Justice and Civility in the Immigration Debates

Luder Whitlock

America is a nation of immigrants. Our schools, offices, and neighborhoods now host many ethnic groups with some school districts having more than fifty language groups. My own ancestry, rooted in multiple Northern European countries, bears testimony as well.

Given that, why has immigration become such a hot political issue recently? In some senses it is not new; the previous century saw several immigration flare-ups. Today terrorism, triggering a concern for national security, is undoubtedly a factor, as are the millions of Hispanics who have entered the country illegally and continue to flood across our southwestern border. 

Government efforts to solve the problem have so far failed and irresponsible rhetoric continues to inflame much of the populace. As I have observed these developments, two concerns have emerged: justice and civility.

What is fair and just for citizens, illegal immigrants, and those who wish to immigrate to the United States? Is it fair to grant amnesty to those who have entered illegally while denying entry to those who have complied with government regulations? If those who entered illegally are approved, what will that communicate to those who wish to enter in the future? Will it encourage them to disregard the law, finding easier ways to enter and acquire fake documents? If the judicial system winks at these transgressions, will our citizens be encouraged to disregard other laws that are objectionable to them? What will be the effects on the economy if the cheap laborers many farms and businesses have come to depend on are no longer available?

Are there reasonable solutions that also honor the law? Should solutions be directed toward reviewing the number of visas that are authorized as well as expediting issuance? Are we giving sufficient attention to approving the needed number of well-educated, high-skilled applicants to meet current economic demands?

I am also concerned for civility after observing some of the harsh and mean-spirited rhetoric publicly directed toward immigrants. Meanness adds no value to the decision-making process. It often wounds those targeted by it and such wounds can quickly metastasize into lasting hostility and alienation.

Disagreement and opposition are unavoidable, but we have constructive ways to deal with our differences. There is no excuse for intemperate and inflammatory behavior; the damage done by it is unacceptable. We owe others, no matter where they are situated in these debates, respect and courteous treatment. Each one bears the image of God and as such each has dignity and worth. I want that for myself—and for others.

Having been fortunate enough to visit many countries, I am aware that my life has been tremendously enriched through the personal and cultural experiences that global travel permits. Almost always, I have experienced kindness and hospitality—from the Arbat in Moscow to a peasant home in Turkey to a remote village in Indonesia.

I am also aware of the benefit of global ties when I eat in a Thai restaurant, use a European appliance, drink coffee from Central America, or wear clothes made in China. I, in turn, want my nation to be a constructive influence on others, enriching and giving them hope.

We live daily before a watching world. The degree to which we are just and civil in our treatment of non-citizens may well determine how the rest of the world perceives us.  

Dr. Luder G. Whitlock, Jr. is Executive Director of The Trinity Forum.

3 Responses (comments are closed) • Provocations, Global Culture, Society, Fri 18 Jan 2008