s appealing to a
sense of justice. The point is, why is
it we concern ourselves so much with 2,000 separated illegal immigrant families,
and not concern ourselves with the literal millions that are separated within
the US citizenry? That simply seems unjust. Well that depends on what justice means,
doesn’t it?
“jus-tice
noun: justice; plural noun: justices
- just behavior or
treatment.
"a concern for justice, peace,
and genuine respect for people"
synonyms: fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity,
evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness,
honesty, righteousness, morals, morality
"I appealed to his sense of
justice"
·
the quality of being fair and reasonable.
"the justice of his
case"
·
the administration of the law or authority in
maintaining this.
"a tragic miscarriage of
justice"
·
the personification of justice, usually a
blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword.
noun: Justice”[ix]
Prudent to this discussion is “a concern for justice, peace,
and genuine respect for people”. To that
end, then there has to be some nuance, some broader construct in discussing
what might justify (note the root of justify and justice are the same) making
an illegal act, especially if you have dependents in your charge. The presumption is that if you are a parent,
you have taken upon the sacred responsibility of caring[x]
for and providing[xi] for your child, until such
time as they are able to care and provide for themselves. So, it follows, that if for some reason you
can’t care or provide for a child or children in your care[xii],
you have to make accommodations to do so; that would be the “just” thing to do. One can clearly state that one should do so
by every legal means possible. But does
it end there? Does the duty of a parent
end at “legal means” especially if, by so limiting ones care and support, one
would inherently would harm the child or children, or worse?[xiii]
Today I read an account from a firsthand viewer of things on
the southern US border.[xiv] Mike Harlos, as you can read in his own post (https://www.facebook.com/MikeHarlos/posts/2179883425362049),
speaks to what is happening in Tornillo, TX is on the US/Mexico border. He makes a comparison between the plight of
those that he’s accounted for and seen and those fleeing from a hurricane. A more apt analogy might be those fleeing
from Raqqa, Syria in 2013, where violence was and is so strident that leaving
and fleeing to another country for the sake of the safety of your children, certainly
seems to be the just thing to do. Is it
likely that you care much for the laws governing such cross border
actions? Are you in a situation where it
might not matter much to you even if you did, as the choice to remain is so
horrible that no matter the consequences, they have to be better for you and
yours that you’ll take that chance? To
that end, I think one has to contemplate this in the sense of what justice
really would be in this case.
In some sense the real comparator is if you are poor and
destitute and unable by legal means to feed your family, do you steal? That, fundamentally is a part of the equation
here and the real pushback comes in the assertion that illegal immigrants are
stealing. But is it just? Is it just to tear apart families as
mechanism to punish the guilty, domestic or otherwise prior to their having an
opportunity to defend their action? This
really is at the core of the questions we need to ask ourselves, especially if
we are going to compare those incarcerated within the USA to those trying to
enter the US without going through the rather byzantine process that one must
go through to do so by the rules. While
the assertion by Charlie Kirk was meant to push back against the indignation of
those speaking against the “zero tolerance” policy, his use of justice as his
underlying moral point takes it in a very different direction. It does not mean we should throw out the rule-book, but we need to look at this with more careful eyes. And that should make us really think more and
care more than missives back and forth; lives, quite literally, are in the
balance.
[vi] In the spirit of comradery
of arms and based on a general policy of non-attribution of those who share
thoughts in private with me, I will not name him publicly
[vii] This part of the
argument is an interesting one. What
strains are they putting on American society today? Earlier today I posted this statement made
through Facebook that helps put this in some perspective: https://www.facebook.com/eric.pavri/posts/10156217680941180. That said, it leaves out the fact that
illegal immigrants are “taking away jobs” from US workers. Or is that really so? This article puts forward the idea that there
are more jobs than available workers: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/05/there-are-more-jobs-than-people-out-of-work.html. But then again, as I pointed out in a comment
to Mike Herman who posted this on Facebook (where I originally saw it), this
article is comparing unemployment to job availability rather than comparing
labor participation to job availability (meaning there are folks who’ve left
the workforce and aren’t looking for work anymore that should be considered). As best I can figure the core “strain” they
are putting on society is an identity based one, in that they are not white Americans
with common culture, traditions, or shared values. Yes there are other factors, but statistics
don’t bear out more than average criminal rates, rates of poverty, rates of social
benefit needs, and so forth, so largely it’s an identity issue. That said, it being an identity issue is
certainly still an issue, and one that we really need to focus on, in an open
and honest and just discussion. That, I
think is very much what Eric Pavri is hoping will happen.
[viii] Via Facebook messenger 20
June 2018. I left the portion on “Democrats”
in this posting as it illustrates two points: 1) the author is clearly not self-identifying
as liberal or a democrat and 2) the perplexing fact that tribalism is alive and
well in our politics to a great degree and may be beginning to really effect
such institutions as the military which are beholden to be non-political (which
is a subject for another post)
[ix] Definition found from
google.com search “define: justice”, retrieved on 2 July 2018, taken from the
first definition
[xii] It is an underlying
assumption that a parent has the means to care and provide for their children
[xiii] I would posit that
legal does not always mean good or that it means just, it just means that it
subscribes to a body of law. Laws in and
of themselves can be good, neutral, or evil depending upon the intentions of
and resultants of the laws and their enforcement.
No comments:
Post a Comment