|
This nation is engaged in a great debate about the future of immigration. What shall we do about the 11 to 12 million immigrants in our midst who have no documentation? The longer this is left unresolved, the more the hate-mongers will demagogue the issue, using it to promote their vision of a closed society that marginalizes religious minorities and creates an illegal underclass forced to accept slave wages. The immigration debate is really about what we want America to be. Will our children inherit an America of liberty and social justice, or will they reap the whirlwind of hate and oppression?
Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) recently made headlines for his Islamophobic comments about Keith Ellison (D-MN), America’s first Muslim congressman. Goode was quick to associate Islam with immigration, saying that if Americans "don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Quran." Goode wants to abolish Diversity Visas because they would allow people "not from European countries" and from "some terrorist states" to enter. Goode’s opposition to Diversity Visas is shared by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), putting both men on a rhetorical collision course with Virginia’s outspoken Muslim community.
Clearly Islamophobia will be used in discourse about immigration policy and racism in various forms—and the longer the issue festers, the more open the bigotry will be. The Religious Right will probably oppose diversity in immigration because they want to protect the Christian majority. Neoconservatives will attempt in indirect ways to limit immigration from Muslim-majority countries, because Muslims are not intimidated by the pro-Israel lobby and are articulate opponents of empire in the Middle East. Neocons, the Religious Right and the hard political right will seek limits on immigration from the developing world, and will probably use Islamophobia and anti-Hispanic prejudice in an attempt to frighten the American people. Anti-Hispanic rhetoric usually contains class bias and a fair amount of veiled anti-Catholicism, besides being openly racist.
But communities can fight back. For generations farm workers from Mexico have picked the grapes in the Napa valley, a major wine-producing region. Not long ago someone from the Minutemen, an extreme rightwing organization, presented his racist ideas in a speech in the Napa valley. Religious groups, community organizations, and unions are working together to formulate a thoughtful public position on immigration to oppose this infusion of hatred. The employers’ association has also joined this effort—they, too, want the immigration debate to arrive at a win-win resolution. A growing consensus suggests that immigration reform should contain these elements:
1. A path to earn citizenship for the 11-12 million undocumented workers in the USA;
2. A temporary worker program to allow migrant workers to enter humanely and safely;
3. Secure borders;
4. Reform of family-based visas to support family reunification. (This is an issue with both Hispanics and South Asians, whose families are often separated for long periods.)
This approach to immigration reform is compassionate, politically workable, and economically necessary. The sooner the politicians in Washington engage the issue, the better. Hate-mongers use unresolved social problems to generate fear—it is the very oxygen upon which the fires of hatred feed. We must counter bigotry on a point-by-point basis in the immigration debate, but comprehensive immigration reform should be the ultimate goal, because that’s the best way to check-mate the merchants of hate.
For many immigrants, America is still a promised land—or at least a land of promise. There is something providential about this. Is it too far-fetched to believe that God uses today’s immigrant to remind us that we are all descendants of poor immigrants? "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger, nor oppress him," the Bible says, "for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt."
Lawrence Swaim is the Executive Director of the Interfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialties are American Studies and American literature. His column addresses current affairs from an American Christian and Interfaith perspective.
Lawrence Swaim is the Executive Director of the Interfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialties are American Studies and American literature. His column addresses current affairs from an American Christian and Interfaith perspective.
 |
