amnesty ? yes

In the whole immigration debate there is one word that seems to be taboo.  Amnesty.  Some people use it as a weapon to demean policy opponents and stifle debate. While others tie themselves into linguistic and logical knots in order to explain why their reform proposals don't favor it. But I advocate embracing it. It's easier that way and I believe it is totally consistent with the Christian teaching, something that  amnesty opponents supposedly believe in.

What is amnesty but forgiveness and isn't that the message of the cross? At Easter we remember that we have all broken the moral laws of God. We recognize that we are all in need of his help and that he gave it freely with no preconditions. Why then do we act like we are somehow superior to others who may not speak or look like us, or who simply had the misfortune to be born on the "wrong" side of a border?

Often the refrain comes "but they broke the law". Have you ever driven over the speed limit, gone through a red light, or done something dumb on the road and then were secretly glad a cop wasn't around? All those times you broke the law, but you got away with it. Or how about times (like I have had) when you got pulled over and managed to talk your way out of a ticket? We have all done these or similar things, but in our minds that "breaking of the law" is somehow okay.

There are legitimate issues with border security and reform of our immigration system is needed, but demonizing people is not helpful or kind. To label as "enemies" or "invaders" those born in extreme poverty who come here to make a better life for themselves and their families is just cruel. Some even callously complain that they are overtaxing our emergency rooms (treating their lives as less valuable than ours). It doesn't matter how they came, we should be kind and helpful anyway.

What did you do to earn citizenship and all its privileges? Unless you were an immigrant yourself, and most of us are not, you did nothing. I know I didn't, nor did my siblings, nor my parents, nor any in my family tree, back to before there was a US...because we were born here. We didn't have to take any tests, pass any background checks, learn a foreign language...we all learned English the easy way, we grew into it.

There are many issues in immigration and perhaps I can get to those in other posts. Like the Dream Act - helping kids, who had no part in their parents bringing them here, go to college. Or kids born here to illegal immigrants and their citizenship status (and why it's a no-brainer). Or reform of the system and how some want to devise a "second-tier" residency.

But on this Easter Sunday I want to emphasize one thing. I am totally and unashamedly in favor of amnesty. There are millions in our country who have admittedly come here crossing the border without following all the legal rules. I do not excuse that, but I have seen the conditions in Mexico outside of the touristy border towns and resort cities and I can understand their motivation to come here to better their families' lives. And rounding them all up for massive deportation is just unrealistic.

It is time to bring them out into the light. It is time to stop treating them like criminals or treating ourselves as "perfect'. Recognize their efforts and help them integrate into our society as full partners in this land of opportunity. Give them a chance to unionize so companies cannot take advantage of their silence to cheat them on wages or working conditions. Provide them with classes so that they can become fluent in English and contribute more through expansion of skills.  And, yes, provide them a "path to citizenship"

Some may say that I am just a "bleeding heart", and an idealist. I accept that and wear it as a badge of honor, especially today. I am forgiven and free because of the ultimate "bleeding heart" and I think if people think that that term is a slur then they really need to re-examine their professed faith and what the meaning of Easter is.   Just my two cents worth today.:)

He is risen indeed if he is reflected in our actions today:)

country club americanism

Country club americanism, what does that mean and why do I say I see it today? The view that America is some special "club" that only the right people can join, and where special privileges are conferred is not a new thing. Throughout our history we have struggled with acceptance of the "others" whether that be blacks, Irish/Italian/other suspect Europeans, Asians, Hispanics,or so-called "savages" i.e.native Americans. We have had troubles with accepting other faiths - the current debates over Islam reflect our earlier discord over Jews and Catholics. Remember, it was only as recent as 1960 (within my lifetime) when we finally accepted that a Catholic (JFK) could be trusted to be President...and even then some feared he would be too influenced by the Pope.

Yet it is disturbing to see and hear signs that some would welcome a return to more "exclusive" times. Sometimes it is subtle..reaction to the protests in Wisconsin as being "allowed, I guess" in a free society. Sometimes condescending ...the remarks of a sitting US Senator that "free speech is a fine idea, but we are at war" (Lindsey Graham,R-SC). And some are revisionist/unconstitutional threats - "Islam is entitled only to the religious liberty we extend to it out of courtesy....the purpose of the First Amendment ...was to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects" (Bryan Fischer, American Family Association).

It is bad enough to see the attack upon citizenship by way of the demand from some that it is not enough to be born in America...they demand that your parents prove they are citizens in order for you to be considered one (pedigree,anyone?)-contrary to the 14th Amendment. And bad also that folks would consider that freedoms in this country are only for citizens (see my earlier post on the use of the words "citizen" and "person" in the Constitution). But now to have rights reduced to "privileges" and "courtesies" for even citizens is outrageous and snobbery of the highest sort...and is why I call it "country-club americanism".

Don't get me wrong. We do have responsibilities as citizens. We have been given the great gift and privilege of being Americans and to enjoy the freedoms we have. But as Thomas Jefferson so eloquently points out, in the Declaration of Independence, our nation was founded upon the belief that we are "endowed by (our) creator with certain unalienable rights...life. liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". We exercise responsible citizenship first and foremost by defending those freedoms for all....by speaking out forcefully in their defense against anyone who would seek to restrict them from anyone.

citizenship

In the debate over immigration, just as in the debate over the "war on terror" we hear citizenship being touted as the deciding factor in how people are treated. Citizens get one level of treatment, non-citizens get treated at another, lower level. On the surface it appears logical...there is something special about citizenship. And that is correct. However, as with most generalizations and superficial statements, if you scratch below the surface you may be surprised at what you find.

Citizenship is conferred in this country in two ways. Many people immigrate to the US,spend time here learning the language,culture and law, and after a period of time are able to apply for naturalization. By way of a citizenship test, background checks, and swearing an oath, they can become naturalized citizens, which gives them all the privileges of citizenship. The only restriction is they cannot be President.

Most people become citizens the other way, by birth. They don't have to pass any test, swear any oath, learn anything (except for advancement in school and work).And they can even become President, if they so desire. They become citizens based on the fortunate situation of their parents (or at least their mother residing here when they were born. It makes no difference how long their ancestry goes back, just that they were born in the US. That is the way I became a citizen.

The privileges of citizenship that are outlined in the Constitution are sparse. Voting is one, regardless of race, sex, or age(18 or above). Another is serving in government. You have to be a citizen to become a Representative, Senator,or President. And that is about it. There are other references to citizen, but these are the big issues.

When you look at rights delineated in the Constitution you find the words "people" or "persons". When talking about freedom of speech,religion, press, trial by jury, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc, the prohibition against infringement by law enforcement is to individuals, not just citizens. The right of habeus corpus, contained in the body of the Constitution (before amendments) is for all, not just citizens. So there is no difference in the area of rights between citizens and non-citizens.

Why is this so? Partly it is because those rights are seen as part of the "certain unalienable rights" that Jefferson declares are "all men...are endowed by their Creator" with. Partly it is because of the moral foundation of those rights - they are right and fair and just, not privileges for the few or "acceptable". But aside from the moral and philosophical, there is a legal reason. The rights are listed as a limitation on power, to protect people, and it is operable for all who reside in this country,not just citizens. It is a limit we have set on our government. And it is a reminder that rights are a right of being human, and as Jefferson also declared governments are set up to secure (protect) those rights, not grant them.