Immigration Justice?

“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

1. 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.

---

[i] http://time.com/5268572/jeff-sessions-illegal-border-separated/

[ii] https://www.ft.com/content/fa2aca88-7483-11e8-aa31-31da4279a601

[iii] http://time.com/5314769/family-separation-policy-donald-trump/

[iv] https://www.tpusa.com/aboutus/charliekirk/

[v] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/21/sesame-street-reaches-out-to-2-7-million-american-children-with-an-incarcerated-parent/ and https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf

[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

[x] Caring:  love and affection, discipline, physical interaction, teaching, etc.

[xi] Providing:  provision of food, shelter, water, clothing, footwear, opportunity, etc.

[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.

[xiv] https://www.facebook.com/MikeHarlos/posts/2179883425362049

#Charlottesville

"Your actions speak so loud, I can hardly hear what you say."  Abraham Lincoln (perhaps citing Emerson)

https://youtu.be/AZALxjZQArI

Good Violence

This morning I awake the day after Patriot’s Day, a day again after a well publicized and gripping tragedy that has taken lives here on the American home front.  I hear, as always, the call of the oath I swore several years ago to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  And I contemplate the statement of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida when he said on two talk news shows this past Sunday that America has a “violence problem”.  Like the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, CT, this bombing in Boston at the very end of the marathon route, brings to specific relief the question of how we treat and entreat ourselves, our neighbors, and the perfect stranger around us.

My initial reaction to Senator Rubio’s comments was less than favorable.  Whenever I hear those who rail against violence as an innate evil, something that in itself is wrong, I wince.  For anyone who has been on an airplane and encountered turbulence, or on a ship when it sails through a gale, or even simply rode out a hurricane or tornado, you know that nature is violent.  A significant part of the created universe is all about the clash of one body or one force opposing one another.  Any scientist or engineer of good repute will remind you of Newton’s law that states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  So, we have to reconcile that violence is an inevitable part of our lives; a part that we can’t and shouldn’t ignore or try to remove, but instead contend and wrestle with in an honest and open manner.

Then I thought more on Rubio’s comments that we have a “violence problem” here in our country.  From that thinking, I warmed to my long held thought that we do have a violence problem, but not the one that perhaps many want to think about.  The problem is that we lack, and continue to ignore or berate, models of and emphasis on what I call “Good Violence”.  To this end, reflecting on yesterday’s violent act, we have yet another example of the opposite of what I am getting at with this concept of good violence.

Much of this principle of “Good Violence” that I have somewhat cloudily constructed in my head, comes from my cultural and religious heritage and context.  Let me first begin with the fact that I am a global “westerner”.  This means I come out of the euro-centric notion of western civilization, beginning to some extent with the cultures of the ancient middle east, through the Greco-Roman incubator and foundation, through the medieval period, the enlightenment/Victorian/industrial revolution, to the modern era.  I mention this context, as I am greatly informed as a soldier and in things related to morals in regards to violence by such models as the Spartan martial code, the Greek citizen-soldier, the Roman centurion, the Code of Chivalry, and the notion of being a “Gentleman” in Victorian parlance.  Each of these speak to defense of the weak, the well-being of body, mind, and soul, the suffering of the strong for the goodness of all, the notion of valor being about daring to enter into a place of extreme potential harm as a means to create a better good, and so forth.  These pre-spoke and are spoken in the Law of Armed Conflict today.  Violence in these constructs, recognizes the existence of evil in the world, and seeks to counterbalance that force through an equal, opposite, and judicious force of goodness.  This goodness is not one that is pacifistic; it is one that is often violent in its own right.

This brings up the moral question that has pervaded regarding violence in any society, how can it be used for good when it is a primary weapon of those doing evil?  To this I return to my Lutheran, Christian roots.  One of my favorite treatises on this topic is “Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved” by Martin Luther.  This is superior reading on this topic, and stems from many of the cultural sources I have already mentioned as well as early Christian writers/philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo.  This is probably one of the best pieces to talk through “just war” philosophy and the moral construct for the use of force.  It delineates when and why force of arms should be employed and when it is abhorrent to do so.  It even goes so far as to speak to why pure pacifism can be a moral wrong when it results in the unjust suffering and oppression of innocents in the face of an objective evil.  Luther, as well as many other Christian and religious writers, is an advocate for “Good Violence” that results in the pacification of evil, the undoing of wrongs, and the relief of the weak/downtrodden/poor.  He doesn’t just say its “OK” to use force, he insists that it is a moral obligation to do so in several instances; stipulating in a strong sense, that passive inaction is wrong when we have the power to overwhelm and overcome the evil around us.  And much of this stems from the witness of Christ himself turning over tables in the temple, praising the faith of the centurion, and warning of the coming suffering that his followers were to endure for the good of those less fortunate.

Now, I do not believe that my western context is exclusive of general human witness.  The ancient and time honored code of Bushido, for instance, can lead one to identical conclusions.  Nor is this a simple Christian set of virtues, as numerous faiths (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.) share the values of using ones means to aid others and overcome the presence of evil amongst both believers and non-believers.  Lastly, nor can I believe that my innate masculine bias makes my view unique, as there are numerous examples of the employ of force by female legendary heroines and deities the world round.  And I believe there is a universal fiber that all humanity shares when it contemplates “Good Violence” in such things as the widespread value of the martial arts (typically of eastern forms, but others as well) and the popularity of theatrical performances and movies where the weak overcomes the strong, the oppressed over the oppressor.  It also is reflected in the natural world, our core instincts, as we seek to protect young, to defend our homestead, strike out when cornered.  At our best, we recognize that while force is never the preferred course, there are times that it is the right thing to employ violent action to produce the good and/or overcome the evil.  If nothing else, our experience in World War II should have been evidence enough that one has to fight for what is right in the face of dominating evil forces (and to this, Dietrich Bonheoffer's example is specifically compelling).

So this brings me back to yesterday, and the violence wrought then.  There was nothing noble or good in that violence.  It was cowardly, it was meant to attack the innocent, it was brutal without regard for minimizing harm.  To this point, so were the attacks at Sandy Hook, at Columbine, on September 11^th, at Oklahoma City, and on and on.  The news is replete daily of bad violence, the wanton use of force for purposes other than protecting, defending, and a higher good.  So again, in part, Marco Rubio is right, we have a violence problem.  The problem, isn’t the fact there is violence, it is that the violence is coarse, it is unwarranted, it is without regard for innocence or guilt, it is graphic, it is gratuitous, it is more often evil.

To me the prescription isn’t to merely do what we can to minimize these forms of violence through study, through passive means, but to also re-inculcate in our society the virtues of “good violence” for the right purposes.  We have quickly cast away from some of the historic constructs of the virtuous warrior I describe above for some good reasons: a) they were and often are overtly male, b) the historic record provides a smaller number of individuals than advertised that actually lived up to those principles, c) we have instantaneous knowledge and thoughts about events that doesn’t allow legend to form, d) our media has increasingly chosen to highlight the story of bad violence compared with the do-gooder because of the incentive structures they inherently live within, and e) we live in a very multi-cultural society that is increasingly linked with every other part of the globe so having an ethno-centric model (from whatever it comes from) is often distasteful and creates distance.  We simply cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, however, in my belief.

What I am proposing is a new virtuous code of honor that promotes “good violence” and the person using that violence as a person to be followed.  We need leadership that doesn’t try to do the impossible (remove violence from our existence) but try to curb us to a higher calling, to rise above and thwart the evils around us; peaceably if we can, by force if we must.  We need to have stories and examples shown to us of the nobility of person overcoming the odds, fighting for virtue, discarding the bad.  Why shouldn’t we see the police officer taking out a mass murderer?  But at the same time seeing the family of the victims and the assailant healed in common purpose to prevent the causes for one to choose to kill other innocents.  Why can’t we see the soldier fighting her way in to rescue a woman in labor in Afghanistan who has been held captive by a local war lord?  But also at the same time see the brave Afghan sheik work night and day to bring education to his rural village for both his daughters and sons.  Why can’t we believe that if a nation is oppressed by a tyrant that we should take action to remove that leadership?  But at the same time we see the need to not just topple a corrupt government, but to lend the aid needed, when we take such action, to rebuild that society in the way that works for them and not us.  This modern day chivalric code isn’t about knights in shining armor, but it is about encouraging service, loyalty bound by virtue, bravery in the face of inestimable odds.  This is not being afraid to pick up the club, and do the violence to upend the wrong.  It is also not being afraid to pay the sacrificial effort to heal the wounds before and after.

To me, we do have a violence problem in America.  It is agreed that we have too much “bad violence”.  I am not calling for more violence, but what I am saying is for us to realize that there is a calling to use virtuous violence when it is applicable and accept its consequences.  I am one who thinks about this very problem every July 20^th, the anniversary of when I first sent a person home who was within my command.  Thankfully this soldier is still with us, and is doing well.  But as an officer I think on the orders that I give that put my soldiers in harm’s way; and the key question for me in this application of violence is, what is its goodness?  I am called to defend, and I will.  To that end, we all need to think on what and how we defend that is good; who is our neighbor, and how we deal with them and the world is critical.

Big Thoughts from the Last 48

Unlike a normal posts, this is a bit of a smathering of thoughts.  The last few days have me asking big questions in response to posts by others.  Here are just a few:

“Pastor, it is on days like today that I think on the two kingdoms principle. We live in the temporal kingdom stained by sin and suffering. The life we have, however, comes from the kingdom of grace, love, and peace. These tragedies defy our understanding, but a God who is called love is ever with us, standing in our midst, holding us and those struck by this pain. Our call is not so much understand, but to be understood in our grief. The kingdom of Christ is a different place, a place that is beyond our pain, that he has given us his grace to see. My best to you as you prepare a message for this third Sunday in Advent. May Christ's kingdom come.”

“But on the training of morality, responsibility, and honor, how are we doing as a society? I don't question actually that parents are the ones that have primacy to ensure that their minor(s) understand the rules of conduct and gains understanding of self worth and values. I just ask, are we, as Americans being effective or are we failing at this?

Having asked the question, another comes to mind. How can a society that has prohibited it self from the establishment of religion (now interpreted beyond simply the choosing of one or another Judeo- Christian denomination, to the possible imposition of any religion's imagery being placed in or prayers being led by an institution of state), define for itself a set of morals that are universal and can't be countered as a violation of that same establishment clause? And as a complimentary question, how can a society exist with out a core set of values and morals without a resulting chaos and morass of tragedy because there is not a universal ethic that can be enforced or referenced that defines appropriate and stable social constructs and relationships?

..., but how are we doing at holding one another accountable? What is the standard we should follow to determine good parenting from bad? Who enforces responsibility? I am not giving answers to these questions because I don't have iron clad good responses. But the questions are at the core of the issue here and can't be avoided.”

“…, got it, but when do we know when someone's going to crack? This is very analogous to the suicide issue we have been contending with in the Army. We have signs, we have done training, it's about butting into another person's life, and at least in the Army we have a method and process that allows us to do that, but we have struggled, at best, to arrest the problem. Keeping those that are mentally and/or emotionally unsuitable away from guns is a very hard thing to do, and is antithetical to part of our fundamental ethos of privacy and individualism. This is tough, tough stuff that we can't continue to pretend has any easy or one sided answers, and I don't pretend to even have a hard answer at this point.”

Late night news, May 1

I tried posting this to Facebook yesterday, but decided the thought still needed to get out:

"Mixed feelings this morning, but I have to say the up side is a fairly high one.  I am not one to revel in the death of another (and would have preferred we got him alive), but he is now gone.  We can ill afford to roll out the "Mission Accomplished" banner, but at least we have seized the primary objective we started with.  Let's pray that this helps to bring the peace we seek and he is recognized for the terrorist he is, and not a martyr the speaks beyond the grave.  Thanks to all of those who have served, are serving, and continue to serve our nation and the defense of free people around the world.  May we all celebrate our shared sacrifice and show we are the great American people we profess to be."